Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY, WILLOW RUN BOMBER PLANT
and UNITED PLANT PROTECTION & FIREMEN'S UNION OF AMERICA
Case No. R-4945.--Decided March 22,1943
Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question ; failure
to answer union's request for recognition ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : plant protection employees and
firemen of an aircraft manufacturer combined in 'a single unit although
only the plant-protection employees were civilian auxiliaries to the military
police, when their functions were sufficiently similar.
Mr. Frederick P. Mett, for the Board.
Mr. I. A. Capizzi and Mr. Clarence Donovan, of Detroit, Mich.,
'for the Company.
Mr. James R. Breakey, Jr., of Ypsilanti, Mich., for the Plant
Protection Union.
Mr. Frank N. MacLean, of Detroit, Mich., for the Protective
Workers.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Plant Protection &Firemen's
Union of America, herein called the Plant Protection Union, alleging.
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Willow Run Bomber Plant of Ford Motor
Company, Dearborn, Michigan, herein called the Company, the
Naional Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Horace A. Ruckel, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on February,24 and 25, 1943.
The Board, the Company, the Plant Protection Union, and United
Protective Workers of America, Local No. 5, herein called the Pro-
tective Workers, appeared, participated, and were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
48 N. L. R. B., No. 51.
413
I
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.' At the beginning of
the hearing the Company filed a written motion to dismiss the petition
on the grounds that (1) the subject matter is not within the jurisdic-
tion of the Board, (2) the Plant Protection Union is not a representa-
tive-of employees within the .meaning of the Act, (3) the alleged
unit is inappropriate, and (4) -the persons sought to be included in
the unit are persons acting in the interests of the Company and are
not employees within the meaning of the Act. The Trial Examiner
reserved ruling. For reasons hereinafter stated, the Company's
motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial- error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon, the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ford Motor Company is a Delaware corporation having its prin-
cipal executive offices at Dearborn, Michigan. Until February 1942
it was principally engaged in the manufacture, assembly,_sale, and
distribution bf automobiles and automobile' trucks and various types
of automobile parts and accessories. The Company owns, operates,
and maintains assembly plants in many States throughout the coun-.
try. Since February 1942, the Company has been and is now engaged
at all of its plants in Detroit, Highland Park, and Dearborn, Michi-
gan, and at its new plant, known as the Willow Run Bomber plant
situated near the city of Ypsilanti, Michigan, which is the plant
involved in this proceeding, principally in the manufacture and/or
.assembly of ordnance and other materials for the armed services of
the United States. The greater portion of materials used in the
manufacturing or assembly operation conducted 'in the Willow Run
Bomber plant are shipped to the plant from points outside the State
'Of Michigan, and the greater portion of the finished products are
shipped from-the plant to points outside the State of Michigan.
The company concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
1 During the hearing , the Protective workers moved for an adjournment , on the ground
that it had not been served with notice of hearing. The hearing was recessed from Feb-
ruary 24 to February 25. The Board , through its Regional Office , served notice of hearing
upon United Protective Workers of America, Local No. 1, but not on Local No. 5 of that
organization. Counsel for the Board stated at the hearing that the Regional Office had
no knowledge of the existence of Local No 5 Counsel for the Piotective workers admitted
having knowledge of pendency of hearing 2 days prior thereto.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 415
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Plant Protection & Firemen's Union of America and United
Protective Workers of America, Local No. 5,1 are unaffiliated labor
Organizations, admitting to membership employees, of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 28, 1942, the Plant Protection Union sent a letter to
the Company stating that it represented 80 percent 'of its plant-
protection employees and firemen and that it desired a conference to
discuss wages and working conditions. The Company made no reply
to the request.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the Plant Protection Union represents,a
substantial number of the employees'' in 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 Plant Protection Union contends that all plant-protection em-
ployees and firemen, exclusive of the superintendent, foremen, assistant
.foremen, and all,hourly rated employees constitute an appropriate
unit. The Protective Workers took no position with regard to the
unit. The Company contends that the unit sought by the Plant Pro-
z The Company introduced in evidence a contract with United Automobile , Aiicratt and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations , herein called the UAW-CIO, covering production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding , snter alia, plant -protection employees , in which the UAW-CIO in effect
agreed not to organize the plant-protection employees. The Company contends that the
Protective Workers is a "sham" organization created by the UAW-CIO to circumvent
the contract. Although afforded opportunity to do so, the Company adduced no eNidence
in support of this contention and we, -therefore, find it to be without merit.
3 For reasons stated in Section IV, infra. we find no merit in the contention that plant-
protection employees are not employees within the meaning of the Act.
4The Regional Director reported that the Plant Piotection Union submitted 554 cards,
as well as a ledger containing a iecord of dues payments Of the 554 cards presented,
501 bore the names of employees appearing on the Company's pay roll as of February 18,
1943 Of the 501 cards, 394 bole apparently genuine signatures ; 375 being dated between
December 2, 1942, and February 1, 1943; 19 being undated Of the 501 cards, 107 bore
handprinted signatures, 105 being dated between December 6, 1943, and January 28, 1943;
2 being undated. All of said 107 cards bore names appearing in the ledger , and opposite
such names these appeared entries indicating current payment of dues . The Company's
pay roll as of February 18, 1943, contained the names of 655 employees in the unit.
As heretofoie stated, upon motion of the Protective Workers the hearing was adjourned
from February 24 to February 25, 1943 Upon resumption of hearing, counsel for the
Protective Workers stated that he did not desiWto adduce any testimony and had not
had time to produce any membership cards. At the close of the hearing , an exhibit number
was reserved for any membeiship cards filed with the Regional Office before the close of
business , February 25, 1943 . However, no cards were filed. - -
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tection Union is not appropriate for the reasons set forth 'in its motion
to dismiss, and indicated that in the event the Board overruled its
motion, plant-protection employees and firemen should not be included
within the same unit.
The chief duties of the plant-protection employees are to guard the
Company's property, to check employees in and out of the plant, and
to enforce its rules. The duties of the firemen are to protect the prop-
erty of the Company against fire and to enforce safety provisions.
The two groups act in concert where the nature of the emergency
demands. - Both are uniformed, although only the plant-protection
employees are civilian auxiliaries to the military police. Each has
a, separate chief who is, however, responsible directly to the head of
the plant-protection department. While the two groups are carried
on separate pay rolls, their functions are sufficiently similar to warrant
including the plant-protection employees and firemen in the same unit.
The War Department has recently issued a directive order making
,plant-protection employees at plants producing war materials civilian
auxiliaries to the military police. The -directive order`, however, spe-
cifically preserves the essential employment relationship. The em-
ployer's right to discharge for cause remains, and hiring, compensation
for services performed, and general working conditions remain matters
to be adjusted between employer and employees.
The duties of the Company's, plant-protection employees at the
plant here involved are similar to those of the plant-protection em-
ployees at the Company's Dearborn plant.5 In that case we found,
as we have frequently found in other like' cases, that plant guards
hired and paid by the employer are employees within the meaning
of the Act and may designate a representative for,purposes of col-
lective bargaining, even though they are auxiliaries to the military
police.
For, reasons indicated in prior cases,'; we reject the contention of
the Company that plant-protection employees are too closely identi-
fied with management to be deemed employees within the meaning of
the Act.
We find that all plant-protection employees and firemen, employed
by the Company at its Willow Run Bomber Plant, excluding the
superintendent, foremen, assistant. foremen, and all hourly rated em-
ployees (other than firemen), constitute a unit appropriate for the
a See Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Protective Workers, Local 1, 45 N. L.
R. B 70.
See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant and Local 114, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the
'C. I. 0 , 44 N. L. R. B. 881; Matter of Ford Motor Company and United Protective Work-
ers, Local 1, 45 N. L R B. 70; and Matter of Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corpo-
ration and United Electrical , Radio it Machine Workers of America (CIO), 39 N. L. R. B.
1108, and cases cited therein. _
FORD MOfPOR -COMPANY 417
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
V. T8E 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 our Direction of Elec-
tion, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion. Since the Protective Workers has presented no evidence in
support of its claim of representation, we shall not accord it a place
on the ballot.
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 Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Willow Run
Bomber Plant of Ford Motor Company, Dearborn , 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 Rela-
tions Board , and subject to Article III, Section 10, 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 , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by United Plant Protection & Firemen's Union of America, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HousToN took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
0