Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 365 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 18-R-1307.--4)ecided October 19, 1945
Mr. Philip L. Hogan, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Illr. George Rogers, of Muskegon Heights, Mich., and dlr. Swen G.
Erickson, of L'Anse, Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Herman Goldberg, 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 Workers of America; A . F. of L., herein called th(^ Union , alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen conce'ruing the repre-
sentation of employees of Ford Motor Company., L'l,'Vnse, Michigan)
herein called the Company , the National Labor Relati\ns Board p°o-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice befor PStephen M.
Reynolds, Trial Examiner . The hearing was held at A6cWht i,
Michigan , on July 13, 1045. The Company and the Union appeared,
participated , aid were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross -examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bear-
ing 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 opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, having its principal
offices at Detroit, Michigan, operates three plants located at L'Anse,
Alberta, and Pequaming, Michigan, where it is ordinarily engaged in
the manufacture of lumber. The Company annually obtains logs,
valued at approximately $1,000,000, from its timber holdings and
64 N. L. R. B, No. 67.
365
366 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
through purchases from "outside sources." Practically all the logs
are cut from timber located in the State of Michigan, however, a small
amount is obtained from States other than the State of Michigan.
Of the Company's annual sales of lumber, amounting in value to
$1,250,000, about 25 percent is shipped to points outside the State of
Michigan. It appears that a substantial amount of the lumber is
shipped to the Company's plants at Dearborn, Michigan, where it is
used in the manufacture of automobiles; a small percentage is dis-
posed of on the commercial market.
The Company concedes that its L'Anse ,and Alberta plants, which
are presently manufacturing lumber, are engaged in interstate com-
merce. It contends, however, that the Pequaming plant is not subject
to the Board's jurisdiction, inasmuch as that plant has not been oper-
ati ig productively since the fall of 19421 This contention lacks merit.
Although the Pequaming plant is not now engaged in any manufac-
turing operations, O e Company maintains at this plant a force com-
posed of firemen f maintenance employees, and plant-protection
employees.' We perceive no reason to regard, the Pequaming plant's
present operatior)ls, though they are unproductive, as separate and,
distinct from th operations of the Company's L'Anse and Alberta
plants, which are admittedly engaged in iri erstate commerce. The
Union seeks to r `represent in a single unit the glafit-protection employ-
ees of th9 Peq aming plant together with the plant-protection per-
sonnel of the Cher two plants. Apart from the jurisdictional issue
the Compai2 y raises, it agrees that the scope of this unit is proper.
Aih khrree plants normally manufacture the same product, are located
in the same vicinity, are supervised by a single manager and his assist-
ant, and apparently constitute one operating uIiit. The Board's jur-
isdiction over the Pequaming plant cannot properly be determined
by regarding that plant in isolation; it must be viewed as part of the
Company's lumber manufacturing business in the L'Anse-Alberta-
Pequaming area.3 So regarded, the Board's jurisdiction over the
Pequaming plant is plain.4 And it is obvious that a labor dispute
involving the plant-protection employees at Pequaming might easily
lead. to sympathetic strikes and other industrial disturbances among
the employees of the Company's L'Anse and Alberta plants. Thus,
' The manager of all three of the Company ' s lumber manufacturing plants testified that
he did not know it the Pequaming plant would be placed on a pioducing basis in the future
2 The duties of the plant-protection employees are set forth in Section IV The firemen
maintain electric light service and water service for the Pequaming plant The record
does not disclose the duties of the maintenance employees It appears that all of these
groups service not only the Pequaming plant , but also the Company's village at Pequaming
s That the Company is generally engaged in interstate commerce cannot be disputed.
See, e. g, the following Ford Motor Company cases • 30 N L . R B. 985, 988 , 35 N L. R B
1082, 1084 ; 45 N. L. R B. 70 , 71; 47 N. L. R. B . 209, 210 ; 54 N. L R B. 82 ; 57 N. L. It. B.
1814, 1823 ; 58 N. L. it. B. 1535, 1536. '
4 See Virginia Electric and Power Company v. N. L. R. B , 115 F. (2d) 414, 415, 416
(C. C. A. 4), aff'd 314 U. S. 469; .N. L. R. B. v. Schmidt Baking Co ., Inc, 122 F. (2d)
162, 163 (C. C. A. 4).
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 367
the Pequaming plant's operations can fairly be said to affect inter-
state coininerce, and we so find.6
We find that the operations of the Company's L'Anse, Alberta, and
Pequaming plants affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Union until it is certified
by the Board.
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 in the unit hereinafter found to be
appropriate.6
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 parties are in agreement that all plant-protection employees of
the Company's Alberta, Pequaming, and L'Anse, Michigan, plants,
exclusive of supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit.
The parties are in disagreement, however, with reference to the inclu-
sion or exclusion of captain-leader, captains, and relief-captains,' the
Company desiring their exclusion on the ground that they are super-
visory employees, and the Union contending that their status is such
as to justify their inclusions.
The record -discloses that there are the following plant-protection
employees at the three plants : three gatemen, nine patrolmen, one
captain-leader, and seven captains. All four classifications are
employed at the L'Anse plant; at the Alberta plant there are only
patrolmen, and at the Pequaming plant there are only captains.'
It is not disputed that all plant-protection employees are under the
supervision of the manager and assistant manager of all three plants.9
See Virginia Electric and Power Company, supra ; and Schmidt Baking Co , Inc., supra.
s The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 20 authorization cards, and
that there were 20 employees within the alleged appropriate unit.
I There is no classification of relief-captain, as such. On occasion, however, plant-pro-
tection employees substitute for the captains
8 The record discloses the following, L'Anse-three gatemen, six patrolmen, one cap-
tain-leader, three captains Alberta-three patrolmen Peguamting-four captains.
9 The Union specifically asked for the exclusion of the chief of the plant-protection de-
partment The record discloses that although the Company does not maintain such a classi-
fication, the manager considers himself in that category. There is some testimony by a
captain that he regards the assistant manager as being the "plant -protection chief."
-368 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The plant-protection employees are neither militarized nor uniformed;
some hear arms.
Insofar as the captains at Pequaming are concerned, the record
reveals, and the Company admits in its brief, that they do not have
supervision over any employees. Their duties consist of making the
rounds of the plant and the Company's village. The Company con-
tends that, because these employees are charged with full respon-
sibility for its property, they should be excluded from the unit. We
are of the opinion,, however, that these employees do not exercise
supervisory or managerial functions; accordingly, ve shall include
them within the unit.
At the L'Anse plant, which is operated on three shifts, there is a
captain assigned to each shift. The record discloses that the captains,
sometimes referred to as desk-captains, sit at a desk in the plant-pro-
tection department's headquarters. In the performance of their
duties they follow printed instructions prepared by the manager or
assistant manager. It appears that they are in charge of the depart-
ment and that they transmit orders to the employees on their respec-
tive shifts, which they receive from the manager or assistant manager.
The captains assign the plant-protection personnel to various jobs
-when necessary ; however, they infrequently instruct them, since the
plant-protection employees follow printed instructions prepared by
the manager or assistant manager. The Company's contention that
the captains have the power to make effective recommendations with
respect to hiring, discharging; and disciplining plant-protection em-
ployees is not borne out by the record. No instance is revealed where
such recommendations were actually made-
There is credible testimony by a captain assigned to the L'Anse
plant that he did not consider that he had any supervisory authority;
that he had never made any recommendations regarding the status,of
.any plant-protection employees; and that he had never been told that
he had such authority.10 There was also testimony by a plant-pro-
tection employee who substitutes for captains on occasion that in cases
warranting disciplinary action he would consider it his duty to com-
municate with the manager for instructions. On the basis of the entire
record, we are of the opinion that the authority exercised by the cap-
tains is not of such nature as to warrant their exclusion as supervisory
employees. We shall therefore include them in the unit. Likewise,
"The manager testified that he had never instructed the captains either in writing or
orally that they had the authority to make such recommendations The manager's testi-
mony that "in a general way * * * when hiring plant-protection personnel he would
look for recommendations from the plant -protection department and most likely R ould
contact the captain," does not, in our opinion, indicate that power to make such recom-
mendations has been vested in the captains , or that such recommendations when made,
-would be given effective weight.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 369
we shall include all patrolmen at L'Anse who substitute for captains
on occasion.
The captain-leader works on the second shift, which appears to
be the busiest part of the day, at both the L'Anse and Alberta plants.',
It also appears that he travels occasionally from L'Anse to the other
two plants, and at times assists the captains. At times he transmits
to the captains orders which he receives from the manager. His rate
of pay is 5 cents per hour higher than that of the captains, and 10
cents per hour higher than that of the remaining plant-protection
employees. As in the case of the captains at L'Anse, there is no con-
vincing evidence that the captain-leader is vested with or exercises
the power to recommend effectively the hire, discharge, or discipline
of employees. We shall, therefore, include him in the unit.
We find that all plant-protection employees of the Company's
Alberta, Pequaming, and L'Anse, Michigan, plants, including the
captain-leader, captains, and employees who substitute for captains,
but excluding the manager and assistant manager, and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
Iecommend 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 Or 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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as a part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Ford Motor Com-
pany, L'Anse, Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
cf this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eighteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the em-
He is carried on the pay roll of the L'Anse plant.
670417-46-vol. 64-25
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees 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 the election, to deter-
mine whether or not they desire to be represented by International
Union, United Automobile Workers of America, A. F. of L., for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.