Murray Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 313 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA 313
'ent and by operation of law is bound to cooperate in dissipating its predecessor's
unfair labor practices by recognizing and bargaining with the Union.
Johnson is a successor to the Respondent within the meaning of the Alexander
Milburn Company case, because he continued, without interruption, the business
of his predecessor as a franchised Pontiac dealer, on substantially the same
premises as his predecessor, and because the Respondent's employees became
his employees immediately upon his accession to the business, with no substan-
tial change in the nature of their duties, supervision, or the conditions under
which they worked. As I understand the Alexander Milburn Company case
this is all that is required to constitute Johnson a successor within the meaning
of that decision. In its own summation of the case, the Board has stated that
it therein "held a bona fide successor to be responsible for remedying the unfair
labor practices of its predecessor, even though there was no showing that the
successor was, in any sense, an alter ego or disguised continuance of the pred-
ecessor, or that it participated with the predecessor in its violations of the
Act." (Autopart Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB 80, 81).' There is no such
showing in the case at bar. The rationale in this line of cases appears to stem
largely from the court's decision in N. L. R. B. v. Cotten, 105 F. 2d 179, 183 (C. A.
6, 1939), in which the court said, "It is the employing industry that is sought to
be regulated and brought within the corrective and remedial provisions of the
Act in the interest of industrial peace."
I had not thought it clear, until I read the Autopart Manufacturing Company
case (cited supra), that knowledge of the successor on acquiring the business of
his predecessor of the pendency of unfair labor practice proceedings against the
predecessor, was necessarily essential for holding a bona fide successor responsi-
ble for remedying the unfair labor practices of his predecessor , but, in any event,
Johnson had knowledge before he acquired the Respondent' s business of the
pendency of unfair labor practice proceedings against the Respondent , and it is
immaterial if in his mistaken belief that as new owner of the business he would
nowise be bound to assume unfulfilled bargaining obligations of the Respondent,
he failed to inform himself fully as to the nature and scope of those obligations'"
Accordingly, it is held that the Respondent and Johnson are jointly and
severally responsible for compliance with the terms of the Board' s Decision and
Order.
0 See also, Charles R. Krimm Lumber company, et al., 97 NLRB 1574; Indianapolis
Wire-Bound Box Company, 93 NLRB 875; L. B. Hosiery Co., Incorporated , 88 NLRB 1000;
Union Products Company, 75 NLRB 591; McCarron Co., 100 NLRB 1537.
"The finding of knowledge is based on the testimony of Frank H. ' Stockdale , an officer
of Respondent, that in January preceding the sale of the business to Johnson in February,
he told Johnson that "there was a National Labor Relations Board order standing," and
Johnson's admission that Stockdale told him that there had been an order requiring
Respondent to bargain with the Union.
MURRAY CORPORATION OF AMERICA-ECORSE PLANT and INTERNA•
TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO ) , PETITIONER.
Case No. 7-RC-1722. November 14, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, hear-
101 NLRB No. 75.
314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of office and clerical em-
ployees at the Employer's Ecorse, Michigan, plant. The Employer
contends that only a unit including employees at both its Michigan
plants is appropriate.
The Employer, a manufacturer of aircraft and auto-truck parts,
metal stampings, and household appliances, has plants located at
Detroit and Ecorse, Michigan, and Scranton, Pennsylvania. The
Detroit plant (known as the Main plant) and the Ecorse plant con-
stitute the automotive division of the Employer's operations; the
Scranton plant is the home appliance division. The general admin-
istrative and executive offices of the Company are located at the Main
plant.
The Ecorse plant, the only plant involved in this proceeding, is
located 14 miles from the Main plant. The two plants manufacture
different products 3 and have different plant managers. Both, how-
ever, are under the jurisdiction of the vice president in charge of the
automotive division. Purchasing and general accounting for both
are handled at the Main plant, and labor relations policies for both
are established there.
The Ecorse plant hires its own office and clerical employees. How-
ever, the evaluation, administration, and control of salaries for both
plants are determined at the Main plant, and all salaried payrolls are
prepared there 4 Classifications, with one exception, are the same
at both plants; and employees in the same classifications have similar
1 At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit
requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate. The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board. For the reasons set forth Infra, the motion is hereby granted.
2 The Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the
briefs, in our opinion , adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
' The Main plant manufactures automobile bodies, aircraft parts, airplane wing assemb-
lies, and jet engines ; the Ecorse plant manufactures frames for passenger automobiles and
civilian and military trucks.
4 The office and clerical employees are all salaried employee.,
MURRAY CORPORATION OF AN4^RICA 315
duties, skills, and rates of pay. Transfers from one plant to the other
- re mead fro' time to time. All salaried employees have the same
rights and privileges. Although there is no settled grievance pro-
cedure for these employees, problems relating to them, if not settled
at the plant level, ultimately clear through the director of industrial
relations, located at the Main plant.
There has been no history of bargaining for the Employer's office
and clerical employees. In 1942, however, the Petitioner's Amalga-
mated Local 889 petitioned for separate units of clerical employees at
the Main and Ecorse plants. The Board found that the employees
at both plants constituted a single appropriate unit, and directed an
election therein.' Local 889 lost the election. Although the present
petition covers only office and clerical employees at the Ecorse plant,
the record shows that the Petitioner is also attempting to organize
such employees at the Main plant. Since 1937, production and main-
tenance employees at the Main and Ecorse plants have been repre-
sented by the Petitioner's Local No. 2 under contracts covering both
plants.
The Petitioner contends that changes in the Employer's operations
since the Board's decision in 1942 warrant a finding that the office and
clerical employees at the Ecorse plant now constitute an appropriate
unit. The record fails to show, however, that there have been any
substantial changes. Because of the proximity of the two plants, the
centralized control of labor, relations, and the similarity in the duties,
skills, and working conditions of the office and clerical employees at
both plants, we are convinced, as the Board previously found, that a
multiplant unit would be appropriate. Furthermore, the history of
bargaining for the production and maintenance employees demon-
strates that multiplant bargaining is practicable c The only apparent
reason for the Petitioner's request for a single-plant unit is the extent
of its organization of the Employer's employees. Section 9 (c) (5),
of the Act precludes a unit finding on that basis alone.7 We therefore
find that the unit requested by the Petitioner is not appropriate.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
Order
IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
5 The Murray Corporation of America, 45 NLRB 854.
" The Board has recently indicated that it will no longer , in every instance , follow its
former practice of requiring one group of employees to organize on a multiplant basis
wherever other types of employees had previously organized themselves on that basis,
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons , Inc , 101 NLRB 101. The history of bargaining of other
employees of the same employer is, however , one of the factors to be considered in
determining the appropriateness of a proposed unit.
* Montgomery Ward d Co ., Incorporated, 90 NLRB 009.