Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 946 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of FORD MOTOR COMPANY, HIGHLAND PARK PLANT and
UNITED PROTECTIVE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 1
Case No. R-4758.-Decided February 03, 1943
Jurisdiction : ordnance manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to grant recognition ; provision of a contract covering production and
maintenance employees which precluded contracting organization from rep-
resenting plant protection employees found to contravene express purpose and
policy of the Act, and not to bar a'proceeding instituted by another organiza-
tion claiming to represent these employees, even if it were assumed, as con-
tended by company, that petitioner and contracting union were the same, and
that petitioner was created to circumvent the contract ; hiring of considerable
number-of employees since date of filing petition found not to warrant,depar-
ture from use of current payroll ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees in the plant protection
or service department of company's Highland Park plant, including firemen,
but excluding sweepers, assistant shift foremen and all higher supervisory
employees, fire chief, regularly employed clerks, and switchboard operators,;
no objection as to.
Mr. I. A. Capizzi and Mr. Malcolm L. Denise, of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Company.
Mr. Daniel R. Foley, of Detroit, Mich., for the United.
Mr. Paul V. Winkler and Mr. Milton J. Maher, of Highland Park,
Mich., for the Association.
Miss Viola James, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AN D
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Protective Workers of America,
Local No. 1, herein called the United, alleging that a question affecting
commerce `had arisen concerning' the representation of employees of
Ford Motor Company, Highland Park Plant, Dearborn, Michigan,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Max Roten-
berg, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan,
on January 11 and 12, 1943. Over objections of the Company and the
47 N L R. B, No. 119.
946
i
C:' .`; i :." . = F0RD_ MOTOR- COMPANY 947
United, Plant Protection Association, herein called the Associatibn,
was allowed to intervene. The Company, the United, and the Associ-
ation appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The Company filed a written motion
to dismiss the petition on the grounds that (1) the subject matter is
not within the jurisdiction of the Board, (2) the United is not a repre-
sentative of employees within the meaning of the Act, (3) a unit of
plant-protection employees, claimed by the United, is inappropriate,
.(4) plant-protection employees are not employees within the meaning
of the Act, and (5) these employees are or.are about to become subject
to,,military law, and therefore, the Board may not certify a labor or-
ganization as their representative.- ' The Trial Examiner reserved
ruling on the motion for the Board. For the reasons appearing below,
the motion is hereby denied.' The Company also filed an offer of
proof, -offering to show (1). that the plant-protection employees are
employed to protect property of both the Company and the United
States Government, that the plant involved herein is engaged almost
exclusively in the production of war material, and that persons en-
gaged in guarding said plant have entered into agreements with the
United States Government and are now civilian auxiliaries to the
military police; (2) that, in previous Board cases involving unfair
labor practices, plant-protection employees have been held to be rep-
resentatives of management; and (3) that the United is a "sham"
organization created by United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations; herein called the UAW-CIO, in order to.cir-
cumvent an agreement of the UAW-CIO not to accept into member-
ship the Company's plant-protection employees. The Company took
exception to the Trial Examiner's action in rejecting the offer of proof.
We consider it below. The Trial Examiner's rulings are' free from
prejudicial error and are hereby aflirnmed:
The Company and the United have filed briefs which the Board has
considered. -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation having, its principal
executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. Until February 1942, it was
1 The motion to dismiss is predicated on substantially the same grounds as a motion
to dismiss filed by the Company in Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Protective
Workers, Local 1,•45 N: L R B 70, which case involved the plant-protection employees at
the Company's Dearborn plant. The Board denied the motion in that case.
948 DEiCIS[ONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RILLAINIONS BOARD
principally engaged -in the manufacture, assembly, sale, and distri-
bution of automobiles and automobile trucks and various types of
automobile parts and accessories. The Company owns, operates,,and
maintains assembly plants in many States throughout the country.
The plant involved in this proceeding is.the Highland Park plant. '
Since February 1942 the Company has ,been and is now engaged at
all of its plants in Detroit, Highland Park, 'and Dearborn, Michigan,
and at its new plant, known as the Willow-Run Bomber plant situated
near the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan, principally in the manufacture
and/or assembly of ordnance and'other materials for the armed services
of the United States.' Not less than 10 percent and varying as high
as 80 percent in value of the productive materials, including fabricated
and partially fabricated articles, used in, the manufacturing or assem-
bly operation conducted in the above-mentioned plants, the total value
of which exceeds $1,000,000 monthly, is shipped to the said plants
from points outside the State of Michigan. , The Company admits that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act. _
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Protective Workers of America, Local No. 1, and, Plant Pro-
tection Association are labor organizations, each admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.2
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties -stipulated at the, hearing that prior to the, filing of th6
petition the United had requested recognition as the bargaining agent
for the Company's employees in the'.plant-protection and fire depart-
ments, and that the Company had refused the request.
The Company claims that the petition should be dismissed -because
the.United is a "sham" organization created by the UAW-CIO for the
--purpose of circumventing a provision in a collective bargaining agree-
between the UAW-CIO and the Company providing that' the
UAW-CIO would-not organize the employees here involved. Assum-
ing, as is alleged in the Company's offer of proof, that the United is in
fact the UAW-CIO under another name, we nevertheless reject the
contention that the contractual provision 'precludes these employees
from choosing the United as their bargaining representative. In the,
Packard case 3 we said, in rejecting a similar contention, that "it would
seem obvious that any agreement between an employer and a labor
'The United objected to the motion to intervene on the ground that the Association
is,not a bona fide labor oiganization. We find no merit in this contention The record
shows that the Association is a labor organization Within the meaning of the Act. No
.charge has been filed that the Association is company-dominated
s Matter of Packard Motor ContpanY and International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural linplement Worke,s of Anieiica ' (UA•W-CIO) Local No '114,'47 N. L
It B 932 , decided this day.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 949
organization restricting employees in the selection of a bargaining
agent ' and entered into when that organization was not authorized-
to act as the representative of the employees whose rights are effected,
is plainly 'in derogation of-the rights accorded employees by the, Act
and cannot be given effect. No provision in the Act permits the
Board, the employer, or,a labor organization-not acting as the statutory,
representative of the ,employees whose rights are in issue, to prevent
such employees from exercising their right to ' bargain collectively
in an appropriate unit through any bargaining agent whom they may
desire to, act. asi their exclusive representative." , For these reasons,
which are equally applicable here, we find that the foregoing con-
tractual provision alluded to in the offer of proof does not preclude
the 'United from seeking to represent the employees here involved.
Statements of the Regional Director and the Trial Examiner, intro-
duced into evidence at the hearing; indicate that the United and the
Association each represents w substantial number of the employees 4
in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.5
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 United and the Association have agreed that all employees in
the plant-protection or service department in the Company's High-
land Park plant, including firemen,'but excluding sweepers, assistant
shift foremen and, all higher supervisory employees,-the fire chief,
regularly employed clerks, and switchboard operators, constitute an
appropriate unit. The Company does not object to the composition
of the unit•agreed upon by the unions, but contends that,it is inappro-
priate because plant-protection employees are not "employees" within
the meaning of the Act, in view of their special, duties and since they
are auxiliaries to the military police.
' For the reasons stated in Section IV, infra, we find , contrary to the Company's con-
tention, that plant-protection employees ' are "employees" within the meaning of the Act.
5 The Rekional Director reported that the United had submitted 162 authorization
cards , 134 of which bore the names of persons on a list of November 26 , 1942 , submitted
by the Company, which' list contained the names of 468 persons purportedly within the
unit sought by the United ;.and that 129 of the 134 cards bore apparently genuine original
signatures and were dated from September to December 1942, except'1 which was undated:
The United claimed that 10 of the names on the list submitted by the Company are the
names of supervisory employees . The Trial Examiner reported that the United submitted
25 additional cards at the hearing, 20 of the cards bearing names of persons on the list
of November 26, 1942, and 19 of the cards bearing apparently genuine original signatures
and being dated from September 1942 to January 1943 ; and that the number of employees
in the Company's fire department had been increased by 29
The Association submitted 297 application-for-membership cards, to the Trial Examiner,
who found that 269 cards , dated from December' 1942 to January 1943, bore apparently
genuine original signatures of persons whose names appear on the list of November 26, 1942.
950 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
The duties of the Company's plant-protectiornemployees at the plant
here involved are similar to those' of the plant-protection employees
at the Company's Dearborn plants In that case we found, as we
have frequently found in other, like', cases, that plant guards' hired
and paid, by the employer are employees within the meaning. of the
Act and may designate_a representative for purposes of collective
bargaining, even though they are auxiliaries to the military police.
Accordingly, this contention .of the Company is rejected.
Nor do we agree with the argument that, because the actions of
these employees might in other circumstances be imputed to the Com-
pany, they should therefore be denied the right to select a bargaining
representative. The same argument may be advanced as to other non-
supervisory employees. We have held that supervisory employees,
whose actions in unfair labor practice cases we frequently impute to
the employer, are employees within the meaning of the Act and thus
entitled to bargain collectively through, representatives of their own
choosing.'. It follows, therefore, that even though plant-protection
,employees may in some situations bind the employer, e nevertheless
must accord them the right, which is guaranteed in the Act, to select
a bargaining representative., .
We find that all employees in the plant-protection or service depart-
ment of the Company's Highland Park plant,' including firemen, but
excluding sweepers; assistant shift foremen and all higher supervisory
employees,, the fire chief, -regularly employed clerks, and switchboard
operators constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of°Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The United urges that eligibility to vote be determined, by reference
to the pay-roll period of the date of the filing of the petition, on the
ground that the Company has since been hiring a considerable number
of employees in the appropriate unit.8 We shall follow our usual
practice of using a current pay roll, since otherwise a number of em=
ployees would, be deprived of their right to vote. ' Accordingly, we
shall direct that the, question concerning representation which- has
arisen be' resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees
in the appropriate, unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the, date of our Direction of Election, subject
to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
8 Supra, footnote 1. - 1
7 See Matter of Union Collieries Coal Company, Oakmont, Pennsylvania and Mine Oflt-
cials' Union of America (Ind.), 44- N. L. R. B. 165; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc.
and United Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 1186, C. I. O., 44 N. L. R. B. 874,
and subsequent cases
8 The statement of the Trial Examiner , referred to in footnote 5, indicates that the
Company has hired 29 additional firemen in a unit totaling approximately 497 employees.
I
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
951
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended; it-is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Ford Motor Com-
pany, Highland Park plant, Dearborn, 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
supervision 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 dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces,of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls; ,but ex-,
cluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by United Protective
Workers of America, Local No. 1, or by Plant Protection Association,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, 'or by neither.
MR.,GERARD D. REYLLY, dissenting_:
I differ from my colleagues with respect to the ruling of the Trial
Examiner excluding an offer- of proof that the petitioning union is
in reality the same labor organization which has a collective agree-
ment for the production unit. It would seem to me, in view of the
-provision in the contract, that such an offer might well go -to the core
of the question of appropriateness, the principal issue'which these pro-
ceedings raise. I have grave doubts as to whether a, provision in a
-collective agreement which defines the scope of a union's representa-
tion really deprives the workers of a free choice of representatives.
There is no showing in this record that' the employees in the proposed
unit could not find a union other than'the petitioner to satisfactorily
represenf'them. - •