General Motors Corp.

CADILLAC MOTOR CAR DIVISION 181 Cadillac Motor Car Division General Motors Corporation and Pattern Makers League of North America (Detroit Associa- tion) AFL,' Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2840. September 29,1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Bernard Gott- fried, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reason : The national agreement between the Intervenor 2 and the Employer, effective from May 29, 1950, to May 29, 1955, was terminated pursuant to notice but was continued in effect until June 12, 1955. Negotiations began on April 7,1955, and during such negotiations any contract pro- visions agreed upon were initialed by the parties. Full accord on the national agreement was reached on June 12, and the parties im- mediately executed the following memorandum : IT IS AGREED by and between General Motors Corporation and the International Union, UAW-CIO, that the National Agreement of May 29, 1950, between the parties is this 12th day of June, 1955, being superseded by a new National Agreement between the same parties to be dated June 12,1955. This new National Agree- ment is to be retroactively effective to May 29, 1955, provided the International Union notifies General Motors Corporation of ratification of such new National Agreement on or before June 29, 1955. Pending receipt of advice by the Corporation of such ratification, the May 29, 1950, Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. The term of the new national agreement is to expire on May 29, 1958.3 On June 20, 1955, the Employer and Intervenor signed a settlement 3 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO ) and its Local 22. Because we are here primarily concerned with the national agreement, in discussing the contract- bar issue the term Intervenor is used herein when referring to the International. 8 During the course of negotiations for the national agreement, negotiations were pro- ceeding between local management of Cadillac Motor Car Division and officers of Local 22 114 NLRB No. 44. 182 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD agreement setting forth in writing the changes that had been agreed upon in negotiations prior to June 12, 1955. This document contained the following : 13. INTERIM AGREEMENT A. The new National Agreement is subject to ratification by the Union membership involved on or before June 29,1955. B. The new National Agreement shall become retroactively effective to May 29, 1955 on the date the Corporation receives notice of ratification of such Agreement from the Interna- tional Union, provided such notice of ratification by the local Unions is given to the Corporation by the International Union not later than June 29, 1955. C. Until the new National Agreement becomes binding on the parties in accordance with Paragraphs 13-A and 13-B above, the parties shall continue to operate under the pro- visions of the May 29, 1950 National Agreement. The parties hereto, each by its duly authorized officials and rep- resentatives, hereby accept this Contract Settlement Agreement and each and all terms and conditions thereof, it being mutually understood that the acceptance by the International Union, UAW-CIO, is subject to ratification by the membership of its local Unions as provided herein. The petition herein was filed on June 22, 1955. Notice of ratifica- tion was received by the Employer on June 28, 1955. The Employer and the Intervenor urge their national agreement as a bar. Their po- sition may be summarized as follows : The agreement had been reached and formalized before the petition was filed; it was the retro- active feature of the June 12 agreement which was to be controlled by receipt of notice of ratification by June 29, 1955; that the new na- tional agreement would not become null and void because of failure to receive notice of ratification by June 29, 1955, but that employees would continue to be covered by the May 29, 1950, agreement pend- ing ratification of the new agreement. In support of their position, the Employer and the Intervenor rely upon the Natona Mills and Phelps Dodge cases,' and contend that the Westinghouse cases is dis- with respect to purely local matters . These negotiations were completed on June 16, 1955 However, as the scope and power to negotiate were limited by and subject to the terms of the national agreement , local negotiations aie important here only as they were affected by the terms of the national agreement. ° Natona Mills, 112 NLRB 236 ; Phelps Dodge Refining Company, 112 NLRB 1209. We do not regard these two cases as controlling For, there the Board was concerned with whether the proceeding was barred by a contract which had been completed in all respects, except for the purely ministerial act of execution of the final document, and which had been put into effect before the rival petition was filed. Here we are consider- ing whether a document , which could not be put into effect until one of the basic pre- requisites--ratification-had been fulfilled , bars a petition filed before ratification. 6 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Small Motor Division, 111 NLRB 497. CADILLAC -MOTOR CAR DIVISION 183 tinguishable because of the express "null and void" provision con- tained in the latter case. In the TVestinghause case,' the Board determined that whether a ratification provision "be construed as a condition precedent or con- dition subsequent to a valid contractural relationship, a provision re- quiring ratification of a collective bargaining agreement for a stated term must, ..., be satisfied before such contract may operate to bar a rival petition." Whether the June 29 deadline for ratification in the national agreement refers only to the retroactivity of the terms of the 1955 agreement as contended by the Employer and Intervenor or was in fact a date upon which-absent ratification-the 1955 agreement would become null and void, it is clear from the provisions of section 13 of the interim agreement of June 20, 1955, that the new national agreement was not binding upon the parties and could not take effect until ratification was received by the Employer. Moreover, although the May 29, 1950, agreement was extended by the interim agreement until the national agreement was ratified, this amounted to no more than a temporary arrangement which converted the expired 1950 con- tract into one of indefinite duration. We have held that a temporary contract of indefinite duration following a fixed term does not bar a representation proceeding.' Under these circumstances we find no bar to the instant proceeding. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance unit a craft group consisting of all patternmakers and patternmaker apprentices. The Intervenor, while not contesting the craft status of the employees sought by the Petitioner, contends that the unit sought is inappropriate because it does not include all crafts- men in the plant who exercise basically similar skills. The other classifications of employees referred to by the Intervenor are die- makers located in the die shop of the manufacturing building 6 about a block from the pattern shop, and modelmakers and woodworkers who work in a separate model shop attached to the engineering depart- ment.' Each of these groups is under separate supervision, and the woodworkers do not carry a journeyman rating. Wood and metal patternmakers have been traditionally accorded separate representation as a highly skilled craft group in the auto- motive industry.10 Indeed, the Board in an earlier proceeding in- Footnote 5, supra. T Westinghouse Electric Corporation , footnote 5, supra. 8In addition , the record indicates that the Employer employs toolmakers and diesinkers among other skilled groups. 8 The 2 modelmakers work along with the 8 or 9 woodworkers making models for engineering and act somewhat in the capacity of leaders for the less skilled woodworkers. io Cadillac Motor Car Division, 94 NLRB 417, 423. See General Motors Corporation, 79 NLRB 376 , 377, and cases cited therein. 184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD volving these same parties at this plant found appropriate for craft severance the same unit sought herein." However, the Intervenor urges that the rules established in the American Potash, case," require that all crafts utilizing basically similar skills must be included in a craft unit. We find no merit to this contention as we recognize the existence of many separate traditional crafts which may have basically similar skills.13 Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer may constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All patternmakers and patternmaker apprentices employed at the Employer's Detroit, Michigan, plant, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act."' If a majority of the employees in this voting group select the Peti- tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds .to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in this voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] n Case No. 7-RC-953, not reported in the printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 19 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418-"we shall require that all craftsmen of the same type in any plant, except those in traditional departmental units, must be included in the unit " 13 See Southern States Equipment Corporation, 113 NLRB 537. 14 See Florence Pape Foundry & Machine Co ., 112 NLRB 960; General Motors Corpora- tion, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda Foundry Plant, 111 NLRB 841 ; Traylor Engineering & Manufacturing Company, 110 NLRB 334. Included as patternmakers are these five classifications : patternmaker-layout ; metal patternmaker leader ; pattern- maker metal-bench and machine; patternmaker-wood ; patternmaker-wood-leader. Of the two employees classified as pattern foundry repair and service working in the pattern building , apart from employees in that classification who work in the foundry, one works in pattern storage and is excluded by agreement of the parties . The other employee in this classification works in the pattern shop mainly repairing patterns. Neither of these employees is a journeyman patternmaker and they have not yet been classified as patternmaker trainee. Under these circumstances we shall exclude both employees from the craft unit. The Intervenor contends that an employee in the pattern shop with a classification of machine repair should be included in the unit . The other parties do not object to his inclusion . This employee skilled in both wood and metal makes pressure plates which are used at the foundry for castings and is a journeyman patternmaker. Negotiations are being carried on for the purpose of changing his classifi- cation to that of patternmaker . As there is no opposition to his inclusion in the pattern- makers craft unit and it appears that this employee 's work requires the use of the skills of the patternmakers' trade, we shall include him in the unit.