Chrysler Corp.

f In the Matter of CHRYSLER CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and AMALGAMATED PLANT GUARDS LOCAL No. 114,, UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER Case No. 7-RC-228.-Decided September 3,1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Detroit, Michigan, before Harry N. Casselman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed, except as noted below.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employer's plant-protection em- ployees unless and until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit 2 The Employer asserts that the Petitioner is not eligible to represent its plant-protection employees because of the proscription contained in Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act. Section 9 (b) (3) provides, among other things, that "no labor organization shall be certified as the repre- sentative of ... guards if such organization admits to membership, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization which admits to membership, employees other than guards." 1 The hearing officer rejected the Employer 's proffered exhibit of minutes of a December 19, 1947, meeting of Local No . 114. UAW-CIO. We believe this exhibit should have been received . We hereby reverse the ruling of the hearing officer and admit the exhibit, which is in the rejected exhibit file , into evidence. We have considered this exhibit in deciding the case. Y The Employer and Local 114, UAW-CIO, entered into a contract in 1947, to expire May 15, 1949 , covering the Employer's plant-protection employees at most of its plants The UAW disclaims any rights under this contract and the Employer does not assert it, nor do we find it to be, a bar. 79 N. L. R. B., No. 67. 462 CHRYSLER CORPORATION 463 Until February 17,1948, Local 114, UAW-CIO, chartered for the exclusive purpose of representing plant guards, represented plant- protection employees of the Employer. On that date, Local 114, together with other UAW locals representing plant guards, disaf- fiiliated from the UAW, and formed a separate international union, called.Plant Guard Organizing Committee (herein called PGOC), affiliated directly with the CIO. On June 2, 1948, however, following the Board's decision in General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division; in which the Board found that Local 114, PGOC, was ',affiliated indirectly with organizations which admit to membership employees other than guards," the locals comprising the PGOC voted to disaffiliate entirely from the 070. This was formally accomplished by returning the CIO charter, and adopting the name of United Plant Guard Workers of America (herein called UPGWA). James C. McGahey, president of Local 114, UPGWA, the Peti- tioner, and of its international, testified that there is no connection between the UPGWA and any other labor organization. None of the evidence adduced by the Employer is sufficiently strong to rebut McGahey's testimony.4 We find, therefore, that the Petitioner is neither directly nor indi- rectly affiliated with any other organization, and that it acted rea- sonably to comply with the terms of the amended statute. It is,' accordingly, qualified, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, to represent plant guards. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a single unit of plant-protection employees (plant patrolmen and fire marshals) at 12 of the Employer's plants, all located in and about Detroit, Michigan. Alternatively, the Peti- tioner indicated its willingness to represent the employees, at each plant in a separate unit. The Employer, although making no unit 277N L R B 1029 See also Matter of Sciienley Distilleries, 77 N. L R. B. 468. 4 The Employer urges that the Board apply the principles ' enunciated in unfair labor practice cases involving company-dominated unions to this case , arguing that the Petitioner "is nothing more than a thinly disguised re-embodiment of a union that the law forbids the Board to certify " Unlike successors to "company unions," which are continuations of organizations illegally conceived or illegally supported and dominated , the plant-protection locals of the UAW-CIO were legal when formed , and remaihed legal , even after the passage of the amendments to the Act . All that Section 9 (b) (3) did was to preclude the Board from certifying a union as the representative of guards if it already represented other employees, or was affiliated directly or indirectly with an organization that represented other employees. We do not believe , therefore, that the same criteria applicable in 8 (a) (2) cases should be used here. 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD contention at the hearing, asserted in its brief that a separate unit at each plant was appropriate. The plant patrolmen perform the ordinary functions of plant guards. The fire marshals,, among other duties, "make inspection patrols throughout the plantsfor the purpose of assuring adherence to safety rules and see that employees refrain from smoking in fire restricted o4areas I . . . The fire marshals . . . are carried on the plant-protection department pay roll and are an integral part of that department." 5 It is clear, and we find, that both the plant patrolmen aid the fire marshals are "guards" within the meaning of the amended Act. The' most 'recent contract between the Employer and Local 114, UAW-CIO, covered employees in all the plants that the Petitioner now seeks,6 and some others. Ten of the plants are within the City of Detroit, one, the Marysville plant, is 55 miles from Detroit, and another, the Dodge truck plant, is 2 miles from the Detroit city limits. The Board originally found appropriate separate units of plant patrolmen at each of the Employer's plants. In one of a series of cases in which it so found, the Board, however, said, in 1'1)42: 7 "If, after certification, the Company objects to bargaining with the Union upon a multiple plant basis covering plant-protection employees at the several plants for which the Union may be cer- tified, we will entertain for consideration at that time a motion to consolidate any certifications previously issued and to include within a single bargaining unit employees at all plants of the Company which have designated the same bargaining agent." Such action was later taken by the Board, and subsequent contracts reveal that the parties' bargaining practice has not been on a plant- by-plant basis. In another case, the Board found one unit appropriate for fire marshals at all plants of the Employer which employed then-1.8 The record reveals that a Commissioner of Plant Protection, located at the Detroit Highland Park plant, is in charge of all plant pro- tection employees.' In addition, the wages, hours and working con- ditions are the same, in all the plants, except that the Marysville plant has a slightly lower wage scale. ' ' In view of the uniformity in working conditions for all plant-pro- tection employees of the Employer, the bargaining history on a mul- tiple-plant basis and the-close proximity of the 12 plants involved, we 5 Matter of Chrysler Corporation , 58 N L R. B 700 6 The Petitioner seeks only the Michigan plants of the Employer : the contract also covered some plants outside of Michigan 7 Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 46 N L R P. 411. _ 8 See footnote 5, supra. CHRYSLER CORPORATION 465 believe that a single multiple-plant unit as requested by the Petitioner is appropriate. We find, accordingly, that all plant-protection patrolmen 'and fire marshals of the Employer employed at the following Mi :higan plants, excluding supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute zi unit appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the ineanulg of Section 9,(b) of the.Act: Marysville. Chrysler Highland Park, , Dodge. Main, Dodge Forge, Dodge Truck, Amplex, Jefferson-Kercheval, John R. Storage, Desoto-Wyoming, McKinistry Storage, Plymouth Plant, and Dodge-Lynch Road. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not latef than 30 days from the date of this-Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately 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, but exclud- ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec- tion, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre- sented by Amalgamated Plant Guards Local No. 114, United Plant Guard Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining.