General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 955 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 955
of the right to file objections.' Accordingly, we shall entertain the
Employer's objection to the rulings on the validity of the two ballots,
and shall consider the objection on the merits. Because the markings
on the two ballots clearly reveal the intent of the voters and are not.
inherently such as to disclose the identity of the voters, we find that
they are valid ballots.' In these circumstances, we direct that they be&
counted as valid votes against the Petitioner and be included in they'
official tally.
[The Board directed that the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction,
open and count the ballots of Anthony Geonnotti and Raymond Smith,
count the 2 ballots marked "Hell" and "Hell No," and shall not count
the uncast ballot. He also shall serve upon the parties a supplemental
tally of ballots.]
5 General Plywood Corporation, 83 NLRB 197, 198; Wilson & Company, Inc., 10fi
NLRB 1512, 1514, footnote 3
6 Pioneer Electronics Corporation, 112 NLRB 1010. While Chairman Leedom joins his
colleagues in this decision, he believes a better rule than that in the precedent of Pioneer
Electronics Corporation, supra, would be to declare void all ballots that bear marks out-
side the square deliberately placed there by the voter and that would serve to identify
his ballot.
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division , Mansfield,
Ohio, Plant and International Union, United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
AFL-CIO),2 Petitioner
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division , Mansfield,
Ohio, Plant and International Association of Tool Craftsmen,
affiliated with National Independent Union Council, Petitioner
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division , Mansfield,
Ohio, Plant and Pattern Maker's League of North America,
Cleveland Association, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 8-BC-
2879, 8-RC-2880, and 8-RC-2883. April 2, X957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. R. Griesbach, 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 these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 The name of the Employer in all three proceedings appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
117 NLRB No. 139.
956 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
The Employer moves to dismiss the petition of the International
Association of Tool Craftsmen, N. I. U. C., hereinafter called Tool
Craftsmen, on the ground that the record fails to show it to be a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act. In addition, the Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Im-
plement Workers of America (UAW-AFL-CIO), hereinafter called
UAW, contends that the Tool Craftsmen has not shown that its organ-
ization at the Mansfield Plant has complied with the filing require-
ments of the Act and that it meets the traditional representative test.
The Tool Craftsmen offered testimony, through the secretary of its
local organization, that it exists for the purpose of representing em-
ployees in collective-bargaining matters. We find, therefore, that it
is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act and shall deny
the Employer's motion to dismiss. Moreover, it was established at
the hearing that the local organization of the Tool Craftsmen at the
Mansfield, Ohio, Plant functions only as an organizing committee,
with no bylaws, dues, or regular meetings. As such, its officers need
not file affidavits as required by Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the
Act.' In addition, we find no factual merit in the UAW's contention
that the Tool Craftsmen fails to satisfy the Board's traditional repre-
sentative test.' Moreover, the traditional union test is not applicable
to this type of case which does not involve severing from an existing
production and maintenance unit.5
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. Appropriate unit :
The Mansfield Plant is a newly constructed fabricating plant at
which there has been no history of collective bargaining.
The Employer and the UAW, are in agreement that the plantwide
production and maintenance unit sought in Case No. 8-RC-2879 is an
appropriate one. The Tool Craftsmen took no position.
The Tool Craftsmen disclaimed any interest in the unit sought by
the Pattern Makers' League of North America, Cleveland Associa-
tion, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called Pattern Makers. The remaining
parties stipulated to the appropriateness of the unit.
The Tool Craftsmen seeks a tool and die departmental unit com-
prising all employees in department 4 under the supervision of the
tool and die superintendent, with the exception of the patternmakers.
The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate because of the
8 Grand Central Aircraft Co., Inc., 106 NLRB 358.
Cf. International Harvester Company, 111 NLRB 606.
e See Campbell Soup Company , 109 NLRB 518.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 957
physical and functional integration of its plant. The UAW takes no
position.
The record reveals that the plant's tool and die operations are per-
formed in areas apart from the assembly and pressrooms. Although
certain of the tool and die employees spend some of their time in the
production area, they perform skilled tool and die work primarily
in special areas allocated for that work.
The tool and die superintendent supervises all the employees in
department 4 which is composed of employees with such classifications
as die maker, die tryout man, mechanical handling device man, heat
treat man, die welder, are and gas welder, cutter grinder, toolmaker,
tool and die fixture checker, model duplicator-plastics, floor helper,
and various types of machine operators. Most of these employees are
highly skilled and possess common interests.
From the foregoing, we find that the employees the Tool Craftsmen
seeks constitute, on the whole, a functionally distinct and homogeneous
departmental group of the type the Board has held may constitute,
if they so desire, a separate appropriate unit.'
Accordingly, we shall direct elections in the following groups of
employees of the Employer at its Mansfield, Ohio, Plant :
(a) All patternmakers, patternmaker leaders and patternmaker ap-
prentices, but excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
(b) All employees in department 4, including the tool and die de-
partment apprentices, but excluding the patternmakers, and all other
employees, guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
(c) All production and maintenance employees, excluding all em-
ployees in department 4, all other employees, guards, and supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select the Pattern
Makers, that group will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate bargaining unit, which the Board, under these
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes -of collective' bar-
gaining, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is hereby
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such union for
such unit.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (b) select the Tool
Craftsmen, that group will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate bargaining unit, which the Board, under these
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is hereby
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such union for
su'clvunit.
" Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc., 111 NLRB 237.
958 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group
(a) do not vote for the Pattern Makers and/or a majority of the em-
ployees in voting group (b) do not vote for the Tool Craftsmen, they
will be appropriately included in the production and maintenance unit
and their votes will be pooled with those of voting group (c),' and
the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by a
majority of the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances,
finds to be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
'If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied by counting votes for the Pattern
Makers and/or Tool Craftsmen as valid votes cast, but neither for nor against the union
seeking to represent the broad unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value,
whether for representation by the union seeking the broad unit or for no union.
Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL-CIO; Local Union No. 848 of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO;
Local Union No. 3111 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO and United Slate, Tile &
Composition Roofers, Damp and Waterproof Workers Asso-
ciation , Local Union No. 40, AFL-CIO. Case No. fdO-CD-42.
April 3,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 18, 1956, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that
Respondent Local Union No. 848 of the United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 848,
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section (b) (4) (D) of the Act, and that Respondent Local
Union No. 3111 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Local 3111, had engaged in un-
fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of
the Act, and recommending that each Respondent Union cease and
desist therefrom, and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Ex-
aminer also found that Respondent Bay Counties District Council of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called District
Council, and Respondent Local 3111 had not engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed against these Respond-
ents insofar as this allegation of the complaint was concerned. There-
after, United Slate, Tile & Composition Roofers, Damp and Water-
117 NLRB No. 140.