Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1312 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work on weekends. Accordingly, in keeping with our usual practice,
we shall include these regular part-time employees in the unit 10
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's El
Segundo, California, plant, including the regular part-time employ-
ees, shipping and receiving employees, and truckdrivers, but excluding
office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
10 Montgomery Ward & Co , 110 NLRB 256 at 258
Chrysler Corporation (Ohio Stamping Plant ) and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 821, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 8-RC-302L January 14, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. R. Griesbach, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free'from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.1
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkinsj.
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.' The petitioner seeks a maintenance unit 'including powerhouse
employees, at the, Employer's new Twinsburg, Ohio, plant. The
Employer and the Intervenor move'to dismiss the petition on the
grounds of contract bar. The current multiplant 'contract between
the Employer, and the Intervenor, executed September' 1955, effective
to June 1, 1958, covers the production and maintenance employees at
a number of the Employer's plants located in several States, including
the three plants in Detroit where stamping operations are conducted.
1lnternational onion, United Automobile, `Aircraft & Agricultural Implementworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, the ]Intervenor , requested oral argument The request is hereby
denied because the record and the briefs adequately present the-issues and positions of
the parties
119 NLRB No 156
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1313
By the supplemental agreement of March 7, 1957, the September 1955
contract was made applicable to the Twinsburg plant, which was non-
existent in September 1955. This plant, located in the Cleveland area
over 200 miles away from Detroit, had been recently built with a view
to combining all Detroit stamping operations into a single plant and
to producing new parts heretofore not made by the Employer. Some
personnel and dies were to be transferred. Hiring began in December
1956. On March 7, 1957, the date of the supplemental agreement, the
Employer had but 50 maintenance employees in 12 to 15 classifications,
cone of whom were transferees from the Detroit operations. There
were no production employees at the new plant and production only
started limitedly 3 months later, days before the petition herein was
filed on June 10. By July 19, the time of the hearing, while 108 out
of 110 production employees in 9 categories were transferees from
Detroit, 140 or most of the 160 maintenance employees in 23 classifi-
cations at the new plant were newly hired. In addition, many super-
visors were newly hired from the outside. The Employer anticipates
a total maintenance personnel of approximately 500 in 27 or 28 classi-
fications, and several hundred production employees in 13 to 14 classi-
fications. The new plan appears to be operated autonomously under
local supervision and there is no evidence of employee interchange
with other plants. Under these circumstances, we find that the Twins-
burg plant, located more than 200 miles away from Detroit, is a new
operation and not an accretion or a mere transfer, and that the Sep-
tember 1955 contract executed when the plant was nonexistent is not
a bar to an election at this plant.' Nor is the March 7 supplemental
contract a bar because it was executed when the Employer had no
production employees and but only 50 newly hired maintenance
employees in 12 to 15 classifications who did not constitute a substan-
tial and representative segment of the employees at the time of the
hearing nor of the anticipated complement.' Accordingly, we find
that a 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of maintenance employees
including powerhouse employees at the Twinsburg plant. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor move to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the unit is inappropriate because multiplant bargaining history
prevents the establishment and severance of a single plant maintenance
unit. These motions are denied for the following reasons.
. 'United States Rubber Company, 109 NLRB 1293; Sorivner Stevens Company, 104
NLRB 506.
8 Consolidated Cement Corporation, 117 NLRB 492; General Motors Corporation. 111
NLRB 841, 843-844.
476321-58-vol. 119-84
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As indicated above, the Intervenor is currently the bargaining rep-
resentative for the production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at various plants under an existing multiplant contract exe-
cuted in September 1955 when the Twinsburg plant was nonexistent.
The Employer began hiring at its new plant in December 1956 and
the parties, by supplemental agreement of March 7, 1957, applied the
multiplant contract to the Twinsburg plant employees. At that time
the Employer had no production employees or production operations,
but an insubstantial and unrepresentative number of employees. Fur-
ther, as of June 10, when the petition herein was filed, there was a
bargaining history of only 3 months and, in addition, it did not cover
powerhouse employees who were specifically excluded from the cover-
age of the contract. In these circumstances, we find that such a brief
and ineffective bargaining history on a multiplant basis is not de-
terminative of the unit question with respect to the Twinsburg plant
and does not prevent the establishment of a unit limited to such a
plant.4 As stated above, the Twinsburg plant, located more than
200 miles from the Detroit plants, is autonomously operated under local
supervision and has no interchange with other plants. In these cir-
cumstances, particularly in view of the lack of effective bargaining
history and the geographical separation from the Detroit plants, we
find that a unit limited to the Twinsburg plant is appropriate.5
V\Tith respect to the severance argument, as the record establishes
that the bargaining history herein at the Twinsburg plant was brief,
ineffective, and not controlling, we find that the Petitioner's request,
rather than for severance, is for a maintenance unit where, in effect,
there is no bargaining history on a broader basis e Accordingly, such
bargaining history does not prevent the establishment of a mainte-
nance unit. The maintenance employees at Twinsburg, in such cate-
gories as repairmen of various types, welder, electrician, carpenter,
crane operator, pipefitter, sheet metal worker, millwright, boring mill
operator, tool- and die-maker, boiler operator, janitor and others,
under separate supervision, perform typical maintenance functions
consisting of repair, installation, and boiler work. They are a multi-
craft group who essentially have interests in common with one an-
other, distinct from those of production employees. Such interests in
common are sufficient to warrant their establishment in a unit separate
from production employees, and, in the absence of effective bargaining
4 Rayette, Inc. and Raymond Laboratories, Incorporated, 117 NLRB 1399 ; Wells Cargo
Inc., 116 NLRB 1248; Zip-O-Log Veneer, Inc., 112 NLRB 1303; Mock, Judson, Voehringer
Company of North Carolina, Inc., 110 NLRB 437.
5 Rayette, Inc. and Raymond Laboratories , Incorporated, supra; Zip -O-Log Veneer, Inc.,
supra.
a Shell Oil Company, 116 NLRB 203, 206; Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of North
Carolina, Inc., supra, 441. Contrary to the Employer, the traditional union test is not
applicable to nonseverance cases. Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 518, 521.
BERKLEY FEED CORPORATION 1315
history on a broader basis, we find that such a unit of maintenance
employees, including powerhouse employees, is appropriate.'
We therefore find that all maintenance employees, including power-
house employees, crane operators and diemakers,8 of the Employer at
its Twinsburg, Ohio, stamping plant, but excluding all other em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7E. I. du Pont de Nenours and Company (Dana Plant), 117 NLRB 1048; Olin Mathie-
son Chemical Corporation, 117 NLRB 1441, 1445; Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB
1328. Cf. Duval Sulphur C Potash Co., 116 NLRB 1073, distinguishable on the ground
that the Board had previously certified that maintenance employees could be bargained for
as part of the production and maintenance unit.
The Employer contends on the authority of Duval Sulphur & Potash Company, 107
NLRB 1002, that crane operators and diemakers are an integral part of the production
operations and should be excluded from the maintenance unit found appropriate herein.
We find no merit in this contention because, as indicated in footnote 5, p. 1003 of that
decision , the hoistmen or crane operators were excluded from the production unit.
Berkley Feed Corporation and Local #49, International Chemi-
cal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Carva Food Corporation and Local #49, International Chemical
Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 5-RC-2353
and 5-RC-3372. January 14, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Sidney Smith, hearing 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Berkley Feed Corporation and Carva Food Corporation are
each engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Berkley Feed Corporation is a Virginia corporation engaged
in a number of operations in Virginia and North Carolina. These
include a feed manufacturing plant, a seed processing plant or depart-
119 NLRB No. 158.