Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 570 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of KELSEY-IIAYES WHEEL COMPANY and FOREMAN'S
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHAPTER #11
Case No . 7-B-2058.-Decided March 11, 1946
Mr. Meyer D. Stein, for the Board.
Butzel, Eaman, Long, Gust ct Kennedy, by Mr. Victor W. Klein,
of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Walter L. Nelson, by Mr. Bernard E. Konopka, of Detroit,
Mich., for the Union.
Mr. Bernard Goldberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America,
Chapter #11, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, Detroit, Michigan, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert J. Wiener, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on August
28 and 30, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss
the petition on various grounds discussed hereinafter. The Trial
Examiner referred this motion to the Board. For reasons stated
infra the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with
the Board. The Company has requested leave to argue its case
orally before the Board. This request is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
66 N. L . R. B., No. 76.
570
KELSEY-HAYES WHEEL COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
571
Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, a Delaware corporation having its
principal office and place of business in Detroit, Michigan, is normally
engaged in the manufacture of automotive parts and products. It
operates two plants in the City of Detroit, known respectively as the
Military and McGraw plants, and one plant in Jackson, Michigan.1
This proceeding is concerned only with the Military and McGraw
plants. During 1944, the Company purchased raw materials, sup-
plies, and equipment at a cost of more than $35,000,000, of which
approximately 50 percent in value was shipped into the State of
Michigan from sources outside the State. During the same period,
the Company manufactured various peacetime and wartime products
which it sold for more than $70,000,000. Of the total sales, approxi-
mately 50 percent in value was shipped out of the State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman's Association of America, Chapter #11, unaffiliated, is
a labor organization admitting supervisory employees of the Com-
pany into membership.
II;. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has declined to recognize the Union as the collective
bargaining representative of any of its supervisory employees.
The Company contends that its foremen and comparable super-
visors are not employees within the meaning and coverage of the
Act. The questioll of the status of foremen under the Act has been
considered i{I, i number of Board and court decisions. Both the
Board 2 and the courts 3 have concurred in holding that in relation
to their employer, foremen and similar supervisors are ^ employed
1 Duripg the war, the Company also operated a plant owned by the Defense Plant
Corporation at Plymouth , Michigan. Operations of the Company at this plant have
ceased.
0 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, at al , 56 N. L R. B. 348 ; Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. It. B 4, and 64 N. L. It. B. 1212; Matter of L. A
Young Spring & Wire Corporation , 65 N. L. R B. 298; Matter of The B. P. Good-
rich Company, 65 N. L. It. B. 294; Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company,
65 N. L. It. B. 997 ; Matter of Simmons Company, 65 N. L. It. B. 984.
a N. L. R. B. v. Armour and Go , 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10) ; Janes & Laughlin Steel
Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5); N. L. R. B. V. Skinner & Ken-
nedy Stationery Company, 113 F. ( 2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8).
S72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the definition contained in Section 2 (3) of the Act. Accord-
ingly, we find that the supervisors involved in this proceeding are
employees within the meaning of the Act.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
Position of the Parties
The Union seeks a unit of all section foremen, department foremen,
assistant general foremen, general foremen and comparable super-
visors in the manufacturing division of the Company's Military and
McGraw plants, including such supervisors in the following depart-
ments and subdepartments : production, toolroom, die making and
repair, tool making, tool grinding, inspection, maintenance, mill-
wrights, steam fitters, electricians, machine repair, power plant, ship-
ping, receiving and stockroom, but excluding all supervisors in the
time, tool design, process and standards, production planning, and
personnel and industrial relations, departments.
The Company in opposition to the unit sought by the Union con-
tends that (a) no unit of supervisors in a mass production industry
is appropriate, (b) the proposed unit it inappropriate because it
includes several levels of supervision, (c) the proposed unit is unduly
restrictive and should, also include supervisors in the tool design,
process and standards, production planning, and time departments
of the manufacturing division as well as the supervisor in the watch-
men section of the personnel department and the supervisors in the
design, laboratory, experimental and research departments of the sales
division," and (d) the Union is not independent of the labor organiza-
tion which represents the Company's rank and file employees.
Description of Company's Supervisory Hierarchy
The Company's general operations are divided into three divisions,
sales, manufacturing, and treasurer's, each headed by a vice president.
* The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 101 application for member-
ship cards and that there are approximately 125 employees in the alleged appropriate
unit.
c This was the position taken by the Company at the hearing . In its brief. the
Company mentions only the supervisors in the time , watchmen 's, design , laboratory,
experimental and research departments as being in issue. It is not clear as to whether
the Company has abandoned its claim for the inclusion of the tool design , process and
standards , and production planning supervisors.
KELSEY-HAYES WHEEL COMPANY 573
As previously stated, the Union is seeking a unit limited to super-
visors in the manufacturing division of the Military and McGraw
plants. The supervisory hierarchy in immediate charge of opera-
tions in the manufacturing division of the McGraw plant, which is
similar in set-up although not in numbers to that in the Military
plant, consists of the following :
1 Plant Manager
2 Plant Superintendents
12 General Foremen
1 Assistant General Foreman
28 Department Foremen
46 Section Foremen
The plant manager is in charge of all plant activities. Superin-
tendents coordinate the activities of the departments and report to
the plant manager. General foremen are in charge of major depart-
ments and are responsible to the plant superintendents. Assistant
general foremen act as general foremen on the night or second shift.
Department foremen may either be in charge of part of a major
department under the supervision of a general foreman, or they may
be in full charge of a minor department under the direction of one of
the superintendents. Section foremen supervise section operations
and report to department foremen. In some departments, there are
no section foremen, the lowest level of supervision being the depart-
ment foremen. All foremen above the rank of section foremen who
supervise other foremen have the power effectively to recommend a
change in the status of such subordinate foremen.
The monthly salary range of the different foreman classifications
for a 40-hour work week is as follows :
General Foreman ..................................... $350-500
Assistant General ..................................... 290-400
Department Foreman ................................. 245-425
Section Foreman ..................................... 225-385
General foremen are all salaried; the foremen in the other classifi-
cations are paid either on an hourly or salaried basis. All four
groups of foremen punch time clocks; plant superintendents and plant
managers do not.
The Company's Contentions
The initial objection made by the Company to the appropriateness
of the proposed unit, viz, that no unJ& of supervisors in a mass pro-
duction industry is appropriate is no longer tenable since the Board's
decisions in the Packard,6 Young,7 and following cases. In the Young
6 Matter of Packard Motor Car Company , 61 N L. R B 4, and 64 N. L R. B. 1212.
7 Matter of L. A Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
case, the majority of the Board held that as employees within the
meaning of the Act, foremen are entitled to be placed in some appro-
priate unit under Section 9 (b) ; that the' kind of industry in which
foremen are employed is immaterial; and that the nature of the duties
and responsibilities of the foremen is relevant only insofar as it
bears on the question of proper grouping for collective bargaining
purposes.8
The second objection made by the Company is that the unit is in-
appropriate because it includes several levels of supervision. In the
Midland Steel case a9 similar objection was madeito a unit which
included assistant foremen, foremen, and departmental, superintend-
ents. After examining the question in all its ramifications, the
Board concluded that the different levels of supervision there in-
volved had a community of interest which justified their establish-
ment as a single bargaining unit despite the fact' that some of the
foremen in the snit had supervisory powers over others in the same
unit. The majority 10 also stated, however, ^^* * * that before they
are included in an over-all foremen's unit, the departmental super-
intendents, who are few in number, should be given the opportunity
by separate voting to determine whether or not they desire to be in
the same unit with assistant foremen and foremen."
The principles of grouping and separate voting enunciated in the
Midland Steel case are equally applicable to the present proceed-
ing. We believe that the general foremen, assistant general foremen,
department foremen, and section foremen may together constitute an
appropriate unit. However, we also believe that, before being in-
cluded in such a unit, the general foremen and assistant general fore-
men, voting together, should be afforded the opportunity of deciding
whether they desire to be in the same unit with section foremen and
department foremen. Accordingly, we shall make no final unit deter-
mination at this time, but will be guided by the desires of the eni
ployees involved as expressed in the elections ordered hereinafter. In
the event that the employees in the voting groups described below,
voting, separately, select the Union, they shall together constitute a
single appropriate unit.
The third objection made by the Company to the appropriateness
of the unit relates to its composition. The Company contends that
supervisors in the following departments should be included in the
unit,; the Union urges their exclusion.
Process & Standards Department: The supervisor in charge of this
department is classified as head of the time-study department and
supervises a staff of stenographers and time-study men. The,fu4C-
8 See Matter of The B. F. Goodrich Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 294.
9 Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, 65 N. L. R. B, 997.
18 Chairman Herzog and Member Reilly.
KELSEY-HAYES WHEEL COMPANY 575
tion of the department is to establish time standards on new jobs or
on old jobs where the standards are in dispute. The unit sought
by the Union consists essentially of supervisors of production and
maintenance employees. The non-supervisory employees in-this de-
partment do not fall within the classification of production and
maintenance employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude their super-
visors.
Time Department: The supervisors in this department are a chief
timekeeper and an assistant chief timekeeper who direct the activities
of a group of timekeepers. Ordinarily timekeepers are excluded
from non-supervisory production and maintenance units. However,
in this case the Board has found a production and maintenance unit
of rank and file employees including timekeepers to be appropriate."
We shall, therefore, include the supervisors of these timekeepers.
Production Planning Department: This department is headed by
a production manager. The department prepares production sched-
ules, keeps scrap reports and reports bottlenecks in manufacturing
continuity. We shall exclude the supervisors in this department.'
Tool Design Department: This department designs fixtures,
gauges, tools and small dies. Apparently, the employees in the depart-
ment are technical rather than production and maintenance em-
ployees. We shall exclude the supervisors in this department,
Watchmen Department: This department is actually a section of
the personnel department. The parties have agreed to the exclusion
of all other supervisors in the personnel department. The rank and
file employees in this department are clearly maintenance workers
and were included in the production and maintenance unit of non-
supervisory employees previously found appropriate by the Board.13
We shall include the supervisors of the watchmen.14
Design, Laboratory, Experimental, and Research Departments in
the Sales Division: These four departments, unlike the other depart-
ments in the unit, are part of the sales division and are under the
direction of the product engineer. They are engaged in research and
development work for the entire organization. Employed are engi-
neers, draftsmen, and mechanics of various kinds. The Company
insists that the supervisors in these departments should be included
in the unit because, apart from physical and chemical analyses, the
work in these departments is comparable to that performed in the
manufacturing division. In cases involving rank and file employees,
the Board has excluded mechanics in research departments from units
n Matter of Kelsey -Hayes Wheel Company, 16 N. L . R B. 580.
is See Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company , supra.
Matter of Kelsey-Hayes Wheel Company, supra.
is There is also a janitors ' section in the personnel department which, however, has
no supervisors . In the event that supervisors are appointed in this section, they prop-
erly should be part of the unit.
576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of production and maintenance employees.15 For analogous reasons,
we believe that supervisors of mechanics in research departments
should not be included in a unit of supervisors of production and
maintenance employees. We shall exclude all supervisors in these
departments.
As a final objection, the Company asserts that the Union is not
independent of the UAW which represents all hourly paid non-
supervisory employees of the Company.16 Much of the evidence
relied on by the Company to prove its contention is identical with
that adduced at the hearing in the Packard case. In the cited case,
the majority of the Board after considering such evidence, held that
the Foreman's Association of America was an independent labor
organization. In the following cases, the Board has made the same
determination with respect to locals of the Foreman's Association.17
The additional evidence offered in the present proceeding does not,
in our opinion, establish that the Union is not independent of the
UAW. Accordingly, we find that the Union is an independent, un-
affiliated labor organization organized for the exclusive purpose of
representing supervisory employees.
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 general foremen, assistant general foremen and compar-
able supervisors by whatever title designated, in the manufacturing
division of the Company's Military and McGraw plants, including
such supervisors in the production, toolroom, die making and repair,
tool making, tool grinding, inspection, maintenance, millwrights,
steam fitters, electricians, machine repair, power plant, shipping, re-
ceiving, stockroom, time, and watchmen departments and subdepart-
ments, but excluding supervisors in the tool design, process and stand-
ards, production planning, personnel and industrial relations is de-
partments of the manufacturing division; supervisors in the design,
SS Matter of Servel , Inc., 58 N L. R. B. 5; Matter of Chicago Rawhsde Manufactur-
ing Company , 59 N. L. R B. 1234.
19 Local 174-United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, CIO, herein called the UAW, represents all hourly paid employees of the
Company at the Military and McGraw plants . There is no comprehensive signed con-
tract between the Company and the UAW . In lieu thereof, company officials and union
representatives meet weekly to settle matters in dispute. Grievances are handled ac-
cording to an agreed written grievance procedure.
17Matter of L. A. Young Spring A Wire Corporation , supra ; Matter of the B. F.
Goodrich Company, supra ; Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company , supra;
Matter of Simmons Company , supra.
18 The watchmen 's department or section is part of the personnel and Industrial
relations department. As previously stated , however , the supervisors in this depart-
,uient are Included In the appropriate votigg groups.
KELSEY-HAYES WHEEL COMPANY 577
laboratory , experimental , and research departments of the sales divi-
sion ; and all department foremen, section foremen and supervisors
above the rank of general foremen.
(2) All department foremen , section foremen , and comparable
supervisors by whatever title designated, in the manufacturing divi-
sion of the Company's Military and McGraw plants , including such
supervisors in the production, toolroom, die making and repair, tool
making, tool grinding, inspection , maintenance , millwrights, steam
fitters, electricians , machine repair , power plant , shipping, receiving,
stockroom , time , and watchmen departments and subdepartments
but excluding supervisors in the tool design , process and standards,
production planning, personnel and industrial relations , departments
of the manufacturing division ; supervisors in the design , laboratory,
experimental, and research departments of the sales division; and
all general foremen , assistant general foremen and supervisors above
the rank of general foremen.
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 Re-
lations Act , and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Kelsey-Hayes
Wheel 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 super-
vision 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 Regula-
tions , among employees in the voting groups described in Section
IV, above , who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees
who did not work during said pay -roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily 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 re-
instated prior to the date of the election, to determine in each of the
voting groups whether or not they desire to be represented by Fore-
06572-46-38
$78 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man's Association of America, Chapter #11, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D . REILLY, concurring separately :
My position in this case is the same as that expressed in my con-
curring opinion in the Matter of The Midland Steel Products Com-
pany.19 As in that case, I would direct no election 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.20
Since the majority of the Board entertain a contrary view, however,
I wish to concur in the conclusion that the departmental superin-
tendents should be balloted separately so as to ascertain whether
or not they desire to be in the same bargaining unit which includes
the assistant foremen and foreman. There is sufficient evidence in
the, record to indicate that the duties and responsibilities, of this
group are distinguishable from the lower levels of supervision.
MR. JOHN M. HousTON, concurring specially :
For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in The Midland
Steel case, cited. above, which I find equally applicable here, I would
provide for only one voting group of all general foremen, assistant
general foremen, department foremen, and section,foremen.
19 65 N . L. R. B. 177.
° My views on this basic question are contained in the dissenting opitlion in the Matter
of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4.