Packard Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1550 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of
George B. Patterson , Jr., S. J . Sullivan , Walter S. Hill, T. W. Perkins, Leonard.
Flowers, Robert R. Hilker, A. O . Richardson , Allen W. Hingle, E. L . Stroupe,.
and Sterling L. Hicks, thereby discouraging membership in Local Union # 1229,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act.
7. By said acts Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its-
employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (G) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT--
ING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 547 , A. F. L., PETITIONER . Ga$e No.
7-RC-1184. June 26, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William A. Reinke, 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'this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.'
3. No 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, for the following reasons
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all. stationary operating
engineers employed at the Employer' s main power plant in Detroit,:
Michigan. Although in the main contending that a current contract
which allegedly includes these employees, bars the instant petition,?
the Employer and the Intervenors apparently also contend that this;
unit is inappropriate. .
There. are five licensed stationary operating engineers at the Em-
ployer's main powerhouse; all of whom work under the supervision
' International Union , United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO), and its Local 190 were allowed to intervene at the hearing
on the basis of an existing contract with the Employer.
z As we are dismissing the petition herein because the unit petitioned for is inappropriate,
we find it unnecessary to decide whether the existing contract between the Employer and
the Intervenors constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
94 NLRB No. 218.
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 1551
of the chief engineer.. These engineers are responsible for the main
tenance and repair of the generators, turbines, air compressors, boilers,
speed pumps, evaporators, and other equipment at the powerhouse.
It is their duty to keep the power plant in operation. A city ordinance
requires that all first-class operating engineers who are working in
the powerhouse must have a city license.
However,. in addition to the licensed engineers, there are firemen,
oilers, ash handlers, coal passers, boilermen, stoker men, and elec-
tricians who also work at the powerhouse. The Petitioner, seeks none
of these employees. Although the Employer does not have any ap-
prenticeship program, it appears that the firemen, oilers, and other
powerhouse employees in effect are being trained to become licensed
engineers. In order to qualify for a license, they must have worked
under the supervision of a licensed engineer for a period of 5 years and
must have passed examinations conducted by the city. It is the policy
of the Employer to promote these men to stationary operating engi-
neers as soon as an opening exists after they have acquired their license.
It further appears from the record that the engineers and the other
powerhouse employees enjoy the same employee benefits and general
working conditions, report to work in the same area, work under the
supervision of the same foreman, and come in frequent contact with
one another. Under all the circumstances we conclude that the duties
and interests of the engineers are not sufficiently distinguishable from
those of the other powerhouse employees to justify establishing a
separate unit for the engineers apart from the other powerhouse
employees.
The latter are traditionally included in boiler room units which we
have permitted to be separately represented as a departmental group.'
Unlike our dissenting colleagues, we find no basis for establishing the
engineers as a separate unit on the theory that they constitute an un-
represented residual group. Whatever may have been the situation
in the past, the Intervenors have now clearly expressed their desire to
represent the engineers together with the other employees, and we
are therefore unable to conclude, as has been true in the type of case in
which the Board has sanctioned "residual" units,4 that the engineers
will be without representation unless they are found to constitute a
separate appropriate unit.5 Nor do we see the relevance of the Great
Lakes Pipe decision (92 NLRB 583), upon which the dissent relies.
3 Buffalo Weaving and Belting Company, 85 NLRB 1178.
4 See Jordan Marsh Company, 85 NLRB 1503, and cases cited therein.
I Our dissenting colleagues suggest that the result in this case gives the Intervenors
a. "potential advantage," in that they can, if they choose, prevent the engineers from
being represented by continuing to make a bare contention that they are willing to
represent these employees. If future events disclose that the Intervenors' present claim
to these employees did not reflect an intention to represent them, that fact can surely be
considered in any later proceeding. But no such inference as to the Intervenors' intention
is warranted from the record before us.
1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the Board will require a "Globe" type election before adding
a previously unrepresented group to an existing unit (where there is no
question concerning representation in the existing unit) it does not
follow-and the Great Lakes Pipe decision itself makes this clear-
that such a group will necessarily be allowed to be represented as a
separate unit, as the Petitioner 'here requests.' Accordingly as the
unit sought by the Petitioner is too limited in scope,' we find that it
is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER REYNOLDS, dissenting :
We do not agree with the decision of our colleagues that the petition
in this case should be dismissed. Two issues are submitted for Board
determination : Whether the existing contract between the Employer
and the UAW-CIO and its Local 190 constitutes a bar and whether an
election should be directed for the unit of stationary operating en-
gineers sought by the Operating Engineers.
Although the majority finds it unnecessary to pass upon the contract
bar issue because of its disposition of the unit question, the record
clearly establishes that, contrary to the position of the Employer and
the UAW-CIO and its Local 190, the stationary operating engineers
are not covered in their current contract. Therefore, the contract is
not a bar to this proceeding.
We would concur with our colleagues in their view that the unit
sought by the Operating Engineers is too limited in scope, if the Board
were being asked to find the group of stationary operating engineers
an appropriate unit apart from the other powerhouse employees,
where there was no bargaining history for any of the employees in-
volved. But that is not the present case. On the contrary, the record
discloses that the UAW-CIO and its Local 190 represent all power-
house employees, excluding the stationary operating engineers. In
these circumstances, we believe that consistency with past Board prac-
tice requires that the previously unrepresented group of employees re-
quested by the Operating Engineers be given a self-determination elec-
tion." Any other disposition of this matter leads to a bizarre and
fi We stress the fact that the only unit issue before the Board in the instant case is
the appropriateness of a separate unit of engineers . Our dismissal of the petition has
no effect upon the scope of the Intervenors ' certification , and we thus •do^.not decide
Whether we would direct a "Globe" type election were the Intervenors seeking to add
the engineers to any unit for which it is now certified.
Y Washburn Wire Company , Inc., 79 NLRB 1479.
8 The majority apparently indicates that Globe elections have been directed for unrepre.
sented residual groups of employees only where a petitioner is seeking the residual group,
WIND INNERSOLE & COUNTER CO ., INC. 1553
anomalous result. Thus, if the UAW-CIO and its Local 190 were the
petitioners in this case and sought to add the stationary operating en-
gineers to their currently represented unit, the Board, in accordance
with the Great Lakes Pipe decision,9 would hold a Globe election for
these employees before permitting the UAW-CIO and its Local 190
to represent them. However, by dismissing the petition in the instant
case the UAW-CIO and its Local 190 are allowed as intervenors to
achieve the same result which they could have reached as petitioners
only by going to an election. Thus, if the UAW-CIO and its Local
190 so desire, they can represent the stationary operating engineers
despite the fact that these employees have not been given an oppor-
tunity to express their wishes.1e
In view of the foregoing, we cannot subscribe to the majority's reso-
lution of the issues involved herein. Accordingly, we would direct
a self-determination election for the stationary operating engineers.
and the union representing the other employees in the unit in which the residual group
would normally belong has specifically indicated an unwillingness to represent the group.
In our opinion, the Board, when directing elections in these cases, has emphasized
primarily the fact that the employees in the residual group were unrepresented and
should be given an opportunity to express their desires rather than the interest or
disinterest of the bargaining representative of the other employees.
9 Great Lakes Pipe Line Company , 92 NLRB 583.
10 The UAW-CIO and its Local 190 are also gratuitously presented with a further
potential advantage . If for any reason they again desire not to represent the stationary
operating engineers , they can prevent any other union from doing so, unless the latter
union can win an election in the over -all unit, merely by the bare contention that they
represent or are willing to represent these employees.
WIND INNERSOLE & COUNTER CO., INC., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS,
AFL, LOCAL No. 653, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2201. June 26,
1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan Saks, hearing officer.
The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prej u-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
1 Cut Sole Local No. 3, Brotherhood of Shoe and Allied Craftsmen, herein called the
Intervenor, was permitted to intervene upon its adequate showing of interest in this
proceeding.
94 NLRB No. 1231.
953841-52-vol. 94-99