General Motors Corp.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 521 30 laid off in early September 1952 have been released only temporarily and that they have a reasonable expectation of reemployment. We shall, permit the employees temporarily laid off in September 1952 to vote. The parties disagree concerning the approximately 70 employees laid'off in May or June 1952. The Employer asserts that it intends to reinstate, as production requirements justify, all of these old em- ployees before engaging new employees. The Petitioner contends that the Employer follows a policy of laying off the least efficient em- ployees and of not recalling some of those laid off for an indefinite period. Several employees testified to this effect. In view of the in- conclusive nature of the evidence, we are unable to make a definitive determination at this time of the employment status of these indi- viduals. We shall allow the employees released in May or June of 1952 to vote subject to challenge in the election hereinafter ordered. The challenged ballots shall not be counted unless they affect the re- sults of the election, in which event a further investigation concerning the employment status of the employees casting the challenged ballots will be made.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Cf. Guggenheim Packing Company, 94 NLRB 777. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, AC SPARKPLUG DIVISION, MILWAUKEE PLANT and LOCAL 44, INTERNATIONAL GUARDS UNION OF AMERICA, INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2936. November 21, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph Cohen, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 101 NLRB No. 111. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization 1 involved claims to represent certain employees 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 Petitioner seeks to represent all matrons employed at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant as part of the existing guard unit of plant patrolmen, which it currently represents. The Em- ployer moved that the petition be dismissed on the ground that the matrons sought by the Petitioner are not guards within the meaning of the Act and that, therefore, the Board lacks the authority to certify the Petitioner under Section 9 (b) (3). For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby denied. The record reveals that these matrons patrol the plant premises, guarding plant property against fire, theft, and sabotage and report- ing, either to the chief of plant protection or to a sergeant patrolman, violations of plant rules and regulations concerning the safety of plant property and of persons on company premises. Their duties also include the checking of employee identification badges and other credentials both to insure the secrecy of information classified as restricted, confidential, and secret and to prevent unauthorized move- ment of employees in the plant. Although not among their specified duties, a fraction of the matrons' time is spent counseling employees who come to them for advice on personal matters. The Employer admits that these matrons work under the supervision of the com- pany's chief of plant protection and that for personnel matters they are classified as part of the plant patrolmen group. We find that the matrons sought by the Petitioner are guards within the meaning of the Act and may be included, if they so desire, within the existing guard unit.2 We shall therefore direct an election among the following employ- ees : All matrons employed at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If the majority of the employees in the above voting group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated 'As the record reveals that the Petitioner represents exclusively guards for collective bargaining purposes and is not affiliated with and does not receive assistance from any labor organization admitting employees other than guards , we find no merit in the Employer's contention that it is not a proper labor organization to represent guards. 2 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the matrons, because they lack the authority to take personal affirmative action against violators of the Employer 's rules and regulations for the safety of plant property and of persons on company premises , are not guards within the meaning of the Act. See International Harvester Company, Louisville Works, 84 NLRB 848; Fruit Growers Supply Company, 94 NLRB 909. SUCESORES DE ABARCA, INC. 523 their desire to be part of the existing guard unit, and the Petitioner may bargain for them as part of such unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] SucEsoRES DE ABARCA , INC. and AMALGAMATED TRADE UNION'S Couw- cIL, PETITIONER. Case No. 24-RC-J,45. November 21, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George L. Weasler, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this 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 Employer operates a machine shop and foundry in Miramar, Santurce, Puerto Rico. It is also engaged in the business of repairing ships at a drydock located next to its grounds. The record reveals that the Employer is presently under contract with the United States Navy for the repair of Navy ships. The Petitioner seeks to represent, as a separate appropriate unit, those employees of the Employer employed aboard the ships in the process of repair at the drydock. These shipboard employees perform services as mechanics, welders, and laborers on an intermittent basis as the need for work arises. The Employer and the Intervenor herein, the Union de Macanicos Auxiliaries y Ramas Anexas, move that the petition be dismissed on the grounds: (1) That an existing contract between them, which allegedly covers the employees sought, consti- tutes a bar to this proceeding, and (2) that the unit sought by the Peti- tioner is not appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. The Petitioner argues that the existing contract is not a bar because its benefits do not extend to the requested employees. For the reasons discussed below the motion is hereby denied. 101 NLRB No. 106.