General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 450 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, FRIGIDAIRE DIVISION,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND
MACHINE WORKERS, C. I. 0.,1 PETITIONER
In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, DELCO APPLIANCE
DIVISION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, DELCO PRODUCTS
DIVISION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, DELCO-REMY Divi-
SION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, PACKARD ELECTRIC
DIVISION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 5-RC-163, 5-RC-531, 5-RC-532, 5-RC-533, and 5-RC-
5341.-Decided February 1, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed, a hearing in these consolidated cases was
held at Dayton, Ohio, on December 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 1949, before
David C. Sachs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
During the course of the hearing the Intervenor, United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, hereinafter called UE,
moved to dismiss the petitions on the ground, among others, that its
contract with the Employer constitutes a bar to this proceeding. For
reasons discussed within, the motion is hereby denied.
On January 16, 1950, oral argument was heard before the Board.
All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the argu-
ment.
i As amended subsequent to the hearing. The IUE-CIO's request to amend its name as It
would appear on the ballot is discussed within.
88 NLRB No. 112.
450
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 451
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Delaware corporation which maintains its
principal business offices at New York, New York, and Detroit, Michi-
gan. For administrative purposes it functions through the following
five unincorporated divisions, involved herein : Frigidaire Division,
Dayton, Ohio ; Delco Appliance Division, Rochester, New York; Delco
Products Division, Dayton, Ohio; Delco-Remy Division, New Bruns-
wick, New Jersey ; Packard Electric Division, Warren, Ohio. The
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, hereinafter called IUE-CIO, and the UE are
labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.2
3. The question concerning representation :
For the past 12 years the Employer has bargained with the UE
and its affiliated Locals as the Board-certified representative of these
employees. In 1938 the UE was certified by the Board to represent
the employees of the Sunlight Electric Company, a then wholly owned
subsidiary of the Employer, subsequently merged with the Packard
Electric Division. Beginning with a contract dated June 17, 1941,
the UE, acting in conjunction with its Locals, and the Employer ex-
ecuted a series of national agreements covering all of the units for
which the UE was certified. The last such contract, containing a 60-
day automatic renewal clause,3 was executed on May 29, 1948, and will
expire on April 28, 1950.4 It is this contract which the UE interposes
as a bar to a present determination of representatives. The Employer
takes no position with regard to the contract bar issue.
During the above period of collective bargaining with the Employer,
the UE was affiliated with the CIO. On November 1, 1949, at the
1.1th constitutional convention of the CIO in Cleveland, Ohio, dele-
gates representing the UE walked out. On November 2, 1949, the
CIO voted to expel the UE. On the same day the CIO issued a Cer-
tificate of Affiliation to the IUE-CIO. A committee, previously or-
ganized within the TIE as the "Administrative Committee 'of the
Right Wing Element of the UE," became the Administrative Com-
mittee of the IUE-CIO. During the week of November 28, 1949,
the IUE-CIO met in an organizing convention at Philadelphia,
2 The parties stipulated that the UE and its affiliated Locals are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act. The Employer, while refusing to stipulate similarly
with regard to the IUE-CIO, does not controvert evidence adduced by the IUE-CIO
revealing that this organization was formed to represent employees in the electrical , radio,
and machine industry for the purposes of collective bargaining concerning wages, hours,
and conditions of employment.
Neither the Employer nor the contracting Union has yet given any notice of a desire
to terminate or modify the contract prior to the automatic renewal date.
4 Intervening contracts are dated as follows : November 2, 1942 ; July 24, 1945 ; June
10, 1949.
882191-51--30
452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pennsylvania, and adopted a "Provisional Constitution" to be in effect
until the next convention. By a resolution of the convention it was
provided that the Administrative Committee continue to function as
the governing body of the IUE-CIO until regular officers were elected.
Within a few days after the expulsion of the UE from the CIO,
the membership of the various Local unions in the Employer's plants,
then affiliated with the UE, held special membership meetings and
voted on a resolution to disaffiliate from the UE and to affiliate with
the IUE-CIO 5 The meetings were publicized in the various plants
by notices on the plant bulletin boards, leaflets distributed at the
plant gates,6 newspaper coverage, paid advertisements in the local
newspapers,' spot announcements over the radio,8 and by word of
mouth. Attendance at these meetings was more than the number of
members usually present. In every instance the vote was overwhelm-
ingly against remaining with the UE and in favor of affiliation with
the IUE-CIO.'°
After the special meetings the Locals applied for and received char-
ters from the IUE-CIO. All the shop committeemen and substan-
tially all the officers, including the presidents and executive boards
of the several plant Locals, have transferred their allegiance to the
Locals now affiliated with the IUE-CIO. These Locals have retained
the same Local numbers by which they had been previously designated
as local unions of the UE. Grievance provisions of the existing con-
tract are presently being administered by shop committeemen of the
IUE-CIO Locals. The UE, however, has handled grievances on a
national level. Although the Employer continues to deduct checkoff
5 Local 755, Delco Products Division, Local 509, Delco Appliance Division, and Local
801, Frigidaire Division held their meetings on November 6, 1949. Local 416, Delco-Remy
Division , held its meeting on November 7, 1949 . Local 717, Packard Electric Division, held
its meeting on November 9, 1949.
Delco Products Division , Packard Electric Division , Delco Appliance Division , Frigid-
aire Division.
' Packard Electric Division.
s Deic9 Products Division and Frigidaire Division.
"At the hearing several witnesses for the UE testified that the meetings were irregularly
conducted and that adherents of the UE were not given an adequate opportunity to speak
on behalf of the UE. Witnesses for the IUE-CIO testified to the contrary. We find it
unnecessary to pass on these questions, which involve the legality of the meetings and
the action taken by the various Locals to repudiate the UE and to establish a new affilia-
tion with the IUE-CIO. For the same reason , we find it unnecessary to pass on the
UE's contention that the special meetings were inadequately publicized . The UE ' s motion
to dismiss the petition in Case No . 5-RC-531 on this ground is hereby denied.
10 The vote at Delco Appliance Division and Delco -Remy Division was unanimous. At
Delco Products Division the vote was 999 to 1 against the UE and in favor of the IUE-CIO.
The meeting at Packard Electric Division was held in two sections. In one section,
where the attendance was between 800 and 1 ,000, the vote was unanimous . In the second
section the vote was 58 to 3 against the UE and in favor of the IUE-CIO. At the Frigid-
aire Division , of approximately 2,000 members present 3 or 4 voted in favor of the UE
and the remainder in favor of the IUE-CIO.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 453
dues, it has refused to pay the money to any organization pending the
legal determination of the property rights of the parties.
The UE contends and the IUE-CIO admits by stipulation that the
UE Locals are still in existence. As far as the record shows, adherents
of the UE have held only one meeting in only one plant since the spe-
vcial meetings described above. This meeting, attended by about 40
persons, was held on December 11, 1949, for members of UE Local 801
employed at the Frigidaire Division plant. A witness for the UE
testified that those attending elected trustees and floor guards, but
no other officials.
The Board unanimously finds that the UE's contract with the Em-
ployer does not constitute a bar to a present determination of repre-
sentatives.
Chairman Herzog finds that, in view of all the foregoing circum-
stances, there exists a serious doubt as to the present identity of the
labor organization which the employees of the Employer desire to
have represent them, and that it can best be resolved by an election."
Board Members Houston and Murdock are of the opinion that it
is unnecessary to pass on this issue. As the present contract will ex-
pire in less than 3 months, they find, apart from other considerations
that the contract is not a bar to this proceeding.12
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
The parties are substantially in agreement that the appropriate
units, with the exception of the present division-wide unit of em-
ployees at the Packard Electric Division, Case No. 5-RC-534, are
those conforming generally to the units established by the history of
collective bargaining and the existing contract.
Packard Electric Division, Case No. 5-RC-531
The Packard Electric Division of the Employer manufactures frac-
tional horse power motors and electrical wiring and electrical wiring
harness. It functions in two plants, a motor plant and a cable plant.
The UE contends that the employees in these plants should be sep-
arated into two units, one unit comprising the employees at the cable
u Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, Columbia Chemical Division, 80 NLRB 1331; Eliza-
bethtown Water Company Consolidated, 84 NLRB 845; Hackensack Water Co., 84 NLRB
842; Carson Pirie Scott & Company, 69 NLRB 935.
11 Round California Chain Corporation, Ltd., 64 NLRB 242 ; The Wheland Company, 72
NLRB 351; Elder Manufacturing Company, 73 NLRB 230; White Furniture Company,
73 NLRB 805.
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant and another the employees at the motor plant. The IUE-CIO
and the Employer take the position that the present division-wide
unit is the only appropriate unit.
As indicated above, the UE was certified by the Board in 1938 to
represent the production and maintenance employees of the Sunlight
Electric Company. This wholly owned subsidiary of the Employer,.
consisting of the operation now known as the motor plant of the Pack-
ard Electric Division, was merged with the latter division in July
1943. Until that time the UE had represented the Sunlight Electric
employees in the motor plant as one unit and the Packard Electric
Division employees in the cable plant, for which it had been the certi-
fied bargaining representative since 1941, as another unit. Following
the merger of the motor and cable plants into the same division of
the Employer, the UE discontinued its practice of representing the
employees in separate units and established Local 717 as the local
representative for employees in both plants. One shop committee
dealt with the Employer with regard to grievances and other matters
at the local level.
The operations of both the motor plant and the cable plant after
the merger were carried on in the same building with a partition
dividing the two plants. In 1948 the Employer moved the motor
plant to its present location in a new building about 2 miles from the
cable plant. Thereafter, the UE established two separate shop com-
mittees, one for each plant, but the employees continued to be mem-
bers of the same Local 717.
The wage structure at the motor plant is essentially an incentive
plan structure, whereas day rates predominate at the cable plant. Lo-
cal agreements provide for plant-wide seniority. Transfers are in-
frequent. However, both plants are under the supervision of the same
factory manager. The division maintains one accounting department,
one sales department, and one engineering department.
In view of the history of collective bargaining and the integration
of the Employer's operations, we are of the opinion that the interests
of employees in both plants are substantially the same and that a
single unit of such employees is appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining 13
Frigidaire Division, Case No. 5-RC-4163
Stock tracers, assignment clerks-production planning and special
assignment clerks production-planning: The petition of the IUE-CIO
13 See, Sterling Pulp and Paper Company and United Paper Company, 77 NLRB 63; and
Boland Manufacturing Company, 83 NLRB 1254.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 455
requests only the inclusion of the employees in the above-named
categories who are employed at Plant No . 1. The UE argues that all
of these employees , with the exception of special assignment clerks,
should be included . The record shows that the assignment clerks-pro-
duction planning have the responsibility of determining from produc-
tion estimates where and to what extent materials and parts are needed
in the plant. Each assignment clerk works with a varying number
of stock tracers, who have the job of seeing to it that the materials and
parts actually get to the specific locations at the designated time. The
special assignment clerks perform duties similar to those of the assign-
ment clerks, except that the former have responsibility for unusual
production operations and have a greater degree of skill. All three
categories of employees work in the material control section and are
under the supervision of the manager of that section. The special
assignment clerks-production planning have no supervisory authority,
-either over the assignments clerks or the stock tracers or any of
the production and maintenance employees. Inasmuch as the assign-
ment clerks, stock tracers , and special assignment clerks perform sub-
stantially the same duties in all plants of the Employer , we shall in-
clude all of them in the appropriate unit . The record reveals no
basis for the exclusion of special assignment clerks-production
planning.
The following units constitute units appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act :
(1) All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Frigidaire Division, Dayton, Ohio (Case No. 5-RC-463),
including mechanical employees in the engineering department shops;
employees in service department shops; tool and die makers ; inspec-
tors and metal finishers ; tool designers , tool design trainees, tool
design detailers , and blue-print machine operators in the tool design
department of Plant No . 1; cafeteria employees in Plant No. 2; stock
tracers, assignment clerks-production planning and special assignment
clerks production-planning in material control departments; truck
drivers and repairmen-gas and electric; polish car men and garage
attendants in the plants of the Frigidaire Division located in Dayton
and Moraine City, Ohio ; but excluding supervisors ; professional and
plant ' protection employees ; office and clerical employees ; instructors;
dispatchers ; head job setters; crate designers; draftsmen ; engineers;
chemists ; metallurgists ; technical employees ; time-keepers ; time study
men; bus drivers; wood pattern makers; metal pattern makers work-
ing on bench or machine ; pattern checkers; cooperative school students;
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apprentices and others included in the Employer's educational pro-
gram; and, except as specifically included in this unit, the following :
All cafeteria employees including head chefs, cafeteria stock keepers
and collectors; garage attendants; tool designers, tool design detailers
and trainees; and blue-print machine operators.
(2) All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Delco Appliance Division, Rochester, New York (Case
No. 5-RC-531), including mechanical employees in the engineering
department and leaders'14 but excluding all supervisors, professional,
and plant protection employees; " employees in the sales, accounting,
personnel, and industrial relations departments; superintendents
and assistant superintendents; general foremen and foremen; those
employees whose work is of a confidential nature; factory clerks and
all other clerical employees; chief engineers; shift operating engineers
in power plants; designing, production, estimating, and planning
engineers; draftsmen and detailers; chemists; metallurgists; artists;
design artists; clay plaster modelers; indentured apprentices; and
those technical or professional employees who are receiving training;
and kitchen and cafeteria help.
(3) All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Delco Products Division, Dayton, Ohio (Case No. 5-RC-
532), including process machine tool builders; salvage and plant in-
spection employees; tool and die makers; machine repair employees;
inspectors; hourly paid group leaders; 16 laundry employees; machin-
ists; and experimental model builders in the model shop ; and all hourly
rated employees in the relief stores of the Delco Products Division;
but excluding all supervisors; professional and plant protection em-
ployees; factory manager; assistant factory manager; superintend-
ents; general foremen and foremen; chief inspector and assistant chief
inspector; chief dispatcher; assistant chief dispatcher . and dis-
patchers; timekeepers; clerical employees (except for factory shipping
and receiving and record clerks) ; salaried employees, garage attend-
ants; cooperative school students; technical school students; em-
ployees of the personnel and industrial relations department; wood
The IUE-CIO's petition requests the inclusion of "group leaders." Employees in this
classification are, not presently employed at this division . However, leaders are employed
In the maintenance and tool room departments . Testimony adduced at the hearing indi-
cates that these employees are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The parties
agree to include them.
16 The record reveals that all such employees employed in the five divisions of the
Employer , herein involved , are guards within the meaning of the Act.
16 Employees in this classification are employed in the maintenance department. Al-
though the UE objects to the phraseology of the classifi cation , it does not contest their
Inclusion in the unit . The record shows that they are not supervisors within the meaning
of the Act.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 457
pattern makers and metal pattern makers working on bench or ma-
chine ; pattern checkers and apprentices of these pattern classifications.
(4) All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Delco Battery Operations, Delco-Remy Division, New
Brunswick, New Jersey, plant (Case No. 5-RC-533) ; excluding all
supervisors; professional and plant protection employees; 17 employees
of sales, accounting, personnel, and industrial relations departments;
superintendents and assistant superintendents; general foremen; fore-
men and assistant foremen; employees whose work is of a confiden-
tial nature; time study men; all clerical employees; chief engineers
and shift operating engineers in power plants; designing (drawing
board), production, estimating and planning engineers, draftsmen
and detailers ; physicists ; chemists ; metallurgists ; artists ; designer-
artists; clay plaster modelers; timekeepers; technical school students;
indentured apprentices; and those technical or professional employees
who are receiving training; and kitchen and cafeteria help.
('5) All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Packard Electric Division, Warren, Ohio (Case No. 5-RC-
534) ; including inspection, machine shop, tool room, and shipping and
receiving employees ; but excluding all supervisors ; professional, and
plant protection employees; superintendents.; assistant superintend-
ants; general foremen; foremen; assistant foremen; group leaders;
all salaried employees; clerical employees; laboratory and experi-
mental employees ; draftsmen and detailers ; technical or cooperative
students; schedule dispatchers; chief inspectors; timekeepers; full-
time cafeteria employees; and all employees of the sales, engineering,
purchasing, accounting, time-study, production control, and personnel
departments.
(5) The IUE-CIO has requested that its name appear on the ballots
in the several elections in conjunction with the names of its Local
unions as follows :
Case No. 5-RC-463, Frigidaire Local 801, IUE-CIO.
Case No. 5-RC-531, Delco Appliance Local 509, IUE-CIO.
Case No. 5-RC-532, Delco Local 755, IUE-CIO.
Case No. 5-RC-533, Delco-Remy Local 416, IUE-CIO.
Case No. 5-RC-534, Packard Local 717, IUE-CIO.
The UE objects to the requested amendment of the IUE-CIO, con-
tending that the use of the same numbers used by Locals affiliated with
11 The IUE-CIO's petition requests the inclusion of maintenance patrolmen or fire patrol-
men. The Employer does not employ employees in either classification . We find it unneces-
sary therefore to decide whether such employees , if employed in the future , would be guards
within the meaning of the Act.
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the UE is a violation of the UE's property rights. We do not purport
to pass upon the property rights of the parties in any respect. We
find merely that the IUE-CIO's name in conjunction with the names
of its Locals will not, in our opinion, confuse the voters in the elec-
tions hereinafter directed. The IUE-CIO's request is therefore
granted.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 18
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the: Employer, elections by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision 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
units found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding these employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections, and also excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether the em-
ployees in each of the afore-mentioned units desire to be represented,
for purposes of collective bargaining, by Frigidaire Local 801, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, C. I. O.
or by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America
(UE) or by neither (Unit No. 1) ; Delco Appliance Local 509, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, C. I. O. or
by United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE)
or by neither (Unit No. 2) ; Delco Local 755, International Union of
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, C. I. O. or by United Elec-
trical Radio and Machine Workers of America'(UE) or by neither
Is The IUE-CIO argues that the UE should be denied a place on the ballot because its
Locals are not in compliance with the registration and filing requirements of Section 9
(f), (g), and ( h) of the Act. The UE is in full compliance . With the exception of a
meeting held by UE Local 801, discussed above , the record does not reveal whether or not
the several UE Locals have continued to function as such since the expulsion of the UE
from the CIO . The UE contends , however, that its Locals are still in existence . If these
Locals are in existence , the UE 's participation in any of the elections directed herein is
conditioned upon the full compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act by the
local union which individually , or jointly with the UE, engages in collective bargaining on
behalf of the Employer 's employees in each of the several units for which elections are
directed . See Lane Wells Company, 79 NLRB 252.
Any participant in the proceeding herein may , upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 459
(Unit No. 3) ; Delco-Remy Local 416, International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, C. I. 0., or by the United Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) or by neither (Unit
No. 4) ; Packard Local 717, International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, C. I. 0. or by United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America (UE) or by neither (Unit No. 5).