General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1942

45 N.L.R.B. 11 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION', OLDSMOBILE DIVISION,
KANSAS CITY, Mo. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AIITOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT AND- AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. O.
Use No'. R-4180.-Decided October 22,•1942
Jurisdiction : ordnance manufacturing industry.,
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition until certified by the Board ; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and"maintenance em-
ployees and mechanical employees in engineering department shops at Com-
pany's forging and machining plants, with , specified exclusions ; bargaining
history upon a single-plant basis held not conclusive in view of changes pro-
duced by conversion of plants to war production.
Mr. Eugene Melson, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Board.
-Mr. Henry M. Hogan and Mr. Denton Jolly, of Detroit, Mich., for
the Company. - " - ' •
Mr, Maurice, Sugar and Mr. Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for
the C. I. O. -
Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Seymour J. Spelmnan, of counsel to the Board. -
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C.
I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
General Motors Corporation, Oldsmobile Division,' Kansas City, Mis-
souri,' herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Charles
E. Persons, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was.held in Kansas'City,
Missouri, on August 20, 1942. The Company, the C. I. O. and Inter-
1 The name of the Company appears as corrected at the hearing.
45 N L R B., No 3.
11
12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
national Union, United Automobile Workers of America, A. F. of L.,
herein called the A. F. of L., appeared, participated, and were -af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made - at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error -and are hereby affirmed. On September 1, the A. F. of L. re-
quested oral argument-before the Board. This request was denied. On
September 9, 12, and 14, respectively, the A. F. of L., the Company,,and
the C. I. O. filed briefs which have been considered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes' the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
. General Motor Corporation, a Delaware corporation having its prin-
cipal.office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan, has been en-
gaged in the business of the manufacture, distribution, and sale of
automobiles and related products. General Motors Corporation,-
Oldsmobile Division, has,-since March 1, 1942, maintained and oiler-
ated a factory at Kansas City, Missouri, for the production of shell
projectiles under-contract with the United States Army. A-substan-
tial portion of the raw materials used at the Kansas City, Missouri,
plant, is transported from States other than the State of Missouri
and a substantial portion of the finished products from' said plant
.is shipped to States other than the- State of Missouri. The Company
concedes that it is engaged in commerce within-the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial" Organizations, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
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
On January 9, 1942, the C. I. O. informed the Company that it
represented a majority of the Company's production and maintenance
employees at the Fisher Body plant in Kansas City, Missouri, and
requested recognition as their exclusive bargaining agent P The
As will appear in Section IV, iufra, the C' I. O. was then bargaining agent for the
Company's employees in the Chevrolet plant located within the same inclosure.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, OLDSMOBILE^ DIVISION 13'
Company stated' that- these employees were, covered in an existing
contract with the A. F'. of L. and refused to recognize the C. I. 0.
without certification by the Board.
'A statement of the Field Examiner , made a part of the record in
the case," shows that the C. I. 0. and A. F. of L. each' represents a
substantial number of the employees in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.4
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. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The C. I. 0. seeks to establish one over-all unit embracing all pro-
duction and maintenance employees in the Company's forging (former
New Car Conditioning) plant and in the machining (former Fisher
Body) . plant. The A. F. of L. contends that the employees in, each
of the two plants should constitute separate units and urges that the
petition should be dismissed. All parties are agreed as.tothe classifi-
cations of employees to be included in the unit or units.
Until February 1942, General Motors Corporation. was engaged in
the manufacture of automobiles at Kansas City, Missouri. Three
plants, located within one inclosure, were involved in this production-
the Fisher Body.plant, the Chevrolet plant, and the New Car Con-
ditioning plant. In addition, there was one office building, part of
which was devoted to Fisher Body and part to Chevrolet. The New
Car Conditioning plant and the Chevrolet plant were known collec-
tively as the Chevrolet area. The Chevrolet area plants and the Fisher
Body plant were administered by two different plant managers,
supervisory and clerical staffs, and constituted separate division of
3 The statement of the Field Examiner concerning representation ' claims of the C. I. 0.-
and the A .- F. of L . was based on a pay-roll check made after the hearing, but the parties
stipulated that it might be included in the record with the same effect as if it had been
offered and received as an exhibit at the hearing
4 The Field Examiner stated that he checked the complete membership records of the
C. I 0 and the A F of L against the Company' s pay roll of September 16, 1942. He
summarized his findings as follows
Member
Total ship in
em- UAW-AFL UAW-CIO both or- Neither
ployees ganiza-
tions -
Total plant ------------------------------- 1,427 711 879 1263 100
Machine ( Fisher) Plant a----------------- 1113 685 581 1246 93
Forging (New Car Conditioning) Plant a_ 275 7 268 1 7 7
Intermittent Employees 3 _______________ 39 19 30 110 ----------
1,427 711 879 263 100
i The figure for membership in both organizations is included in membership totals of each organi-
zation
2 As will be noted in Section IV, infra, two plants are involved in this proceeding
3 An intermittent employee works alternately in both plants.
14- DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the General Motors Corporation. In February .1942, the Company
suspended automobile production and began to convert 'the plants to
the manufacture of shells for the United States armed forces. When
the change-over is completed, the New Car Conditioning plant will be
devoted to the forging of shells, and the Fisher Body plant will
machine them.5
In May 1940, the A. F. of L. was certified by the board as the
bargaining agent for the employees in the Fisher plant, and in June
1941 the C. I. 0. was certified as bargaining agent for the employees
of the Chevrolet area.° Prior to and since these certifications, the two
plants have been treated by the Company and the Unions as separate
entities for the purposes of collective bargaining, with the C. I. 0.
representing employees of the Chevrolet and the A. F. of L. employees
of the Fisher plant. During this period each union has had contracts
with the Company on behalf of employees in the unit represented by
it. During conversion most employees were laid off. In the process
of rehiring the Company used a consolidated or dove-tailed seniority
list of the Chevrolet plants and the Fisher Body plant. The C. I. 0.
was in accord with this rehiring plan, but the A. F. of L. opposed it as
a violation of its contract. Hiring from this dove-tailed list continued
until May 1942, when it was discontinued at the insistence of the A. F.
of L. The combined seniority list contains 2,000 names and the
Company states that all rehiring has been and will be done from that
list. At the present time, employees for the machining plant are
being hired from the seniority list of the former Fisher plant and
employees for the forging 'Plant are being hired from the seniority
list of the former Chevrolet plants.
The A. F. of L. argues that the employees in each of the two
plants should continue to be treated as separate units and to be
bargained for separately, because of the physical separation of the
two buildings, the present rehiring plan, and bargaining history.
We do not agree. While bargaining history is relevant and often
persuasive in determining the appropriate unit, under all the cir-
cumstances in' this case we are convinced that it is not conclusive.
The conversion of the two plants to war production has produced
changes so -fundamental that the past history of bargaining has be-
come an obsolete yardstick for the determination of the appropriate
unit. Both plants are now engaged in the production of shells.
5 The other building of the Chevrolet area will not be devoted to war production, but
will maintain a small staff of about 40 employees for storage purposes. The C I O. is not
requesting inclusion of these employees in the unit, since the Chevrolet building is not en-,
gaged in war work, is under a separate management, and is at present bargained for
separately by the C. I. 0. -
I Matter of General Motors Corporation and International Union, U. A W. A. affiliated
with the A F. of L et at., 24 N L R B 159; Matter of Chevrolet Kansas City Division,
General Motors Corporation and Local #723, International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, 33 N. L.
R. B. 27.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,"-OLDSMOBILEi DIVISION 15
This process is. one' continuous operation, beginning in the former'
New_ Car Conditioning plant where the'shells are forged and ending
in, the former Fisher plant where they are machined. The shells
are trucked from one, building to the other along a concrete passage-
way. It is clear that the two plants are functionally interdependent
and in fact constitute a single integrated enterprise. In March 1942,
the two plants which had been, up to that time, under separate
management, were both taken over by the Oldsmobile division of
General Motors and are now administered by one local plant man-.
ager and staff of the Oldsmobile division. There is now one labor
relations department, one personnel office, one employee entrance-
in short, one managerial system covering the two plants. The Com-
pany employs maintenance workers and material handlers, many of
whom work alternately in both plants, and truck material from one
plant to another. If we were to find that the employees in each
plant constituted separate units, the Company and the Unions would
be faced with difficult problems in allocating these groups 'to the
proper unit.7 The A. F. of L. points out that the practice of bar-
gaining with each plant as a separate unit has continued down to
the present when the process of a change-over is nearly completed.
However; the Company acceded to a temporary continuation of this
practice on the insistence of the A. F. of L. pending a settlement by
the Board; and stated at the hearing that it, favors bargaining with
both plants as one unit. For these reasons, we find that the two
plants should be regarded as a single unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
We find that all production and maintenance employees, and me-
chanical employees in engineering department shops at the Com-
pany's forging and machining plants, in Kansas City, Missouri,
excluding employees of sales, accounting, personnel, and industrial
relations departments, superintendents and assistant superintendents,
general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen, and all other per-
sons working in a supervisory capacity including those having the
right to hire and discharge and those whose duties include rec-
ommendations as to hiring or discharging (but not leaders) and
those employees whose work is of a confidential nature, time-study
men, plant protection employees (but not including maintenance
patrolmen or fire patrolmen), all clerical employees, chief engineers
and shift operating engineers in the power plant, designing (draw-
ing board), production, estimating, and planning engineers, drafts-
men and detailers. physicists, chemists, metallurgists, artists, designer
7In fact, under the present interim arrangement, the grievance of an intermittent em-
ployee is handled by the A. F. of L. if the grievance arises in the former Fisher plant,
and by the C I. 0 if it arises in the former New Car Conditioning plant, irrespective
of whether the particular individual was a member of A. F of L or C. I. 0, or whether
he had formerly worked for Chevrolet or Fisher.
16 -DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL , -LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD
C4
artists, clay plaster modelers, timekeepers, technical school students,
indentured apprentices, and those technical or professional employees
who are receiving training, kitchen and cafeteria help, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.B -
V. THE 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
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules, and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is, hereby
,DIRECTED, that, as part of the investigation to ascertain repre-
sentatives for the purposes, of collective bargaining with General
Motors Corporation, Oldsmobile Division, Kansas City, Missouri, 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 Seven-
teenth-Region, acting in this matter as agent, for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to, Article III, Section 9, 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 em-
ployees who did not work during said nay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training
of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural hnp]ement Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0., or by International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither. _
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election. -
6 The classifications named above are substantially the same as those co,=ered by the
previous contracts between the Unions and the Company and, according to the agreement
of the patties, can be applied equally well to one over-all unit or to to separate units