Dodge San LeandroDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 2, 194880 N.L.R.B. 1031 (N.L.R.B. 1948) Copy Citation In the Matter of DODGE SAN LEANDRO PLANT, EMPLOYER and LOCAL UNION 595, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case Nos. 20-RC-219 and 20-RC-1256.-Decided December 2, 1948 DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-219, herein called the IBEW, seeks a unit of maintenance electricians in the Employer's newly es- tablished Dodge assembly plant at San Leandro, California. The Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-256, herein called the UAW, seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees, excluding pro- fessional, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors. In- ternational Association of Machinists and its subordinate District Lodge 115, herein called the IAM, seeks a unit of maintenance em- * Cllairman Herzog and Members Gray and Reynolds. 80 N. L. R. B., No. 154. 1031 1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees excluding maintenance electricians. In the event, however, that the Board finds that a separate unit of maintenance electricians is inappropriate, the IAM wishes them to be included in the mainte- nance department unit which it seeks. The Employer takes no posi- tion as to the proposed units. The facts in the instant case are substantially similar to those de- scribed in the recent Ford case., As in that case, all machinery and tools in the Employer's plant are electrically operated. The princi- pal function of the maintenance electricians, as well as that of other skilled crafts in the maintenance department, is to keep the highly integrated assembly lines in constant operation. For the reasons stated in the Ford case, we believe that the main- tenance electricians should be included with other production and maintenance employees in a plant-wide unit. We therefore find that the proposed separate unit of maintenance electricians is inappropri- ate, and shall dismiss the petition filed by the IBEW.2 The same considerations lead us to find that the maintenance unit, composed of employees who for the most part work on the assembly lines, re- quested by the IAM is also inappropriate. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's plant at San Leandro, California, excluding professional, con- fidential, office, clerical and salaried employees, watchmen, guards, timekeepers, foremen, assistant foremen and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been I Matter of Ford Motor Company (Maywood Plant ), 78 N. L. R. B. 887. 2 Matter of General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division-Van Nuys Plant, 79 N. L. R. B. 341. DODGE SAN LEANDRO PLANT 1033 rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex- cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, by International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 20-RC-219 by Local Union 595, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting in part : Although, as indicated by my dissent in the Ford case,3 I am not in agreement with my colleagues as to the wisdom of the doctrine enunciated therein that electricians who regularly and repetitively perform repairs on assembly line equipment are so integrated in the production process as to preclude them from separate representation, I nevertheless deem myself bound by the majority decision in that case. Accordingly, since I can find no reasonable basis for distin- guishing the functions of the maintenance electricians in the instant case from those of the electricians in the Ford case, I am compelled to concur in the conclusion reached by the majority of the Board as to the present applicability of the afore-mentioned doctrine to the electricians involved herein. I am of the opinion, however, that the denial to the remaining maintenance employees of an opportunity to bargain in a separate unit is an unwarranted extension of the Ford doctrine. The present decision in effect would preclude employees in assembly line plants generally from separate craft representation. I am unable to sub- scribe to this view. It should be noted that in the Ford case, as well as in other Board decisions which have relied upon the principle established in that case,4 assembly lines have been involved in which the sole source of power was electricity and the successful operation of the particular plant was entirely dependent upon the proper and continuous functioning of the electrical equipment. This fact affords at least some basis for finding that the electricians are so indispen- sably integrated in the production process that they are in effect quasi- production employees. But it does not follow that the other main- tenance employees share a similar degree of integration. In view of the foregoing, I cannot join in so much of this decision as holds that the maintenance employees, excluding the electricians, 8 See footnote 1, supra. I See footnote 2, supra, and the instant case. 1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD do not constitute an appropriate single unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. The record reveals that the maintenance em- ployees have separate headquarters, work under separate supervision and that a clear line of demarcation exists between their duties and functions and those of the production workers. The production employees do not perform maintenance work and none of the main- tenance employees do production work. While there have been transfers of employees between the production and maintenance departments on a permanent basis, there is no temporary interchange of employees except in cases of emergency. Thus, the unit sought by the IAM is fundamentally a departmental unit, homogeneous in character, with a craft nucleus of maintenance employees, and clearly distinguishable from the production workers. The fact that the elec- tricians are excluded does not in my opinion alter the general charac- ter of the unit. The Board has in the past accorded such a group separate representation.' Because of the fact that a new plant is involved in this proceeding, and there is therefore no valid collective bargaining history covering the employees concerned, I would allow these maintenance employees an opportunity to express their desires as to representation in a self-determination election. 5 Matter of Southern Fertilizer t Chemical Company, 73 N. L. R B. 100; Matter of General Electric Company, 71 N. L. R. B . 1192; Matter of Electric Metallurgical Com- pany, 56 N. L . R. B. 1464. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation