General Motors Corp.

CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 217 The unit sought by the Employer comprises all the production employees in the T-3 plant. There is no evidence in the record as to the degree of integration between the operations of this plant and the other plants of the Employer, nor is there any history of bargaining for the employees here sought. Engineers desires, in effect, to add the turbine operators, boiler operators, and pump operators in the T-3 plant to its existing contract unit. However, as the resulting unit would comprise merely an arbitrary segment of the Employer's pro- duction and maintenance employees, we find it would not be appro- priate for bargaining purposes. Under these circumstances, we find that the unit of operating em- ployees sought by the Petitioner at its T-3 plant, Los Alamos, New Mexico, including boiler operators, turbine operators, pump operators, and switchboard operators, but excluding power test engineers, clerks, guards, the foreman, assistant plant superintendent, plant superin- tendent, and all other supervisors,4 is appropriate for collective bar- gaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 As the shift operators, usually switchboard or turbine operators , do not possess any supervisory powers, we shall include them in the unit in accordance with the agreement of the parties. CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCALS Nos. 589, 589-A, 589-B (AFL) CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 38 (AFL) CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO- MOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION, CLEVELAND TANK PLANT, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and PATTERN MAKERS' LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, CLEVELAND ASSOCIATION, AFL. Cases Nos. 8-RC-1150, 8-RC-1151,8-RC-1155, and 8-RC-1175. May 2,1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act a consolidated hearing was held before - Charles A. 94 NLRB No. 41. 218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fleming, hearing officer. Except as specifically indicated herein, 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. At the hearing, the American Federation of Labor, herein called the AFL, moved to intervene in these proceedings, for the purpose of representing a unit of residual maintenance employees, that is, a unit consisting of maintenance employees, excluding the employees sought by the craft petitioners hereinafter discussed. The hearing officer granted the motion for the purpose of allowing the AFL to participate in the hearing but conditioned the intervention upon a sufficient' showing of interest to be made before the close of the hear- ing. During and just before the close of the hearing, the hearing officer reminded the AFL representative of the necessity of complying with the requirement for showing of interest. The representative stated that the authorization cards could not be presented due to the length of the hearing, which was longer than he had anticipated. Thereupon, at the close of the hearing, the hearing officer reversed his conditional ruling and denied the request for intervention. The hearing which took place on February 14 and 15, 1951, closed on the latter date at 5: 50 p. m. The official records of the Board show that on February 16, the AFL presented 104 authorization cards of which 100 were found on the payroll. Of these 97 were dated February 12, 13, 14, and 15. The Board has permitted labor organi- zations to intervene in representation proceedings after the close of the hearing, if they can establish that, as of the time of the hearing, they had a representative interest among the employees with whom the proceeding was concerned. The AFL showing of interest, submit- ted subsequent to the hearing, is sufficiently adequate for the purpose of intervention in the production and maintenance unit sought by the Petitioner in Case No. 8-RC-1155, hereinafter discussed. We find that the AFL is now entitled to intervene.' Therefore, although the hearing officer's ruling was correct when made, in view of the subse- quent showing, the ruling is hereby reversed. At the hearing, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, herein called the UAW, and the Employer, moved to dismiss the petitions filed respectively by the International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the Engineers; by International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, herein called the IBEW; and by Pattern Makers' 1 Laclede Gas Light Co , 81 NLRB 462 CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 219 League of North America, herein called the Pattern Makers. For the reasons set forth below, these motions are denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees 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 determination of representatives: The UAW urges as its primary position that it should be certified without an election as bargaining representative for the production and maintenance employees of the Cleveland tank plant, on the ground that the plant is a part of the employer-wide unit established by a 10-year collective bargaining history with General Motors ; or in the alternative, that an election should be held only in a plant-wide pro- duction and maintenance unit. Of the craft petitioners, the Engi- neers contends for a separate unit of all employees engaged in oper- ating and controlling heating, ventilating, and refrigeration equip- ment; the IBEW seeks a unit of all maintenance electricians; and the Pattern Makers requests a unit of all wood pattern makers. The Em- ployer agrees with the UAW as to the appropriateness of the plant- wide unit but states, in opposition to the UAW, that no union should be certified without an election: The Operations of the Employer General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation with principal offices in New York City and Detroit, Michigan, conducts its business operations through several unincorporated divisions, one of which is the Cadillac Motor Car Division, which operates the Cleve- land tank plant, the only plant herein involved. The plant consists of an administration building, garage, airplane hangar, transformer unit, and a large manufacturing building consisting * of 28 acres of floor space, which will be used for producing tanks. These facilities were built in World War II and were occupied by the Fisher Body Division of General Motors for the production of bomber parts until 1946. The Cadillac Motor Car Division took over the plant in August 1950, under arrangements with the United States Government for the sole purpose of manufacturing tanks for the U. S. Army. The Unit Requested by the UAW (Case No. 8-RC-1155) In support of its primary position, as indicated above, the UAW states that it and the Employer have dealt with each other on a multi- 220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD plant basis resulting in agreements covering some 120 plants through- out the country, the last agreement having been executed in May 1950. It urges therefore that, as the type of manufacturing process of tanks is virtually the same as that of automobiles in other G. M. plants, the Cleveland tank plant automatically must become part of the multiplant unit. The UAW contends that in reality the Cleveland plant con- stitutes merely an accretion to a preexisting unit .2 We find no merit in the UAW's contention. Section 2 3 of the Master Contract of May 29,1950, specifically provides that if the UAW shall be certified for any bargaining unit, the inclusion of such unit in the Master Agreement shall be negotiated between the parties. The facts indicate that the Cleveland plant is an entirely new operation acquired by General Motors after the execution of the last Master Contract of May 1950. Moreover, it does not appear that the UAW has been certified for a unit of employees in this new operation or that the inclusion of such a unit under the contract has been negotiated between the UAW and the Employer. We find that the contract by its terms does not include the employees of this tank plant .4 As stated above, the UAW contends in the alternative that only a plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees is appro- priate. The various craft labor organizations seek to establish craft groups separate from the production and maintenance employees at the Cleveland tank plant. For reasons of national security, the Employer's representative was prevented from describing in detail the manufacturing process by which the tanks will be produced at the Cleveland plant. The record is clear, however, that the tanks will be produced on a mass production assembly line basis, similar to that used in the manufacture of auto- mobiles. The UAW urges that the process is a highly integrated one requiring us to deny craft severance in accordance with the decision in the Ford Motor Company case.5 We do not agree. The Board has held in numerous decisions that in order to apply the Ford doctrine, 2 Petitioner urges that the cases of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 79 NLRB 744, and Sargent & Company, 78 NLRB 918 , are applicable to the present situation . We do not agree. In the first of the cited cases, a new section was established in the same factory ; in the second, an employer bought a new plant which was completely integrated as part of his former operations. 3 This section reads as follows : "In case the UAWA-CIO shall be certified as the bargaining representatives for any additional bargaining units, the matter of including such unit under the terms of this Agreement shall be negotiated between the Personnel Staff of the Corporation and the International Officers of the Union ; it being understood that plants producing cars, trucks, bodies or automotive parts similar to the material now being produced by plants covered by this Agreement, shall be included after giving due consideration to any local wage classifications , rates , understandings or practices as may exist Separate agreements will be negotiated for bargaining units not falling into the above classifications." 4 Sinclair Refinery Company, 92 NLRB 643 , and cases cited in footnote 3 ; Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ( Special Products Plant "C" ), 80 NLRB 1347 5 Ford Motor Company (Maywood Plant ), 78 NLRB 887. CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 221 the facts must show that the employees who seek to sever from a plant- wide unit perform routine and repetitive operations under production supervisors; in other words, they must be integrated and inseparable from the production process, a situation which does not exist here.6 Moreover, we have permitted craft units in many General Motors plants, including this very plant which was used by General Motors during World War II for the making of bomber parts.7 Accordingly, notwithstanding the successful history of plant-wide bargaining at other General Motors plants, we believe that the record herein does not necessarily require the establishment of only a single plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees. As it appears that the necessary elements exist herein for the establishment of craft units, we shall consider on their merits the various groups sought by the craft petitioners herein. The Engineers' Group ( Case No. 8-RC-1150) The Engineers seeks a unit consisting of employees engaged in the operation, control, and adjustment of all heating and ventilating equipment, including boilers, compressors, and Diesel engines. The UAW and the Employer oppose the petition on the ground of integra- tion in the manufacturing process. As an additional reason for their position they maintain that the employees involved are skilled only to a very limited degree. The record shows that the employees herein involved operate and control 9 steam boilers, used mainly for space heating, 74 oil fired Dravo warm air heating units located throughout the 28 -acre manu- facturing building, the hangars, and the garage, together with 100 exhaust fans, Diesel engines, air compressors , and thermometers scat- tered throughout the plant. They have their own foreman, and when working throughout the plant on the various pieces of equipment,-they continue to take orders from their own foreman . These employees devote all their time to this work and. there is no interchange with production and other maintenance employees . Although there is at this plant no powerhouse, as such, the equipment and machinery de- scribed above are kept locked in separate enclosures to which only the engineers have access . We find that these employees are not so inte- grated with the manufacturing process as to require a denial of their request for separate representation. The UAW further contends that these employees are not skilled craftsmen because the evidence shows that they attend to boilers only- 6International Harvester Company, 80 NLRB 1451; United States gypsum Company, 79• NLRB 1282; Reynolds Metals Company, 85 NLRB 110, Aluminum Ore Co, 85 NLRB 121 7Gene) al Motors Corporation, Fisher Cleveland Aircraft Division, 52 NLRB 1291. 53 NLRB 657 222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD once in 5 weeks and because the Dravo units require only the pushing of buttons to start and stop the machinery therein. We do not agree. Not only are the engineers required to be licensed under State law, but the Employer requires that they be skilled and experienced in the operation of all the equipment connected with their work before they are permitted to assume their job responsibilities. We find that the employees herein sought to be represented con- stitute a homogeneous group of powerhouse and related employees having the usual skills of such group and are of the type to whom the Board has often accorded separate representation, notwithstand- ing the integration of their functions with the manufacturing process.8 Accordingly, we find that all employees at the Employer's Cleve- land, Ohio, tank plant, engaged in the operation of heating, ventilat- ing, and refrigeration equipment, and of boilers, compressors, and Diesel engines, may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appro- priate unit. We shall, however, make no final determination with respect to unit placement of these employees pending the results of the election which we shall order herein. The Electricians Group (Case No. 8-RC-1151) The IBEW, the petitioner herein, claims a unit of all maintenance electricians whose duties are to maintain and repair all electrical equip- ment and machinery throughout the plant. They report to their own electrical shop which is under the supervision of a general foreman, who in turn supervises three foremen, each in charge of a group of electricians, When working in other departments, the electricians remain under the supervision of their own foreman. The Employer requires the electricians to have at least 4 years' experience. There is no interchange with production workers. The UAW and the Employer contend that the electricians are part of the general maintenance group; that they spend some 90 percent of their time in keeping production machinery in operation; and that their work is so integrated with the production process as to preclude their establishment as a separate unit from the production and maintenance employees. We do not agree. The electricians con- stitute a skilled craft group who, we have frequently held, may con- stitute a separate unit for collective bargaining purposes.' The fact that the electricians do the major part of their work on production machinery does not in and of itself make their work an integrated 8 General Motors Corporation, 76 NLRB 879, and cases cited in footnote 3. Baugh and Sons Company, 82 NLRB 1399 ; International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Works, 85 NLRB 1175. 9 General Motors Corporation, 76 NLRB 879 ; Fisher Cleveland Aircraft Division, General Motors Corporation , 52 NLRB 1291 ; Boeing Airplane Co, 86 NLRB 368; NEPA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation , 88 NLRB 99 CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 223 part of the production process.1° As indicated above, the Ford doc- trine does not apply in this situation. Accordingly, we find that the maintenance electricians may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire. We shall, however, make no final determination with respect to these employees pending the results of the election we shall order herein. The Pattern Makers Group (Case No. 8-RC-1175) The Pattern Makers originally requested a unit of all wood and metal pattern makers. At the hearing, the Pattern Makers amended its petition to exclude from the unit the metal pattern makers. The Pattern Makers testified that the reason for its amendment requesting the exclusion of metal pattern makers is that there are presently no metal pattern makers in the plant and there would, therefore, be no point in including them in the unit. The Employer and the UAW contend that the evidence reveals the existence of metal pattern makers and that their exclusion renders the proposed amended unit inappropriate. It is clear, from the record, that the wood pattern makers sought herein constitute a highly skilled group to whom we have frequently accorded separate representation in the automotive industry ll The record also shows that although there are certain metal workers who spend about half their time making brackets for the mock-ups made by the wood pattern makers, they do not in fact produce patterns. Accordingly, as the record reveals that the metal workers do not have the qualifications or exercise the craft skills of either wood or metal pattern makers, we shall exclude them from the separate voting group.12 We shall, however, make no final determination with respect to the wood pattern makers pending the results of the election, here- inafter directed. The Time of the Election At the hearing and in its brief the Employer took the position that no election should be directed prior to June 1, 1951, on the ground that before that date there will not be a representative complement of production and maintenance employees. At the time of the hear- ing, the Employer stated that it had 40 percent of the employees it "International Harvester Company, 80 NLRB 1451 ; United States Rubber Company, 81 NLRB 17; American Hoist & Derrick Company, 88 NLRB 219; American Can Com- pany, 82 'NLRB 257 "General Motors Corporation, Buick Motors Division, 79 NLRB 376 and cases cited in footnote 2. 12 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8; of International Harvester Company (Tractor Works), 89 NLRB 212, where the Board held that when metal pattern makers have the qualifications and exercise the same high degree of skill as journeymen wood pattern makers, they both may constitute a single appropriate unit. . 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD anticipated would be employed before June 1 and about 12 percent of those it ultimately expected to employ when the tanks would be in full production. The record also shows that the Employer now has in its employ a large majority of the number of employees who will be employed in the bargaining units herein claimed by the respec- tive craft petitioners. We find that the present complement of 40 percent of production and maintenance employees is a substantial and representative segment of employees to be employed by June 1. The expectations of employ- ment beyond that date appear to be uncertain and speculative and con- tingent upon unpredictable factors in the future. Under these circum- stances and upon the basis of the entire record in the case, we see no reason for departing from our usual policy of directing an immediate election.13 Accordingly, we shall deny the Employer's motion to post- pone the election. The Ballot As we have determined administratively that the authorization cards produced by the AFL reveal less than a 20 percent showing of interest in the AFL's proposed uit, Nye need not consider the appropriateness of such unit and shall not direct an election therein .14 However, inas- much as an election is hereinafter directed upon an adequate showing of representation in the UAW's voting group in which the AFL has some evidence of representation, we shall accord the AFL a place on the ballot for the broader voting group.'' We shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups, excluding from each group all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Group 1: All production and maintenance employees in the Em- ployer's Cleveland, Ohio, tank plant, General Motors Corporation, excluding the voting groups listed below. Group 2: All employees engaged in heating and ventilating, opera- tion of boilers, compressors, Diesel engines, and refrigeration equipment. Group 3: All maintenance electricians. Group 4: All wood pattern and model makers and their apprentices. As indicated above, we shall make no final unit determinations at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections hereinafter directed. If a majority in any of the craft voting groups vote for the petitioner seeking that group, 13 General Motors Corporation, Electro-Motive Division, Plant No 3, 82 NLRB 876; Flarnisclifeger Corporation, 86 NLRB 325, Precision Manufacturing Co., 88 NLRB 509. 14 Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368 15 Doughnut Corporation of America, 66 NLRB 1231 , footnote 2; Boeing Airplane Co., supra MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. 225 they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted, from publication in this volume.] MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER PENN-OHIO STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.. -RC-1030 and 4-RC-1033. May ^?, 1951 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Ramey Donovan, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employers. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : Case No. 4-RC-1033 The parties in this case are in agreement as to the appropriate unit except that the Petitioner seeks to include about 13 maintenance em- ployees whom the Employer would exclude. The Employer conducts its operations in a Naval Industrial Reserve plant which it leases from the Department of the Navy. The Navy, however, retains a portion of the plant for its own use and under its control. The maintenance men whose placement is in dispute are i Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618. 94 NLRB No. 42. 953841-52-vol. 94-16