Ford Motor Co.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY 813 dues to the Teamsters , the Teamsters has, at least until April 30, 1951, caused and attempted to cause the Company to discriminate against its Bradley Field employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has restrained and coerced such employees in the - exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) and (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMO- BILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL No. 38 , AFL, PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 589, AFL, PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY-CLEVELAND ENGINE PLANT AND CLEVELAND FOUNDRY and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES & CANADA, PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION No. 120, AFL, PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY and PIPE, FITTERS LOCAL UNION No. 120, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTINOINDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER FORD MOTOR COMPANY and SHEET METAL WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL No. 65, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 8-RC- 1519, 8-RC-1526, 8-RC-1540, 8-RC-1543, 8-RC-1590, and 8-RC- 1599. August 27,1952 Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, consolidated hearings were held on February 5, 6, and 7, 1952, in Cases Nos. 8-RC-1519, 1526, 1540, and 1543,1 and on March 6, 1952, in Cases Nos. 8-RC-1590 and 1599, be- fore Carroll L. Martin, hearing officer.2 The hearing officer's rulings I The petition in Case No. 8-RC-1543, filed by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Pipefitters Local Union No. 120, AFL , herein called the Pipefitters , was withdrawn with- out prejudice during the hearing 2 At the second hearing, the Employer moved that the two groups of cases be consoli- dated. The motion , which was referred by the hearing officer to the Board , is hereby granted. 100 NLRB No. 133. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the first hearing, International Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, AFL, herein called the Molders, and Pattern Makers League of North America, AFL, herein called the Pattern Makers, were permitted to intervene to present their position that foundry employees and patternmakers, respectively, should not be included in any unit established by the Board, in view of the fact that the Employer's foundry was not yet in operation and that no patternmakers had been employed. They also contended that such employees, when employed, should constitute separate units. There- after, on April 3, 1952, the Pattern Makers filed with the Board a motion to explain and alter its position, in which it alleged that on or about March 7, 1952, the Employer had employed about 10 pattern- makers of journeyman skill in the operation of its foundry, over 30 percent of whom had designated it as their representative, and re- quested an election without further hearing in a unit of patternmakers and apprentices. Since the second hearing, the foundry has begun production and the Molders has indicated its desire to participate in the elections herein. For reasons that appear below, we shall provide for separate elections among patternmakers and foundry employees. At the second hearing, International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, herein called the UAW, moved to dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 8-RC- 1590 and 1599, filed, respectively, by the Pipefitters and by Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 65, AFL, herein called the Sheet Metal Workers, on the ground that there was pending before the Board another representation proceeding involving the employees requested 3 The UAW also questioned whether either of the peti- tioners had made a proper showing of interest. The Employer joined in the motion to dismiss, which was referred by the hearing officer to the Board. As both petitions were filed after the first hearing and are concerned with employees involved in that proceeding, the Pipe- fitters and the Sheet Metal Workers stand in the position of inter- venors therein. The Board has frequently permitted labor organiza- tions to intervene in representation proceedings after the close of the hearing, if they establish that as of the time of the hearing they had a representative interest among the employees involved.4 Here, 8 The UAW contended in part that as the Pipefitters had withdrawn their petition in Case No 8-RC-1543 during the course of the first hearing, the matter was res judicata as to it. As previously noted, however, the Pipefitters' original petition was withdrawn without prejudice. The United Boat Service Corporation, 55 NLRB 671; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 80 NLRB 117 ; Laclede Gas Light Company . 81 NLRB 462 : Cadillac Motor Car Division, Cleveland Tank Plant, General Motors Corporation, 94 NLRB 217. FORD MOTOR COMPANY - 815 7!4 ) the Pipefitters seeks to represent two groups : (1) All powerhouse employees, excluding electricians, and (2) all pipefitters, plumbers, and tubefitters 5 The Sheet Metal Workers seeks to represent all tinners, sheet metal workers, and millwrights doing sheet metal work, including trainees and apprentices, helpers, and group leaders. We are administratively advised that the Pipefitters has made an adequate and timely showing of interest in the powerhouse group. However, it has made no showing that it had a representative interest at the time of the first hearing in the pipefitters' group ; nor has the Sheet Metal Workers made a sufficient showing in its proposed unit as of the time of the first hearing. We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case No. 8-RC-1599, and the petition in Case No. 8-RC-1590 insofar as the proposed unit of pipefitters, plumbers, and tubefitters is con- -cerned. 5. On May 2, 1952, Local 1828 of the United Brotherhood of Car- penters and Joiners of America, herein called the Carpenters, filed a motion to be permitted to intervene in the proceeding, alleging that the nine industrial maintenance carpenters, including a working foreman, then employed at the plant desired it to represent them. The Employer and the UAW opposed the motion. As the Carpenters has presented no showing of a representative interest at the time of the first hearing, although the record shows that there were carpenters employed at that time, its motion to intervene is denied. Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 UAW seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant, and opposes the establishment of any craft or departmental units. The other labor organizations involved seek separate units, as discussed below. The Employer agrees with the UAW that only a single, plant-wide unit is appropriate.' 6 In its second petition , the Pipefitters requested a unit composed of either (1) all plumbers-pipefitters, tubefitters, refrigeration maintenance and installation men, and power service operators, or (2) plumbers -pipefitters, tubefitters, and powerhouse em- ployees, excluding, in either case, all other production and maintenance employees, elec- tricians in the powerhouse , guards, watchmen, professional employees, clerical employees, factory and office, and supervisors as defined in the Act. At the hearing, it amended its petition to request two separate units, as indicated above. e The UAW and the Employer stipulated that the appropriate unit should be "all employees of the company at its Brookpark Village, Ohio, plant , excluding office employees, time study and industrial engineer employees, plant protection and fire department 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer, a Delaware corporation having its principal offices at Dearborn, Michigan, conducts manufacturing operations at various plants throughout the United States. At its Cleveland, Ohio, plantj the only plant involved in this proceeding, it is engaged in the manu- facture of six-cylinder automobile engines. The plant, which is part of the Engine and Foundry Division of the Ford Motor Company, includes an engine plant, a foundry, and a powerhouse, located in separate buildings, but within a common enclosure. The engine plant has been in production since May 1951, and the powerhouse has been in operation since September 1951. At the time of the hearings, the foundry was not yet in production, al- though a few test operations were being run ; production was sched- uled to begin about April 1, 1952.$ When the foundry is completed, it will supply 90 percent of the castings used in the engine plant; none of the castings produced will be used elsewhere. The power- house serves both the foundry and the engine plant. The foundry and engine plant have separate plant managers; the powerhouse is under the supervision of the plant engineer of the engine plant. There is a single industrial relations department, which ad- ministers uniform labor policies established at Dearborn. There is no history of bargaining at the Cleveland plant. Since 1941, however, the Employer has bargained collectively on an indus- trial basis with the UAW at other plants. Except at the Chicago Air- craft Engine plant, where the Board recently certified a number of craft unions,9 the Employer has never bargained on a craft basis. Contentions of the UAW The UAW contends, in part, that it is entitled to certification with- out an election as the representative of the production and maintenance employees at the Cleveland plant, on the ground that these employees are merely an addition to an established employer-wide unit. We find no merit in this contention. The current master contract between the Employer and the UAW, executed in 1949, covers all production and maintenance employees of plants that were in existence at the time of the execution of the contract. With respect to new plants, how- ever, it provides : "If, in any new manufacturing or assembly plant or stock depot placed in operation by the Company, it shall be deter- employees , employees engaged In designing , drafting, laboratory, photographic or other experimental and/or research work , cafeteria and dining room employees , payroll analysts, clerks to department heads in plant areas, and professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act." 7 The plant is located at Brookpark Village , a suburb of Cleveland. e As of February 1, 1952 , there were 1,154 employees in the plant-1,102 in the engine plant, 32 (mostly clerical and maintenance employees ) in the foundry. and 20 in the powerhouse. When full production is reached, about December 1, 1952, there will be 1,690 employees-1,011 in the engine plant , 643 in the foundry , and 36 in the powerhouse. 9 Ford Motor Company , Aircraft Engine Division, 96 NLRB 1075. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 817 mined (by either National Labor Relations Board certification or other means mutually acceptable to the parties) that the Union is the col- lective bargaining agent for a unit of employees doing work similar to that done by employees covered by this Agreement, such unit shall thereupon be covered by this Agreement." The Cleveland plant was not in existence at the time of the execution of the contract, nor has it been determined, by Board certification or otherwise, that the UAW is the representative of the employees. It is clear, therefore, that these employees are not included in the existing unit to The UAW further contends, as does the Employer, that, if an elec-' tion is held, only a single, plant-wide unit of production and mainte- nance employees is appropriate. In support of this contention, they rely on : (1) The pattern of bargaining on an industrial basis at the Employer's other plants, and (2) the integrated nature of the opera- tions at this plant. As to (1), it is well established that a history of bargaining on a more comprehensive basis, even at the same plant as that at which the establishment of craft units is sought, does not pre- clude the establishment of craft units, where otherwise feasible. Fur- thermore, in one of the Employer's other plants the Board has found craft units appropriate.- As to (2), it is clear that the engine plant, foundry, and powerhouse, although located in separate buildings, constitute a single integrated enterprise. We therefore find that the plant-wide unit of production and maintenance employees proposed by the UAW may be appropriate. The record further shows that both the engine plant and foundry are highly mechanized, and that the Employer will conduct its manufacturing operations on a mass pro- duction, assembly line basis. In our opinion, however, it does not disclose that the craft groups sought herein regularly and repetitively perform such indispensable assembly line operatibns as' to constitute integral parts of the production process. The doctrine of the earlier Ford Motor Company case 12 on which the Employer and the UAW rely is therefore inapplicable. Accordingly, we believe that neither the bargaining pattern at other plants of the Employer nor the nature of the manufacturing processes at the Cleveland plant necessarily re- quire the establishment of a single plant-wide unit. We shall there- fore consider on their merits the groups proposed by the other unions. 10 See Cadillac Motor Car Division, Cleveland Tank Plant, General Motors Corporation, 94 NLRB 217. Cf. Ford Motor Company, 92 NLRB 188. upon which the UAW relies. In that case the Board found that the employees at the Employer' s Monroe plant , a plant purchased after the execution of the 1949 contract, were included in the employer-wide unit represented by the UAW. There, however, practically all operations , most super, visors , and a substantial number of employees had been transferred to the Monroe plant from older plants covered by the contract; both the Employer and the UAW had consid- ered it a transferred operation rather than a new plant within the meaning of their con- tract; and the Employer , from the beginning, had recognized the UAW as the bargaining representative of the employees 11 Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division, 96 NLRB 1075. 12 Ford Motor Company (Maywood Plant ), 78 NLRB 887. - 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The electricians' group (Case No. 8-RC-1526) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 38,- A FL, herein called the Electricians, seeks a unit of all maintenance electricians, including group leaders, apprentices, helpers, and trainees, but excluding all other production and maintenance employees, clerical employees, guards and watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. At the time of the first hearing, the Employer had 45 electricians- 7 in the powerhouse, 35 in the engine plant, and 3 in the foundry. By March 1, 1952, it expected to have a total of 73-9 in the power- house, 51 in the engine plant, and 13 in the foundry. The powerhouse electricians look after the switch gear in the switch house,13 maintain and repair electrical equipment in the power- house, and are responsible for the functioning of transformers in the switch bank in the engine plant up to the high tension side. In addi- tion, they service and repair heat, ventilating, and air-conditioning equipment throughout the plant. For the most part, they handle high voltage electricity. Although the powerhouse electricians work with other employees in the powerhouse and are under the same super- vision, they are not interchangeable with them. In the course of their duties, they work all over the plant area, have frequent contact with maintenance electricians in the engine plant and foundry, and at times work with them. The electricians in the engine plant are responsible fpr the main- tenance and repair of the electrical equipment in that plant. In addi- tion, they maintain six substations on the secondary side. On the day shift they work under the immediate supervision of two electrical foremen. On the afternoon shift they are supervised by a, mainte- nance foreman; as more electricians are hired, however, the Employer intends to place them under the supervision of an electrical foreman. These electricians work all over the engine plant, but report to their foreman in an electrical shop in the general maintenance area for assignment, and are at all times subject to his supervision. They do no production work. The electricians in the foundry will be assigned to maintenance crews in various areas. Each crew will be under the supervision of a maintenance foreman. The electricians in the crew will take care of all electrical equipment in the area. If necessary, they will be assisted on complicated jobs by electricians from other areas. In each area, the electricians will have a bench where they will perform some of their work; in the shop area, they will be assigned to an electrical 13 Electric power is purchased by the Employer from the Cleveland Electric Illuminat- ing Company and is distributed from a transformer belonging to that company through a switch house adjacent to the powerhouse. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 819 shop with special equipment where maintenance will be performed on equipment pulled out of production areas. All the electricians will have to be trouble shooters, qualified to do electrical work in any part of the foundry- area. In addition, they will be responsible for the maintenance and repair of substations- located in the foundry. They will do no production work. Although some of the duties of the electricians are repetitive in nature, in general the work is varied and calls for a high degree of skill and experience. In hiring, the Employer prefers journeymen with at least 5 years' experience. In the powerhouse they are required to have had previous power experience. The Employer has estab- lished an apprenticeship system. On the record as a whole, we are convinced and find that the elec- tricians are an identifiable, homogeneous craft group, exercising the usual skills of their craft. Accordingly, we find that the maintenance electricians, group leaders, apprentices, helpers, and trainees may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit. The powerhouse group (Cases Nos. 8-RC-1540 and 8-RC-1590) Both International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 589, AFL, herein called the Engineers, and the Pipefitters seek a unit of all powerhouse employees, excluding electricians.14 The powerhouse furnishes to the engine plant and foundry steam, compressed air, water, gas, and electricity. It is under the super- vision of a chief engineer, *ho is responsible to the plant engineer of the engine plant. At the time of the hearing there were 20 em- ployees in the powerhouse, including 7 electricians. The Employer expected to have its full complement of 36 powerhouse employees (in- cluding 9 electricians) by March 1, 1952. The 13 employees in the proposed unit 15 are as follows : a 14 The Engineers, however, wishes to include the powerhouse electricians if the Board feels that it cannot establish a powerhouse unit without them. In its brief the Engineers objects to the Pipefil tern being on the ballot alleging in substance, that: ( 1) There are no pipefitters in the powerhouse and only a minimum amount of pipefitting is done there ; ( 2) the Pipefitters has not established its right to be on the powerhouse ballot; and (3 ) the Pipefitters waived its right to participate by with- drawing its original petition during the first hearing . As to ( 1), willingness of a labor organization to represent the employees in question and the employees ' designation of such labor organization are the controlling considerations under the Act. Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 NLRB 867. Here , the Pipefitters has expressed its willingness to represent and bargain for the powerhouse employees . As to ( 2), the Pipefitters, as previously noted, has made an adequate and timely showing of interest in the powerhouse group] As to ( 3), the withdrawal of the Pipelitters' original petition was without prejudice, and therefore did not constitute a waiver of its right to participate . We therefore find no merit in the Engineers ' objections. 15 The Engineers originally sought to include in the proposed unit the categories of shift engineer and relief engineer . The four shift engineers are salaried employees, licensed by the State of Ohio as engineers, who are responsible to the chief engineer for the operation of the various shifts As they have the power to effectively recommend the hiring and discharge of employees , we shall exclude them from the powerhouse voting group No relief engineer had been hired at the time of the hearing 227260-53-vol. 100-53 820 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD machinist-all-around works in the powerhouse at all times, repairing, and reconditioning powerhouse equipment. Eight power service operators operate boilers, boiler feed pumps, air compressors, and other equipment having to do with the furnishing of water, air, steam, and gas. In addition, they spend approximately 40 percent of their time patrolling and checking the steam, air, and water lines through- out the entire plant, making adjustments, and reporting anything wrong. They make no repairs to this equipment except of an emer- gency nature. Licenses are not required, but all the present incum- bents are licensed boiler operators. Although these employees do some work in the engine plant- and foundry, they are at all times engaged in work connected with the powerhouse operations. They are not interchangeable with other employees. Two crawler tractor operators operate a bulldozer and move coal to and from the coal pile. Two laborers clean up in the powerhouse and help with ashes. The Employer has also set up the classification of refrigeration main- tenance and installation. When hired, employees in this classification will work throughout the plant on refrigeration equipment and air conditioning. Upon the record as a whole, we are of the opinion that the employees in the above classifications constitute 'a distinct, homogeneous, and functionally coherent group with common interests and working con- ditions. The powerhouse electricians, on the other hand, appear to be more closely allied with the electricians in the engine plant and foundry than with the other powerhouse employees. Accordingly, we find that all powerhouse employees, excluding electricians, may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit. The patternmakers' group The Pattern Makers seeks a unit of patternmakers and apprentices. At the time of the hearings, the Employer had no patternmakers, but expected to hire some within a month, and to have a total of 30 or 40, all in the foundry, by the end of the year. These employees will be engaged principally in repairing patterns. Approximately 25 percent of their time will be spent in the production area, checking patterns and making minor repairs. The rest of the time they will be in an enclosed maintenance area, where space has been set aside for a metal shop and wood shop. They will be under the supervision of a foreman who will also supervise some carpenters and cutter grinders.',' 11 The Pattern Makers does not seek to include the carpenters and cutter grinders in its proposed unit. FORD MOTOR COMPANY 821 As the patternmakers and their apprentices form a well defined craft group, we find that they may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit'7 We are administratively advised that the Pattern Makers has pre- sented a showing of interest among patternmakers, who are now em- ployed, sufficient to justify a separate election among this group. The foundry group As previously noted, the Molders contended at the hearing that foundry employees, when employed, should constitute a separate unit. It would exclude from sucli unit craft groups sought by other AFL unions. We are now administratively advised that as of June 3, 1952, the Employer had 313 foundry employees, and that the Molders has shown some evidence of a representative interest in that group. If the Molders submits to the Regional Director within 10 days of the date of this Decision a showing that 30 percent of the foundry employees desire representation by the Molders, we shall hold an election among them; otherwise foundry employees will vote in the residual voting group for production and maintenance employees, and the Molders will be accorded a place on the ballot for that group."' We shall make no present determination as to the scope of the appropriate unit or units, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees as expressed in the elections herein directed. We shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among the following groups of employees at the Employer's Cleveland, Ohio, plant, excluding from each voting group all supervisors as defined in the Act : Group 1. All maintenance electricians, including group leaders, apprentices, helpers, and trainees. Group 2. All powerhouse employees, excluding electricians. Group 3. All patternmakers and apprentices. Group 4. All foundry employees, excluding electricians and pat- ternmakers. Group 5. All production and maintenance employees, excluding employees in the voting groups set forth above, and excluding office employees, time-study and industrial engineer employees, plant-pro- tection and fire department employees, employees engaged in designing, drafting, laboratory, photographic or other experimental and/or research work, cafeteria and dining room employees, payroll analysts, clerks to department heads in plant areas, professional employees, and guards. 11Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division , 96 NLRB 1075; Lynchburg Foundry Company, 83 NLRB 415. 18 See Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division, 96 NLRB 1075. 822 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If a majority of the employees in groups 1, 2, 3, or 4 vote for the labor organization seeking to represent that group separately, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organization or organizations for such unit or units, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority in any of the voting groups 1 to 4 vote for International Union of Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be represented by such union, and if a majority in group 5 likewise vote for such union, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to International Union of Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, CIO, for a plant-wide production and maintenance unit, including therein the employees in any one or more of groups 1 to 4 in which a majority have voted for such union, which unit the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 8-RC-1599 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order. WILLIAM J. DUNN, D/B/A DUNN MOTOR COMPANY and LODGE 1317, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-687. August 27,1952 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,' issued on May 22, 1952, in the above-entitled proceeding, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 10, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, among employees in the unit found appropriate in such Decision and Direction of Election. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally 1 Not reported in the printed volumes of the Board's Decisions. 100 NLRB No. 112.