Fruehauf Trailer Co.

In the Matter of FRUEHAI F TRAILER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-870.-Decided December 12, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION. OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Jack R. Berger, hearing officer. At the hearing the Intervenor, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and its Local 811 (UAW-CIO), moved to dis- .miss the petition upon the grounds that a collective bargaining contract between it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding, and that the unit sought is inappropriate. For reasons stated below, these motions are denied. 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray]. 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 Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Intervenor asserts that a collective bargaining contract be- tween it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding. In January 1942,2 the Board certified the Intervenor as bargaining representative for employees at the Employer's Vernon, California, manufacturing plant, and its Los Angeles, California, sales and service station. The Intervenor thereafter entered into successive collective ' After the hearing, the Petitioner requested oral argument. This request is denied as, in our opinion, the issues are sufficiently developed in the record and in the briefs. 8 Fruehauf Trailer Company of California, .$ NLRB 659. 87 NLRB No. 74, 589 590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining contracts with the Employer, the last of which expired on June 9, 1949. Before its expiration date, the parties entered into ne- gotiations for a new contract. In June 1949, a tentative contract .wfi s agreed upon, drafted, and signed by representatives of the Intervenor and the local manager and local director of personnel of the manu- faCturing plant.3 The agreement was then forwarded to the Employ- er's main office at Detroit, Michigan, for signature by one of the Employer's vice presidents and the director of personnel. As the agree- ment was not satisfactory to these officials, they refused to sign it and suggested several changes. The record discloses that the vice president and the director of personnel are the only officers of the Employer authorized to execute collective bargaining agreements in the name of the corporation. It is also clear that no authority to bind the Employer was vested in the local manager or the local director of personnel. Up to the date of the hearing, the Employer's vice president and .the director of person- nel had not signed the proposed contract of June 9, 1949. The Pe- titioner filed its representation petition on June 14, 1949. As the proposed June 1949 agreement had never been signed by the proper corporate authorities, we find that it is not a bar to this proceeding' . Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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 to represent a unit of production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Vernon, California, manufac- turing plant, including plant truck drivers, but excluding over-the- road truck drivers and supervisors. The Employer agrees with the unit contention of the Petitioner. The Intervenor does'not object to the categories of employees to be included in, and excluded from, the proposed unit. It asserts, however, that the appropriate unit should include not only employees at the Vernon, California, manufacturing plant, but also employees at the Employer's Los Angeles sales and service station, which is 5 miles from the Vernon plant. The Employer manufactures, sells, and services trailers and trailer equipment. It maintains its principal office at Detroit, Michigan, and operates 8 manufacturing plants and 80 sales and service stations throughout the United States. This proceeding involves only the 'Vernon manufacturing plant and the Los Angeles sales and service 3 The local manufacturing superintendent , the local sales and service station superintend- ent, and the local sales and service manager declined to sign the contract until it had first been signed by the vice president and the director of personnel of the Employer in Detroit. 4 See Linde Air Products Company, 76 NLRB 1127 ; National Chair Company, 74 NLRB 1014; Continental Gin Company, 72 NLRB 1210. FRUEHAUF TRAILER COMPANY 591 ,station. At the Vernon plant, the Employer manufactures its trailer products; at its Los Angeles sales and service station, it sells its products and performs repair and maintenance work for purchasers. From at least 1941. until April 1949, the Employer operated the Vernon plant and the service station through a subsidiary corporation, Fruehauf Trailer Company of California. During this period the principal office of the subsidiary was at Los Angeles. The operations of the manufacturing plant and the service station were coordinated, employees were transferred between the two installations as required by the subsidiary, and during the war emergency, some manufacturing was performed at the service station. Since 1942, the Intervenor has represented employees at both the plant and service station in a single multi-plant unit. In April 1949, Fruehauf Trailer Company of California was dis- solved and operation of the Vernon manufacturing plant and the Los Angeles sales and service station was assumed by the Employer. Since then, the manufacturing plant has been under the ultimate super- vision of ,the Employer's vice president in charge of manufacturing who is located in Detroit; the sales and service station, on the other hand, is now responsible to the vice president in charge of sales and service, who also has his office in Detroit. The manufacturing plant and the service station have separate local officials, neither of whom exercises supervision over the other. They keep separate pay roll, personnel, and administrative records. There is no interchange of personnel or functions between the manufacturing plant and the sales and service station. In short, the two installations now act as sepa- rate entities independent of one another. In no other bargaining unit within this Employer's system are manufacturing and sales and service personnel grouped in a single unit. In view of the present nonintegrated character of the Vernon manu- facturing plant and the Los Angeles sales and service station, we are of the opinion that a separate unit of employees at the Vernon plant is now appropriate. We do not agree with the Intervenor that, because of the long history of multi-plant bargaining, a separate unit is inap- propriate. While we place great weight on collective bargaining history, we will not make it the determinative factor in deciding the unit issue 5 where, as here, new and significant changes in the Employ- er's organization and operations have occurred since the date of the Intervenor's certification 6 which dictate a contrary result. We find that the following employees at the Employer's Vernon, California, manufacturing plant constitute a unit appropriate for the 5 See Hygrade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841, and cases cited therein. B See General Electric Company (Medford Plant), 85 NLRB 150. 592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including plant truck drivers, but excluding over-the-road truck drivers, office and clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 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 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, among the employees in the unit found appropriate 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 International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, AFL, or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, and its Local 811 (UAW-CIO), or by neither.