General Motors Corp.

In the Matter of GUIDE LAMP DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT 90, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 35-RC-71.-Decided January 18, 1919 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 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 appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all tool and die makers, die-cast die makers, and machinists, including welders and tool hardeners, their apprentices and helpers, and machine operators performing work in the manufacturing of tools and dies in tool departments Nos. 390, 490, and 590. The Intervenor, International Union, United Automo- bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 663, C. I. 0., and the Employer contend that the present bargaining unit composed of all production and maintenance employees, including * Houston, Reynolds, and Murdock. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 33. 210 GUIDE LAMP DIVISION 211 the employees in Departments Nos. 390, 490, and 590, is the ap- propriate unit, The Intervenor has represented all production and maintenance employees, including the employees in Departments Nos. 390, 490, and 590, following a Board certification on May 29, 1940, and has entered into a series of written contracts with the Employer. The categories of employees listed in the petition include all the employees of the departments named, which are the tool and die departments. The Petitioner, however, would exclude the employees in the Model Shop Department and the Machine Repair Department, who perform operations similar to those performed in the tool and die departments. For example, in the Model Shop, the lathe operator performs the same operation as the lathe operators in the tool and die departments; the model makers, who receive the same rate as the die makers, are equivalent to the die makers in the tool and die depart- ments; in addition the Model Shop actually makes dies for temporary use, and gauges. In the Machine Repair Department, the lathe oper- ators work on lathes identical with those used in the tool and die departments, one lathe being used by employees of both the Machine Repair Department and of the tool and die departments; some of the machine operations are closely comparable to those performed in the tool and die departments, machine repair machinists are competent in milling machine work and tool grinding which is also performed in the tool and die departments ; and the welders in this department weld parts of machines together whereas the welders in the tool and die departments work on broken dies. Considerable overflow of work in the Model Shop and Machine Repair Departments is handled by the tool and die departments. It thus appears that, although the unit sought by the Petitioner includes a large nucleus of highly skilled employees , it does not include employees in the Model Shop and the Machine Repair Department who have similar skills and perform comparable work. There are approximately 211 employees in the categories sought by the Peti- tioner, approximately 15 employees in the Model Shop, and, we assume, a relatively small number in the Machine Repair Department. It follows, therefore, that the employees sought by the Petitioner consti- tute a bulk of the similarly skilled workers and that the remainder are susceptible of ready identification . We are of the opinion that the employees in the 3 tool and die departments, sought by the Peti- tioner, and Model Shop and the Machine Repair Department em- ployees similar in skill and work functions to the skilled workers in the tool and die departments, may together properly constitute an appropriate unit. However, they have been represented by the Inter- 82 9 5 9 5-5 0--v o l. 81-15 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD venor for many years as part of the more comprehensive existing unit and may equally well be included in that unit. Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken as having indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. If a majority select the Intervenor, they will have indicated their desire to be included in the existing unit, and the Intervenor may bargain for them as part of such unit. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among all tool and die makers, die-cast die makers, and machinists, including welders and tool hardeners, their apprentices and helpers, and machine operators performing work in the manufacturing of tools and dies in tool departments Nos. 390, 490, and 590, and model makers, lathe operators, welders, and machine repair machinists in the Model Shop and Machine Repair Department, including all other machinists having similar skills and performing comparable work in the Model Shop and the Machine Repair Department of the Employer at its Anderson, Indiana, plant, but excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION' As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by District 90, International Association of Machinists, or by Interna- tional Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, Local 663, C. I. 0., or by neither. 1 Any party named as a participant in this election may have its name removed from the ballot upon its prompt request to , and approval by, the Regional Director.