Willys-Overland Motors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 721 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WILLYS-OVERLAND MOTORS, INC . 721
If a majority of the employees voting in group 1, 2, 3, or 4 vote
for a bargaining representative different from that selected by a
majority of the employees voting in group 5, then the employees in
group 1, 2, 3, and 4 will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate unit or units, and the Regional Director conduct-
ing the elections herein directed is instructed to issue certifications
of representatives to the bargaining agents so selected, for the sep-
arate units in which they have been designated, which units the
Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate.
If, however, a majority of the employees voting in group 1, 2, 3,
or 4 vote for the same bargaining representative selected by a majority
of employees voting in group 5, then the employees in group 1, 2, 3,
or 4 will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the
same bargaining unit with the employees in group 5, and the Re-
gional Director is instructed to issue certification of representatives
to such representative for a plantwide production and maintenance
unit, including therein the employees in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, or any
of these groups in which a majority has voted for such representative,
which unit the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WILLYS-OVERLAND MOTORS, INC., AIRCRAFT ENGINE DIVISION and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER.
Case No. 35-RC--826. March 16, 1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John W. Hines, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
i The Emplover's name appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
103 NLRB No. 52.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A 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.
4. The parties agree that the unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining is composed of the following employees : All
shop office and professional employees 2 at the Employer 's Anderson,
Indiana, aircraft engine plant, including clerical and professional em-
ployees of the plant maintenance , tool engineering , shipping and re-
ceiving, and traffic , machine repair , and gear departments , the metal-
lurgical laboratory , and the hospital department, but excluding all
employees of all administrative departments , all other employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
It appears from the record that the proposed unit, as set forth
above, includes 17 professional employees and 18 shop office, nonpro-
fessional employees . The professional employees include 2 product
designers , 4 process engineers , 4 tool designers , and 3 mechanical en-
gineers in the tool engineering department ; a chemist and a metal-
lographer in the metallurgical laboratory ; and 2 registered nurses in
the hospital.
The Board is prohibited by Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act from in-
eluding professional employees in a unit with nonprofessional em-
ployees, unless a majority of such professional employees vote for in-
clusion in such a unit. Accordingly , we must ascertain the desires of
the professional employees as to inclusion in a unit within nonprofes-
sional employees.
We shall therefore direct separate elections in the following voting
groups, excluding in each case all employees of all administrative de-
partments , all other employees , guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act:
(A) All shop office employees in the plant maintenance, tool en-
ginering, shipping and receiving , and traffic , machine repair, and gear
departments , the metallurgical laboratory , and the hospital depart-
inent at the Employer 's aircraft engine plant at Anderson , Indiana.
(B) Product designers , process engineers , tool designers, mechani-
cal engineers , the chemist , the metallographer , and registered nurses
in the tool engineering department, metallurgical laboratory , and hos-
pital department at the Employer 's aircraft engine plant at Anderson,
Indiana.
Employees in the professional voting group ( B) will be asked two
questions on their ballot : 3 ( 1) Do you desire to be included with the
'On January 16, 1952 , in Case No. 35-RC-645, the Petitioner was certified, as the
result of a consent election , for a unit of production and maintenance employees at this
plant excluding office and clerical employees and professional employees.
3 See Swift & Company, Technical Products Plant, Hammond, Indiana, 98 NLRB 746.
CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION 723
shop office employees in the plant maintenance, tool engineering, ship-
ping and receiving, and traffic, machine repair, and gear departments
and the metallurgical laboratory and the hospital department for the
purposes of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be repre-
sented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, CIO? If a majority of the
professional employees in voting group (B) vote "yes" to the first
question, indicating their desire to be included in a unit with the non-
professional employees, they will be so included. Their votes on the
second question will then be counted together with the votes of the non-
professional voting group (A) to decide the representative for the
whole agreed unit; and if a majority of the employees in voting groups
(A) and (B) together select the Petitioner, the Regional Director con-
ducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Petitioner for a unit of such shop office and
professional employees, which the Board under such circumstances
finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If,
on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting
group (B) vote against inclusion in a unit with the shop office employ-
ees, they will not be included with these nonprofessional employees.
In that event the votes in voting groups (A) and (B) will be counted
separately to determine whether or not the Petitioner will represent
the employees in separate units. The Regional Director conducting
the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the Petitioner for such of these two units in which
a majority select the Petitioner, which separate units the Board, in
these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAUTAUQUA HARDWARE CORPORATION and LOCAL 38, METAL POLISHERS,
BuFFERs, PLATERS AND HELPERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL.
Case No. 3-CA-560. Marcia 17, 1953
Decision and Order
On January 27, 1953, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley is-
sued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
103 NLRB No. 72.