General Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1215 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 1215
General Motors Corporation , Cadillac Motor Car Division and
. 'Federated Tool Crafts, affiliated with American Federation of
Skilled Crafts (AFSC), Petitioner
General Motors Corporation, Pontiac Motor Division and Inter-
national Association of Tool Craftsmen , affiliated with National
Independent Union Council (NIUC), and with International
Society of Skilled Trades (ISST), Petitioner
General Motors Corporation , Pontiac Motor Division, and Inter-
national Union, International Society of Electrical Craftsmen,
-affiliated with ISST , Petitioner
General Motors Corporation , Fisher Body Division , Pittsburgh
Plant and The Society of Tool and Die Craftsmen (NIUC),
Petitioner
The Ford Motor Company (Lorain , Ohio Plant ) and International
Union of Operating Engineers , Local 589, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 7-RC-3698, 7-RC-3789, 3791, 3801, 7-RC-3764, 6-RC-
2089, and 8-RC-3162. May 28, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
'Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, hearings were held in the above-entitled
proceedings before Seymour G. Clark, Jr., James A. Wehrenberg,
and Donald J. Myers, hearing officers.' The hearing officers' rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the UAW, intervened in all of these cases as the long
standing bargaining representative of the great bulk of the employees
of the two companies involved. After the close of hearing in Case
No. 8-RC-3162, and during the hearings in the other three proceed-
ings, the UAW moved that all of these cases, plus a number of other
representation proceedings now pending before the Board, be con-
solidated for purposes of both hearing and decision.2
.1A petition in General Motors, Saginaw Steemang Gear Dtivisson, Case No 7-RC-3799,
was originally consolidated with the Pontiac Motor Car Division cases ; at the hearing it
was severed and hearing upon that petition was continued to a later date by agreement of
the parties
The petitions in Cases Nos. 7-RC-3698 , 3789, 3791 , 3801, 3764 , G-RC-2089, and
8-RC-3162 are hereby consolidated for decisional purposes
9In addition to the petitions on which these hearings were held , others have been filed
in various Regional Offices presenting essentially the same issues iaised here and tor
the most part by the same petitioners Forty-five such petitions name General Motors as
employer , 13 name Ford , and 21 name the Chrysler Corporation. In all of these other
cases, the UAW is the incumbent bargaining representative.
120 NLRB No. 162.
1216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The UAW also moved for continuances in the three cases involving
the General Motors Corporation, hereinafter called GM. All of
these motions were denied, first by the hearing officers where appro-
priate, and later by the Board.
The UAW also asked for oral argument before the Board. Be
cause of the importance of the issues raised by the petition in these
cases and the many others now pending, because of the concern
expressed by the various companies over the possible impact dis-
position of these cases may have upon their bargaining relationship
with the UAW, and because these parties assert that early definite
disposition of the cases is essential to the continued maintenance of
industrial stability in the labor management relations of these com-
panies with their employees, a stability which we deem of the utmost
importance to the national economy today, the Board granted the
request for oral argument . Pursuant to notice,' the Board heard
oral argument in Detroit, Michigan, on May 21, 1958.4 Representa-
tives of each of the parties participated; in addition, a representative
of the Chrysler Corporation also presented the views of that Com-
pany, as amicus curiae.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
(1) The employers involved are engaged in. commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
(2) International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, is a.
labor organization representing employees of the employers.' Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 589, AFL-CIO, is a
labor organization claiming to represent the employees of the Ford
Motor Company.
During the course of the hearing UAW and GM contested the
labor organization status of all the Petitioners involved except the
Operating Engineers. They contend that none of these organiza-
tions is a labor organization qualified for Board certification in
bargaining units of craft status or departmental employees pursuant
to severance elections." In view of our ultimate decision herein dis-
8 The Board 's notice also invited the Chrysler Corporation , Pattern Makers League of
America, AFL-CIO, American Motors Company, Continental Motors, Holley Carburetor
Co., the N. A. M ., and the U S . Chamber of Commerce Labor Relations Division, to par-
ticipate in the oral argument as amicus curiae American Motors filed a statement and
the AFL-CIO submitted a letter and attachments in response to the invitation
A Member Jenkins , who was unable to hear the oral argument , personally read the
entire record transcript of that portion of the proceedings.
6 At the hearings UAW intervened together with its respective locals, through which it
represents the pertinent employees . In the Fisher Body case , there was Local No 544 ;
in the Cadillac case there was Local No 22 ; and in the Pontiac case, there were Locals
Nos. 653 and 699
6 See American Potash, 107 NLRB 1418, where the Board held that only a traditional
union may sustain a craft severance petition and Friden Calculating Machine Co , etc, 110
NLRB 1618 , 1619, where the Board held that "a union organized for the sole and exclu-
sive purpose of representing members of [a] craft . . . can be as much a craft union as
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 1217
missing all the petitions, no purpose would be served in considering
the voluminous evidence received on this point. We shall therefore
make no determination in this proceeding concerning the qualifica-
tion of the various Petitioners to sustain their petitions.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employers, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The purpose of the oral argument in this proceeding was to con-
sider comprehensively a fundamental argument of the companies and
UAW : that the Board ought not establish any craft or other smaller-
than-plant-wide bargaining units in the automobile industry gen-
erally. However, immediately before making this detailed statement
on this issue at the oral argument, the representative of General
Motors filed with the Board a written motion for dismissal of the
6 petitions involving that company on which the argument was being
heard.' The basis of this motion bears no relationship to the elements
involved in the principal issue on which the oral argument request
was granted. Moreover, this was the first time that the company
urged this position throughout the lengthy hearings on all three cases.
In this motion, GM contends that, apart from the question of
whether or not there may be craft units in the automobile industry,
the units requested by the various petitioners are inappropriate on
the ground that they are not coextensive with the existing bargaining
unit from which the petitioners seek to sever small groups. The Ford
Motor Company, in Case No. 8-RC-3162, made the same contention
respecting the boilerhouse unit sought by the Operating Engineers
at its Lorain plant. GM contends that all the employees sought by
the various parties are embraced in a single multiplant bargaining
unit, which includes all the approximately 120 GM plant locations,
and which underlies the national agreement which has been in effect
between GM and UAW. Ford makes a similar contention to the
effect that the Lorain plant is part of a single bargaining unit together
with a large number of Ford plants covered by the Ford national
collective-bargaining contract with UAW. On the foregoing basis
GM and Ford move for dismissal of all these petitions.'
an older organization which has been representing craft members for many years"
In contrast , see also Fort Die Casting Corporation , 115 NLRB 1749, where the Board
held that a union organized for the purpose of and in fact representing diversified crafts-
men, is not qualified as a traditional union within the meaning of the American Potash
rule
71n its motion to dismiss on this ground GM simultaneously moved for dismissal of
45 additional petitions filed in various Board Regional offices and also involving requests
for severance elections of employees of this company . As the respective Regional Di-
rectors in charge of those 45 petitions have neither issued notice of hearing in any of
them nor taken action to dismiss , this portion of GM' s motion is not now properly before
the Board , and therefore will not be considered.
8 The UAW's only answer to the GM' s motion was a telegraphic communication to the
Board stating that it would file no response However, at the close of the hearing in
483142-59-vol. 120-78
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Operating Engineers and the various independent petitioning
unions oppose these motions to dismiss and assert that neither GM
nor Ford has been bargaining with the UAW on a multiplant
unit basis.
From the inception of their union activities, the UAW has been the
principal and the almost exclusive organizational force among the
employees of the GM company. Starting in 1938 it won successive
single plant elections in the approximately 120 plants and was certified
by this Board as exclusive representative in each plant as a separate
bargaining unit. From the very beginning, however, and apparently
as soon as there came into being more than one such certification, UAW
and GM have engaged in single, common, centralized bargaining nego-
tiations for all the plants where the employees had chosen UAW as
their bargaining agent. From such bargaining negotiations there
emerged in each instance a single contract, nationwide and company-
wide in scope, and fixing conditions of employment for employees
in all these plants. The terms of the successive national agreements,
as evidenced by the current contract placed in evidence, establish in
detail such matters as seniority rights, hours of work, call-in pay,
over-time obligations, wages (including the annual improvement
factor schedule of pay increases and the cost of living BLS pay in-
crease schedule), vacations and absences, strike and lockout limita-
tions, skilled trades training and privileges, holiday pay, a pension
plan, insurance benefits, and an unemployment benefit plan.
The bargaining sessions take place only in Detroit with an 11-man
negotiating team, assisted by a UAW international staff, as the only
spokesmen on behalf of all the employees in all the plants. The suc-
cessive conferences are limited to participation by this group and
management representatives, and the ultimate agreement is reached
by them.
The union demands are formulated as follows : All GM employees
represented by UAW are divided into 11 groups. The groupings
follow in some cases job classifications, in some cases type of plants
involved, and in some cases kind of automobile assembled. Each of
these 11 groups sends representatives to a subcouncil, of which there
are 11. The representatives are the president of the local and the
chairman of the shop committee, or other employees if those individ-
uals already happen to be in another subcouncil or do not themselves
personally fall within the particular grouping.
The groupings follow :
1. Chevrolet assembly.
2. Fisher Body assembly.
3. Fisher stamping.
Case No 7-RC-3789, UAW moved for dismissal of that petition on the ground that it was
not • coextensive with the existing national multiplant collective-bargaining agreement
between GM and UAW.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 1219
4. Accessories and parts.
5. Foundry and forge.
6. Heavy equipment.
7. Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac.
8. Design-engineering-model maker-pattern shops.
9. Tool and die maintenance.
10. Assembly manufacturing and motor.
11. Bearings, transmissions and axle.
Some groups include a few entire plants plus certain parts of other
plants. Some of the subcouncils have no concern at all with many of
the GM plants, and in the case of "tool and die maintenance," the
group probably represents at least some employees in the vast majority
of the 120 plants. Thus the old unit lines are totally disregarded at
this point.
Each of the 11 subcouncils decides what to ask for in negotiations
on behalf of their group. Each subcouncil then sends representatives
to the UAW GM National Council. This council coordinates the
demands and sends the 11-man negotiating committee-with a man
from each subcouncil-to the bargaining table.
The agreements reached through such national negotiations in
Detroit must be ratified by the employees voting in their respective
locals. Recently, the skilled classifications have voted separately on
matters pertaining to them. The record does not indicate that they
may stop ratification of the entire contract by their separate objec-
tions. The record does show that when a majority of the employees
and of the locals have ratified the entire contract, it takes effect ; no
local or single group of employees may avoid being bound by the
national contract when the majority has so desired; no single local or
single plant may make its own separate contract with GM.
The national contract provides for separate supplemental negotia-
tions and a signed supplemental agreement between each shop com-
mittee in a single plant and management at that plant location. These
supplemental contracts are limited to special problems affecting only
that location, they must be entirely consistent with the national agree-
ment, and they must be approved by the central UAW organization as
well as central management of GM. The matters that are negotiated
locally are described in the record as "local seniority" and "local wage
and shift preference." More precisely, the national agreement sets
out the following items for local determination : wage payment plans,
production standards, local "wage scales for each operation," and
occupation, departmental, or plantwide type of seniority. That these
matters are essentially limited is indicated by the contract as a whole
which contains complete detailed provisions on raises, wages, increases
in benefits and earnings, 11 pages of seniority provisions, as well as
provisions on all other substantive terms of employment.
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The GM Personnel Director explained as a witness that wages are
negotiated on a national level, and that an "inequity fund" is distrib-
uted by local agreement, always subject to national agreement. He-
described this inequity fund as a sum of about 1 or 2 cents per hour,
determined in the national negotiations, but to be distributed locally.
The contract elsewhere provides for preferential hiring at new
plants of employees from existing plants, with seniority at the old
plant retained for a period of time. It also provides for union-
company conferences to relocate employees with seniority when lay-
offs result from shifts in plant operations.
The foregoing facts are persuasive evidence that in the course of
their bargaining UAW and GM intended to deal with one another
on the basis of the UAW representing all the employees as a single
bargaining unit. There are some minor facts that might point to a
contrary intent. Thus, the recognition clause in the master agreement
refers to the employees in "bargaining units"; on the subject of
selection of district committeemen and shop committeemen, it also
speaks of their selection in "bargaining units." Further, one of -the
clauses in the strike and lockout section speaks of an authorized strike
in one bargaining unit effecting the flow of materials to other bargain-
ing units.
The total picture of bargaining over the years that is reflected by
these records, however, leaves no doubt that General Motors and
UAW intended to, and in fact did, carry on their collective-bargaining
on the basis of a single companywide multiplant unit. All principal
demands and benefits discussed applied to all employees throughout
the Company. All negotiations were centralized. A single contract
contains all the substantive ground rules. The UAW alone acted as
sole bargaining agent and the distinction between one plant and an-
other does not appear to have been a factor at all in the course of
bargaining. What matters were left for local determination essen-
tially pertained to strictly single-plant problems.
Of particular significance in this case is the manner in which the
bargaining demands pertaining to the overall unit are formulated and
the manner in which they are pressed. The desires and the needs of
the various employees are considered on the basis of employee classifi-
cation, plant product, fabrication function, and other criterion which
bear no relationship to any single-plant unit concept, and which cut
across and completely disregard the original unit certifications. The
Board has frequently held that bargaining of this type, which obliter-
ates the previously existing units based on Board certifications, is a
permissible avenue for the course of labor-management relations,° and
9 Owens-Illronois Glass Company, 108 NLRB 947
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 1221
that local agreements for strictly local problems are not inconsistent
with the existence of multiplant units."
Accordingly, we find, on the entire record, that in consequence of
this long history of collective bargaining and the exclusive recognition
.accorded the UAW by GM on a multiplant unit basis, there has come
into existence and there now exists a single companywide bargaining
unit embracing all those plants of the company in which the UAW
has in the past been recognized as the exclusive representative, and
which are covered by the existing national agreement." The Board
.has long held that requests for severance elections must be coextensive
with the existing bargaining unit from which a union seeks to detach
specified categories of workmen.12 Accordingly, as each of the Peti-
tioners in these GM cases requests elections in units limited to a single
plant covered by the national agreement, the units sought are too nar-
row in scope and therefore inappropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. We shall therefore grant the Company's motion to dis-
miss all the petitions.13
The Loraili, Ohio, plant, Ford Motor Company
The Lorain plant is a newly constructed modern assembly plant of
the Ford Motor Company, for both cars and trucks, near Cleveland,
about 200 miles from Buffalo. It is a replacement plant for the Com-
pany's old one in Buffalo, which has also served to assemble auto-
mobiles. The Buffalo plant was scheduled to cease production in
February and to close down finally on May 1, last. On the day of
hearing in this case (February 17, 1958) there were about 46 newly
hired persons employed at Lorain, including the 9 powerhouse em-
ployees whom the Petitioner, the Operating Engineers, seeks to repre-
sent. Employment at Lorain will increase to 663 by June 30, 1958,
.and it will not reach its eventual anticipated complement of 1,960 em-
ployees before November 1958. The powerhouse was expected to
reach its total complement of 12 employees last April 1. Testimony of
the hearing indicated that production would start at Lorain during
April.
10 St. Regis Paper Company , 97 NLRB 1051 , 1056; The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Com-
pany , 105 NLRB 074
u The Goodyear Tore and Rubber Company, supra ; Gulf Atlantic Warehouse Company,
111 NLRB 1249 ; The Firestone Tire tf Rubber Company, 103 NLRB 1749 . Cf. American.
Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284
'a St. Regis Paper Company, 101 NLRB 656.
v As the lengthy and very comprehensive records made in the three General Motors
cases reveal a full and detailed picture of the history and methods with respect to the
collective bargaining between that Company and UAW, no useful purpose would be served
by further oral argument on the Company 's motion. The request for oral argument made
by International Society of Skilled Trades is therefore denied
1222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On January 21, 1958, Ford and UAW, the bargaining representa-
tive at Buffalo, signed a supplement agreement providing for seniority
rights for employees at Buffalo who might transfer to Lorain. That
agreement expressly recognized UAW as the exclusive representative
of the Lorain employees. More pertinently, it refers to the Lorain
employees as "falling within the categories comprising the `Contract
Unit' referred to in Article 1, Section 1 of the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the Company and the Union dated June 8, 1955."
The UAW has long been the bargaining agent of the great majority of
employees in Ford automobile plants throughout the country pursuant
to a national companywide collective-bargaining contract.
In anticipation of moving the plant from Buffalo to Lorain, the
Company conducted a written survey of all Buffalo employees, who
totaled approximately 1,100; 885 of these expressed in writing their
desire to transfer to Lorain. Supervisory staff members, as well as
hourly paid and salaried employees, will be brought to Lorain.
It is clear that neither the Ford company nor the UAW regard the
Lorain plant as a new operation. The very functions that were carried
on at the Buffalo plant, together with a very substantial majority of
the Buffalo employees, are being transferred to the new location.
They have, therefore, viewed this as but a transfer of the same opera-
tion and blanketed the Lorain location into their existing contract,
Considering all the pertinent facts, we agree with these parties that
the Lorain plant is not a new installation of the Ford Motor Company
but only a relocation of the existing manufacturing facility formerly
located at Buffalo. The same work is being done by the employees,
the same product of the Company is being manufactured, the same
supervisory personnel will be used, and, to a very large extent, the
very same employees are now performing or will perform the same
plant functions. It is true that it is planned eventually to add sub-
stantially to the overall group of employees from the local labor
market. However, the first jobs, and consequently the more certain
positions in view of the present conditions of the automobile market,
are occupied and will continue to be occupied by the transferees from
Buffalo. We are satisfied on the entire record that the Lorain plant,
viewed, as it must be, as but the Buffalo plant relocated, is covered
by the national agreement between Ford and UAW.14
As stated above, and as the Board has previously found, the em-
ployees of the Ford Motor Company represented by the UAW are all
embraced within a single multiplant bargaining unit.15 Accordingly,
14 Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 131; Plu8s Poultry, Inc, 100 NLRB
64; and Ford Motor Company, 92 NLRB 188.
There is clearly no merit in the contention of the Ford Company that the current con-
tract with the UAW bars this petition, because the petition was timely filed with respect
to the expiration date-May 29, 1958-of the existing contract.
15 Ford Motor Company, 92 NLRB 188; Ford Motor Company, Case No. 13-RC-4273
(not published).
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 1223
as the employees requested at the Lorain plant have been included in
the multiplant unit for a number of years, it follows, as in the case of
the General Motors petitions above, that the proposed unit, limited to
powerhouse employees of the single plant, is too limited in scope and
therefore inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.',, We
shall therefore dismiss this petition also.
In view of our decision to dismiss all the petitions on the foregoing
grounds, we find it unnecessary and therefore do not pass upon the
merits of any other issues raised by any of the petitions in the course
of these proceedings.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
16 St . Regis Paper Co , 101 NLRB 655.
International Association of Machinists , Precision Lodge No. 1600
[Adel Precision Products , Division of General Metals Corpora-
tion] and Robert M. Bennett . Case No. 21-CB-933. May 09,
1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 2, 1957, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be
dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
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
Bean and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case. It hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings and con-
clusions.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding , with all parties represented , was heard by the duly designated
Trial Examiner at Los Angeles, California , October 21 , 1957, on complaint of
120 NLRB No. 158.