General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1214 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of A. C. SPARK PLUG DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS COR-
PORATION (MILWAUKEE PLANT),' EMPLOYER and DISTRICT No. 10, IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS ,2 PETITIONER and LOCAL
B-663, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL,3 PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AIRCRAFT, AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OFAMERICA (UAW-
C10),4 PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 13-RC-813, 13-RC-845, and 13-RC-883.-Decided
March 17, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon consolidated petitions duly filed, a hearing was held on De-
cember 12, 1949, before Edward T. Maslanka, hearing officer. The
Employer's request for oral argument is denied as the record and the
briefs submitted by the parties, in our opinion, adequately present
the issues and positions of the parties. 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-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Styles].
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 involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The IAM seeks to represent a unit of the Employer's tool and die
makers including tool makers; grinders, toolroom; machinists, tool-
1 The Employer ' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Herein called the IAM.
a Herein called the IBEW.
• Herein called the UAW-CIO.
88 NLRB No. 220.
1214
A. C. SPARK PLUG DIVISION 1215
room; tool hardeners; model makers; machinists, model shop; model
maker specialists; tool, die, and fixture inspectors; tool makers, de-
velopment; machinists, development; machine repairmen; millwrights
and their helpers and apprentices; or in the alternative the IAM
would represent the foregoing classifications in any unit or units the
Board deems appropriate. The IBEW urges a unit of all electricians
including experimental electricians, electronic electricians, and pyrom-
eter men.' The UAW-CIO and the United Automobile Workers of
America, AFL, Intervenor herein, each request a production and main-
tenance unit. The Employer opposes all units except a production and
maintenance one. This contention is based principally upon the
grounds: (1) that there is very close integration of work among the
various crafts; (2) that the unit sought by the IAM is lacking in
homogeneity; and (3) that the employees requested by the IBEW are
an integral part of the production process. There is no history of
collective bargaining at the plant herein concerned.
The Employer is engaged at its Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant in the
production of bomb sights and navigational computers for the United
States Army Air Forces. This operation is carried on in a five-story
building. For organizational purposes the plant is divided into six
divisions, which are further divided into departments. The employees
in the units sought by the IAM and IBEW are variously assigned
throughout these departments.
The Employer contends that, at times, the employees of the various
crafts work as teams under immediate common supervision and should
not therefore be established in separate units for purposes of collective
bargaining. While, at times, employees of various crafts do work as
teams under immediate common supervision, there is nothing in the
record to indicate that they perform work beyond the scope of their
respective crafts. We have generally held that employees in craft
work of a distinctive nature, although they-may work in conjunction
or close association with other employees, may constitute separate bar-
gaining units." We reject the Employer's contention.
The 1AH unit
Because employees in the unit requested by the IAM have various
classifications and are assigned to various departments throughout
the plant, each of which has its own immediate supervision, the Em-
5 At the end of the hearing , the IAM and the IBEW were permitted, over the objection
of the Employer , to amend the description of their requested units. The Employer re-
news this objection in its brief . As the Employer had full opportunity to litigate all
unit issues raised by the amendments , we find no merit in the objection . See Allbritten
Motors, Inc., et al., 87 NLRB 193.
' NEPA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, 88 NLRB 99, and
cases cited therein.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer contends that such a unit is inappropriate. We do not agree.
The unit here sought is on a craft basis. The question posed is wheth-
er or not the employees of the various classifications are segments of
the same craft. All the employees in the TAM unit must have served
an apprenticeship or its equivalent. Although the Employer has as-
signed various job titles to these employees, it concedes that basically
they require the same skill and use' the same kind of tools with the
exception of millwrights. While the latter may use tools somewhat
different from other machinists, they erect, install, move, and maintain
machinery. The performance of these functions is traditionally
identified with the machinist craft.'' We believe that the employees
of the various classifications in the unit requested by the JAM are seg-
ments of the same craft .8 We find no merit in the Employer's con-
tentions.
The IBEW unit
The Employer does not question the craft characteristics of this
proposed unit,° but contends that its operations are dependent upon
.electrical power, and therefore the electricians are so integrated with
the production process that they should not be severed from the pro-
duction and maintenance unit. In this connection, the Employer
relies on our decision in the Ford Motor Company (Maywood Plant)
case.10 We do not agree. Unlike the latter case, the electricians in the
instant case are not regularly stationed in production departments per-
forming routine and repetitive operations under production super-
visors. On the contrary, the record clearly shows that they frequently
work at various locations performing maintenance and construction
work generally performed by members of their craft. Accordingly,
we reject the Employer's contention.-'
In view of the foregoing and upon.the entire record, we find that
all employees in the units proposed by the IAM and the IBEW may,
if they so desire, constitute separate bargaining units. However,
these employees may also appropriately be included in the plant-wide
unit herein sought by the UAW-CIO and the Intervenor. We shall,
therefore, reserve final determination in this respect pending the out-
come of the election hereinafter directed.
If a majority, of the employees in voting groups (2) and (3), enu-
merated below, vote for the JAM and the IBEW, respectively, they will
' See Reynolds Metals Company, 85 NLRB 110; Roane-Anderson Company, 83 NLRB
30; Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, 81 NLRB 1235.
8 Cf. NI'PA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, footnote 6, supra.
0 The record shows that as a requirement for employment these employees must have
served an "apprenticeship or its equivalent."
10 78 NLRB 887.
11 Cf. American Hoist & Derrick Company, 88 NLRB 219.
A. C. SPARK PLUG DIVISION 1217
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute separate bargaining
units.
We shall direct elections among the employees of the Employer at
its Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, in the following voting groups, ex-
cluding from each office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act :
(1) All production and maintenance employees, excluding employ-
ees in voting groups (2) and (3).
(2) All machinists, including the classifications of tool and die
makers; tool makers; grinders, toolroom; tool hardeners; model mak-
ers; machinists, model shop; model Maker specialists; tool, die, and
fixture inspectors; tool makers, development; !machinists, develop-
ment; machine repairmen; millwrights, helpers and apprentices.
(3) All electricians, including experimental electricians, electronic
technicians, and pyrometer men. i
5. The Employer contends that an election at the present time would
be premature, and urges that the Board defer the election until on or
after April 1, 1950, at which time about 50 percent of its anticipated
complement will be employed.
As the percentage of employees in the over-all unit at the time of
the hearing was very small and as the delay incurred in granting the
Employer's request for a delay in the election until April 1 is very
short, we shall vary our customary procedure in directing an election
and direct the Regional Director to hold the election herein as soon
after April 1, 1950, as is practicable.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 12
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elections
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as practicable after April 1,
1950, under the direction and supervision 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, among the employees in the voting groups found ap-
propriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed dur-
ing the payroll period immediately preceding the date on which the
Regional Director issues the notice of election, including employees
who did not work during said payroll 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
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
12 Any participant in the elections herein directed may upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director have its name removed from the ballot.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine :
(a) Whether the employees in voting group ( 1) desire to be repre-
sented for purposes of collective bargaining by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-CIO, or by United Automobile Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL , or by neither;
(b) Whether the employees in voting group (2) desire to be rep-
resented for purposes of collective bargaining by International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, District No. 10, or by International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-CIO, or by United Automobile Workers of America,
AFL, or by none;
(c) Whether the employees in voting group ( 3) desire to be -rep-
resented for purposes of collective bargaining by Local B-663, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL , or by International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement Work-
ers, of America , UAW-CIO, or by United Automobile Workers of
America, AFL, or by none.