Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 596 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of FORD MOTOR COMPANY (RIVER -ROUGE PLANT)' and
UNITED PROTECTIVE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. I '
Case No. R-41759-Decided February 15,1943
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed when unit proposed by petitioner was
found inappropriate and union made an insubstantial showing of representa-
tion in an appropriate unit.
Mr. I. A. Capizzi and Mr. Malcolm R. Denise, of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Company.
Mr. Daniel R. Foley, of Detroit, Mich., for, ,the Union.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by the United Protective Workers of
America, Local No. 1, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Ford Motor Company (River Rouge Plant), Dearborn,
Michigan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Max Rotenberg, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Detroit,
Michigan, on January 12 and 13, 1943. The Company and the Union
appeared, partidipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to, introduce
evidence bearing on the issues.' At the beginning of the hearing
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 Union` is not a representative of the employees
within the meaning of the Act, (3) the bargaining unit alleged in
the\petition does not constitute an appropriate unit, (4) the persons
' After the hearing closed , a petition to intervene was filed with the Board , on January
29, 1943, by Plant Protection Association On February 10, 1943 , the Union filed with the
Board a petition to deny intervention On February 12, 1943, the Plant, Protection Asso-
ciation filed with the Board an answer to the petition to'.deny intervention . In view of
our finding hereinafter set forth , the petition to intervene is hereby denied.
47 N. L . R B., No. 77. ,
596
FORD MOTOR COMPANY, (RIVER ROUGE PLANT) 597.
referred to in the petition are not employees within the meaning of
the Act, and (5) the persons referred to in the petition are persons
subject to, or about to become subject to military law during the
period of their employment and, therefore, may not be certified by,
the Board as an appropriate unit or bargain' collectively under the
Act. The Tiial Examiner referred the'motion to the Board. For
reasons appearing below, the motion is hereby granted. The Com-
pany also'filed an offer of proof in support of its motion to dismiss
in which, inter alia, the Company alleged that the Union is not a
labor organization but is a sham organization, in reality a part of
United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), and that ' the Union was created by the
UAW-CIO to circumvent a contract, dated November 4, 1942, in
which the UAW-CIO is recognized as the statutory representative
of the production and maintenance employees at the Company's
plants, excluding, inter alia, the plant-protection employees whom the
UAW-CIO agreed not to organize. The Trial Examiner rejected
the offer of proof. In view of our finding hereinafter set forth, we
deem it unnecessary to make a determination of this contention. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are' free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affrmed. '
On January 22, 1943, the Company filed a brief which the Board
has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation having its princi-
pal executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. Until February 1942°
it was principally engaged in the manufacture, assembly, sale, and
distribution 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 coun-
try. The plant involved in this proceeding is the River Rouge 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 situ-
ated near the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan, principally in the manu-
facture 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 assembly operation conducted in the above-men-
1 '
598 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioned' 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 concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Protective, Workers of America, Local No. 1, -is a labor
organization admitting to membership plant-protection employees
of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On November, 25, 1942, the Union sent a letter to the Company
stating that it represented a majority of the employees in an alleged
appropriate unit and that it desired to be recognized as the exclusive
representative of such,employees. The receipt of the letter was
acknowledged by the Company, but-it made no further reply to the
requests of the Union. . .
The, parties are in agreement that if the Board finds any unit
appropriate, the unit should comprise all plant-protection or service-
department employees, including firemen, at the Company's River
Rouge plant, Dearborn, Michigan, but excluding all clerks, supervisory
employees, lobby clerks, switchboard operators, drivers, and confi-
dential investigators. The parties are in disagreement, however, as
to whether the employees in the Aircraft and Administration build-
ings, and the Rotunda should. be included or excluded. The Union
would exclude and the Company include the employees in the Air-
craft building; with respect to, the employees in the Administration
building and the Rotunda, the Union would include and the Company
exclude them.
The River Rouge plant of the Company consists of numerous build-
ings, among them the Aircraft and Administration buildings and the,
Rotunda. The plant-protection employees in the Aircraft building
have the same responsibilities and duties, are'subject to the same rules,
'discipline and supervision, and receive the same rates of pay as those
of the other plant-protection employees of, the River Rouge plant.
Generally the working conditions of these employees are the same.
The Administration building and the Rotunda, on -the other hand, are
not engaged in any manufacturing and the Administration building
houses the offices and the executive personnel for the entire Ford
operations. The plant-protection employees in the Administration
building and the Rotunda have no regular beats,,are not interchanged
with the plant-protection employees in the other buildings of the
plant, are under the separate supervision of the building superinten-
FORD MOTOR COMPANY ( RIVER ROUGE PLANT) 599
dent of the Administration building, and further, engage in miscel-
laneous duties in addition to plant-protection work. These duties con-
sist of directing, visitors to. the various= offices, doing, clerical- work,
checking cars in the parking lots, and working on the tire and gas
rationing board.
Without discussing in detail the groups in issue and without mak-
ing a final determination of the unit, it is clear that the nature of
the work of the employees in the Aircraft building, whom the Union
seeks to exclude, is' indistinguishable from that of the group it seeks
to include, and that the former employees should therefore not be ex-
cluded from the unit.
With respect to the employees in the Administration building and
the Rotunda, on the basis of the present record, we are of the opinion
that they properly should be ' excluded from it unit of other plant-
protection employees of the River Rouge plant.
Not only is the Union's claimed unit inappropriate, but it has not
made a substantial showing of representation in an appropriate unit.
The Union submitted a total of 274 authorization cards, of which 204
bear apparently genuine signatures of persons appearing on a list,
submitted by the Company, of names of persons it alleges to be in
the unit claimed to be appropriate by the Union. This list, which
is current as of the date of the hearing, contains 881 names as follows :
713 who the Company and the Union agree should be in the unit;
155 in the Aircraft building; and 13 in the Administration building
and the Rotunda. None of the cards submitted by the Union con-
tained names which were on the list of Aircraft and Administration
buildings. and Rotunda, employees. With the inclusion of the em-
ployees in the Aircraft building, the representation showing of the
Union is not substantial.
Since the unit proposed by the Union is inappropriate, and since
the Union has not presented evidence indicating that it represents a
substantial number of employees in an appropriate unit, we hereby
sustain the Company's motion to dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives of em-,
ployees of Ford Motor Company (River Rouge Plant), Dearborn,
Michigan, filed by United Protective Workers of America, Local No.
1, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. '