Packard Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 317 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY and MECHANICS
EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 3 (CUA)
Case No. 8-R-1834.-Decided August 13,1945
Mr. E. W. Kelsey, Jr., of Toledo, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Earl S. Streeter, of Toledo, Ohio, for the MESA.
Mr. David A. Guberman, of Toledo, Ohio, for the UAW.
Mr. William Gardner, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Polishers.
Mr. Jack Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Mechanics Educational Society of
America, Local No. 3 (CUA), herein called the MESA, alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees of Packard Motor Car Company, Toledo, Ohio,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Thomas E.
Shroyer, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio,
on June 25, 1945. The Company, the MESA, International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, Local No. 12 (CIO), herein called the UAW, and Metal
Polishers, Buffers, Platers, and Helpers International Union, Local
No. 2 (AFL), herein called the Polishers, 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 Trial Examiner reserved for ruling by
the Board, the UAW's motion to dismiss the petition. For reasons
hereinafter stated, this motion is hereby denied. The Trial Exami-
ner'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 UAW's request for oral argument is
hereby denied,
63 N L. R. B, No. 46.
317
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Packard Motor Car Company, a Michigan corporation with its prin-
cipal office in Detroit, Michigan, owns and operates several plants in
and about the Detroit area. The Company also operates a plant at
Toledo, Ohio, where it is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft
engine parts. The Toledo plant, the only one involved in this pro-
ceeding, is owned by the Defense Plant Corporation, an agency of the
United States Government. During the past year, the Company pur-
chased raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, a majority of which
was shipped to its Toledo plant from points outside the State of Ohio.
During the same period, a majority of the Company's finished products,
valued in excess of $1,000,000, was shipped to points outside the State
of Ohio.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 3, affiliated
with the Confederated Unions of America, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local No. 12, affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Metal Polishers, Buffers, Platers and Helpers International Union,
Local No. 2, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 26, 1945, MESA notified the Company by letter that it
represented a majority of certain of its employees and requested exclu-
sive bargaining negotiations in their behalf. The Company replied
that these employees were represented by the UAW in a collective bar-
gaining contract which had not yet expired, and advised MESA to
file a petition with the Board. MESA had filed its petition on April
25, 19451
"On July 20 , 1944 , the UAW and the Company entered into an exclusive bargaining
contract which covered the employees in the unit now sought by MESA. The contract
provided that it was to remain in full force and effect until July 20, 1945. None of the
parties urges this contract as a bar to the instant proceeding . The UAW, in support of
a motion to dismiss, claims that MESA 's petition was filed prematurely . We find no merit
in this contention , since the record indicates that the petition was filed within a reasonable
time prior to the expiraton date of the contract.
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 319
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that MESA represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate 2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
MESA and the UAW agree that all hourly rated employees, exclud-
ing employees in Departments TPF, TX, TPA, TPX, and TTB,3 pat--,
tern makers, plant-protection employees, accounting, administrative,
personnel, and purchasing division employees, and all supervisory em-
ployees, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit 4 The Polishers,
contends that all polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers, who are
included in the unit agreed upon by MESA and the UAW, should
comprise a separate unit. The Company takes no position with
respect to the appropriate unit or units.
In February 1944, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Elections 5 in which it stated that, absent any collective bargaining
history to the contrary, the employees sought by the Polishers might
properly function either as a separate unit or as part of a plant-wide
unit, asserting that these employees were entitled to express such a
choice. However, the Board did not direct an election among the
polishers, buffers, platers, and helpers, because the group then em-
ployed represented less than 50 percent of the Company's anticipated
complement of such employees. Thereafter, on May 26, 1944, a con-
sent election was held among these employees wherein they were given
an opportunity to decide whether or not they desired to be represented
by the Polishers or the UAW. A majority of the group voted for the
UAW, thereby rejecting the Polishers as their exclusive bargaining
agent. These employees were thereafter included within the plant-
wide unit of the hourly paid employees under the contract subse-
quently entered into by the Company and the UAW. In view of the
2 The Board agent reported that MESA submitted 301 authorization cards, and that 245
of the cards bore the names of persons appearing on the Company ' s pay roll of May 10,
1945 , which listed 997 persons in the unit found to be appropriate . The Trial Examiner
reported that MESA submitted 24 additional cards at the hearing, and that 20 of these
cards bore names of persons appearing on the aforesaid pay roll The UAW moved to
dismiss the petition for the reason that MESA had not presented a sufficient showing of
membership . There is no merit in this contention . since MESA's showing in view of the
UAW's closed shop contract with the Company, is sufficient to warrant an election.
' The employees in these departments are presently represented under contract by MESA
Local No 4.
4 The unit agreed upon by MESA and the UAW is substantially the same as the one
covered in the UAW' s contract with the Company
5 Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 54 N L. R. B . 1029. The two elections directed
in this case concerned the Company ' s tool room employees who selected MESA as their
bargaining representative, and the remaining hourly rated employees who selected the
UAW The Polishers took no part in either election.
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
past bargaining history which included the polishers, buffers, platers,
and helpers in the broader bargaining unit, and of the absence of any
supervening events which might tend to support the Polishers' con-
tention, we find that the unit sought by the Polishers is inappropriate s
We find that all hourly rated employees at the Company's Toledo,
Ohio, plant, excluding employees in Departments TPF, TX, TPA,
TPX, and TTB, pattern makers, plant-protection employees, account-
ing, administrative, personnel, and purchasing department employees,
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions 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 Packard Motor
Car Company, Toledo, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Eighth 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 the
employees in the unit found appropriate 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 during
the 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
6 See Matter of Doehler Die Casting Co., 58 N L R B 166; and Matter of American
Propeller Corporation, 56 N L. R. B 1460. Cf Matter of The Duff Norton Manufacturing
Company, 60 N . L. R B. 186.
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 321
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by Mechanics
Educational Society of America, Local No. 3 (CUA), or by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local No. 12 (CIO), for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.