Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 606 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees "under circumstances which reasonably ap-
proximate equality."
We agree with the recommendation of the Regional Director.
The Board has repeatedly held that where an employer ad-
dresses its employees shortly before an election on company
time and property, and does not afford the union the opportunity,
when requested, to address the employees under the same
conditions, it is such an interference with the rights of the em-
ployees to self-organization, as to warrant setting the election
aside.2
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the electionheldon November
7, 1952, among the Employer's employees, be, and it hereby is,
set aside; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding be remanded
to the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard for the purpose of conducting a new election at such time
as he believes the circumstances permit a free choice of a
bargaining representative.
2Bernardin Bottle Cap Company, Inc., 97 NLRB 1559; Gastonia Weaving Company, 103
NLRB 1137.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and LOCAL
547, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
AFL, Petitioner
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT &
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
UAW -CIO, Petitioner
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS,
LOCAL 32, AFL, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 7-RC-2003, 7-RC-
2012, and 7-RC-2045. May 1, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed , consolidated hearings
were held before Emil L. Farkas and Herman Corenman,
hearing officers i The hearing officers ' rulings made at the
- i On January 12 and 13, 1953 , a hearing was held in Cases Nos . 2003 and 2012 on the
petitions of Local 547, International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL, herein called
Operating Engineers , and International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America , UAW-CIO, herein called UAW-CIO. On February 5, 1953,
pursuant to a petition filed by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local
32, AFL, herein called Firemen and Oilers , the Board ordered that the record be reopened
and that a further consolidated hearing be held on all three petitions . The reopened hearing
was held on February 17 and 18, 1953.
104 NLRB No. 87.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION, JET ENGINE PLANT 607
hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 2
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, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Operating Engineers seeks to represent a unit of
all the Employer's powerhouse employees including both the
hourly paid employees and the salaried steam engineers.
The Firemen and Oilers desires to represent a unit of all
the craft maintenance employees.' In the alternative it requests
10 separate units for as many craft groups employed in the
maintenance department. The UAW-CIO would represent a
production and maintenance unit, including the hourly paid
powerhouse employees and all the maintenance groups desired
by the Firemen and Oilers. The Employer contends that,
except for the powerhouse unit desired by the Operating
Engineers, the other petitions have been prematurely filed
and should be dismissed.
As the employees in the powerhouse group sought to be
represented by the Operating Engineers are separately located
and supervised, do not interchange with the other employees,
and are engaged in the customary work of their classification,
we shall permit them to express their desires in a separate
election.' The Employer and the UAW-CIO assert that the
salaried steam engineers shoula not be included in a unit
with the other powerhouse employees who are hourly rated.
They further contend that the salaried steam engineers should
be represented separately frbm all other employees. We find
no merit in this contention. The mode of payment alone is not
a sufficient ground for separating the salaried steam engineers
from the other powerhouse employees.s As these engineers
have no supervisory powers, and the record does not indicate
any other reason for their separationfrom the other employees
in the powerhouse where they are employed, we shall include
them in the powerhouse voting group.
At the hearing motions and cross - motions were made by all the parties to dismiss the
petitions filed herein . For reasons appearing in paragraphs numbered 4 and 5 , all motions
to dismiss are hereby denied.
3 The Firemen and Oilers in its petition sought to include the powerhouse employees in its
requested maintenance unit. At the hearing it amended its unit request to seek hourly paid
powerhouse employees in a unit separate from the maintenance employees . We affirm the
hearing officer's ruling refusing this union 's request to seek or participate in an election
in a separate powerhouse voting group for the reason that it made no showing of interest
among these employees.
4Goodyear Engineering Corporation, 100 NRLB 971.
5 International Harvester Co., 85 NLRB 1175.
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the maintenance unit requested by the Fire-
men and Oilers, the record indicates that in general this is
a _multicraft maintenance group6 such as the Board has found
may constitute a separate unit if they so desire, in the absence
of a controlling bargaining history.? We shall therefore permit
the maintenance employees to vote in a separate voting group.
We shall direct separate elections among the following
groups of employees at the Employer's plant near Detroit,
Michigan, excluding from each group all office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
Group (a), all powerhouse employees, including steam engi-
neers; group (t) ), all maintenance employees; and group (c), all
production employees.
If a majority of the employees in group (a) or (b) vote for the
labor organization seeking to represent such groups separately,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the
election is instructed to issue a certificate of representatives
to such labor organization or organizations for such unit or
units, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
In the event a majority of the employees in voting group (a)
or (b) vote for the UAW-CIO, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be represented by such union, and
if a majority of the employees in voting- group (c) also vote
for this labor organization, the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to such labor
organization for the broader unit, including therein the em-
ployees in all voting groups wherein a majority has voted for
such labor organization, which unit the Board under such
circumstances finds to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
5. As set forth above, the Employer contends that, except
for the petition for the powerhouse unit, the other petitions
herein have been prematurely filed and should be dismissed.
On June 29, 1951, the Employer agreed to build for the Navy
Department a jet engine plant at a location near Detroit,
Michigan, and to equip it with appropriate machinery. At about
the same time the Employer also agreed to manufacture for
the Navy Department its J-48 jet aircraft engine. Before the
plant was completed and before all its machinery had been
installed, on July 15, 1952, the Navy Department canceled
the contract for the manufacture of this engine because it had
become obsolete. However, it directed the Employer to proceed
with the completion of the plant and the installation of machinery
as originally planned, except such machines as had been
especially designed for the manufacture of the J-48 engine.
6 The crafts Included in this group are electricians , vehicle maintenance mechanics.
pipefitters , millwrights , carpenters , painters , sheet-metal workers, and welders, all of
whom are in the plant engineering division, and tool and die makers and machine repairmen
who are in the master mechanics division.
7 Goodyear Engineering Corporation, supra.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION. JET ENGINE PLANT 609
The Employer then obtained permission from the Navy
Department temporarily to use the plant for work on smaller
contracts, subject to the right of the Navy Department to
interrupt such work in the event of complete mobilization.
Pursuant to this arrangement, the Employer had obtained 5
subcontracts for aircraft parts by the time the first hearing
in these cases was held. At that time 2,463 machines, out of
3,943 ordered, had been delivered to the plant, of which 851
had been put in place, though on many of the machines that
were installed some work, such as adjustment of wiring, had
yet to be done before they would be ready for operation. Only
about 240 machines, however, were required for the perform-
ance of then existing subcontracts.
At the time of the first hearing in these cases, the Employer
had a total of 267 production and maintenance employees
consisting of 13 production workers, 107 tool, die, and main-
tenance employees, and 147 other nonproduction employees.
The Employer asserted that by the end of February 1953 it
would have 92 production employees and 361 maintenance
employees, or a total of 453. It also estimated that by the end
of March 1953 it would have 227 production employees and
429 maintenance employees, or a total of 656. The Employer
further estimated that by the end of June 1953 it would have
789 hourly rated production and maintenance employees.
At the time of the second hearing, on February 17 and 18,
1953, the Employer had obtained 2 additional contracts, and
employed 22 production employees, 147 employees in tool,
die, and maintenance classifications, and 174 other non-
production employees. The only modification in its estimates
that the Employer made at the time of the second hearing
consisted of a small reduction in the number of employees it
anticipated by the end of June 1953. Under revised estimates it
expected to have 747 employees by then.8
At the original hearing the Employer's witness conceded that
by the end of March 1953 the labor force would be fairly
representative of the number expected to be employed in June
1953, and that the extent of the Employer's force after that date
was largely speculative.
On the basis of the Employer's estimates, and as, in any
event, the ultimate anticipated further increase in employee
complement is speculative and dependent upon the type or
number of contracts for work in this plant that the Employer
may receive, we conclude that a representative force is
presently employed, and that no sufficient reason exists to
defer elections in the voting groups above described.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in
this volume.]
8This figure is broken down as follows : Production employees. 269; tool, die , and other
maintenance employees , 214; and other nonproduction employees 264.