General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 217
The unit sought by the Employer comprises all the production
employees in the T-3 plant. There is no evidence in the record as to
the degree of integration between the operations of this plant and the
other plants of the Employer, nor is there any history of bargaining
for the employees here sought. Engineers desires, in effect, to add the
turbine operators, boiler operators, and pump operators in the T-3
plant to its existing contract unit. However, as the resulting unit
would comprise merely an arbitrary segment of the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees, we find it would not be appro-
priate for bargaining purposes.
Under these circumstances, we find that the unit of operating em-
ployees sought by the Petitioner at its T-3 plant, Los Alamos, New
Mexico, including boiler operators, turbine operators, pump operators,
and switchboard operators, but excluding power test engineers, clerks,
guards, the foreman, assistant plant superintendent, plant superin-
tendent, and all other supervisors,4 is appropriate for collective bar-
gaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 As the shift operators , usually switchboard or turbine operators , do not possess any
supervisory powers, we shall include them in the unit in accordance with the agreement
of the parties.
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCALS Nos. 589, 589-A, 589-B (AFL)
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 38 (AFL)
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL
MOTORS CORPORATION and PATTERN MAKERS' LEAGUE OF NORTH
AMERICA, CLEVELAND ASSOCIATION, AFL. Cases Nos. 8-RC-1150,
8-RC-1151,8-RC-1155, and 8-RC-1175. May 2,1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act a consolidated hearing was held before - Charles A.
94 NLRB No. 41.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fleming, hearing officer. Except as specifically indicated herein, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
At the hearing, the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the AFL, moved to intervene in these proceedings, for the purpose
of representing a unit of residual maintenance employees, that is, a
unit consisting of maintenance employees, excluding the employees
sought by the craft petitioners hereinafter discussed. The hearing
officer granted the motion for the purpose of allowing the AFL to
participate in the hearing but conditioned the intervention upon a
sufficient' showing of interest to be made before the close of the hear-
ing. During and just before the close of the hearing, the hearing
officer reminded the AFL representative of the necessity of complying
with the requirement for showing of interest. The representative
stated that the authorization cards could not be presented due to the
length of the hearing, which was longer than he had anticipated.
Thereupon, at the close of the hearing, the hearing officer reversed
his conditional ruling and denied the request for intervention.
The hearing which took place on February 14 and 15, 1951, closed
on the latter date at 5: 50 p. m. The official records of the Board
show that on February 16, the AFL presented 104 authorization cards
of which 100 were found on the payroll. Of these 97 were dated
February 12, 13, 14, and 15. The Board has permitted labor organi-
zations to intervene in representation proceedings after the close of
the hearing, if they can establish that, as of the time of the hearing,
they had a representative interest among the employees with whom the
proceeding was concerned. The AFL showing of interest, submit-
ted subsequent to the hearing, is sufficiently adequate for the purpose
of intervention in the production and maintenance unit sought by the
Petitioner in Case No. 8-RC-1155, hereinafter discussed. We find
that the AFL is now entitled to intervene.' Therefore, although the
hearing officer's ruling was correct when made, in view of the subse-
quent showing, the ruling is hereby reversed.
At the hearing, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, herein called
the UAW, and the Employer, moved to dismiss the petitions filed
respectively by the International Union of Operating Engineers,
herein called the Engineers; by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, herein called the IBEW; and by Pattern Makers'
1 Laclede Gas Light Co , 81 NLRB 462
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 219
League of North America, herein called the Pattern Makers. For the
reasons set forth below, these motions are denied.
Upon the entire record in the 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 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 appropriate unit; the determination of representatives:
The UAW urges as its primary position that it should be certified
without an election as bargaining representative for the production
and maintenance employees of the Cleveland tank plant, on the ground
that the plant is a part of the employer-wide unit established by a
10-year collective bargaining history with General Motors ; or in the
alternative, that an election should be held only in a plant-wide pro-
duction and maintenance unit. Of the craft petitioners, the Engi-
neers contends for a separate unit of all employees engaged in oper-
ating and controlling heating, ventilating, and refrigeration equip-
ment; the IBEW seeks a unit of all maintenance electricians; and the
Pattern Makers requests a unit of all wood pattern makers. The Em-
ployer agrees with the UAW as to the appropriateness of the plant-
wide unit but states, in opposition to the UAW, that no union should
be certified without an election:
The Operations of the Employer
General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation with principal
offices in New York City and Detroit, Michigan, conducts its
business operations through several unincorporated divisions, one
of which is the Cadillac Motor Car Division, which operates the Cleve-
land tank plant, the only plant herein involved. The plant consists
of an administration building, garage, airplane hangar, transformer
unit, and a large manufacturing building consisting * of 28 acres of
floor space, which will be used for producing tanks. These facilities
were built in World War II and were occupied by the Fisher Body
Division of General Motors for the production of bomber parts until
1946. The Cadillac Motor Car Division took over the plant in August
1950, under arrangements with the United States Government for the
sole purpose of manufacturing tanks for the U. S. Army.
The Unit Requested by the UAW (Case No. 8-RC-1155)
In support of its primary position, as indicated above, the UAW
states that it and the Employer have dealt with each other on a multi-
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant basis resulting in agreements covering some 120 plants through-
out the country, the last agreement having been executed in May 1950.
It urges therefore that, as the type of manufacturing process of tanks
is virtually the same as that of automobiles in other G. M. plants, the
Cleveland tank plant automatically must become part of the multiplant
unit. The UAW contends that in reality the Cleveland plant con-
stitutes merely an accretion to a preexisting unit .2
We find no merit in the UAW's contention. Section 2 3 of the
Master Contract of May 29,1950, specifically provides that if the UAW
shall be certified for any bargaining unit, the inclusion of such unit
in the Master Agreement shall be negotiated between the parties. The
facts indicate that the Cleveland plant is an entirely new operation
acquired by General Motors after the execution of the last Master
Contract of May 1950. Moreover, it does not appear that the UAW
has been certified for a unit of employees in this new operation or that
the inclusion of such a unit under the contract has been negotiated
between the UAW and the Employer. We find that the contract by
its terms does not include the employees of this tank plant .4
As stated above, the UAW contends in the alternative that only a
plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees is appro-
priate. The various craft labor organizations seek to establish craft
groups separate from the production and maintenance employees at
the Cleveland tank plant.
For reasons of national security, the Employer's representative was
prevented from describing in detail the manufacturing process by
which the tanks will be produced at the Cleveland plant. The record
is clear, however, that the tanks will be produced on a mass production
assembly line basis, similar to that used in the manufacture of auto-
mobiles. The UAW urges that the process is a highly integrated one
requiring us to deny craft severance in accordance with the decision in
the Ford Motor Company case.5 We do not agree. The Board has
held in numerous decisions that in order to apply the Ford doctrine,
2 Petitioner urges that the cases of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 79 NLRB 744,
and Sargent & Company, 78 NLRB 918 , are applicable to the present situation . We do not
agree . In the first of the cited cases, a new section was established in the same factory ;
in the second, an employer bought a new plant which was completely integrated as part
of his former operations.
3 This section reads as follows :
"In case the UAWA-CIO shall be certified as the bargaining representatives for any
additional bargaining units, the matter of including such unit under the terms of this
Agreement shall be negotiated between the Personnel Staff of the Corporation and the
International Officers of the Union ; it being understood that plants producing cars, trucks,
bodies or automotive parts similar to the material now being produced by plants covered
by this Agreement , shall be included after giving due consideration to any local wage
classifications , rates , understandings or practices as may exist Separate agreements will
be negotiated for bargaining units not falling into the above classifications."
4 Sinclair Refinery Company , 92 NLRB 643 , and cases cited in footnote 3 ; Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company ( Special Products Plant "C" ), 80 NLRB 1347
5 Ford Motor Company ( Maywood Plant ), 78 NLRB 887.
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 221
the facts must show that the employees who seek to sever from a plant-
wide unit perform routine and repetitive operations under production
supervisors; in other words, they must be integrated and inseparable
from the production process, a situation which does not exist here.6
Moreover, we have permitted craft units in many General Motors
plants, including this very plant which was used by General Motors
during World War II for the making of bomber parts.7 Accordingly,
notwithstanding the successful history of plant-wide bargaining at
other General Motors plants, we believe that the record herein does
not necessarily require the establishment of only a single plant-wide
unit of production and maintenance employees. As it appears that
the necessary elements exist herein for the establishment of craft units,
we shall consider on their merits the various groups sought by the
craft petitioners herein.
The Engineers ' Group ( Case No. 8-RC-1150)
The Engineers seeks a unit consisting of employees engaged in the
operation , control, and adjustment of all heating and ventilating
equipment , including boilers, compressors , and Diesel engines. The
UAW and the Employer oppose the petition on the ground of integra-
tion in the manufacturing process. As an additional reason for their
position they maintain that the employees involved are skilled only to
a very limited degree.
The record shows that the employees herein involved operate and
control 9 steam boilers, used mainly for space heating, 74 oil fired
Dravo warm air heating units located throughout the 28 - acre manu-
facturing building , the hangars , and the garage , together with 100
exhaust fans, Diesel engines, air compressors , and thermometers scat-
tered throughout the plant . They have their own foreman, and when
working throughout the plant on the various pieces of equipment,-they
continue to take orders from their own foreman . These employees
devote all their time to this work and. there is no interchange with
production and other maintenance employees . Although there is at
this plant no powerhouse , as such , the equipment and machinery de-
scribed above are kept locked in separate enclosures to which only the
engineers have access . We find that these employees are not so inte-
grated with the manufacturing process as to require a denial of their
request for separate representation.
The UAW further contends that these employees are not skilled
craftsmen because the evidence shows that they attend to boilers only-
6International Harvester Company, 80 NLRB 1451; United States gypsum Company, 79•
NLRB 1282; Reynolds Metals Company, 85 NLRB 110, Aluminum Ore Co, 85 NLRB 121
7Gene) al Motors Corporation, Fisher Cleveland Aircraft Division, 52 NLRB 1291. 53
NLRB 657
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
once in 5 weeks and because the Dravo units require only the pushing
of buttons to start and stop the machinery therein. We do not agree.
Not only are the engineers required to be licensed under State law,
but the Employer requires that they be skilled and experienced in the
operation of all the equipment connected with their work before they
are permitted to assume their job responsibilities.
We find that the employees herein sought to be represented con-
stitute a homogeneous group of powerhouse and related employees
having the usual skills of such group and are of the type to whom
the Board has often accorded separate representation, notwithstand-
ing the integration of their functions with the manufacturing process.8
Accordingly, we find that all employees at the Employer's Cleve-
land, Ohio, tank plant, engaged in the operation of heating, ventilat-
ing, and refrigeration equipment, and of boilers, compressors, and
Diesel engines, may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appro-
priate unit. We shall, however, make no final determination with
respect to unit placement of these employees pending the results of
the election which we shall order herein.
The Electricians Group (Case No. 8-RC-1151)
The IBEW, the petitioner herein, claims a unit of all maintenance
electricians whose duties are to maintain and repair all electrical equip-
ment and machinery throughout the plant. They report to their own
electrical shop which is under the supervision of a general foreman,
who in turn supervises three foremen, each in charge of a group of
electricians, When working in other departments, the electricians
remain under the supervision of their own foreman. The Employer
requires the electricians to have at least 4 years' experience. There
is no interchange with production workers.
The UAW and the Employer contend that the electricians are part
of the general maintenance group; that they spend some 90 percent
of their time in keeping production machinery in operation; and
that their work is so integrated with the production process as to
preclude their establishment as a separate unit from the production
and maintenance employees. We do not agree. The electricians con-
stitute a skilled craft group who, we have frequently held, may con-
stitute a separate unit for collective bargaining purposes.' The fact
that the electricians do the major part of their work on production
machinery does not in and of itself make their work an integrated
8 General Motors Corporation , 76 NLRB 879 , and cases cited in footnote 3. Baugh and
Sons Company, 82 NLRB 1399 ; International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Works,
85 NLRB 1175.
9 General Motors Corporation , 76 NLRB 879 ; Fisher Cleveland Aircraft Division , General
Motors Corporation , 52 NLRB 1291 ; Boeing Airplane Co, 86 NLRB 368; NEPA Division
of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation , 88 NLRB 99
CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 223
part of the production process.1° As indicated above, the Ford doc-
trine does not apply in this situation. Accordingly, we find that the
maintenance electricians may constitute a separate appropriate unit
if they so desire. We shall, however, make no final determination
with respect to these employees pending the results of the election
we shall order herein.
The Pattern Makers Group (Case No. 8-RC-1175)
The Pattern Makers originally requested a unit of all wood and
metal pattern makers. At the hearing, the Pattern Makers amended
its petition to exclude from the unit the metal pattern makers. The
Pattern Makers testified that the reason for its amendment requesting
the exclusion of metal pattern makers is that there are presently no
metal pattern makers in the plant and there would, therefore, be no
point in including them in the unit. The Employer and the UAW
contend that the evidence reveals the existence of metal pattern
makers and that their exclusion renders the proposed amended unit
inappropriate. It is clear, from the record, that the wood pattern
makers sought herein constitute a highly skilled group to whom we
have frequently accorded separate representation in the automotive
industry ll
The record also shows that although there are certain metal workers
who spend about half their time making brackets for the mock-ups
made by the wood pattern makers, they do not in fact produce patterns.
Accordingly, as the record reveals that the metal workers do not
have the qualifications or exercise the craft skills of either wood or
metal pattern makers, we shall exclude them from the separate voting
group.12 We shall, however, make no final determination with respect
to the wood pattern makers pending the results of the election, here-
inafter directed.
The Time of the Election
At the hearing and in its brief the Employer took the position that
no election should be directed prior to June 1, 1951, on the ground
that before that date there will not be a representative complement
of production and maintenance employees. At the time of the hear-
ing, the Employer stated that it had 40 percent of the employees it
"International Harvester Company, 80 NLRB 1451 ; United States Rubber Company,
81 NLRB 17; American Hoist & Derrick Company, 88 NLRB 219; American Can Com-
pany, 82 'NLRB 257
"General Motors Corporation, Buick Motors Division, 79 NLRB 376 and cases cited in
footnote 2.
12 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8; of International Harvester Company
(Tractor Works), 89 NLRB 212, where the Board held that when metal pattern makers
have the qualifications and exercise the same high degree of skill as journeymen wood
pattern makers, they both may constitute a single appropriate unit. .
224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
anticipated would be employed before June 1 and about 12 percent
of those it ultimately expected to employ when the tanks would be
in full production. The record also shows that the Employer now
has in its employ a large majority of the number of employees who
will be employed in the bargaining units herein claimed by the respec-
tive craft petitioners.
We find that the present complement of 40 percent of production and
maintenance employees is a substantial and representative segment
of employees to be employed by June 1. The expectations of employ-
ment beyond that date appear to be uncertain and speculative and con-
tingent upon unpredictable factors in the future. Under these circum-
stances and upon the basis of the entire record in the case, we see no
reason for departing from our usual policy of directing an immediate
election.13 Accordingly, we shall deny the Employer's motion to post-
pone the election.
The Ballot
As we have determined administratively that the authorization cards
produced by the AFL reveal less than a 20 percent showing of interest
in the AFL's proposed uit, Nye need not consider the appropriateness
of such unit and shall not direct an election therein .14 However, inas-
much as an election is hereinafter directed upon an adequate showing
of representation in the UAW's voting group in which the AFL has
some evidence of representation, we shall accord the AFL a place on
the ballot for the broader voting group.''
We shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups,
excluding from each group all office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Group 1: All production and maintenance employees in the Em-
ployer's Cleveland, Ohio, tank plant, General Motors Corporation,
excluding the voting groups listed below.
Group 2: All employees engaged in heating and ventilating, opera-
tion of boilers, compressors, Diesel engines, and refrigeration
equipment.
Group 3: All maintenance electricians.
Group 4: All wood pattern and model makers and their apprentices.
As indicated above, we shall make no final unit determinations at
this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as
expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. If a majority in any
of the craft voting groups vote for the petitioner seeking that group,
13 General Motors Corporation , Electro-Motive Division, Plant No 3 , 82 NLRB 876;
Flarniscli feger Corporation , 86 NLRB 325, Precision Manufacturing Co., 88 NLRB 509.
14 Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368
15 Doughnut Corporation of America, 66 NLRB 1231 , footnote 2; Boeing Airplane Co.,
supra
MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. 225
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted, from publication in this
volume.]
MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
PENN-OHIO STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.. -RC-1030 and 4-RC-1033.
May ^?, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Ramey Donovan, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
Case No. 4-RC-1033
The parties in this case are in agreement as to the appropriate unit
except that the Petitioner seeks to include about 13 maintenance em-
ployees whom the Employer would exclude.
The Employer conducts its operations in a Naval Industrial Reserve
plant which it leases from the Department of the Navy. The Navy,
however, retains a portion of the plant for its own use and under its
control. The maintenance men whose placement is in dispute are
i Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company,
Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
94 NLRB No. 42.
953841-52-vol. 94-16