67 N.L.R.B. 368 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

Hudson Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 16, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 368 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA (INDEPENDENT), CHAPTER No. 6 Case No. 7-R-2030.-Decided April 16, 1946 Mr. Sylvester J. Plieney , of Detroit , Mich., for the Board. Beaumont , Smith and Harris , by Mr. Percy J. Donovan , of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. Messrs. Walter Nelson and Robert H. Keys, of Detroit , Mich., for the Union. Mrs. Margaret H. Patterson, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE Upon a second amended petition duly filed by Foreman's Associa- tion of America, Chapter No. 6, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of Hudson Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein called the Company , the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Arthur Leff, Trial Examiner . The hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on September 12, 13, 14, 17, and 18, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and to cross-examine witnesses , and to intro- duce evidence bearing on the issues. At the close of the hearing the Union moved to amend its petition to conform to the statements of position expressed by it during the course of the hearing. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the Board . Inasmuch as the Com- pany did not plead surprise and stated that it did not wish to avail itself of the opportunity afforded to adduce further proof, the Union's motion to amend its petition is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. The Company's request for oral argument is hereby denied. 67 N. L R. B., No. 52 368 HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 369 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Hudson Motor Car Company is a Michigan corporation with its principal offices located at Detroit, Michigan. It owns and operates three plants in Detroit, known as the Jefferson Avenue Plant, the Gratiot Avenue Plant, and the Charlevoix Avenue Plant, all of which are involved in this proceeding. Prior to the war the Company en- gaged principally in the sale and manufacture of automobiles. From February 1942 to August 1945 the Company's manufacturing facilities at its three Detroit plants were devoted almost exclusively to the manu- facture of war materials and equipment for the United States Govern- ment. During the first 6 months of 1945, the Company purchased raw materials and supplies of a value upwards of several million dollars. More than 25 percent of the Company's purchases of raw materials and supplies was shipped to its Detroit plants from points outside the State. In excess of 25 percent of the finished and partially finished products manufactured by the Company at its Detroit plants is shipped to points outside the State of Michigan. The Company admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Foreman's Association of America, Chapter No. 6, unaffiliated, is a labor organization admitting to membership supervisory employees of the Company. III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has declined to recognize the Union as the collective bargaining representative of any of its supervisory employees on the ground that supervisors are not employees within the meaning of the Act. That contention has been considered and disposed of in a number of Board decisions.' In accordance with our previous determinations involving similar employees, we find that the supervisors involved in this proceeding are employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act. ','fatter of Soss Manufacturing Company , et al, 56 N L R B 348 ; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company , 61 N. L R B 4, and 64 N L R B 1212 ; Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N L R B 298 ; Matter of The B. F . Goodrich Company 65 N. L. R B 294 , Matter of Simmons Company , 65 N L R B. 984, Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company , 65 N L . R B 997 ; Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Cor- poiation , 66 N L . R B. 386 692148-46-vol. 67-25 370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em- ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Union seeks a unit composed of all supervisory employees of the Jefferson Avenue, Charlevoix Avenue, and Gratiot Avenue plants, including superintendents, special assignment men, engineers in the manufacturing division, special cost accountant, supervisor of plant and equipment, supervisor of material costs and shop orders, pay- master, assistant paymaster, chief timekeeper, assistant chief time- keepers, but excluding all supervisory employees above the rank of superintendent and all supervisors in the accounting division (except those specifically included), industrial relations department, engineer- ing department, sales department, purchasing department, time-study branch of the planning department, war contracts division, and traffic department. The Company contends that the supervisors here involved are easily distinguishable from the supervisors involved in the Packard case, that the Union is not independent of the United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, which repre- sents the Company's production and maintenance non-supervisory employees; that the granting of the petition would not effectuate the policies of the Act and would be contrary to public policy and public interest; that the unionization of such management personnel destroys their usefulness as company representatives because of the inevitable result of divided loyalty. The supervisory hierarchy in the Hudson Motor Car Company consists of the following : Title Number Salary rande President------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------- Vice president in charge of mf'g _________________________________________________ --------------General superintendents in charge of various major subdivisions _________________ 8 -------------- Assistant general superintendents ----------------------------------------------- 7 -------------- Superintendents - --------------- ------------------------ -------- 40 $500-725 Assistant superintendents ______________________________________________________ 34 400-495 General foremen --------------------------------------------- --------- 73 375-450 Assistant general foremen -------------------------------------------------------- 23 375 Foremen ------------------------ -------------------------------------------- 249 325-375 Assistantforemen --- ---------------------------------------------------------- 4 325-350 Foremen and assistant foremen, the lowest levels of supervision, are in immediate charge of rank and file employees. General foremen 2 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 780-815 dues receipts and that the names on 542 of these receipts also appeared on the Company's pay roll of June 5, 1945, containing the names of 762 emplo3 ees in the proposed unit HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 371 and assistant general foremen are on the next higher level and super- vise foremen and assistant foremen. Assistant superintendents are on about the same level of supervision as general foremen.8 Super- intendents supervise directly all subordinate supervisors including as- sistant superintendents, general foremen, assistant general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen. Both the Union and the Company agreed at the hearing that the authority and responsibility of supervisors on all levels within the proposed unit were the same and that any differences existing were not a matter of degree but rather were differences in the area of applica- tion. Each of the supervisors in question has the power to discharge out- right probationary employees in his department, to discharge or dis- cipline regular subordinates subject to the provisions of the collective bargaining contracts covering rank and file workers, to make intra- departmental transfers of subordinates without the consent of a higher ranking supervisor, to grant passes and leaves of absences, to make ratings for merit increases. The supervisors in question do not actu- ally hire employees. The record indicates that these supervisors may iefuse to accept an employee hired by the personnel department, but this does not mean that the employee is not hired by the plant in some capacity. On the whole the supervisors enforce but do not actually formulate company policy. They are called upon in meetings to make suggestions with respect to company policy but the Company is under no obligations to adopt such suggestions. The supervisor's part in collective bargaining is limited to his place in the grievance procedure contained in the collective bargaining agreements between the Com- pany and the various rank and file unions. We do not find persuasive the Company's attempt to distinguish this case from the Packard case on the ground that Hudson supervisors have duties, powers, and responsibilities far beyond those of super- visors in the Paclcard case and cannot therefore be classified as mere "traffic cops." As we stated in Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, the nature of the duties and responsibilities of supervisors is not relevant except insofar as it bears on the question of the proper grouping of supervisors for collective bargaining purposes.4 The Company's contention with respect to the Union's lack of inde- pendence is no longer material since our decision in the Jones dv Laugh- lin case 8 wherein we held that this Board has no power to limit the choice of a collective bargaining representative for a unit of foremen to an independent, unaffiliated foreman's union. The Company's ar- The record affords instances of reclassifications of general foremen to assistant super- intendents without accompanying changes in duties . It will be noted the salary ranges of the two classifications overlap Some departments do not have assistant superintendents. 4 Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298. 5 Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 66 N. L R . B. 386. 372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD guments with respect to divided loyalty resulting from the recognition of a supervisory bargaining unit were disposed of in Matter of L. A. Young Spring d Wire Corporation and cases following. As in those cases, we find that questions of divided loyalty and the like are matters which must be settled by the parties through their collective bargain- ing agreements. There remains for consideration, therefore, the appropriateness of the unit as proposed by the Union and the proper disposition of certain fringe groups which the union desires to include in the unit. Superintendents: The superintendent in the Hudson plant ranks on a level below the general superintendent (the division head) and, where there is one, his assistant. Although the parties agree that the superintendent has substantially the same authority and responsibili- ties as the other supervisors in the proposed unit, the evidence indicates that, unlike the lower categories, he is vested with plenary power to make certain effective decisions, including those affecting subordinate supervisors, with respect to actions which those beneath him have only the authority to recommend. Under established procedures he is au- thorized to give effective approval to a subordinate supervisor's recom- mendation to discharge or reclassify employees. He represents the Company in the second step of the grievance procedure provided for in the collective bargaining agreements covering rank and file employ- ees. His salary does not overlap that of any subordinate and is roughly 25 percent above that of the assistant superintendent. Under all the circumstances, we believe that these superintendents, as in the Midland Steel case,e should be given the opportunity by separate voting to de- termine whether or not they desire to be in the same unit with subordi- nate supervisors. Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determina- tion at this time but will be guided by the desires of the employees involved as expressed in the elections ordered hereinafter. In the event that the employees in the voting groups described hereinafter select the Union, they shall together constitute a single appropriate unit.? Although no specific issue has been made as to the composition of the proposed unit, we shall exclude the following categories of employ- ees who, in our opinion do not properly belong in a unit of supervisors of production and maintenance employees : - Engineers in the manufacturing division: There are eight persons classified as engineers in the manufacturing division who are highly s Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, 65 N L. R B. 997. r The following five men, although apparently rated as superintendents, are in fact assistant general superintendents and will be excluded from any voting group pursuant to the Union's request for the exclusion of assistant general superintendents and higher cate- gories of supervisors. G L. West and L J. Doyle, plant engineers in the master mechanic division ; R. V. Sleight , superintendent in the axle plant ; J H . Sawyer, superintendent of production , and L Lamb, superintendent of the mechanical division , both of the manu- facturing division of the Gratiot Avenue Plant HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY 373 skilled technical employees. They do not exercise any real super- visory function and are alreiidy included in a unit of draftsmen, tech- nicians and engineers represented by the Society for Designing En- gineers, UAW-CIO. Inasmuch as they are not supervisors within the meaning of the Board's customary definition, we shall exclude them. Special cost accountant, supervisor of plant and equipment, super- visor of material costs and shop orders, paymaster, assistant pay- master, chief timekeeper and assistant chief timekeepers: These super- visors are in the accounting division. They are in charge of clerical employees who are included in the rank and file clerical unit. Inas- much as they are clerical supervisors, we. shall exclude them from this unit of production and maintenance supervisors. We shall direct that separate elections be held among the employees in the voting groups described below who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction : (1) All assistant foremen, foremen, assistant general foremen, general foremen, assistant superintendents, and comparable supervisors in the manufacturing division of the Company's Jefferson Avenue, Charlevoix Avenue, and Gratiot Avenue plants, Detroit, Michigan, including special assignment men, but excluding engineers, superintendents, and persons of comparable rank, assistant general superintendents, general superinte,_dents, time-study supervisors, all supervisors employed in the accounting division, sales department, purchasing department, engineering division, traffic department, war contracts division, industrial relations department; (2) all superin- tendents and comparable supervisors in the manufacturing division of the Company's Jefferson Avenue, Charlevoix Avenue, and Gratiot Avenue plants," excluding assistant foremen, foremen, assistant gen- eral foremen, general foremen, assistant superintendents, assistant general superintendents, general superintendents, and comparable supervisors, engineers, time-study supervisors, all supervisors em- ployed in the accounting division, sales department, purchasing de- partment, engineering division, traffic department, war contracts divi- sion, and the industrial relations department. As stated above there will be no final determination of the appro- priate unit pending the results of the elections. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, "Not included within this classification are R V Sleight, superintendent axle plant, G L. West and L J. Doyle, plant engineers in the master mechanics division , J H. Sawyer, superintendent of production , and L Lamb, superintendent of the mechanical division in the manufacturing division of the Gratiot plant, who are excluded from the unit. 374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series ;, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Hudson Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervi- sion of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among employees in the voting groups described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work dur- ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem- porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, to determine in each of the voting groups whether or not they desire to be represented by Foremen's Association of America (Independent), Chapter No. 6, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON, concurring specially : For the reasons stated in my special concurrence in Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company,9 I concur in the foregoing decision except insofar as it establishes separate voting groups for superin- tendents on the one hand and other supervisors on the other. I would establish only one voting group. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring separately : It would be my position, if this were a case of first impression, that no election should be directed in this matter, since all the persons who are the subject of this petition are supervisors and the business involved here does not differ in any relevant respect from the kind of business carried on by the Packard Company 10 Since the majority of the Board entertain a contrary view, however, I wish to concur in the conclusion that the superintendents should be balloted separately so as to ascertain whether or not they desire to be in the bargaining unit which includes the assistant superintendents, general foremen, assist- ant general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen. There is suffi- cient evidence in the record to indicate that the duties and responsibil- ities of the superintendents are distinguishable from the lower levels of supervision. 85 N. L. R. B. 997. '° My views on this basic question are contained in the dissenting opinion in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R B. 4.