Federal Motor Truck Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 8, 194350 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 1943) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation