Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 939 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of FoRD MOTOR COMPANY and UNITED PROTECTIVE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 2
Case No. 4780.Decided February 23,1943
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
representing plant protection employees found to contravene express pur-
pose and policy of the Act, and not to bar a preceeding instituted by another
organization claiming to represent these employees, even if it were assumed,
as,contended by company, that petitioner and contracting union- were the
same and that petitioner was created to circumvent the contract ; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all plant protection employees at
company's Chicago branch plant, with specified inclusions and exclusions.
Mr. Robert E. Dickman, for the, Board.
Mr. I. A. Capizzi and Mr. Malcolm L. Denise, of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Company.
Mr. William J. Flynn, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the-Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Protective Workers of America,
Local No. 2, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting ' commerce had arisen concerning ' the_ representation of
employees of the Chicago branch plant of Ford Motor Company,
Dearborn, 'Michigan, herein called the Company, the National La-
bor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice before David Karasick, Trial Examiner. Said hearing
was held at Chicago,' Illinois, on January 21, 1943. The Company
and the .Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
47 N. L. R. B., No. 118.
939
940 DEICISSON 'S OF NATIO\TAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to introduce evidence bearing upon 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 employees within the rlleariing of the Act, (3) the alleged unit-
is1inappropriate, (4) the person sought to be included in the unit
are not employees within the meaning of the Act, and (5) the em-
ployees referred to in the petition are persons subject to n ilitary
law during the period of their employment, and therefore the Board
may not certify a labor organization' as their representative. For
reasons hereinafterostated, the Company's motion is hereby denied.
At the hearing the Company made the following offer of proof
in support of its motion to dismiss: (1)' the plant of the Company
involved in this proceeding is engaged in war production,) and the
persons sought to be included in the unit have signed a military
oath and are employed to safeguard the property of the Company
and the Government; (2) among the duties of these employees is
the protection of Company property in cases of strikes, walk-outs,
or other labor disputes, and in cases before the Board such em-
ployees have uniformly been held to be representatives,of the man-
agement in cases of unfair labor practices arising under the' Act;
and (3) in contracts with the United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural. Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the UkW-CIO,
covering production and maintenance-employees, the plant-protec-
tion employees are excluded and' the UAW-CIO agreed not to ac-
cept said employees for membership, and the Union is in reality a
part of or a front for the UAW-CIO and was created to circum-
vent the contracts referred to.' Although the Trial Examiner re-
jected the offer of proof, we consider it below. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the ' hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. The Union filed a brief which the Board has
considered. -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
f FINDINGS OF FACT ,
I. THE 'BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ford Motor Company, is a Delaware•corporation having its principal
offices at Dearborn, Michigan, and,is engaged in the manufacture,
assembly, sale, and distribution of automobiles and various types of
automobile parts and accessories. The Company owns and operates
assembly plants in many States throughout the United States. The
I A waiver signed by the Union and introduced into evidence at the hearing states that
the Union waives any right to protest any election held as a result of this hearing on any
,ground set forth in Case No. XIII-C-386.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 941
Company's Chicago branch plant , also known as the Hegewisch •plant,
-located at Chicago, Illinois , is the only plant involved in this proceed-
ing., Prior to March 31, 1942, the operations of the Chicago plant
,involved the assembly , of automobiles . During the year 1942; auto-
mobile parts valued at approximately $550,000 per month were trans-
ported to the Chicago plant from points outside the State of Illinois.
During the same period , the sales of the Chicago plant amounted to
approximately ' $430,000 per month, of which 50 percent was shipped
to points outside the State of Illinois . In September 1942, the Com-
pany began converting its Chicago plant for the purpose of manufac-
turing vehicles for military use and on March 31, 1942, the assembly
of automobiles was stopped . It is anticipated that the conversion will
be completed in approximately 2 months. When the assembly of
military vehicles begins , over 90 percent of the parts used in their
manufacture , valued as near as can be approximated at over $2,000,000
per month, will come from sources outside the State of Illinois. The
completed vehicles will be delivered to the United States Government
for use in the prosecution of the war . The Company does not deny
the jurisdiction of the Board.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Protective Workers of America, Local No. 2 , is an unaffiliated
labor organization , admitting to membership plant-protection em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION,
On or about December 3, 1942, the Union requested the Company to
recognize it as the representative of the Company's employees in an
alleged appropriate bargaining unit. The Company refuses to grant
such recognition to the Union. ,
As stated above, the Company asserts in its offer of proof that the
Union is a "sham" organization created by the UAW-CIO to circum-
vent a contract between the Company and the UAW-CIO, the repre-
sentative of production and maintenance employees at the Company's
plants, in Which the UAW-CIO in effect agreed not to organize plant-
protection employees. The Company therefore contends that the peti-
tion should be dismissed. Assuming' that the Union is in fact the
UAW-CIO under another name, we nevertheless reject the Company's
contention that the contractual provision precludes the plant-protec-
tion employees here involved from choosing the Union as their
bargaining-representative. In the Packard case 2 we said, in'rejecting
2Matter of Packard Motor Company and International Union, United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of 'America (UAW-CIO) Local No. III/,
47 N, L R . B 932, decided this day
942 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'a similar contention, that "it would seem obvious that any' agreement
between an employer and a labor' 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 affected, 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 em-
ployees, 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 as their
exclusive representative." For these reasons, which are equally appli-
cable here, we find that the foregoing contractual provision alluded
to in the offer of proof does not preclude the Union from seeking to
represent the employees here involved.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, and a statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hear-
ing, indicate that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees 3 in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
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 employees in the Company's plant-
protection department, exclusive of foremen, assistant foremen, plant-
protection clerk, head timekeeper, and timekeepers, comprise an appro-
-priate bargaining unit. The Company contends that, the unit sought
by the Union is not appropriate for the reasons set forth in its motion
to dismiss, but, indicated ' that it would agree to the inclusions and
exclusions urged by the Union in the event the Board overruled its
motion.
• The Company's plant-protection department is under the direct
supervision of the Head of Plant Protection and is comprised of some
't4 employees classified as foremen, assistant foremen, plant-protection
clerk, safety men, firemen, plant-protection men, final stock checkers,
car drivers, head timekeeper, and timekeepers. The chief duties of 'the
plant-protection employees are to protect the property of the Com-
3 Pot the reasons stated in Section IV , infra, we find no merit in the contention that
plant-protection employees are not employees within the meaning of the Act.
The report of the Regional Director , -supplemented by the statement of the Trial
Examiner , shows that the Union submitted 36 designation -authorization cards bearing
apparently genuine -signatures, that these cards are dated between November 1042 and
January 1943, and 32 of the signatures appearing, thereon are the names of persons whose
names appear on the Company's pay roll of January 20, 1943, which contains the names
of 58 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
f
FORD MOTOR 'COMPANY 943
piny, to check employees in and out of the plant, to report safety
hazards, to 'check products manufactured by the Company as they
leave the plant to ascertain if they correspond to the bill of ' sale, and
to investigate all subversive activities to see if they might hamper the
war work of the Company.
The War Department has recently issued a directive order. making
plant-protection employees at plants producing war materials civilian
auxiliaries of the military police, and the Company contends that this
military regulation changes the employment status of plant-ptotec-
tion employees, and that these persons are • no longer "employees"
within the meaning of the Act. We find that the Company's conten-
tion is without merit. The directive order specifically preserves the
essential employment relationship. The employer's right to discharge
for cause remains, and hiring, compensation for services performed,
and general working conditions remain matters to be adjusted between
employer and employees.5
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.6 It follows, therefore, that even though plant-protection
employees may in some- situations bind the employer, we nevertheless
must accord them the right, which is guaranteed in the Act, to select
a bargaining representative.
The Company's plant-protection department employs approxi-
mately 47 persons classified as plant-protection men. This group of
employees is comprised of guards equipped with uniforms and revolv-
ers who are stationed at assigned posts throughout the plant, beat
men who patrol certain designated areas in the plant; and trainmen
who check trains,as they enter and leave the plant. There is a certain
amount,of interchange of duties among these employees. Since their
primary duty is to guard and protect, the Company's property, and
inasmuch as there is no conflict with respect to their inclusion in the
unit, we shall include all plant-protection men in the appropriate
unit.
See Hatter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant and Local 1111, United Auto-
mobile, An c1 aft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the C. 1 0 ,
44 N L R B 881
° See Hotter of Union Collieries Coal Company, Oalmont, Pennsylvania and Mine Offi-
cials' Union of America (Ind ), 44 N L R B 165; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc and
United Sugar TPorhers, Local Industrial Union No. 1186, C. I 0, 44 N. L. R . B. 874, and
subsequent cases. -
i
944 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It appears that there is only one employee in the plant=protection
department classified'as a fireman. He is responsible for the -condi-
tion of the fire-fighting equipment and is specially trained to combat,
control, and prevent fires. He may be assigned to general plant-
protection work. Inasmuch as the fireman's function is to fight as
well as prevent fires and since he spends an appreciable amount of
time performing general plant-protectior -work, we shall include him
in the unit.
The plant-protection foremen and assistant foremen supervise the
work of the employees under them. Since they are supervisory em-
ployees whom the parties agree to exclude, we shall exclude the fore-
men and assistant foremen from the unit. The plant-protection clerk
performs clerical duties in 'the department's identification office in
which are kept records and fingerprints of all the Company's em-
ployees. He is never assigned to general plant-protection work and
is not eligible to membership in the Union. We shall exclude the
plant-protection clerk from the unit. There are three employees
classified as safety men listed on the plant-protection department's pay
roll. The safety men work throughout the plant, checking the safety
devices and seeing that the employees observe the safety rules laid
down by the management. Inasmuch as it appears that their duties
are not directly related to plant protection, we shall exclude the safety
men from the unit.
The Company employs five final stock checkers in its plant-protec-
tion department. These employees check billings of goods shipped
from the plant. Inasmuclias their duties are clerical in nature and
not related to plant protection, we shall exclude the final stock checkers
from the unit.
The two car drivers included on the plant-protection department's
pay roll act as chauffeurs. They may be assigned to general plant-
protection work when they are not needed as drivers. Since the ma-
jority of their time is devoted to chauffeuring, we shall exclude them
from the unit.
The head timekeeper and six timekeepers assigned to the plant-
protection department check the time crds of the employees in the'
various departments of the plant. , They perform no plant-protection
duties. We -shall exclude the head timekeeper and the timekeepers
from the unit. -
We find that all plant-protection employees employed by,the Com-
parry at its Chicago branch plant, including plant-protection men
and firemen, but.excluding foremen, assistant foremen, plant-protec-
tion clerk, safety men, final stock checkers, car drivers, head time-
keeper, and timekeepers, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses-of collective bargaining within. the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 945
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
r
The Union desires ' that eligibility to vote be determined as of
December 3, 1942, because on that day the Union sent its letters to the
Company requesting recognition. The Company requests -that the
Board follow its usual practice by directing that the pay-roll date
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election be deter-
minative of, eligibility to vote. We perceive no valid reason to war-
rant a departure from our usual practice in this matter. Accord-
ingly; 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 the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act , 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 the Chicago
branch plant of Ford Motor Company , Dearborn , Michigan , an elec-
tion 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 Thirteenth
Region , acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among- the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who 'were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately 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 employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by United Protective Workers of America, Local No. 2, for the-pur-
poses of collective bargaining. -
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissent in Ford Motor Company, No.
R-4758, I feel constrained to dissent from the majority opinion in
this case: '
513024-43-vol. 44-00