General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1207 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1207
1. Respondent, M & S Company, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Garment Workers of America, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning
of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. Respondent, M & S Company, Inc ., has not engaged in any unfair labor practices within
the meaning of the Act.
Recommendations omitted from publication.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, BUICK MOTOR DIVISION
PARTS WAREHOUSE and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 8-RC-
2155. June 2, 1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On January 28, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certifica-
tion upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, among the employees in the
stipulated unit. Thereafter, a tally of ballots was furnished the
parties, showing that of approximately 30 eligible voters, 29
cast valid ballots, of which 12 were for the Petitioner, 14 were
against representation, and 3 were challenged. On February
1, 1954, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election.
In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation of the matter
raised by the Petitioner's objections and, on April 6, 1954,
issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections,
in which he found that the Petitioner's objections raised sub-
stantial and material issues with respect to the election and
recommended that the election be set aside and a new election
ordered. Within the proper time thereafter, the Employer
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report,
the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Regional Director, with the following additions and modifi-
cations.
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of certain em loyees of the Employer, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (l) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
108 NLRB No. 165.
1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All shipping checkers,
receiving checkers , checker packers, stock pickers, stock
handlers , shipping clerks, receiving clerks, and janitors
employed by 'Buick Motors Division , General Motors Corpor-
ation, at its Parts Warehouse located at 4416 Lee Road,
Cleveland, Ohio, but excluding all office employees, watchmen
and guards , stockroom clerks, all supervisors as defined in
the Act, and all other employees not specifically included in
this unit.
5. The Employer ' s exceptions raise no question relating to
the factual findings made by the Regional Director. Those facts
may be stated briefly as follows: Less than 24 hours before
the election , the Employer ' s manager, Jacobson , assembled
and addressed all eligible employees , excepting three who
could not be excused from work, at a meeting held on company
time and property. The purpose of the assemblage was to refute
specific and allegedly inaccurate campaign propaganda which
had been disseminated the previous evening by the Union, which
propaganda the Employer had reason to believe might influence
the employees ' vote. The Regional Director found that the
Board's election rule established in a recent decision i and
prohibiting campaign speeches on company time for 24 hours
before an election was thereby violated.
The Employer , in its exceptions , urges that the rule should
not apply in this instance because "the single brief meeting in
question was informal and non-partisan , [ and] had no improper
influence upon the outcome of the election." The Employer
contends that if the rule is to be effective , the test must be the
substance of the discussion and not the objective characteris-
tics of the meeting.
The Regional Director found and we agree , despite the con-
trary contention by the Employer, that the instant case clearly
falls within the proscription outlined by the Board in the
Peerless Plywood case . 2 The Petro - Chemical decision 3 cited
by the Employer is clearly inapposite , for as is apparent from
the facts stated above, we are concerned here with a meeting
which was neither informal nor nonpartisan .4 Even accepting
the Employer ' s premise that the substance of the discussion
and not the objective characteristics of the meeting should
be the governing factor in applying the rule, we would reach
the same result as it is clear that the sole purpose and sub-
ject of the meeting was to refute specific campaign propaganda
disseminated by the Union . In this posture, the Employer's
'Peerless Plywood Company, 107 NLRB 427.
'See footnote 1, supra. See also Hamilton Watch Company, 107 NLRB 1608; The Cross
Company, 107 NLRB 1267.
3National Petro-Chemicals Corporation, 107 NLRB 1610.
4 In the Petro-Chemicals case the employer's talk was an informal and general discussion
with a small group, who chose voluntarily to remain after the end of their working shift.
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY 1209
talk itself becomes a campaign speech such as is prohibited
by the rule. Under all the circumstances, we find that the
Board's rule against campaign speeches made to employees
on company time within 24 hours of an election has been
violated. We shall therefore - set aside the results of the
January 28, 1954, election and direct that a new election be
conducted.
[The Board set aside the election held on January 28, 1954.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
AMERICAN CAN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-
1063. June 3, 1954
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Fox,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein
called IAM; United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called
Steelworkers ; and Federal Labor Union No. 22454, AFL,
herein called Federal Union; are labor organizations which
claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. IAM seeks to represent a unit composed of all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's New Orleans,
Louisiana, plant. The parties are in agre^ment as to the com-
position of the unit, except for the inclusion of inspectors.
Steelworkers desires their inclusion because it customarily
includes inspectors in contracts with the Employer covering
production and maintenance employees and because the inspec-
tors' work and interests are comparable to those of production
employees. The Employer, IAM, and Federal Union would
exclude them on the ground that they have been excluded from
the historical production and maintenance bargaining unit,
represented since 1941 by Federal Union.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of metal
containers. It employs 20 inspectors whose duties include
testing and inspecting parts of the manufactured article during
108 NLRB No. 166.