General Motors Corp.

,GENERAL AEOTORS- eoR,FORA.Tro CHEVROLE'i,M_UWX.CIE r7:'viS,ION 231 production and maintenance employees for which the Intervenor was certified "on August 20, 1941, and the Regional .Director will issue a -certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MiclinsR MmmooK, dissenting : For the reasons stated in -my' dissenting opinion in the companion case of General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Forge Plant, Detroit, Michigan," I would deny the request for severance of the noncrafts- men, and dismiss the petition. 10 114 NLRB 234. General Motors Corporation Chevrolet Muncie Division (Forge Plant) ' and International Die Sinkers' Conference, Independ- ent, Petitioner. Case No. 35 RC=1146. October 6, 1955 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 John W. Hines, hearing ,officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at"the hearing are free from prejudicial error- and are hereby affirmed .2 At the request of the Intervenor, the Board, on August 11,'1955, heard oral argument in this case. The Board has considered the entire record, the briefs, and the oral argument and finds: I. 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 Petitioner, without opposition from the Employer, seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance unit, essentially a departmental unit of the Employer's forge die shop employees of whom a substantial number .are craftsmen 3 under separate depart- mental supervision. The Intervenor contends, as its primary position, '.The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing. S The, hearing officer permitted the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Workers of America, CIO, and its Local 499 (UAW=CIO), herein called Intervenor, to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its contractual interest with the Employer. The hearing officer referred to the Board, far a ruling'thereon, the Tntervenor's motion to dismids the petition. - For 'reasons gtated in paragraph 4, tints, the motion is hereby denied. It is.conceded that die didsihkers and trimmer diemakers are craftsmen. 114 NLRB No. 11. 232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - that the Petitioner is traditionally a craft union, and, therefore, may not, under the Board's decision in the American Potash case,' represent the die shop employees on a departmental basis. The question of craft and departmental severance against bar- gaining history on a broader basis has long occupied the attention of the Board. In the above-mentioned American Potash case which came before the Board on oral argument, the Board announced that henceforth craft severance would be permitted only where the re- quested unit constituted a true craft consisting of a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeyman craftsmen, working as such and their apprentices and/or helpers, and the petitioning union traditionally and historically represented the craft whose severance was sought. In addition, the Board also announced that severance on a departmental basis would be granted where the departmental group was functionally distinct and separate, and the petitioning union traditionally devoted itself to serving the special interests of the employees involved. Shortly after the American Potash case, the Board in the case of A. P. Controls Corporation,' had an oppor- tunity to further apply the policy announced in American Potash. In the A. P. Controls case where a traditional craft union, not here involved, sought severance of toolroom and model shop employees on a craft basis, the Board found that, although such employees did not constitute a true craft group, they nevertheless constituted a functionally distinct homogeneous departmental group and that the petitioning union was also qualified to represent the department as it had traditionally served the special interests of such employees. It follows, therefore, contrary to the Intervenor's contention, that a craft union is not precluded on the basis of American Potash case, from representing a departmental unit where such unit meets the requirements for departmental severance enunciated in American Potash. The Intervenor contends in the alternative that the American Potash case, itself, should be reconsidered and that a new ruling denying sever- ance to departmental groups should be established in the present pro- ceeding. We have carefully reviewed the arguments of the Intervenor and find no reason to depart from our previous decision in the Ameri- can Potash case. Accordingly, as it appears that the Petitioner in the instant case has traditionally represented die shop employees either on a craft 6 or departmental' basis, we find, in keeping with the Ameri- can Potash doctrine, that the Petitioner may sever, as a department * American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. Member Murdock dis- senting in part and Member Peterson dissenting. 5 108 NLRB 593, Member Murdock dissenting ; see also St: Louis Car Company, 108 NLRB 1388. e Bridgeport Brass Company, Aluminum Division, 110, NLRB 997. See General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda, N. Y., Forge Plant, 111 NLRB 1238. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION CHEVROLET MUNCIE DIVISION 233 traditionally entitled to separate representation, the die shop em- ployees involved herein. The Intervenor argues that the unit is inappropriate because em- ployees having the same classifications as some of the unskilled em- ployees of the die shop are assigned to and work in other departments at the plant. We find no merit in this contention. The fact that other employees in the plant have the same classifications as the unskilled employees in the die shop does not militate against the appropriateness of the die shop unit.' The Intervenor further contends that the unit is inappropriate be- cause die shop employees perform work throughout the plant in close proximity with employees other than die shop employees. In this con- nection, the record shows that the die repairmen, may at times, leave the die shop and go throughout the plant to repair dies. It is well established that such activity does not destroy the appropriateness of a departmental unit.' Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention of the Intervenor. There remains for consideration a final contention of the Intervenor that the unit sought is inappropriate on the ground that the Petitioner does not seek to represent all of the die shop employees. In this respect, the record shows that there are two employees, classified as an oiler and a trucker, whom the Petitioner does not seek to represent. The trucker hauls dies from the production area to the die shop for repair and the oiler oils the machines in the die shop. The record is not clear as to whether these two employees are assigned to and work under the supervision of the die shop foreman. If, however, they are in fact assigned to the die shop and work under the supervision of the die shop foreman, they shall be deemed to be included in the voting group of die shop employees set forth below. We therefore find no merit in this contention of the Intervenor that the overall unit is inappropriate. In view of the foregoing, we find that the die shop employees con- stitute a traditional departmental unit.10 We further find that because the unit is sought by a union which has traditionally and historically represented such employees on a departmental basis, the die shop em- ployees may constitute an appropriate unit." Accordingly, we shall direct a self-determination election in the following voting group : All employees assigned to and working in the Employer's forge die shop at its Chevrolet Muncie Division (Forge plant), Muncie, Indiana, s$t. Louts Car Foundry, footnote 5, supra: Allison Steel Mannfactoring Company, 105 NLRB 723 ; Kennecott Copper Corporation, Ray Mines Division, 106 NLRB 390, 395; cf Procter & Gamble Co, 106 NLRB 315, 317 Certain-Teed Products Corporation . 101 NLRB 1110, 1112, 1116; see also St. Louis Car Company, footnote 5, copra, and United Serexo and Bolt Corporation, 106 NLRB 1308, 1309. 10 General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda, N. Y., Forge Plant, footnote 7, supra. 21 Ibid. 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If, in the election to be directed, a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above, which the Board, under such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds that they may continue to be represented as part of the existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER PETERSON, concurring : A majority of the Board has decided in this case to reaffirm the sever- ance principles ernmciated in the American Potas7t case. While I still adhere to the views expressed in my dissenting opinion in that case, nevertheless I feel bound by the majority's action and therefore concur in the results reached herein. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. General Motors Corporation , Chevrolet Forge Plant, Detroit, Michigan and Detroit Die Sinkers Lodge No. 110 , International Die Sinkers Conference (Independent), Petitioner and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, and its Local 262. Case No. 7-RC-8793. October 6,1955 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 Bernard Gottfried, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the Intervenor's request, oral argument in which all parties participated was held be- fore the Board on August 11, 1955. The Board has considered the entire record, the briefs, and the oral argument and finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. ' 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 114 NLRB No. 53.