Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 454 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER LEEDOM, dissenting :
I am still of the view, subscribed to by a unanimous Board in the
Columbia-Southern case, supra, that it was the basic intent of Congress
that guards should not be represented by a union which, as here, is
affiliated with a nonguard union. As indicated in that case, Senator
Taft made it clear at the time the applicable provision of the Labor-
Management Relations Act, 1947, was considered, that guards could
have the protection of the Act "only if they had a union separate and
apart from the union of the general employees." Accordingly, I
would, consistent with the Columbia-Southern case, hold that the in-
stant contract covering a guard unit is not it bar and I would direct
an election.
Chrysler Corporation ( Mo-Par Building ) and International
Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , AFL-CIO
Chrysler Corporation : McKinstry Division and International
Union , United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America , AFL-CIO
Chrysler Corporation : Parts Division ( Stearns Building) and
International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases
Nos. 7-RC-787, 7-RC-1000, and 7-I?0-1322. November 17, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 24, 1960, the International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO
(herein called the Union), filed its motion to amend certifications. By
its motion, the Union seeks to add to the existing office clerical bargain-
ing unit at the Employer's Center Line facility certain other office
clerical employees who are also employed at the Center Line facility,
but who have heretofore been unrepresented.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning].
The existing clerical unit at Center Line consists principally of em-
ployees from a number of formerly separate units for which the Union
had been certified or recognized. In R-2961 (1941) (36 NLRB 157),
the Union was certified for the office clerical employees at the Em-
ployer's Marysville parts depot. On May 15 and October 3, 1950, and
April 23, 1951, respectively, the Union was also certified for the office
clerical employees at the Employer's Mo-Par Building (Case No. 7-
134 NLRB No. 41.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION (MO-PAR BUILDING) 455
RC-787), McKinstry Division (Case No. 7-RC-1000), and the Stearns
Building (Case No. 7-RC-1322). After completion of the Center Line
facility in 1953, the Employer transferred the office clerical employees
in these four units into the Center Line facility.'
The Union has also been certified or recognized as the bargaining
representative of other groups of employees at the Center Line facility.
In 1954 the'Union was certified in units of budget employees at Center
Line in Case No. 7-RC-2301, and clerical employees in the plant engi-
neering department at Center Line in Case No. 7-RC-2218 (not pub-
lished in NLRB volumes ). In 1957, the Union was also certified, in
Case No. 7-RC-3353 (not published in NLRB volumes), in a unit of
group leaders who had been excluded from the prior certifications.
In 1953, the Employer acquired the assets of the Briggs Manufactur-
ing Company, a former parts supplier, and upon acquisition, trans-
ferred approximately 40 former Briggs employees into the parts
division at Center Line and recognized the Union as the bargaining
representative of these employees.
The above-described units, plus the former Briggs employees and a
number of other individuals and smaller groups transferred into
Center Line, are currently represented by the Union in a single unit
covered by,a master office clerical contract with the Employer.
The Union seeks a determination that by virtue of these certifica-
tions and its contract that it is the representative of all office and
clerical employees at the Center Line facility 2 including certain cleri-
cals presently employed at the Center Line facility whom the Em-
ployer has refused to recognize as part of the existing unit.
The Employer contends that the employees in question are not part
of the existing unit because they have either been specifically excluded
from the various certifications, or have been excluded because of prior
employment by the Employer at other facilities where there were no
bargaining units. The Employer also contends that the disputed em-
ployees may not be appropriately included in the existing unit, as they
per functions different from those performed by employees in the
existing unit and are assigned to departments outside those covered by
the existing contract. Finally, the Employer contends that these em-
ployees should not be included in the unit without first being given a
self-determination election. We find merit in the Employer 's position.
At the time the motion was filed herein, it appears that all of the
office clerical employees represented by the Union at Center Line under
the master office and clerical contract were assigned to the service
parts and accessories division (herein called SPAD). The Union
would add to this unit approximately 136 clerical employees in the
1 The McKinstry Division unit was not transferred to Center Line until 1957
2 Other individuals and small groups subsequently transferred into the Center Line
facility have also been added to the contract unit by agreement of the parties.
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
automotive sales group, approximately 19 employees in the marketing
group, and approximately 30 employees in corporate traffic, all of
whom work at the Center Line facility. As noted above, the Union
asserts that these employees perform office and clerical functions
similar, if not identical, to the office and clerical functions performed
by the employees in the existing unit. The Union further argues that
these employees are subject to the same wage scales, receive identical
holidays, vacations, insurance, and retirement benefits and usually re-
ceive increases in benefits corresponding to those given employees in
the unit, and therefore they should be deemed part of the unit.
Corporate traffic office employees : The record shows that prior to
1945, the Dodge division traffic department performed traffic func-
tions on an employerwide basis as well as traffic functions for its own
division. In 1945, the Employer created the present corporate traffic
(referred to herein as CTO) by taking this function away from the
Dodge division and transferring the employees who previously per-
formed such work at the Dodge division into the corporate offices
in Highland Park. In 1953, CTO moved from Highland Park to an-
other building, and in 1957 CTO moved into the Center Line facility
where it is now located in building 112. At no time have any of the
CTO office and clerical employees been members of any bargaining
unit. The record shows that CTO performs traffic functions on a
-corporatewide basis, adopting and formulating procedures and poli-
cies to be followed by the various divisions and plants. In addition,
-CTO actually acts as traffic controller for the various plants and
divisions, including SPAD. However, as SPAD has its own traffic
•department, CTO's activities within SPAD's field of endeavor are
minor. Further, CTO employees are not responsible to any execu-
tives of SPAD, there is no interchange between CTO and SPAD
employees, personnel functions for each division are conducted by
different personnel offices, and there is no line of promotion between
CTO and SPAD.
Automotive sales group: In 1956, the Employer organized and es-
tablished what is now known as the automotive sales group (herein-
after referred, to as ASG) for the purpose of centralizing automotive
sales control. ASG assumed certain functions bringing various sales
forces under the direct control of the corporate vice president in
charge of sales. At its inception; a staff of approximately 200 gen-
,eral salaried employees were assigned to ASG. Approximately 150
,of these were transferred from other divisions of the Employer with
the balance being secured either as new employees or from the layoff
pool. Only 13 of this group of 150 were transferred from office and
.clerical bargaining units at other plants and, of these 13, not 1 was
transferred from SPAD or its predecessors in title. ASG was first
located in the Highland Park corporate offices and later in a separate
CHRYSLER CORPORATION (MO-PAR BUILDING) 457
facility on Mound Road in the Detroit area. In 1958 ASG moved in-
to building 100 at Center Line where it is presently located.
Although ASG employees work in close proximity to SPAD bar-
gaining unit employees, they are subject to separate supervision with
no responsibility to any of the executives of SPAD. Further, they
are serviced by a different personnel office, and there is no employee
interchange between ASG and SPAD. In addition, at no time since
ASG's creation has the Union represented any of the employees as-
signed to ASG with the exception of 13 of its original group of em-
ployees who were transferred to ASG from an existing bargaining
unit.
Marketing: In 1960, the Employer severed from ASG what is now
known as the marketing group, to plan long-range sales on a corporate
level. Although marketing now functions on the group level report-
ing directly to the vice president in charge of marketing, its functions
apparently are the same as when it existed as a part of ASG.
In addition to the above facts, there are other factors that tend to
distinguish the SPAD employees from the disputed employees. Em-
ployees in the bargaining units punch timecards, whereas the disputed
employees do not, and paydays and payroll periods have been different
although the Employer now intends to have identical payroll periods
throughout the Company. The hours of work differ, although the
hours of corporate traffic were made to conform with SPAD hours for
the benefit of carpool riders. All bargaining unit employees are en-
titled to supplemental unemployment benefits whereas unrepresented
employees participate in the employees thrift-stock ownership plan.
We agree with the Employer's contention that the employees in the
disputed groups involved herein may not now be added to the existing
bargaining unit without a self-determination election. It is clear
from the certifications and bargaining history that these employees
have been unrepresented and excluded from the bargaining unit.
Prior to all but one of the certifications herein, CTO was in existence
functioning as corporate traffic control. ASG came into existence
after the certifications involved herein, but operated at a separate
location for approximately a year before being transferred to the
Center Line facility. Both of these groups were in existence and lo-
cated at Center Line at the time of the execution of the 1958 contract.
Notwithstanding this fact, the Union does not now claim, nor does not
appear to have claimed that the disputed employees are actually cov-
ered by this contract.
In view of the historical exclusion of the disputed employees from
the certifications and the contracts, and the differences in functions
and services, supervision and personnel procedures, and the absence of
employee interchange and progression, we find that the corporate
traffic office, the automotive sales group, and the marketing group are
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not included within the SPAD office and clerical unit at the Center
Line facility.' Accordingly, we shall deny the Petitioner's motion to
amend certification.
[The Board denied the motion of International Union, United Au-
tomobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW) AFL-CIO, to amend the certifications in Cases Nos. 7-RC-
787, 7-RC-1000 , and 7-RC-1322.]
3 Chrysler Corporation , 129 NLRB 407.
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc. and Amalgam-
ated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
Local 327, AFL-CIO
The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company , Inc. and Retail
Clerks International Association , Local No. 1691 , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 15-CA-1904 and 15-CA-1891. November 20, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29 , 1961 , Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above -entitled proceedings , finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief, and the General Counsel
and Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North Amer-
ica, Local 327, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Trial Exam-
iner 's Intermediate Report.
The Board i has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and the briefs , and the entire record
in these cases , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recom-
mendations 2 of the Trial Examiner.
i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers, Fanning,
and Brown].
2 The Respondent filed exceptions to all of the Trial Examiner's recommendations re-
garding the remedial provisions contained in the Intermediate Report. With respect to
the notice provisions , the Trial Examiner recommended ( 1) that Nichols, Respondent's
vice president in charge of the New Orleans unit, sign the notice to employees ; ( 2) that
said notice be posted in all of the Respondent 's stores in the New Orleans unit ; and
(3) that Respondent assemble its employees in the Baton Rouge , Louisiana , stores and
read the notice to them and, additionally, that copies of the notice be mailed to all
employees , supervisors, and officials in Respondent ' s employ in the Baton Rouge stores.
With one exception, we agree that these requirements are appropriate to effectively remedy
134 NLRB No. 52.