Packard Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 324 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AuTomoBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA , UAW-CIO, LOCAL 190
Case No. 7-R-1809.Decided January 31, 1945
Mr. David Karasick, for the Board.
Mr. Carl R. Binns, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Messrs. Maurice Sugar and Jack N. Tucker, by Mr. Jack N. Tucker,
of Detroit, Mich., for the Union.
Miss Ruth E. Blie field, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW-CIO, Local 190, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Packard Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Walter Wilbur, Trial
Examiner . Said hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on November
21, 22, 24, 25, 27, and 28, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared
and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues.
At the beginning of the hearing the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the petition on the ground that the Union is estopped and
debarred from seeking to represent the employees petitioned for
herein because of a clause in its contracts with the Company relating
to production, maintenance, and technical employees which states
that the Union will not accept for membership. certain classes of
employees. For the reasons set forth in Section III and IV, below,
this motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to, file briefs with the Board-.
60 N. L . R. B., No. 66. -
324
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 325
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Packard Motor Car Company is a Michigan corporation with its
principal place of business at Detroit, Michigan. Only the Detroit
plants of the Company are involved in this proceeding. The present
production of the Company consists'almost entirely of the manufac-
ture of munitions for the armed services. The Company uses raw
materials in the manufacturing processes amounting to over $5,000,000,
over 50 percent of which is - shipped to the Company from sources
outside the State of Michigan. Finished products amount to an
annual dollar value in excess of $5,000,000, approximately 90 percent
of which is shipped to points outside the State of Michigan.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, Local 190, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 28, 1944, the Union requested the Company, by letter, that
it be recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain
salaried employees of the Company. The Company, by letter of July
14, 1944, refused to comply with this request, and the Union thereupon
filed the petition in this proceeding.
The Company is presently operating under collective bargaining
agreements with the Union covering production and maintenance em-
ployees, and technical employees. Each of these agreements contains
the provision that "The Union will not accept for membership direct
representatives of the management, such as superintendents, foremen,
or supervisors in charge of any class of labor, time study men, ...,
confidential clerks, and salaried employees." The Company contends
that the Union is bound by this provision and is thereby 'estopped
from seeking to represent the employees presently petitioned for.
This contention was advanced by the Company in a previous case
and was there found untenable." We adhere to our view that em-
i Matter of Packard Motor Car Company , 47 N. L. R. B 932 ; see also Matter of Briggs
Manufacturing Company , 49 N. L . R. B. 57 ; Matter of Federal Motor Truck Company,
50 N. L . R. B. 214.
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees may not be denied the privilege of selecting a particular labor
organization as their representative because that organization has
agreed in a contract with their employer not to represent them, since,
in our opinion, such a contractual provision contravenes the express
purpose and policy of the Act. The Company's motion to dismiss the
petition because of this clause in its contract with the Union is
therefore denied.
A statement of "a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
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 petitions for a unit consisting of all employees of the
Company at its Detroit, Michigan, plants, except those in the units
covered by the contracts between the Union and the Company, dated
October 7, 1942,3 and March 2, 19444 plant ' protection employees,
nurses,5 and supervisory employees. This would comprise clerical
workers and certain technical employees not otherwise covered by
collective bargaining contracts. At the hearing the Union and the
Company agreed that the employees listed in Appendix A, whose titles
indicate that they are confidential employees, should be excluded.
Subject to the contentions stated in its motion to dismiss the petition,
and its objection to the inclusion of technical employees, hereinafter
discussed, the Company agrees that the unit thus delineated is appro-
priate for bargaining. The Company, however, contends, as one of
the bases for its motion to dismiss, that there is a wide dissimilarity
of interest between the employees included in the other units repre-
sented by the Union and the employees petitioned for herein, and it
argues that, although separate units would ostensibly be established,
the petition seeks, in effect, to combine clerical and technical employees
in the same unit with the production and maintenance workers. For
3 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 625 authorization cards, 473
of which bore the signatures of persons appearing on the Company's pay roll of September
22, 1944, which contained the names of 1,454 employees in the appropriate unit ; and that
1 card was dated June 21, 1944, 61 were dated November 17, 1944, 1 card was dated
November 20, 1944, and the rest were undated. The number of employees in the unit was
changed by the agreements of the parties at the hearing, since the unit as stipulated upon
at the hearing includes approximately 1,200 employees.
This contract covers production and maintenance employees.
This contract covers certain technical employees. See Matter of Packard Motor Car
Company, 53 N. L R B. 875.
Local 114 of the Union's parent organization, has a contract with the Company covering
plant protection employees and Local 889 has a contract covering nurses.
PACKARD MOTOR.-CAR COMPANY - - 327
the reasons stated in a number of other cases, we find this contention
to be without merit 6
The Company further contends that the proposed unit is a catch-
all, combining heterogeneous classifications of workers having no
common functional characteristics, working conditions,- or bases of
compensation. The Union, in seeking to include technical and cleri-
cal employees in the same unit, in spite of the fact that there is an
already established technical unit, urges that the proposed unit be
deemed appropriate since it is a true residual group, including.all
employees of the Company not presently included in any of the other-
already established bargaining units.
The proposed unit includes approximately 1,200 employees, of which
number 138 are listed as professional and technical employees. The
technical and professional employees include production engineers,
test engineers, service engineer analysts, professional and non-pro-
fessional employees in the metallurgical department, editors of techni-
cal publications, mechanical illustrators, project engineers, and math-
ematicians employed in the engineering departments. The remaining
employees are described in stipulations of the parties as clerical em-
ployees which apparently includes clerks, typists, stenographers,
comptometer operators, I. B. M. operators, and miscellaneous office
and clerical employees.
It is apparent from the stipulations of the parties concerning the
duties of the 138 technical and professional employees that their
qualifications, functions and interests differ greatly from those of the
clerical employees. Since there is an already established unit of
technical employees whose functions are more closely related to those
of the technical employees involved herein, the inclusion of these em-
ployees in the unit consisting, in main, of clericals would create an
anomalous situation. Such a determination might also place the
technical employees in the position of being a minority group com-
mitted to bargain through a dominant majority which has wholly
divergent interests. Accordingly, we shall exclude the technical em-
ployees from the unit, herein found appropriate, and we shall not
direct an election among them, since the question whether they may
properly be included in the already established technical unit cannot
be determined on this-record. This action will not preclude the right
of the Union to file a new petition regarding these employees.
It appears that the clerical employees constitute a homogeneous
group, with similar working conditions, functions and interests and
may properly constitute a separate bargaining unit.
6 See Matter of Drove Corporation , 52 N L. R B 322 ; Matter of Packard Motor Car
Company, 53 N L. R. B. 875.
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all salaried employees of the Company, excluding all
employees in the units covered by the contracts between the Union
and the Company dated October 7, 1942, and March 2, 1944, the
employees listed in Appendix A, plant protection employees, nurses,
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, and further excluding
the employees listed in Appendix B, 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 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 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Packard Motor
Car Company, Detroit, Michigan, 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 Seventh 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, Regulations, 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 the 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 any who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, Local 190, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 329
APPENDIX A
(Employees excluded from the unit by stipulation of the parties)
1. All employees on the executive pay roll.
2. All employees on the exempt pay roll, except (a) employees in De-
partment MAC, called Production Engineers in the "300" series;
(b) Department MAK, called Test Engineers; (c) Departments
MGJ and RGJ called Metallurgical Departments, and named
employees E. A. Weithoff, Gavin Blockwood, and Ellis Ekeroth.
3. Labor Relations Employees Department RL.
4. Personnel employees, Department RM, except clerks in foremen's
training school and employees in the "Work to Win" Department.
5. Time Study Department Employees, except clerks.
6. General ledger bookkeeping and overhead distribution sections in
the Account Department.
7. Secretaries to (a) Executives on the executive pay roll, (b) Divi-
sional Superintendents, and (c) Assistant Divisional Superin-
tendents.
8. Salary pay roll clerks (clerks'who make up salary pay rolls).
APPENDIX B
(Figures in parentheses indicate number presently employed)
1. Production engineers (17).
2. Test engineers (16).
3. Service engineer analysts (6).
4. Professional employees in metallurgical department (38).
5. Non-professional (technicals) employees in metallurgical depart-
ment (35).
6. Editors of technical publications (12).
7. Mechanical illustrators (8).
8. Project engineers.'(3) . rfa
9. Mathematicians in the engineering department (3).
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For reasons which I expressed in my dissenting opinions in Matter
of Packard Motor Car Company, 47 N. L. R. B. 932, and Matter of
Federal Motor Truck Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 984, I feel constrained
to disagree with the holding in the instant proceeding.