General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 30, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1752 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of 'GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ( FRIGIDAIRE DIVISION,
NEWARK ZONE SHOP ), EMPLOYER ' and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
& 'MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL '1227 AND UNITED ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA , PETITIONER
Case No. 2-UA-5754.-Decided January 30, 1951
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Lloyd S.
Greenidge, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer requested oral argument. As the record and the brief
filed herein, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the
positions of the parties, the request is hereby denied.
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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees of the Employer in the appropriate unit, as provided in
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3.. The Petitioner alleges, and we find, that more than 30 percent
of the employees in the unit represented by the Petitioner desire to
authorize the Petitioner to make an agreement with the Employer
requiring membership in the Petitioner as a condition of employment
in such unit. As the Employer currently recognizes the Petitioner,
no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
We find, therefore, that the preliminary requirements for a union-
shop authorization election, set forth in Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act,
have been met.
4. The appropriate unit :
We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that all pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer's Newark Zone
Shop, including shipping and service employees and porters, but
excluding office and clerical employees, field service men, field unit
replacement men, dealer contacting men, service salesmen , freight
92 NLRB No. 192.
1752
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 1753
elevator operators, professional employees, executives, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act.
5. The parties disagree as to the voting eligibility of certain laid-
off employees. The Employer contends that they should be found
eligible to vote. The Petitioner, on the other hand, urges that they
be excluded.
The Employer, an unincorporated division of the General Motors
Corporation, is located in Newark, New Jersey, and is engaged in
the reprocessing and repairing of refrigerator equipment. As a result
of a decrease in business, the Employer has reduced its working force
from ' 46 employees on January 13, 1950, to a stabilized force of 26
employees at the time of the hearing on October 13, 1950. There is
no present prospect that any of these employees will be recalled at
any fixed date in the future.
Under the terms of a collective bargaining contract between the
Employer and the Petitioner entered into August 23, 1950, all laid-off
employees are carried on a seniority list for at least 12 months, and
thereafter for a period equal to their prior active employment but not
more than 5 years. Both parties agree that the laid-off employees
herein involved are employees under seniority provisions of the con-
tract.
The Employer contends that as all the laid-off employees are pres-
ently entitled to be reemployed in order of seniority under the con-
tract, they should be considered as only temporarily laid off, and
therefore eligible to vote. The Board has held that the mere fact
that laid-off employees have contractual seniority rights does not
entitle them to vote.' The voting eligibility of laid-off employees de-
pends rather on whether they have a reasonable expectation of re-
employment in the near future.2 The record shows that the employees
under consideration have no such expectancy of recall.
We find, therefore, that as there is no reasonable prospect of re=
employment of the employees in question, their layoffs for eligibility,
purposes must be considered permanent, and they are ineligible to,
participate in the election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication of this
volume.]
'Lima Hamilton Corporation, 87 NLRB 455. Cf. Servel, Inc., 65 NLRB ' 1067 ; Hubbard
and Company, 45 NLRB 1. These and other cases cited by the Employer have been over-
ruled by Lima Hamilton Corporation to the extent that they are inconsistent with that
decision.
U. S. Rubber Company, 86 NLRB 338. Lima Hamilton Corporation,. aupra.
929979-51-vol. 92-112