General Motors Corp.

876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD new automobiles and trucks which are delivered from Ford's assembly plants in Dallas, Memphis, Kansas City, and Detroit. As these prod- ucts are assembled in and shipped from out-of -State areas, we find that they constitute direct out-of-State purchases. We also find without merit the Employer's contention that the procedure of placing its orders through the local office of the Ford Motor Company renders these purchases indirect. Accordingly, we conclude that the Employer meets the Board's standards for retail establishments which 'require a minimum of $1,000,000 for direct out-of-State purchases.2 We therefore find that the Employer is engaged, in commerce ' within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein . The Employer 's, motion to dismiss is hereby denied. - I - ,,_2: The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9- (c) and Section 2'(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find in agreement with the parties that the following em- ployees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All service department , body-shop- department, and parts department employees working in the Employer 's Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, operations, including mechanics, parts men, body men, painters, drivers, service - salesmen, porters, lubrication men, service dispatchers, service cashiers, and service clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, car salesmen , and super- visors as defined in the Act. - - [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the con- sideration of th-e above Decision and Direction of Election. 1 Cf, lfilgon Otdinnobite, 110 NLRB 534; Kenneth Chevrolet Company, 110 NLRB 1615; Hogue and Knott Supermarkets, 110 NLRB 543. - General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body Division, Pittsburgh Plant and Pattern,Makers' League of North America, Pitts- burgh Association, A.F.L., Petitioner. Case ' No. 6 RC-1566. August 19, 1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OY ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National-Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Donald J. Myers, hearing 113 NLRB No. 89. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION 877 officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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. Their status as labor organizations was stipulated at the hearing. 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 a unit of all wood, metal and plaster pat- ternmakers and their apprentices, employed by the Employer at its .Pittsburgh Fisher Body Division. The Employer would describe the unit as "all patternmakers in the pattern shop" but does not urge its appropriateness. The Intervenor, International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., and its Local Union No. 544, contends that the unit is inap- propriate because of the bargaining by it since 1950 for a production and maintenance unit at this plant. The national contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, executed May 29, 1950, for a period of 5 years, has covered these employees, with certain local supplements. The Intervenor was certified for a production and maintenance unit by the Board as the result of a consent election in 1950, shortly after this plant opened. No patternmakers were actually employed until 1951. Since then grievances for them have been handled by the In- tervenor. The pattern shop, employing 8 patternmakers and an apprentice at the time of hearing, is a part of the tool and die department of the plant, which has 600 employees. The shop consists of two enclosures within the tool and die department. The employees in question work in the shop and are the only employees who do. They perform the usual duties of the patternmaker craft, and if not hired as journey- men, arrive at journeyman, status through the plant's 4-year appren- ticeship program for patternmakers. Without taking testimony, the parties stipulated that the foreman of the group is a supervisor. We find that the following employees may constitute a craft unit appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All patternmakers and their apprentices em- ployed by the Employer in the pattern shop at the Fisher Body Divi-, sion, Pittsburgh Plant, excluding all production and maintenance em- ployees, office employees, clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act as amended.' However, 1 General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda Foundry Plant, 111 NLRB 841. 878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in determining the appropriate unit for the patternmakers, we shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Peti- tioner, 'they' will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the Petitioner for the unit described immediately above, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds them appropriately a part of the In- tervenor's unit and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election. 5. Before March 1, 1955, when a layoff occurred, there were 10 ad- ditional patternmakers in the shop and 2 additional trainees. Seven of the 10 used their plant seniority to "bump" employees in other classifications, and 3 are now working as patternmakers for other employers. The two trainees also exercised their seniority in the pro- duction group. The recently expired contract and the testimony at the hearing indicate that the Employer distinguishes between trainees and apprentices, but the distinction is not clear. The Employer's witness testified that expansion in the patternmaker complement is expected this fall but would not forecast the extent. He also testified that the Employer "hopes" that all of the layoffs are "temporary"; that the 10 patternmakers who were laid off would have preference when additional patternmakers are needed; that "present plans en- visage some increase this fall" for future models, but that no one "in the Company" is in a position to make an accurate estimate. The trainees have preferential rights if additional trainees should be needed, but apparently their recall is less probable. The Petitioner would vote only the seven nonsupervisory pattern- makers and the apprentice, who are currently working in the pattern- making shop. The Intervenor would vote, in addition, the 10 pattern- makers and the 2 trainees who are laid off, or, alternately, would post- pone the election "until the fall at which time the extent of the increase in the patternmaking group will be known." It also suggests the pos- sibility of voting laid-off employees subject to challenge. The Em- ployer takes no position, except that it would not vote the two trainees because there is little likelihood of their return to patternmaking, but -requests the Board to make clear its position with respect to each cate- gory in order to eliminate challenges. Inasmuch as the laid-off patternmakers have a reasonable expectancy of recall in the near future, the Board, in accord with its usual policy, will allow them to vote.2 By the same token the laid-off trainees will Cf. Higgins, Inc., 111 NLRB 797 ; Avco Manufacturing Corporation, 107 NLRB 295, footnote 6; General Motors Corporation, Frigidaire Division, Newark Zone Shop, 92 NLRB 1752; Douglas Eaton Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 192. DON ALLEN MIDTOWN CHEVROLET, INC . - 879 not be allowed to vote inasmuch as they have no such reasonable ex- pectancy. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Don Allen Midtown Chevrolet, Inc. and Local 259, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-7117. August 19,1955 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On January 28, 1955, pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region among the employees of the Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows that there were 72 ballots cast, of which 16 ballots were for Local 259, UAW-CIO (the Petitioner) ; 51 ballots for West Side Employees Association, Inde- pendent (the Intervenor) ; no ballots were cast against the participat- ing labor organizations; and 6 ballots were challenged. On February 2, 1955, the Petitioner in timely fashion filed with the Regional Di- rector and served on the parties its objections to election. After an investigation, the Regional Director, on May 17, 1955, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections. In his report, the Regional Director found that the objections raised certain substan- tial and material issues of fact as to whether the Employer interfered with the election, and recommended that a hearing on objections be held. Exceptions to the report on objections were timely filed by the Employer and the Intervenor. Among other things, the Employer excepts to the generalized form of the objections filed by the Petitioner, contending that these objec- tions are invalid because they fail to meet the requirements for filing objections in the published Rules and Regulations of the Board. We find merit in this contention of the Employer. Section 102.61 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, as amended, provides in pertinent part : Within 5 days after the tally of ballots has been furnished, any, party may file with the regional director four copies of objections I Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 113 NLRB No. 102.