General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 18 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FISHER BODY-TERN-
STEDT DIVISION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND- AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS,
C. I. 0., PETITIONER
In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FISICER BODY-TERN-
STEDT DIVISION, EMPLOYER and LOCAL No. 89, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 9-R-2575 and 9-R-2606, respectively.-Decided June 10,
19417
Henry M. Hogan, by Mr. William J. Oldani, of Detroit, Mich., for
the Employer.
Mr. Jack N. Tucker, of Detroit, Mich., for the CIO.
Mr. Charles 0. Dunln, of Columbus, Ohio, for Local No. 89.
Mr. D. J. Omer, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the IAM.
Mr. William V. Montague, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the UAW-AFL.
Miss Irene R. Shriber, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed,' hearing in these cases, was held
at Columbus, Ohio, on April 10, 1947, before Allen Sinsheimer, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body-Ternstedt Division, is a
Delaware corporation which operates manufacturing plants through-
1 These cases NN ere consolidated by older of the Board on March 11, 1947
2 At the heaung, the Employer and the CIO objected to the itiling of the hearing officer
permitting inteivention by the IAJI and the UA«'-AFL on the ground that neither of
these labor organizations presented evidence of its representation at the hearing These
objections are lacking in merit for ieasons stated in -tatter of 0 D Jennings & Company,
68 N L It B 516
74 N. L. R. D, No. 5.
1 8
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 19
out the United States. This proceeding is concerned only with the
Employer's plant in Columbus, Ohio, where the Employer fabricates
and assembles automobile body hardware. Annually, the Employer
purchases for its Columbus plant more than $1,000,000 worth of raw
materials from points outside the State of Ohio. More than 50 percent
of the finished products of the Columbus plant is shipped to out-of-
State destinations.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural
Implement Workers, herein called the CIO, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
Local No. 89, International Union of Operating Engineers, herein
called Local No. 89, is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
United Automobile Workers of America, herein called the UAW-
AFL, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, claiming to represent the employees of the Employer.
International Association of Machinists, herein called the IAM, is
an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent the employees
of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize any of the labor organizations
herein involved as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees
of the Employer until certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO and the Employer request a general unit of all the produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's Columbus, Ohio,
plant.3 The UAW-AFL agrees with the scope of the requested unit
'This unit includes the mechanical employees in the engineering department shops,
but excludes employees of sales, accounting, personnel, and industrial relations depart-
ments, superintendents, assistant superintendents, general foremen, foremen, 'assistant
foremen (but not leaders), confidential employees, time-study men, plant-protection employ-
ees (but not including maintenance patrolmen or fire patrolmen), clerical employees, chief
engineers, shift engineers of the power plant, designing (drawing board), production, esti-
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
except that it would exclude the employees sought by Local 89 and the
IAM. Local 89 seeks a separate unit for the power plant employees
and the JAM seeks a separate unit for the employees in the tool and
die department.
The tool and die department is divided into sections, each of which
is supervised by a foreman who in turn is responsible to the superin-
tendent of the department. There are approximately 100 employees
in this department, all of whom perform skilled work. They are
classified as die makers, tool makers, and machine tool hands of various
kinds, and they make and keep in repair all the tools and dies used in
the plant. It appears that these employees constitute a readily identi-
fiable, skilled, and homogeneous group. We have frequently stated
that employees in the afore-mentioned categories comprise well-defined
craft groups and as such may be represented in either a craft unit or
a production and maintenance unit, depending, in part, upon their own
desires'
The record shows that there are about 10 indentured apprentices in
the tool and die department whom the Employer would exclude and
the IAM include. These employees are being trained to become skilled
die makers under an apprentice training program authorized by the
G. I. Bill of Rights.5 They are hourly paid and work under the
supervision of the tool and die department although they have some
supervision from the personnel department. The record indicates that
there is no substantial distinction between their employment conditions
and interests and those of the regular employees in the tool and die
department. Accordingly, we shall include them.6
The powerhouse, which is under the supervision of the chief engi-
neer, employs four firemen, four helpers, and four shift engineers.
The record shows that the shift engineers are responsible for the
operation of the powerhouse during their respective shifts. Each
engineer has a fireman and helper working under his supervision, as
to whom he has authority effectively to recommend disciplinary action
or a change in status. Unlike the firemen and the helpers who are
mating, and planning engineers , draftsmen , detailers , physicists , chemists , metallurgists,
artists, designer-artists, clay plaster modelers , timekeepers , technical school students,
indentured apprentices, all technical and professional employees who are receiving training,
and kitchen and cafeteria help
We find no merit to the Employer's contention that separate units of employees in the
tool and die department and the powerhouse are inappropriate because the history of col-
lective bargaining of General Motors Corporation shows that in 90 percent of its plants,
bargaining units have been established on an industrial basis. The plant here involved was
not acquired by the Employer until September 1946 ; it has no bargaining history and the
employees in question have had no prior opportunity to demonstrate their preference in a
separate election Moreover , as the record shows, bargaining units on a craft basis do
exist in some of the Employer 's plants See Matter of General Motors Corporation,
Harrison Radiator Division, 71 N. L. R B. 757, and cases cited.
i Servicemen 's Readjustment Act, as amended, Public Law 346, 79th Congress.
e Matter of Line Material Company of Pennsylvania . 73 N. L. R B. 704.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 21
hourly paid, the engineers are salaried.- Under all the circumstances,
we are satisfied that the shift engineers are supervisory employees
within our customary definition. We shall, therefore, exclude them.
As to the remaining employees of the powerhouse, we have held that,
in the absence of a bargaining history upon"a plant-wide basis in-
cluding powerhouse employees, such employees may appropriately be
represented in a separate unit.7 We are of the opinion that the
powerhouse employees may function either as a separate bargaining
unit, or as part of a more comprehensive unit, depending, in part,
upon their own desires.
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determinations at the
present time, but shall direct that separate elections be held among
the employees in the following voting groups, excluding superin-
tendents, assistant superintendents, general foremen, foremen, assist-
ant foremen (but not leaders), and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action.
1. All production and maintenance employees, including the me-
chanical employees in the engineering department -shops, but exclud-
ing the employees of the powerhouse and the tool and die department,
the sales, accounting, personnel, and industrial relations departments,
confidential employees, time-study men, plant-protection employees
but not maintenance patrolmen or fire patrolmen), clerical em-
ployees, chief engineers, designing (drawing board), production, esti-
mating and planning engineers, draftsmen, detailers, physicists,
chemists, metallurgists, artists, designer-artists, clay plaster modelers,
timekeepers, technical school students, all technical and professional
employees who are receiving training, and kitchen and cafeteria help.
2. All employees in the tool and die department, including the in-
dentured apprentices.
3. All employees in the powerhouse, excluding the chief engineer
and the shift engineers.
The Employer contends that an election would be inappropriate at
the present time because it intends to increase its present complement
of 1,500 employees to approximately 5,000 employees. Although the
Employer asserted that it expects to hire about 250 employees in the
next 3 or 4 months, it was unable to estimate when it would obtain
the anticipated full complement. The record shows that the'present
group of employees is substantial and representative of the total work-
ing force which may ultimately be employed and that they are pres-
7Matter of Goodyear Tire d Rubber Company of Kansas, Inc., 65 N. L. R B 532, and
cases cited therein.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ently engaged in production . In view of these facts and the uncer-
tainty as to the rate of expansion and as to the time when a full com-
plement will be obtained , we shall adhere to our usual policy in such
circumstances of directing an immediate election . We shall, however,
entertain a new petition for an investigation and certification of rep-
resentatives after 6 months from the date of any certification that
may issue in the intsant proceeding upon proof ( 1) that the number
of employees in any unit which we may subsequently find to be ap-
propriate is more than double the number eligible to vote in the elec-
tions hereinafter directed ; and (2) that the petitioning labor organi-
zation represents a substantial number of employees in the expanded
unit.°
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for-the
purposes of collective bargaining with, General Motors Corporation,
Fisher Body-Ternsteclt Division, Columbus, Ohio, elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the data 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 sub-
ject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the voting
groups listed in Section IV, above, who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, in-
cluding employees who did not work during said pay-roll period be-
cause they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees in the armed forces of the Uni ted States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the elections, to determine whether :
(1) The Employees in Group 1, desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers, C. I. 0., or by United Automobile Workers of
America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
(2) The employees in Group 2, desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers, C. I. 0., or by International Association of Machin-
ists, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
8 Matter of Adler Metal Products Corp , 67 N. L R. B 328 , Matter of Rosetta Evans,
at at , 68 N. L R. B 164
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 23
(3) The employees in Groul) 3, desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers, C. I. 0., or by Local No. 89, International Union of
Operating Engineers, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
Ci CAUiMAN HEEZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.