Federal Motor Truck Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

rs; .Ati^i
In the Matter of FEDERAL MOTOR TRUCK COMPANY and AMALGAMATED
PLANT PnoTECTION LOCAL UNION No. 114, UAW-CIO
Case No. R-5356.=Decided June' 8, 1943
Beaumont, Smith and Harri by Mr: Albert E. Meder, of Detroit,
Mich ., for the Company-, ^
Maurice Sugar and N. L. Smokler, by Messrs. N. L. Smokler and
Irving E: Griffeth,-both of Detroit, -Mich., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION" OF: ELECTION'
STATEMENT , Oi' .THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Amalgamated Plant Protection Local
Union No. 114, UAW-CIO, herein called, the Union, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of the employees of Federal; Motor Truck Company, Detroit, Michi-
gan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
,provided for an appropriate hearing upon due "notice before Robert
J. Wiener, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Detroit, Michi-
gah','on May 14,1943. The Company and the Union appeared, par-
ticipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and: torintroduce evidence bearing on the
issues., The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and a're hereby affirmed. The Company and
the Union each filed briefs which have been considered by the"Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF'THE COMPANY
i r .
Federal Motor Truck Company, ;a'"Michigan corporation, is nor-
mally 'engaged in A the production of ,motor, trucks, bodies, cabs, and-
parts. At the present time,•the Company. is wholly engaged in 'the'
30NLR B,No36
"214 ,
FEDERAL MOTOR TRUCK 'COMPANY 215
manufacture of trucks and truck parts for the United States Army.
For these purposes the Company operates three plants,, all of which
are located in Detroit, Michigan, and with which we are concerned
herein. In the calendar year 1942 the Company purchased raw ma-
terials from points located outside the State of Michigan valued at
approximately $10,400,000. During the same period the Company
made deliveries of finished products to points outside the State of
Michigan totaling approximately. $25,000,000. We find that the Com-
pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Amalgamated Plant Protection Local Union No. 114 is a labor
organization chartered by International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein.
called the International, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On March 29, 1943, the Union requested the Company, by letter,
that it be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the Company's plant-protection employees. The 'Company refused
to comply with this request. Thereafter, on April 5, 1943, the Union
filed the petition in this proceeding.
The Company is currently operating under a collective bargaining
agreement with the International and its Local 174, which covers all-
factory employees of the Company with the exception of certain,
specified classifications, among which are plant-protection employees.
This agreement contains the provision that "the Union-will not solicit
or accept . . . for membership" those employees who were excluded
from the purview of this agreement. The Company contends that
the Union is bound by this provision, and is therefore estopped from
seeking to represent the plant-protection employees.
A similar argument has been heretofore found untenable in a
number of cases.' In the Packard case, we stated :
The issue becomes . . . whether employees may be denied the
privilege of selecting a particular labor organization as their
'representative because that organization has agreed, in a contract
with their employer, not to represent them. In our opinion, such
1Matter of Briggs Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Plant Protection Local
Union No 11', (UAW-CIO), 49 N I, R 13 57; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company and
International Union , United Automobile , Airciaft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO), 47 N 1. R B 932.
216 DECISION'S iOF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a' contractual provision ' contravenes the express put pose and
,policy of the Act.
Accordingly, we reject this argument or the'Company and find that
the aforementioned contract does not preclude the Union from seek-a
ing to represent the plant-protection employees.'
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into' evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number -
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate:-"
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2,(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all plant-protection employees, excluding
the plant engineer, the assistant chief ofplant protection, and super-
visors, constitute an appropriate unit. The Company contends that
such a unit is not one that is appropriate within the meaning of the
Act. This contention is based upon the following arguments: (a)
plant-protection employees are part of the supervisory and manage-
me>;lt grouli; (b) they are auxiliaries of the military police, and there-
fore are not employees within the meaning of the Act; and (c) it is
contrary to public policy to include plant-protection employees.'
The Company concedes that, if these arguments are found to be in-
valid, then the unit sought by the'Union would be appropriate.
The Company argues that in normal times the duties of,the plant-
protection employees are such that these employees are part of the
managerial and supervisory arm of the Company; The record dis-
closes that prior to August 1942, they were known as watchmen and
'firemen, but since that date they have been termed plant-protection
employees. They were and are, now vested with those duties and
powers customarily, given, to' employees concerned with the physical
care of the premises. The Company asserts that in time of industrial
strife these employees must necessarily be aligned with management
because of their duties, and therefore they are more appropriately
akin to management than to 'the regular production employees.
While their duties, are of a special nature, it is clear that plant-
protection employees are clothed with no supervisory authority over
their fellow employees. We find nothing in their duties which
impels the conclusion that their relationship to * management is so
2 The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 15 authorization cards bear-
ing apparently genuine original signatures and names appearing upon the Company's pay
roll which was submitted on April 26 , 1943. This pay roll contains the names of 18 per-
sons in the appropriate unit.
3In addition , the Company argues that the contract provision referred to above pre-
cludes finding that plant -protection employees constitute an appropriate unit.
FEDERAL MOTOR TRUCK COMPANY 217
close that they cannot be represented in a separate unit for collective
bargaining. .
Now that the plant-protection employees have become militarized,
the Company contends that their duties and obligations, not, only
to the Company -but also 'to.the United States Government, are such
as to require finding that they are no longer "employees." It points
to the fact that they 'are now subject to military rather than civil
jurisdiction; that they now have the power to arrest; that they are
required to receive special instructions given by the United States
Army, and that their duties have become more stringent. The Coin-
pany further asserts that they have the power to recommend dis-
charges. However, their arias, pay, uniforms, and conditions of
employment are still under the control of the Company. The Com-
pany, controls hiring and dismissal, subject to some supervision by
the military authorities. A bulletin issued by the Army authorities
with regard to the regulations ' of military police recites that
"basically, the militarization of plant guard forces does- not change
the existing systems of hiring, compensation, and dismissal; all remain
primarily a matter between the guards and the plant management."
The alleged power to recommend discharge is not the customary au-
thority exercised by foremen or other supervisory employees. While
discharge may result from a report of a plant,guard, it flows from
the facts reported by him rather than from the exercise of any dis-
cretionary authority vested in him. We accordingly,rej ect the argu-
ment that plant-protection employees are, no longer employees within
the meaning of the Act.' -
We find that all plant-protection employees of the Company en-
gaged at its-three Detroit plants, excluding the plant engineer, the
assistant chief of plant protection, and all supervisory employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec-
tion, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuan to the power vested in the National Labor'
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
4-Matter^of.Jones d,:Laughlia Steel , Company„Otis Works and United Steelworkers of
America ( C. I. 0), 49 N . L. R B 390, and cases cited therein.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and pursuant to Article III, Section -9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Federal
Motor Truck Company, Detroit, Michigan, an election by, secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty-(30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,'acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among'the
employees in the unit found appropriate in Section,IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any
who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
or not they, desire to be represented by Amalgamated Plant Protection
Local Union No. 114, affiliated with International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica,' affiliated with the Congress, of Industrial Organizations, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.