Kaiser-Frazer Corp.

In the Matter of KAISER-FRAZER CORPORATION , E^Iri oYER and PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMEIUCA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 7-R-2420.Decided March 31, 1947 Mr. Harry F. Morton, of Oakland, Calif., and Messrs. J. 0. Murray- and E. C. Munson, of Willow Run, Mich., for the Employer. Mr. George Q. Lynch, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Ernest J. Ross,, of Detroit, Mich., for the Petitioner. Mr. Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for the Intervenor. Mr. Gerald P. Leicht, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Detroit, Michigan, on October' 18, 1946, before Robert J. Wiener, hearing- officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations- Board makes the following: FINDINGS OP FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Kaiser-Frazer Corporation is a Nevada corporation , with its princi- pal office and place of business at Willow Run , Michigan, hereinafter called the Willow Run plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture, of automobiles. During the first 6 months of 1946, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 60 percent of which was shipped to the Employer's Willow Run plant from points outside the State of Michigan. During the same period, the Employer sold in excess of $1,000,000 worth of finished products,. of which approximately 60 percent was shipped to points outside the- State of Michigan. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce. within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 73 N L R. B, No 16. 109. 110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza- tions, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESE NTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their contract is .a bar to a present determination of representatives. This contract was executed on January 28, 1946, effective as of January 9. 1916, .and provided that it would continue in opei ation for a period of 1 year from this latter date. The contract further provided that it was to "remain in effect" in the absence of notice by either party of a desire to "change, modify, or terminate," given thirty (30) clays before the -expiration date. Since the petition in this case was filed before the ,effective date of the automatic renewal clause of the contract, and the anniversary date of the contract has now passed, we find, contrary to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor, that their con- tract is not a bar to a current determination of representatives.' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES A. The contelitions of the parties The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all pattern makers and model makers employed by the Employer at its Willow Run'plant, in- cluding working foremen,2 but excluding office and clerical employees and supervisory employees. The Employer and the Intervenor con- tend that their contract and the contract hereinafter noted, which was entered into between Graham-Paige Motors Corporation, herein called Graham-Paige, both of which covered production and main- tenance employees, established a history of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis. They further contend that the existing practice of collective bargaining on a production and maintenance basis in the ' Cf Matter of The Canton Drop Forging & Mfg. Co., 71 N. L. R. B. 923 ; Matter of E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co , Inc (Spruance Plant ), 72 N L. R B. 361. 2 The Employer employs no employees classified as working foremen. KAISER-FRAZER CORPORATION 111 automobile industry in the Detroit area, also precludes the establish- ment of a separate unit of pattern makers." B. The history of collective bargaining It appears that the Employer succeeded to the automobile manu- faCtiving business carried on by Graham-Paige prior to the recent war. The Graham-Paige plant was located in Detroit and during the war it ceased manufacturing automobiles and there engaged in the production of ordnance materiel. The Intervenor represented the employees of Graham-Paige during the war and a contract between the Intervenor and Graham-Paige "was in effect and negotiated dur- ing 1945." One of the Intervenor's witnesses testified that the Em- ployer made a "commitment" to the Intervenor that this contract would be "taken to the Willow Run plant and that it would cover the employees." Counsel for the Employer also testified that "we gener- ally considered the contract [between the Employer and the Inter- venor] was to be a renewal and continuation of the contract [between Graham-Paige and the Intervenor]." From November 1945 to Janu- ary 28, 1946, the (late of the execution of the Intervenor's first contract with the Employer, employees who desired to transfer from the Gra- ham-Paige plant to the Employer's Willow Run plant, were permit- ted to do so, retaining all seniority rights. It is undisputed, how- ever, that no pattern makers were employed by Graham-Paige during the «ar. Apparently, no pattern makers were required by Graham- Paige before the war, except during model changes, at which time such services were performed at the Graham-Paige plant by employ- ees of an outside concern. After a period of negotiations of several weeks, the January 28, 1946, contract, above described, was executed. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer were covered by said con- tract. Among the exclusions named therein were "engineering" em- ployees. Counsel for the Employer testified that it was "intended" that only "professional engineers," as contrasted with "any manual workers," should be excluded from the coverage of the contract. It appears, however, that the local management representatives did not so interpret the contract, and that as' late as April 11, 1946, "experi- mental engineers," one of the terms used by the Employer to describe pattern makers, were considered as "engineering" employees and there- fore excluded from the coverage of the contract. The contract con- tains, among others, union security and dues check-off provisions. The record indicates that as wages were negotiated for different classifica- 8 As hereinafter. noted , the employees sought by the Petitioner have been variously referred to by the Employer as "experimental engineers ," " technical engineers," and "experimental die model makers. " It is clear, however , that these classifications refer to "pattern makers," which team , for the purposes of convenience , will be adopted herein. 739926-47-vol. 73-9 112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions of employees, the dues check-off provision became operative. During June and July 1946, the Intervenor and the Employer coin- pleted their wage negotiations and the schedule of wages dated July 12, 1946, includes rates for "experimental die model maker," another descriptive term for pattern makers. The rate set for these employ- ees was to take effect on August 15, 1946, at which time their dues were also to have been checked off.4 The record reveals that the pattern makers never joined the In- tervenor but that a majority of them did join the Petitioner. As early as February 1946, a committee of pattern makers selected from this group processed a grievance, relating to wages, directly with the Em- ployer. It also appears that on July 6, 1946, an executive of the Em- ployer called a meeting of the pattern makers and advised them that they had been changed from a salary basis to an hourly wage rate. The pattern makers refused to accept such a change, stressing the fact that they had not been consulted about the matter and that it would mean a substantial loss of earnings to them. On the same day they were also advised that they came "under the jurisdiction of the CIO" and that such a change could be made under "the CIO contract." The pattern makers thereupon advised the Employer's representative that they were members of the Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, that they were never included in the Intervenor's contract, and that they had a right to have their "own union" represent them. Upon their threat that "they were going to go home," the change in manner of payment was withheld pending further negotiations. At a subsequent meeting the pattern makers agreed to accept the change to an hourly wage rate, in consideration of a substantial wage increase, which had in the meantime been offered to them by the Employer. Thereafter, on or about August 5, 1946, all pattern makers were given written notice by the Employer that, effective Augu'st' 15, 1946, they were being transferred from a salary basis to an hourly wage rate; that their new classification was "experimental die model maker"; and that they were being given the agreed wage increase. On August 21, 1946, the Petitioner; as representative of the pattern makers, noti- fied the Employer that if any dues were checked off for pattern makers "for the purpose of forced membership in another union" action would be "instituted at law to recover such money." As a result of such notice, no dues were checked off for pattern makers thereafter; nor had any dues ever been checked off prior thereto. It is also undisputed that none of the pattern makers ever joined the Intervenor 'or were solicited to join. It appears, therefore, that, at Graham-Paige no pattern makers were bargained for by the Intervenor. And it is not clear that the pattern As hereinafter noted , dues for these employees have never been checked off under the contract. KAISER-FRAZER CORPORATION 113 makers were covered by the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor. Moreover, the history of collective bargaining on a plant- wide basis , from the time that the record affirmatively establishes that pattern makers were employed , has been of short duration. C. The unit sought by the Petitioner The pattern makers work exclusively in the pattern shop of the Employer, which is a part of the experimental department. This shop is located in a separate room and is supervised by a separate foreman. It appears that the services performed by the pattern makers are those conventionally performed by such employees in other automobile plants and other pattern making shops in the Detroit area. The pat- tern makers make models and Patterns. They are highly skilled, requiring a 5-year apprenticeship at least. They are the highest hourly paid employees of the Employer. It would appear therefore that the unit sought by the Petitioner constitutes a true and well identified craft. The special training and craft status of the pattern makers have often been recognized by this Board.5 Furthermore, the organ- ization which is here currently seeking to represent them is an organization which supplies most of the labor market with pattern makers and renders special services to pattern makers and to them only.6 Although it is undisputed that pattern makers have been in- cluded in production and maintenance units in the automobile industry in the Detroit area, it should be noted that they have also been given the opportunity by the Board to vote for separate representation in the same industry and area.' D. Conclusions Although it is true that the pattern makers could be' bargained for as part of a plant-wide unit, it is equally true that they could be repre- sented in a separate unit of their own. The factors pointing to the latter conclusion are as follows: 1. The pattern makers constitute a well-defined and true craft. 2. Similar groups in the automobile industry in the Detroit area have been given the opportunity in elections directed by this Board to vote on the question as to whether or -not they desired separate representation. 6E. g. Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (East Springfield Works), 69 N. L. R B 215 See Matter of General Electric Company (Lynn River Works and Everett Plant), 58 N. L R B. 57 ° See Matter of General Motors Corporation, 20 N. L. R. B. 950, Matter of Ford Motor Company, 30 N L R B 985 See also Matter of General Motors Corporation, Delco Prod- ucts Division, 23 N. L. R B. 1014; Matter of General Motors Corporation, Buick Motor Division. 36 N. L. R. B. 893. 114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner have never had an opportunity to demonstrate at a Board-conducted election whether or not they desire separate representation. 4. No pattern makers were bargained for by the Intervenor at Graham-Paige and their coverage in the contract between the Em- ployer and the Intervenor is questionable. Furthermore, the history of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis, during the time pattern makers were'employed at the Employer's Willow Run plant, has been of short duration. On the entire record, we are of the opinion that the pattern makers should now be given the opportunity to indicate whether they desire to be represented in a craft unit or in a plant-wide unit.8 Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held among all pat- tern makers and model makers employed at the Employer's Willow Run, Michigan, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. At this time we shall make no determination of the appropriate unit. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the election. If the pattern makers and model makers select the Peti- tioner as their bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to be established as a separate bargaining unit; if they select the Intervenor, however, they will be taken to have indi- cated a desire to be part of the existing production and maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 9 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, Willow Run, Michigan, an. election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did, not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on 8 See Matter of International Minerals & Chemical Corporation (Potash Division), 71 N L R. B 878 O Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and apps oval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot KAISER-FRAZER CORPORATION 115 vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.