General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
draftsman A, draftsman B, detailer, and tracer. These employees,
make layouts, sketches, and designs for jigs and fixtures needed in
production areas. The Employer in hiring employees for these jobs
prefers that they have schooling in drafting and familiarity with
standard drafting practice. All of the employees' presently in these,
classifications have had at least a year of technical school training. We
find, accordingly, that they are technical employees.' It does not ap-
pear that there are any other technical employees in the maintenance,
department. However, other unrepresented employees at the Works
include approximately 125 electrical testers, an undisclosed number of
plant engineering department employees, 8 to 12 time-study employees,
in the manufacturing division, and engineering assistants and labora-
tory assistants in the engineering division. It appears from the present
record that some if not all of these unrepresented employees are also)
technical employees,' and the record does not establish that the interests
of the draftsmen are materially distinguishable from the, interests of
the other unrepresented technical employees. As -the Board will not,,
under such circumstances, find appropriate a unit consisting of only a
segment of the Employer's unrepresented technical employees,4 we,
find that the unit sought is inappropriate and will dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 The Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, 112 NLRB 571, 572.
3 There are also drafting employees in the engineering division With one exception,
however, these employees are in a separate bargaining unit represented by the Petitioner
by virtue of a consent-election agreement in Case No 6-RC-1843. See Decision and
Certification of Representatives therein, 117 NLRB 744, denying the Employer 's motion
to vacate the consent-election agreement.
4 Boeing Airplane Company, 116 NLRB 1775, PlanMnton Packing Company, 116 NLRB
1225; Solar Aircraft Company, 116 NLRB 200
General Motors Corporation , Chevrolet Motor Division, Chevrolet
Experimental Engineering Center, Warren, Michigan' and
Pattern Makers' League of North America, Detroit Associia-
tion, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-2767' March 2 ,1957
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
OF CERTIFICATION
On May 12, 1955, following an election held pursuant to a "Stipula-
tion for Certification upon Consent Election," the Board issued a
certification of representatives in which the Petitioner was certified
as the exclusive bargaining representative of a union of pattern-
makers and modelmakers. Thereafter, on December - 3, -1956, the
Petitioner filed a "Motion for Clarification of Certification" stating
'The Employer's name appears as stipulated by the parties at the remand'hearing
117 NLRB No. 113.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 751
that subsequent to the certification the Employer hired employees to
work in plaster and plastics, duplicating models and performing other
work related to patternmaking and contending that such alleged new
employees should be included in the unit for which it is the certified
bargaining representative. On December 14, 1956, International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO,' filed a "Memorandum in
Opposition to Motion for Clarification of Certification."
On December 31, 1956, the Board remanded the matter to the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region for the purpose of holding
a hearing on the issues raised by the Petitioner's motion.' Pursuant
thereto, a hearing was held on January 29, 1957, before Emil C.
Farkas, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
The Petitioner stated in its motion that workers in plaster and
plastics classified by the Employer as molders (product engineering)
were riot employed by the Employer at the time the Petitioner was
certified as bargaining representative for the unit of patternmakers
and modelmakers and that the duties and interests of the molders are
similar to or identical with those of the employees in the Petitioner's
certified unit. However, the record establishes to the contrary that
molders were, in fact, employed at the time the Board conducted the
election for the Employer's patternmakers and modelmakers, that the
unit stipulated by the parties was limited strictly to pattermnakers and'
modelmakers, that none of the molders attempted to vote in that
election, and that the molders were then included in the production
and maintenance unit of the Employer's employees represented by the
UAW-AFL-CIO. The molders are currently represented by the
UAW-AFL-CIO under the terms of a collective-bargaining agree-
ment containing an April 1958 modification date.
Upon such facts we conclude that there is no ambiguity or question
as to the coverage of the Petitioner's certified unit. The Petitioner
seeks by its motion to raise a question concerning the representation
of the molders and requests that such alleged question be resolved in
its favor by amendment of the certification. Such a matter, however,
can be resolved only by a representation petition and a secret ballot of
the molders .4 The possibility that such a petition and election may
be barred at this time by the collective-bargaining agreement between
the Employer and the UAW-AFL-CIO is not sufficient justification
2 The AFL and CTO having merged, the identification of the affiliation of this Union,
is amended accordingly
' On January 1, 1957, UAW-AFL-C10 filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's
remand order, and the Employer joined in that request by telegram dated January 8,
1957 The Board , on January 9, 1957 , denied the request for reconsideration,
4 Gulf Oil Corporation , 109 NLRB 801, 802
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for abandonment or evasion of the petition and election procedure.
We shall, therefore, dismiss the Petitioner's motion to clarify the
certification .5
[The Board dismissed the motion.]
5 Weatherhead Company of Antwerp, 106 NLRB 1266, 1267
Jensen Manufacturing Company and District No. 8, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner and
Local 1114, United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of
America and International Union of Electrical Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America , AFL-CIO and Local 1031, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No.
13-RC-4863. March 02, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act, a hearing
was held before Raymond A. Jacobsen, 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
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Bean].
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 named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
1 The petition herein was filed on February 10, 1956. A hearing began on April 26,
1956, at which time UE intervened on the basis of a bargaining contract , and IUE and
IBEW intervened on showings of interest The hearing was recessed until May 3, 1956,
and at the close of this season was recessed a second time Thereafter , while the hearing
was in recess the following events transpired: (1) UE filed charges and amended charges
in Case No. 13-CA-2245, alleging, inter alia, that, in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act, the Employer had recognized IBEW on May 14, 1956, as the exclusive representa-
tive of its employees, and had checked off dues in favor of IBEW ; ( 2) on October 5,
1956, IUE filed a charge in Case No. 13-CA-2327 alleging that, in violation of Section
8 (a) (3), the Employer was requiring its employees to join IBEW; (3) on October 11,
1956, UE filed a charge in Case No 13-CA-2332 alleging that the Employer had re-
strained and coerced its employees by entering into a bargaining contract with IBEW on
October 1, 1956, and by thereafter requiring its employees to join IBEW, all during the
pendency of the petition in this case , and (4) the Regional Director refused to issue com-
plaints on any of these charges, on the sole ground , in each instance , that "there is
insufficient evidence of violations "
When the hearing herein resumed on October 23, 1956, the Employer introduced evi-
dence to the effect that while the hearing was in recess the Employer had recognized the
117 NLRB No. 115.