Chrysler Corp.

In the Matter Of CHRYSLER CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) , PETITIONER Case No. 7-RC-54 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION June 24,1949 On December 15, 1948, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued by the Board,' separate elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, among the employees in unit (a), consisting of office and clerical employees at the Employer's Highland Park Division Manufacturing offices, Highland Park, Michigan, excluding inter alia, factory clerks, and voting group (b), consisting of factory clerks in this division. Upon completion of the elections, Tallies of Ballots were duly issued and served upon the parties. The Tallies of Ballots showed that the Petitioner has been selected as collective bargaining representative by a majority of the employees voting in unit (a), but that in voting group (b) the challenged ballots could affect the result of the election.2 The Regional Director inves- tigated the issues raised by the challenged ballots in voting group (b) and, on February 23, 1949, issued his "Report on Challenged Ballots." In his Report, the Regional Director recommended that the Board direct the holding of a further hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence as to the appropriate disposition of the 14 challenged ballots.3 1 80 N. L R B. 334. 2 Of 18 valid votes cast in voting group (b), 10 were for , and 8 against , the Petitioner. There were 14 challenged ballots. 2 The ballots of Stanley T Golec , Francis Zaremba , Benjamin Tate, Myer Winsjansen, Mary Bartolf, Wallace Sosnowski , Clarence J. Borse, George Glass, George Orlich, Henry Stith, and Cornelia Welboren were challenged by a Board agent on the ground that their names did not appear on the eligibility list of employees in voting group (b). Likewise, the ballots of Francis B. Weiler, Jane Szyniszewski , and Bruce Flack were challenged by the Employer for the same reason. 84 N. L. R. B., No. 64. 516 CHRYSLER CORPORATION 517 On March 7, 1949, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's Report. Finding that the issues presented by the challenged ballots could best be resolved by a further hearing, the Board, on March 15, 1949, ordered that the Regional Director conduct a hearing for the purpose of adducing evidence to resolve these issues.4 Accordingly, on April 14 and 15, 1949, a further hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, before Cecil Pearl, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at this hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the entire record, the Board finds : 1. The alleged confidential employees The Employer contends that George Orlich, Bruce Flack,5 Myer Winsjansen, Henry Stith, Mary Bartolf, Stanley T. Golec, Wallace Sosnowski, Clarence J. Borse, Jane Szyniszewski, and Cornelia Wel- boren are confidential employees and therefore were not eligible to vote in the election. The Petitioner contends that they were eligible.6 These employees perform routine clerical duties in connection with work and expense orders, and purchase and general requisitions. Practically all prepare and type various kinds of reports, such as "lost-time" reports and Foremen's Reports and Recommendations con- cerning absenteeism, tardiness, and discipline. In addition, most of them answer the telephone and transmit messages to their respective foremen or departmental superintendents. A. few open incoming mail and type correspondence for foremen and superintendents, and prepare and maintain departmental personnel record cards. Several also issue hospital passes and material tickets to maintenance em- ployees and maintain seniority lists of such employees who are as- signed to their respective departments. One of these employees 7 contacts vendors concerning purchase requisitions. Although some of these employees handle business records of the Employer, including some labor relations data, the duties of all are principally of a routine clerical nature. None assists or acts in a confidential capacity to any person exercising managerial functions in the field of labor relations." On the same date, the Board certified the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in unit (a). 6 Flack's name was incorrectly shown in the Board's Order directing , a further hearing as "Bruce Flake " 4 At the hearing, the parties agreed to the inclusion of Benjamin Tate in the voting group. In view of this agreement , we find it unnecessary to consider the issue raised by the challenge to his ballot, but shall direct that it be opened and counted. 7 George Orlich . Although the Employer asserts only that Orlich is a confidential employee, the record shows that he allocates and checks the work of the other clerks in his office and once recommended that one of these employees be rehired . We are satis- fied, however, that the record does not establish that Orlich is a supervisor. 8 At the time of the election , Flack, Bartolf, and Stith typed answers to grievances for their respective foremen and departmental superintendents . However, it is apparent 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABQR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the foregoing, we find that George Orlich, Bruce Flack, Myer Winsjansen, Henry Stith,9 Mary Bartolf, Stanley T. Golec, Wallace Sosnowski, Clarence J. Borse, Jane Szyniszewski, and Cor- nelia Welboren are not confidential employees and that they were eligible to vote in the election of December 15, 1948.10 Accordingly, we hereby overrule the challenges to their ballots and shall direct that their ballots be opened and counted. 2. The alleged supervisors The Employer further contends that George Glass, Francis B. Weiler, and Francis Zaremba are supervisors and thus were not eligible to vote in the election.1' In support of its contention, the Employer asserts that Glass, Weiler, and Zaremba have the power ',responsibly to direct" employees within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. The Petitioner contends that they have no such power and that they are not supervisors. George Glass: Glass testified that he is a shipping clerk in Depart- ment 21, the inter-plant shipping department, and works under the direct supervision of a departmental foreman. Although told by'the Employer that he is "in charge of the office," 12 none of the other three employees in his office has ever requested him to recommend that he be granted a salary increase or leave of absence. All such requests are made by these employees directly to the departmental foreman, or to the departmental superintendent. Two of the employees who work with Glass perform duties that are similar to those performed by him, while the third is a typist. The work done by these employees is of a routine character, and much of it is of such a nature as to be allocated without the making of specific assignments. In these cir- cumstances, we believe that Glass does not have the power "respon- sibly to direct" the three employees in his office 13 Accordingly, we find that George Glass is not a supervisor within the meaning of the from the record that none of these foremen or superintendents handle the Employer's general labor relations. 9 Stith left the Employer 's employ on March 15, 1949 Testimony at the hearing dis- closes , however, that as of the time of the election he was still employed by the Employer, with duties such as those hereinabove described 10 Matter of Ford Motor Company , 66 N L R B. 1317 ; Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 76 N L. R B 50 , Matter of Inter-Mountain Telephone Company, 79 N L. R B 715 ; Matter of Automatic Electric Company, 81 N. L R. B. 218. n Weiler and Zaremba also are known , respectively, as "Frank Weiler " and "Frank Zaremba," the names under which their respective ballots were challenged 12 Glass furthci testified that , on the day before the hearing , he was told by the Employer that he is a "group leader " 13 See Matter of The Ohio Power Company, 80 N. L. It. B 1334. CHRYSLER CORPORATION 519 Act. We shall overrule the challenge to his ballot, and direct that it be opened and counted. Fran cis B. Weiler: Weiler is employed as a group leader in Depart- ment 20, the receiving department, and works under the direct super- vision of a departmental foreman. Most of his working time is spent in performing clerical work, answering the telephone, searching for information in the office files, and dispatching trucks. About 5 per- cent of his working time is spent in allocating work to the other five employees who work in his office. When errors made by the latter are detected, he calls their attention to such errors. The record dis- closes only two instances in which Weiler has made recommendations to his foreman concerning these employees. In one such instance, the foreman's action was based primarily on his own observation; in the other instance, Weiler's recommendation was not followed. In view of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that he neither has the power "responsibly to direct" these five employees 14 nor does he possess other indicia of supervisory status. We find that'Francis B. Weiler is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall direct that his ballot be opened and counted. Francis Zaremba: Zaremba is employed as chief clerk, or group leader, in the blueprint crib, Department 19, and works under the direct supervision of a departmental foreman. Fifty percent of his working time is spent in handling blueprints, keeping records of all blueprint requisitions issued, and "checking-in" blueprints. Most of his remaining time is spent in searching for blueprints and other items in other departments. He also guides the work of two employees in the crib whose duties are practically the same as his. He has never made any recommendations to his superiors concerning the employ- ment status of these two employees, nor does the record indicate that he has authority to make any such recommendations. We find that Francis Zaremba is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and shall direct that his ballot be opened and counted. DIRECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Chrysler Corporation, High- land Park, Michigan, the Regional Director for the Seventh Region shall, pursuant to Board Rules and Regulations, within 10 days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of George Orlich, Bruce Flack, Myer WWTinsjansen, Henry Stith, Mary Bartolf, Stanley 11 See Matter of A. S. Abell Company, 81 N. L R. B. 82. 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD T. Golec, Wallace Sosnowski, Clarence J. Borse, Jane Szyniszewski, Cornelia Welboren, Benjamin Tate, George Glass, Francis B. Weiler,, and Francis Zaremba, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a Supplemental Tally of Ballots, including therein the count of the said challenged ballots. MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction.