General Motors Corp.

In the Matter of GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION ( DETROIT DIESEL ENGINE DIvIsION) and FOREMAN'S ASSOCIATION OF AMERIOA Case No. R-5289.-Decided July 20, 1943 Mr. Harold A. Crane field, for the Board. Messrs. Henry^M. Hogan and Harry S. Benjamin, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. , Mr. Walter M. Nelson, of Detroit, Mich., for the Union. Mr. Robert AS'ilagi, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of General Motors Corporation (Detroit Diesel Engine Division), Detroit, Michi- gan, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Frank A. Mouritsen, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Detroit, Mich- igan, on May 3 and 4, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear- ing on the issues.' Thereafter the Union filed a request for oral argu- ment which is hereby denied. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the employees petitioned for do not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The ruling on this-'motion was-reserved to the Board. For the reasons set forth hereinafter, the motion is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ' Following the hearing , the parties entered into a stipulation to correct certain errors in the transcript . Said stipulation is hereby approved and the stipulated corrections are ' hereby ordered to be made in the official transcript. 51 N. L. R B., No. 89. 457 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY General Motors Corporation is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal business office in New York City and other offices in Detroit, Michigan. The Detroit Diesel Engine Division is an unincor- porated division of the General Motors Corporation, maintaining its plant in Detroit, Michigan. It is the only division with which we are here concerned. In excess of 40 percent of the value of the mate- rials used in the manufacturing and assembling operations of the Company are obtained from sources outside the State of Michigan. More than 50 percent of the completed products manufactured and assembled by the Company are eventually shipped to points outside, the State of Michigan and are sold or delivered to the United States Government to be used by the armed services. The Detroit Diesel Engine Division admits, that it is 'engaged, in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Foreman's Association of America is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union contends that all foremen and' general foremen em- ployed by the Company constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The Company contends that (a) foremen ' and general foremen are not employees within the meaning of the Act, and (b) if such men are employees, the claimed unit is inappropriate. The Company employs 19 general foremen and 388 foremen. The foremen involved have from 20 to 25 employees under their super- vision and the general foremen, through the foremen, supervise the work of some 80 to 100 employees. Both grades of foremen are sal- aried in contrast to the hourly paid production and maintenance employees. The foremen receive over $300.00 a month and general foremen receive at least 23 percent more than the foremen. The record shows that the foremen are responsible in the first in- stance for production and maintenance of production schedules, that they correlate the work of the employees under their supervision, that they report non-delivery' of work to their, sections, that they re- port and take steps necessary to remedy break-downs and other difficulties, that they represent the Company in the initial stage of handling grievances under the contract with the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of k GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 459 America, C. I. 0., which covers the production employees, that they transmit to the foremen whose shift follow theirs any pertinent in- formation relative to the work in the section, that they are responsible for the safety and cleanliness of their sections, that they can recom- mend increases in pay for the employees under their supervision and that although they do not hire employees, they submit requisitions for the employees needed in their sections. There is conflicting evidence as to whether the foremen have au- thority to discharge employees or merely to recommend discharge; but there is no doubt that foremen have authority to discipline em- ployees. A set of shop regulations has been formulated by the Com- pany wherein the penalties for specific offenses are listed. Some violations of the regulations call for fixed penalties, e. g., the theft of property of the employees or of the Company is punished by dis- charge. Other offenses carry with them indeterminate penalties which are fixed by the foremen, e. g., for wasting time or loitering in toilets or on any company property during working hours, a foreman may mete out punishment ranging from a reprimand to a lay-off'of 4 weeks. The general foremen bear the general responsibility of seeing that the departments, usually comprising four or five sections, function properly. They are responsible for the production of parts on schedule and .see that efficiency is maintained in the department. They advise the superintendent, the supervisor immediately above them, of the procedures, technical problems, and labor relations in their depart- ments. They assist the foremen under their supervision in solving those problems confronting them which generally arise from ma- chinery break-downs, safety, cleanliness of the department, and labor relations. They strive for the improvement of a manufactured article and pass upon the requisitions for additional employees submitted by the foremen under their supervision. From the foregoing it is clear that the foremen and general foremen do not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In the recent Maryland Drydock case 2 we said, We are of the opinion that in the present state of industrial ad- ministration and employee self-organization, the establishment of bargaining units composed of supervisors exercising substantial managerial authority will impede the processes of collective bar- gaining, disrupt established managerial and production tech- niques, and militate against the effectuation of the policies of the Act. It is urged that the doctrine established in the Maryland Drydock case should be limited to the fact situation therein presented and that 2Matter of The Maryland Drydock Company, 49 N. L. R. B. 733 460 DECSSIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the instant case be differentiated on the ground that the union seeking to represent the supervisory employees is an independent labor organ- ization not affiliated with the union which represents the production and maintenance employees. We have given careful consideration to this contention but, are, not persuaded thata' the factors militating against the establishment of units of supervisory employees, set forth in our decision in the Maryland DT-ydock case, are obviated by the circumstance that the union seeking to represent such employees is an independent, unaffiliated union. The instant case is in principle indistinguishable from the Boeing Aircraft case,' recently decided. We find, accordingly, that the unit sought in the petition herein is not, an appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Inasmuch as we have found that the employees petitioned for do not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, we find that no ques- tion concerning representation has arisen., ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of foremen and general foremen of General Motors Corporation (Detroit Diesel Engine Division), Detroit, Michigan, filed by Fore- man's Association of America, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIS, dissenting : For reasons set forth in my dissent in the Maryland Drydock case,4 I am compelled to disagree with the, holding of the majority that super- visory employees under no circumstances can constitute appropriate bargaining units. In the instant case the employees petitioned for do not formulate management policies nor do they take any part in the collective bargaining conferences between the Company and the UAW-CIO, the representative of the production and maintenance employees. They seek recognition by a labor organization which is both independent and unaffiliated. In agreement with the reasoning of the Boeing Aircraft case a I would exclude the 19 general foremen who have supervision over the foremen and find that the approximately 400 foremen, who are on the same supervisory level, constitute an appropriate unit. Consequently I would direct an election among them. Matter of Boeing Aircraft ' Company, 51 N L R B 67. + Matter of The Maryland Drydoek Company , 49 N. L. R B 733. s Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company, 45 N. L. R B. 630.