Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 188 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL 4,
MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 7-RC-961, 962, 964.Decided November 21, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold L. Hudson,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of the following
employees at the Employer's Monroe plant : Machine repairmen,
hydraulic maintenance and repairmen, electricians, pipe and steam
fitters, welders, tinsmiths, painters, carpenters, brick layers, mill-
wrights, tool and die room employees, and powerhouse employees.2
The Employer and the Intervenor, International Union, United Au-
tomobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW-CIO), contend inter alia that the proposed units ate
inappropriate.
1 The Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petitions on the ground , inter atia, that the
units sought are inappropriate, is hereby granted for the reasons set forth in paragraph
numbered 4, infra.
2 In the alternative, the Petitioner is prepared to accept a single unit of all maintenance
department employees, plus separate units of employees in the tool and die room, and
the powerhouse.
92 NLRB No. 44.
188
01
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 189
Since 1941, the Employer and the Intervenor have bargained col-
lectively on an employer-wide basis. Among the plants covered by
collective bargaining agreements have been two parts manufacturing
plants located respectively at Flat Rock, Michigan, and Hamilton',,
Ohio. For some time the Employer has considered both plants obso-
lete. In November 1949 it purchased a new plant at Monroe, Michigan,,
which is located about 13 miles from Flat Rock and 240 miles from
Hamilton, to replace the Flat Rock and Hamilton plants. Since the
spring of 1950, the Employer has been engaged in transferring the
operations of both. old plants to the new plant.' The transfer is
expected to be completed by December 1, 1950, at which time operations
at both old plants will have been discontinued.
The transplanting of operations from Flat Rock and Hamilton
to Monroe will result in the transfer of all machinery, except that
which is obsolete and will be replaced by more modern equipment,
from the old plants to the new plant. All operations at Monroe
will be identical with those formerly performed at Flat Rock and
Hamilton, except that a new die-casting operation will be-used to
manufacture a part formerly produced by stamping'
The shift from Flat Rock and Hamilton to Monroe will result in
an increase in work force. However, all employees at Flat Rock have
been or will be transferred to Monroe. Those still at Flat Rock are
carried on the Monroe payroll. Employees at Hamilton- have been
offered transfers to Monroe .5 The plant-manager at Monroe is super-
vising the closing operations of both Flat Rock and Hamilton. All
supervisors at Flat Rock and 75 percent of those at Hamilton will be'
transferred to Monroe. The three plants are all under the supervision
of the general manager of the Employer's parts and equipment
manufacturing divisions.
The Employer's contract with the Intervenor provides that the em-
ployees of any new manufacturing plant shall be covered by the
existing contract if the Intervenor proves that it represents a
majority of employees in such unit. However, neither the Employer
nor the Intervenor regards the Monroe plant as a new operation within
the meaning of this section. Both consider it only as a transferred
operation, just as they have similarly considered comparable consoli-
'A small tractor part manufacturing operation now carried on at Hamilton is being
transferred to the Employer ' s tractor plant at Highland Park , Michigan , instead of to
Monroe.
4 By February 1, 1951, the Employer also expects to transfer to Monroe a small hub
cap operation now carried on at the Rouge plant.
5 It is uncertain how many Hamilton employees will take advantage of this offer , because
of the distance between Hamilton and Monroe and the fact that the Employer has agreed
to place any Hamilton employees meeting its - requirements in a new plant now being
built in Cincinnati , only a few miles from Hamilton.
929979-51-vol. 92-14
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dations and transfers at other plants of the Employer. Consequently,
the Employer has recognized the Intervenor from the beginning as the
bargaining representative of the Monroe production and maintenance
employees. It has also extended recognition to the guards' union at
Flat Rock as the statutory representative of guards at Monroe.
The Monroe plant represents the consolidation of the operations,
though with some expansion, of two plants whose employees have been
covered by the employer-wide contracts between the Employer and
the Intervenor. In view of the transfer to the Monroe plant from the
older plants of practically all operations, most supervisors, and a
substantial number of employees, we hold, as do the contracting par-
ties, that the Monroe plant represents little more than the Flat Rock
and Hamilton plants transferred to a new location.' It follows
therefore that the employees at Monroe are included in the employer-
wide unit which has been represented by the Intervenor since 1941.
In these circumstances, we find that the proposed units limited to only
one plant of the Employer are, regardless of any other circumstance,
inappropriate.? Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein be, and they
hereby are , dismissed.
Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 131.
I Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 83 NLRB 167. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the 1949 contract, whose original termination date was 1952, is a bar. This
contention is rejected because the 1949 contract has been reopened and modified in a way
which went beyond the reopening clause of that contract.