General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 457 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ( DETROIT DIESEL
ENGINE DIvIsION) and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERIOA
Case No. R-5289.-Decided July 20, 1943
Mr. Harold A. Crane field, for the Board.
Messrs. Henry^M. Hogan and Harry S. Benjamin, of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Company. ,
Mr. Walter M. Nelson, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Robert AS'ilagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America,
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of General
Motors Corporation (Detroit Diesel Engine Division), Detroit, Michi-
gan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Frank A.
Mouritsen, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Detroit, Mich-
igan, on May 3 and 4, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues.' Thereafter the Union filed a request for oral argu-
ment which is hereby denied. At the hearing the Company moved
to dismiss the petition on the ground that the employees petitioned
for do not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The ruling on
this-'motion was-reserved to the Board. For the reasons set forth
hereinafter, the motion is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
' Following the hearing , the parties entered into a stipulation to correct certain errors
in the transcript . Said stipulation is hereby approved and the stipulated corrections are
' hereby ordered to be made in the official transcript.
51 N. L. R B., No. 89.
457
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
General Motors Corporation is a Delaware corporation maintaining
its principal business office in New York City and other offices in
Detroit, Michigan. The Detroit Diesel Engine Division is an unincor-
porated division of the General Motors Corporation, maintaining its
plant in Detroit, Michigan. It is the only division with which we
are here concerned. In excess of 40 percent of the value of the mate-
rials used in the manufacturing and assembling operations of the
Company are obtained from sources outside the State of Michigan.
More than 50 percent of the completed products manufactured and
assembled by the Company are eventually shipped to points outside,
the State of Michigan and are sold or delivered to the United States
Government to be used by the armed services.
The Detroit Diesel Engine Division admits, that it is 'engaged, in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all foremen and' general foremen em-
ployed by the Company constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Company contends that (a) foremen ' and general foremen are
not employees within the meaning of the Act, and (b) if such men
are employees, the claimed unit is inappropriate.
The Company employs 19 general foremen and 388 foremen. The
foremen involved have from 20 to 25 employees under their super-
vision and the general foremen, through the foremen, supervise the
work of some 80 to 100 employees. Both grades of foremen are sal-
aried in contrast to the hourly paid production and maintenance
employees. The foremen receive over $300.00 a month and general
foremen receive at least 23 percent more than the foremen.
The record shows that the foremen are responsible in the first in-
stance for production and maintenance of production schedules, that
they correlate the work of the employees under their supervision,
that they report non-delivery' of work to their, sections, that they re-
port and take steps necessary to remedy break-downs and other
difficulties, that they represent the Company in the initial stage of
handling grievances under the contract with the International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
k
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 459
America, C. I. 0., which covers the production employees, that they
transmit to the foremen whose shift follow theirs any pertinent in-
formation relative to the work in the section, that they are responsible
for the safety and cleanliness of their sections, that they can recom-
mend increases in pay for the employees under their supervision and
that although they do not hire employees, they submit requisitions
for the employees needed in their sections.
There is conflicting evidence as to whether the foremen have au-
thority to discharge employees or merely to recommend discharge;
but there is no doubt that foremen have authority to discipline em-
ployees. A set of shop regulations has been formulated by the Com-
pany wherein the penalties for specific offenses are listed. Some
violations of the regulations call for fixed penalties, e. g., the theft of
property of the employees or of the Company is punished by dis-
charge. Other offenses carry with them indeterminate penalties
which are fixed by the foremen, e. g., for wasting time or loitering in
toilets or on any company property during working hours, a foreman
may mete out punishment ranging from a reprimand to a lay-off'of
4 weeks.
The general foremen bear the general responsibility of seeing that
the departments, usually comprising four or five sections, function
properly. They are responsible for the production of parts on schedule
and .see that efficiency is maintained in the department. They advise
the superintendent, the supervisor immediately above them, of the
procedures, technical problems, and labor relations in their depart-
ments. They assist the foremen under their supervision in solving
those problems confronting them which generally arise from ma-
chinery break-downs, safety, cleanliness of the department, and labor
relations. They strive for the improvement of a manufactured article
and pass upon the requisitions for additional employees submitted by
the foremen under their supervision.
From the foregoing it is clear that the foremen and general foremen
do not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In the recent
Maryland Drydock case 2 we said,
We are of the opinion that in the present state of industrial ad-
ministration and employee self-organization, the establishment of
bargaining units composed of supervisors exercising substantial
managerial authority will impede the processes of collective bar-
gaining, disrupt established managerial and production tech-
niques, and militate against the effectuation of the policies of
the Act.
It is urged that the doctrine established in the Maryland Drydock
case should be limited to the fact situation therein presented and that
2Matter of The Maryland Drydock Company , 49 N. L. R. B. 733
460 DECSSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the instant case be differentiated on the ground that the union seeking
to represent the supervisory employees is an independent labor organ-
ization not affiliated with the union which represents the production
and maintenance employees. We have given careful consideration to
this contention but, are, not persuaded thata' the factors militating
against the establishment of units of supervisory employees, set forth
in our decision in the Maryland DT-ydock case, are obviated by the
circumstance that the union seeking to represent such employees is
an independent, unaffiliated union. The instant case is in principle
indistinguishable from the Boeing Aircraft case,' recently decided.
We find, accordingly, that the unit sought in the petition herein is not,
an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Inasmuch as we have found that the employees petitioned for do
not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, we find that no ques-
tion concerning representation has arisen.,
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of foremen and general foremen of General Motors Corporation
(Detroit Diesel Engine Division), Detroit, Michigan, filed by Fore-
man's Association of America, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIS, dissenting :
For reasons set forth in my dissent in the Maryland Drydock case,4 I
am compelled to disagree with the, holding of the majority that super-
visory employees under no circumstances can constitute appropriate
bargaining units. In the instant case the employees petitioned for do
not formulate management policies nor do they take any part in the
collective bargaining conferences between the Company and the
UAW-CIO, the representative of the production and maintenance
employees. They seek recognition by a labor organization which is
both independent and unaffiliated. In agreement with the reasoning
of the Boeing Aircraft case a I would exclude the 19 general foremen
who have supervision over the foremen and find that the approximately
400 foremen, who are on the same supervisory level, constitute an
appropriate unit. Consequently I would direct an election among
them.
Matter of Boeing Aircraft ' Company, 51 N L R B 67.
+ Matter of The Maryland Drydoek Company , 49 N. L . R B 733.
s Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company, 45 N. L. R B. 630.