Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 1215 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of CHRYSLER CORPORATION, NEW CASTLE DIVISION and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW-CIO
Case No. 9-R-1348.Decided April 12, 1944
Messrs. Rathbone , Perry, Kelly and Drye , by Mr. T. R. Iserman,
of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. John Bartee and Mr. Frank Moore , of Indianapolis , Ind., for
the Union.
Mr. Joseph W. Kulkis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
(UAW-CIO), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Chrysler Corporation, New Castle Division, New Castle, Indiana,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Allen Sin-
sheimer, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at New Castle,
Indiana, on March 21, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware corporation, having its principal
office at Detroit, Michigan, operates plants at Detroit, Hamtramck,
Warren Township, and Marysville, Michigan; New Castle, Evansville,
55 N. L. It. B., No. 220.
1215
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Kokomo, Indiana; Chicago, Illinois; and Los Angeles, California.
This proceeding is concerned solely with the plant known as the New
Castle, Indiana, plant. The Company is normally engaged in the
manufacture of automobiles, automobile parts and accessories, but is
engaged at present in the manufacture of munitions and military ve-
hicles for the United States Government. The major portion of raw
materials valued in excess of 1 million dollars a year, is shipped to
points outside the State of Indiana.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company's New Castle,
Indiana, plant.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter, dated January 26, 1944, the Union requested the Company
to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees within the alleged appropriate unit. On February 1, 1944, the
Company denied this request, replying in substance that the Union
could not properly represent the employees within the alleged appro-
priate unit, and that no evidence of the Union's claim to majority
representation had been submitted to the Company.
A statement of the Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees within the unit hereinafter found to be
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 contends that all timekeepers of the Company employed
at New Castle, Indiana, constitute an appropriate unit.
The duties of timekeepers involved herein are similar to time-
keepers generally. They watch and check the punching in and out
of time cards chiefly for the purpose of seeing that employees do not
i The report of the Field Examiner shows that the Union submitted 17 authorization
cards bearing apparently genuine signatures ; all 17 of the cards bear names appearing on
the February 23, 1944 , pay roll of the Company , which contains the names of 21 persons
within the alleged appropriate unit.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, NEW CASTLE DIVISION 1217
ring in or ring out for each other or for absentees. They go through
each department to see that employees are working in their proper jobs
or classification. They make out time records and reports, report ab-
sences, and distribute pay checks. Timekeepers have a separate de-
partment, which is physically separated from other departments.
They are hourly paid employees, wear distinct badges and work under
their own supervisor, the chief timekeeper. They have no supervisory
authority over other employees.
The Company contends that because of the nature of timekeepers'
duties, these employees constitute an "adjunct of management" and
therefore must be regarded as employers within the meaning and
purposes of the Act. So far as the record discloses, however, the
employees herein concerned are not charged with administrative
discretion nor is any degree of managerial authority delegated to
them. They perform their respective tasks under administrative
supervision according to precise instructions. We find nothing in
the record to justify identification of timekeepers as representatives
of management.2
On September 10, 1943, the Company and the Union entered into
an exclusive bargaining contract covering the production and main-
tenance employees at 15 divisions, including New Castle, with certain
specified exceptions. Timekeepers were expressly named among these
exceptions and thus excluded from coverage under the contract.
The Company contends that by the exclusion of the contract the
Union is precluded from seeking to bargain for the employees in
the proposed unit. While timekeepers are expressly excluded from
coverage in the present contract, such exclusion per se cannot pre-
, elude the Union, or 'any other Union, from representing these
employees as bargaining agent. We cannot construe the exclusion
provision to bar other employees of the Company from the right to
bargain collectively in appropriate units with their employer through
any bargaining agent whom they may desire to represent them.'
We find that the timekeepers constitute an appropriate bargaining
Unit .4
In the event a unit of timekeepers was found to be appropriate,
the parties agreed to the exclusion as supervisory employees the
chief timekeeper, Keesling, and his assistant, Kenneth C. Garriott,
2Matter of Bohn Aluinanum & Brass Corporation, 47 N L R B 1229; Matter of Inter-
continent Aircraft Corporation, 50 N. L R. B 99 As to the possibility of collusion be-
tween timekeepers and employees whose time they keep, adverted to by the Company in its
brief, see Matter of Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 55 N. L B B , No. 113, wherein the
Board stated that the remedy toi collusion lies implicitly in the power of the Company to
discipline and discharge employees
3 Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park, 44 N L R B 881.
4Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 46 N L R. B. 1160; Matter of Vuginia Electric
and Power Company, 49 N L. R. B. 1095 ; Matter of Intereantinent Aircraft Corporation,
50 N L R B. 99.
578129-44-vol. 55-78
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS -BOARD
who is classified as an "A" timekeeper. The Union, however, desires
the inclusion of Guy Jackson, also classified as an "A" timekeeper .5
The Company took no position with respect to him. The record
discloses that Jackson directs and instructs about 7 timekeepers, who
are assigned to their posts in the production department by the chief
timekeeper. Like Garriott, Jackson receives 5 cents an hour more
than the ordinary timekeepers; and according to uncontradicted
testimony in the record, has the authority to recommend hiring and
discharging. In view of the foregoing, we find that Jackson is a
supervisory employee within our usual definition. We shall, there-
fore, exclude the chief timekeeper and the "A" timekeepers from
the unit.
We find that all timekeepers employed at the Company's New
Castle, Indiana, plant, excluding the chief timekeeper, "A" time-
keepers'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, 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 means of an election by secret ballot among
the employees 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, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Chrysler Corpora-
tion, New Castle Division, New Castle, Indiana, 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 sub-
"At the time of the hearing Garriott and Jackson were the only timekeepers falling
within this classification.
6 The Union requested that it be designated on the ballot as "U. A. W.-C. I. 0." This
request is hereby granted
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, NEW CASTLE DIVISION 1219
ject 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 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 election, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by U. A. W.-
C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.