Grand Rapids General Motors

GRAND RAPIDS GENERAL MOTORS (FISHER BODY PLANT 1) 439 inspected only for completion. However, the "certified mechanic" is engaged exclusively in the repair and overhauling of aircraft, while the "certified pilot" spends a major portion of his time performing these same duties and only a fraction of his time in actual piloting duties. Each frequently works with the hourly paid automotive me- chanic, whom the Petitioner would include. Under these circum- stances,' we find that, although they may possess a greater degree of skill than other employees, the "certified mechanic" and the "certi- fied pilot" have a community of interests with the Employer's other ground service and maintenance personnel. We shall, therefore, in- clude them in the unit, in accordance with the Board's policy of afford- ing the same representation treatment to all employees with similar skills.6 Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employ- er's Windsor Locks, Connecticut, operation constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act : All employees including the automotive mechanic, the certified pilot, and the certified mechanic but excluding office clerical and pro- fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 The mere difference in their manner of payment affords no basis for their exclusion from the unit Bergen Knitting Mills, Inc , 122 NLRB 801 . Nor does the fact that they hold FAA certifications require a different result. See, e.g., Whippany Paper Board Company, Inc, 119 NLRB 1615. See Jones-Dabney Company, Division of Devoe & Reynolds Co., 116 NLRB 1556, 1558. Grand Rapids General Motors (Fisher Body Plant #1) and International Association of Tool Craftsmen -N.I.U.C., Peti- tioner. Case No. 7-RC-4574. May 8, 1961 ORDER DENYING MOTION On August 17, 1960, the Petitioner filed a petition seeking a single- plant unit of all tool and die department employees, i.e., die shop, jig and fixture, pattern shop, mechanical devices, die try-out, template department, heat treat weld shop, and apprentices, excluding all pro- duction and maintenance employees, at General Motors' Grand Rapids, Michigan, plant. On August 29, 1960, the petition was dismissed by the Regional Director. On appeal from this dismissal, the Board, on October 4, 1960, sustained the Regional Director on the ground that a single-plant unit is inappropriate in view of a history of multiplant 131 NLRB No. 63. 440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining between General Motors and the UAW as found in Gen- eral Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215, 1221. On October 20, 1960, the Petitioner filed a motion for re- consideration contending that the Board has held elections involving the representation rights of apprentices in single plants of General Motors without regard to any multiplant bargaining history. On November 18, 1960, the Board denied the motion. On January 16, 1961, the Petitioner filed a second motion for reconsideration, again contending that the relationship of General Motors to the UAW is not multiplant in nature and, in support thereof, citing three cases 1 wherein petitions were filed by the UAW for units of apprentices at individual plants of General Motors. We note that the cases cited by the Petitioner involve stipulations for certification upon consent election entered into by General Motors and the UAW. It is the Board's general practice to approve consent- election agreements unless they contain provisions which contravene the statute or established Board policy. The Board does honor such agreements even though the Board might not have found the unit stipulated therein to be appropriate had the case been contested before it on its merits. It does not appear here that the units stipulated to by General Motors and the UAW in the cited cases on their face con- travene the statute or constitute a significant departure from estab- lished Board policy. Therefore, in view of the Board's policy to honor such consent agreements, we cannot find, as the Petitioner would have us do, that these three stipulated cases, involving unrepresented apprentices, have destroyed the multiplant unit found appropriate in General Motors Corporation, supra. Accordingly, as the Petitioner seeks to sever a unit on a single plant basis from an existing multi- plant unit, and as severance must, according to established Board principles, be coextensive with the existing multipla'nt unit, we affirm our original decision upholding the Regional Director's dismissal of the petition, and deny the second motion for reconsideration .2 [The Board denied the motion for reconsideration.] MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above Order Denying Motion. 'General Motors Corporation (Chevrolet, Bay City , Michigan ), Case No. 7-RC-4375; Fisher Body Division ( Plant 1, Grand Rapids, Michigan ), Case No. 7-RC-4624; and Chevrolet Transmission Plant (Saginaw, Michigan ), Case No. 7-RC-4733. 2 In reaffirming the Board's policy of honoring consent-election agreements , we recognize that on occasion consent -election agreements may be entered into by General Motors and the UAW Involving employees in whom the Petitioner may have an interest In order to insure the Petitioner herein of an opportunity to intervene or to participate in such cases, providing it has the requisite intervenor's showing of interest in each instance , we hereby direct the Regional Director to give adequate notice to the Petitioner whenever a petition of this nature is filed