Chrysler Corp.

In the Matter of CHRYSLER CORPORATION and, FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, CHRYSLER CHAPTER No. 3 Case No. 7-R=2038 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION September 10, 1916 On August 13, 1946, the National Labor Relations Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elections 1• in the above-entitled proceed- ing, finding that general foremen, assistant general foremen, fore- men, and assistant foremen employed in the production, maintenance, inspection, power, material handling and stores, machine repair, tool stores, and shipping, and receiving departments at the DeSoto- Wyoming, Dodge-Main, Dodge-Forge, Plymouth and McKinstry plants of Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, herein called the Company, constitute separate plant-wide units appropriate for collective bargaining purposes and directing that separate elections be conducted among employees in such units to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Foreman's Association of Amer- ica, Chrysler Chapter No. 3, herein called the Association. On' August 22, 1946, the Company filed a motion requesting that the Board, set aside the Decision and Direction of Elections issued on August 13, 1946, hear oral argument upon the several issues raised in the entire proceeding, and render a new decision respecting the same. The Company contends that, in Section III of the Board's Decision and Direction-of Elections noted above, the Board "purports to sum- marize" the reasons urged upon the Board for dismissing the peti- tion in this case and that, "this summary is inaccurate and incom- plete." 2 While, in arriving at a decision on the several problems presented in this proceeding, we carefully considered all the evidence adduced at the hearing, all the contentions urged by the parties at the hear- ing and in their briefs, and the arguments in support of such conten- 169 N L It. B 1424. On August 20, 1946, the Board issued an order correcting certain inadvertent errors appearing in the mimeographed copies of this Decision and pro. vided that the Decision and Direction of Elections , as printed , should appear as thus corrected. 2 The Company apparently ignores our disposition of its several contentions in other places in our original decision 70 N. L R. B., No. 129. 1315 712344-47-vol 70-84 1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions, we did not deem it_necessary, any more than a court would, to discuss in our opinion each and every separate contention urged by the Company or the Association at the hearing and in their briefs. We emphasized in our decision the two basic contentions which, "inter alia," 3 the Company set forth for our consideration. We have fully considered the points of law and allegations of fact urged by,the Company throughout this proceeding, and believe the bases for our rejection of such contentions are apparent in the orig- inal decision. We find no merit in the Company's contentions. II In Section IV of the Decision and Direction of Election, following the statement of the unit alleged to be appropriate by the Association, the Board stated : Subject to its contentions noted in, Section II, above; the Com- pany takes no position with respect to the categories joined in the proposed bargaining unit. The Company alleges that this statement "grossly misrepresents the Company's contentions." - Except as its unit contentions intimately concern the extension of the issues of. representation of foremen raised in Section III of our decision, the Company takes no independent and tenable position with respect to the categories joined in the pro- posed bargaining unit. ° In the course of its brief the Company urges, inter alia, that "a unit of Chrysler's foremen or one of several ranks of foremen" is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Analyzing this fourth ``point of law," the Company alleges : (a) "No unit of managers would be appropriate." . (b) "There is no dividing line between Chrysler's assistant fore- men, foremen, assistant general foremen and general foremen that sets them as one group apart from assistant superintendents, superin- tendents, general superintendents and higher supervision as another group, or that makes a unit of them appropriate." (c) "Particularly obnoxious to the law, to production l and to the scheme of the Act is the Association's demand that all foremen in six plants, regardless of rank and regardless of all other considera- tions, be lumped together in one unit controlled by one union." At- the conclusion of this section of its brief, the Company states : If any unit for foremen were "appropriate," it could be so only if each rank in each department constituted a separate unit and By the very use of this well known legal phrase, we indicated that other contentions were admittedly made by the Company and considered by the Board, although not set forth i ro batim - CHRYSLER CORPORATION .1317 were represented by a separate union with no obligations to the others and subject to no influence or domination by them or. by the rank and file. * * * To segregate, as the Company in conclusion suggests, the assist- ant foremen, foremen, assistant general foremen at the Company's five plants into multiple bargaining units, each limited to a single category of foremen and to a single department within each of the five plants, would obviously isolate individuals, most closely associated with other foremen within their own departments and within other related and integrated departments, into artificial groupings and render impossible for foremen any effective bargaining on a basis which could fairly be called "collective." The Company's contention goes so much further than that which was acceptable to a majority of the Board in the Midland Steel case 4 that the -reasoning of that opinion , could hardly be invoked. We find, moreover, that on the facts in this record the limited segregation which the Chairman and former Board Member Reilly found appropriate in the Midland situ- ation would be inappropriate. We have fully considered the contentions of the parties, expressed in their briefs and at-the extended hearing in this case. As herein amplified, we affirm the conclusions set forth in our original decision. The Company's motion to set aside the Decision and Direction of Elections issued on August 13, 1946, and for oral argument on the entire case, is hereby denied. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision. ' "Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, Parash & Bingham Divisaon, 65 N. L R. B. 997.