General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1887 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of MORAINE PRODUCTS DIVISION GENERAL MOTORS COR-
PORATION and UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL 696 and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 752
Case No. 9-RE-12.-Decided June 30, 1944
Messrs. Henry M. Hogan, Harry S. Benjamin, Jr., and Richard E.
Helms, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. F. L. Innis, of Columbus, Ohio, Mr. R. J. Quinlan, of Dayton,
Ohio, and Mr. N. L. Smokier, of Detroit, Mich., for the UAW.
Mr. David Scribner, of New York City, and Messrs. Henry Fiering
and C. W. Kenny, of Dayton, Ohio, for the UE.
Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Moraine Products Division General
Motors Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, herein called the Company, alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Dayton, Ohio, on March 9, 1914. The Company, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO,
Local 696, herein called the UAW, and United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers. of America, Local 752, herein called the UE;
appeared and participated. At the beginning of the hearing, the UE
moved the Board to dismiss the petition herein on the grounds that it
involves a jurisdictional dispute between labor organizations affiliated
with the same parent organization and that the Company has not met
the prerequisites for the filing of an employer's petition according
to the Rules and Regulations of the Board. ' The motion is hereby
denied. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing
56 N. L. R. B., No. 330.
1887
1888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on the issues and to file briefs with the Board. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Upon request of the Company and the UAW, and
pursuant to a notice to all parties, a hearing was duly held before
the Board in Washington, D. C., on June 13, 1944, for the purpose of
oral argument. All parties were represented by counsel and partici-
pated in the hearing.
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 which. main-
tains its principal business offices at New York City and Detroit,
Michigan. The Company functions through several unincorporated
divisions, one of which is the Moraine Products Division, which main-
tains and operates a plant at Dayton, Ohio. In excess of 50 percent
of the value of the goods and materials used in the processing and
manufacturing operations of the Moraine Products Division comes
from sources outside the State of Ohio. In excess of 50 percent of the
completed goods and materials manufactured by the Division even-
tually reaches points outside the State of Ohio. Practically all the
products of the Division are sold or delivered to the United States
Government or to the United Nations for use by the armed forces.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, Local 696, and United .Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, Local 752, are labor organizations affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On February 26, 1941, the UE was certified by the Board as the
exclusive bargaining representative for all production and main-
tenance employees of the Company's Moraine Products Division, Day-
ton, Ohio.' On August 30, 1941, the UAW was certified by the Board
as the collective bargaining representative for all production and
maintenance employees and mechanical employees in engineering
i Matter of General Motors, Moraine Products Diyision , 29 N. L. R. B. 1086.
MORAINE PRODUCTS DIVISION 1889
shops of the Company's Delco Brake Division, Dayton, Ohio .2 On
August 18, 1942, the Moraine Products Division was created as a result
of, the combination of-the. Delco Brake Division and the old Moraine
Products Division. The Company continued to bargain with the UE
and the UAW separately for the employees for whom each was respec-
tively certified,' but contended from the time of the merger and still
contends that one union should represent all the employees in the newly
formed division. The UAW agrees with the Company and asserts
that it represents a majority of the employees in the combined plants.
The UE asserts that two separate units, coextensive with the present
jurisdictions of the two labor organizations, are appropriate for bar-
gaining. It contends that inasmuch as it has asserted no interest in
organizing the employees of the former Delco Brake plant, the Com-
pany is not presented with conflicting claims of two labor organizations
that each represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit
claimed to be appropriate,4 and it is therefore in, no position to file
a petition with the Board. We find no. merit in this contention. The
Company is faced with conflicting claims of two labor organizations,
not only as to which organization represents a majority of its em-
ployees, but also as to what unit or units, shall be accepted in determin-
ing the majority.
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 Delco Brake Division, hereinafter referred to as Plant No. 1,
and the old Moraine Products Division, hereinafter referred to as Plant
No. 2, were located adjacent to each other, being separated only by a
fence. With the merger of the. two divisions, sections of the fence were
torn down and the two plants were connected by a covered passageway.
Since the merger was partly to conserve management and supervisory
personnel, many departments were consolidated. Thus, one general
manager and one group of executives now operate the division. There
is a common group of departments for accounting, pay roll, comp-
troller, sales, service, factory management, processing engineering,
factory engineering, tool designing, and shipping and receiving. All
2 Matter o f General Motors, Delco Brake Division, 31 N. L. R. B. 525.
3 Master contracts covering the two parts of the division , as well as other similar plants
of the Company throughout the United States, expired in October 1943. New contracts are
in process of being negotiated . The UE claims as a bar to this proceeding these master
contracts and also a local supplement to the UE contract dated May 21, 1943, which has
no termination date but is terminable upon 30 days' notice. Since the master contracts
relied upon have terminated , and the supplement is terminable upon 30 days ' notice, we
reject the UE's contention.
4 See Article III, Sec. 3, of 'the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations-
Series 3.
1890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees are hired through one employment office. One plant-pro-
tection department serves the division. Inspection has been partly
consolidated, and, except for janitors and certain other maintenance
employees assigned to particular departments, one group of mainte-
nance employees services the entire division. To support its contention
that the plants should remain separated for purposes of collective
bargaining, the UE urges the fact that immediate supervision of
production employees has not been changed by the merger and that
each plant has its own general foreman to whom all other foremen are
responsible, and the further fact that with the exception of a small
department in Plant No. 1, which manufactures the same product
as is manufactured in Plant No. 2, the products of the two plants are
dissimilar. Although the products of the plants are dissimilar, the
operations performed by the employees of both plants are similar; so
similar, in fact, that more than 200 transfers from one plant to the
other, especially from Plant No. 1 to Plant No. 2 have been effected
since the merger, and a small percentage of employees so transferred
has later been retransferred to the plant of origin. These numerous
transfers, the position of the maintenance employees whose work
allows no consideration to the former separation of the plants, the cen-
tralization of hiring, the similarity of the operations being performed
by all employees, and the administrative set-up, in our opinion over-
balance the factors urged for the appropriateness of two separate units
for the representation of the employees of the Company in the Moraine
Products Division. Our former certifications concerning these em-
ployees have been rendered obsolete by the changes which have occurred
in the two plants.,'
We find that all production employees, including tool and die
makers, maintenance employees and mechanical employees in engi-
neering department shops of. General Motors Corporation, Moraine
Products Division, excluding, however, direct representatives of man-
agement such as officers and directors of the Corporation, employees
of sales, accounting, personnel and industrial relations departments,
superintendents and assistant superintendents, general foremen, fore-
men and assistant foremen, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or, effectively recommend such
action (but 'not leaders), and those employees whose work is of a con-
fidential nature, time-study men, plant-protection employees (but not
maintenance patrolmen or fire patrolmen), all clerical employees,
chief engineers and shift-operating engineers in power plants, de-
signing (drawing board), production, estimating and planning en-
gineers, draftsmen and detailers, physicists, chemists, metallurgists,
See Matter of General Motors Corporation, Oldsmobile Division, 45 N. L. R. B. 11 ;
Matter of Todd- Bath Iron Shipbuildyng Corporation , et at., 45 N . L. R. B. 1367.
MORAINE PRODUCTS DIVISION 1891
artists, designer-artists and clay-plaster modelers,, timekeepers, tech-
nical school students, indentured apprentices, and those technical or
professional employees who are receiving training, kitchen and cafe-
.terial help,s 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
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 the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion. The parties request that their names appear on the ballot as
U. A. W.-C. I. O. and U. E.-C. I. 0 ., respectively . The request is
hereby granted.
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 Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to `ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Moraine Products
Division; General Motors Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, 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 Ninth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, 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 those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by the U. A. W.-C. I. 0., or by U., E.C. I. 0., for the purposes
of collective bargaining; or by neither.
"This is a composite description of the units as heretofore certified by the Board on the
basis of stipulations entered into by the parties in the prior proceedings The parties all
agree , and the evidence shows, that leaders are not supervisory employees . There was
no dispute as to the constituency of the unit or units which the Board might find
appropriate.