Chrysler Corp.

1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cluding its extension of the existing union-security contract with the Union to the newly hired savings department employees , was not a violation of Section 8(a)(2), (3) , and (1) of the Act 26 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Retail Clerks and the Meat Cutters are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed. m In view of the finding made herein-that the existing bargaining contract was prop- erly applied to the savings department employees-the Company's refusal to grant the Retail Clerks access to the employees on company property, while affording the same privilege to Meat Cutters, is not a violation of Section 8(a) (1). Since the contract pro- vided that the employees shall become members of the Meat Cutters on and after the 31st day of employment , the Company was merely honoring the Union's right to sign up employees in accordance with the union -security provision of the contract . See Laub Baking Company, 131 NLRB 869, 871. Chrysler Corporation and International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO). Case No. 7-R-1666. February 1, 1963 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On July 23, 1962, the certified International and its Local 412 filed a motion to clarify certification in the above case. An opposition to the motion was then filed by the Employer. Upon considering the matter the Board was of the opinion that the issues raised by the par- ties could best be resolved after a hearing, and it therefore referred the proceeding to the Regional Director for the Seventh Region for such purpose. A hearing was thereafter held before James R. McCormick, hearing officer. His rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial er- ror and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair- man McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. The motion for clarification, as supplemented by stipulations and testimony received at the hearing, indicate that the issue here is whether seven clerical employees who have recently been transferred to jobs which are not presently included in the certified unit may properly be treated as an accretion to it. On May 12, 1944, the Board certified the Petitioner as the bargain- ing representative for a technical unit consisting of designers, detail- ers, and drafting employees of Chrysler's central engineering division 140 NLRB No. 98. CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1025 at its Highland Park plant. This is the basic certification in Case No. 7-R-1666.1 Also included in the certified unit were engineering record clerks (now called engineering records and release clerks) because they worked in close association with the technical employees in the central engineering division. All other clerical employees in the division, com- prising file clerks, typists, and stenographers, were excluded. One of the departments in central engineering was department 362 (color and trim specifications and releasing). It included both techni- cal and clerical employees, some of whom were engineering record clerks and therefore represented, while others were general clerical em- ployees who were unrepresented. In 1951, the Petitioner was also certified for a "blueprint" unit at central engineering, Highland Park. UAW International and another affiliate, Local 212, were certified in 1945, in Case No. 7-R-1909, as the representative for a unit of all clerical employees in the engineering department of Briggs Manu- facturing Company. In this unit were included such classifications as file clerks, typists, stenographers, engineering clerks, ditto, and blue- print machine operators. In 1953, Chrysler bought the automotive assets of Briggs, including its Outer Drive plant, where Briggs' engineering clerical employees worked. In 1957, Chrysler administratively combined certain depart- ments of its central engineering division at Highland Park with cor- responding Briggs departments at Outer Drive, but without changing their physical location. No changes in the composition of the respec- tive units took place at that time, so that at central engineering, High- land Park, the only clerical employees represented were engineering records and release clerks and the "blueprint unit," while at Outer Drive all engineering clerical employees continued to be represented. In April 1960, certain departments of central engineering, Highland Park, including department 362, were physically transferred to Outer Drive, the former Briggs plant. All clerical employees, whether they had been represented or unrepresented at Highland Park, were there included in the engineering clerical unit for which UAW and Local 212 had been certified in Case No. 7-R-1909. Less than a year later, in February and March 1961, further physical transfers took place, this time from Outer Drive back to Highland Park. Most of the former Briggs engineering operations were now fully consolidated with Chrysler's engineering operations at central engineering, Highland Park. Engineering records and release clerks, upon their transfer to Highland Park, were included in the technical unit originally established in Case No. 7-R-1666, and "blueprint" employees were similarly included in the Highland Park blueprint I The Board's original Decision and Direction of Election in this case appears at 55 NLRB 1039. 1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD unit. At that time, there were also 280 general clerical employees in central engineering Highland Park, who had never been represented. Chrysler transferred 26 clerical employees who had been part of the Briggs engineering clerical unit from Outer Drive to Highland Park. Of these, 15 were classified either as engineering records and release clerks or as "blueprint" clerks and were added to 1 of the 2 existing units at central engineering. The other 11 went to jobs that were not in any bargaining unit at central engineering. The motion for clarification concerns 7 of these 11 clerical employees. They are five typists and a file clerk in department 362, and a senior clerk in department 363, trim engineering. The Petitioner urges that because these seven were represented when they worked at Outer Drive and because they have always worked in close association with engi- neering records and release clerks, who are part of the technical unit at Highland Park, they should be treated as an accretion to that unit. In the alternative, Petitioner urges that they should be allowed a self- determination election. We believe that the Petitioner's motion to clarify its certification in this case should be denied. The Petitioner views the unit as if it were limited to departments 362 and 363, the trim releasing depart- ments, and argues from the premise that, as these clerical employees work in close association with the included records and release clerks, they should also be included. On the contrary, the unit is basically a technical unit containing almost 1,400 employees, most of whom are designers, detailers, and draftsmen. The engineering records and release clerks included therein are a small percentage of the whole number. At the same time, there are about 280 unrepresented general clerical employees in central engineering, Highland Park, who are mainly typists, stenographers, and clerks doing work similar in nature to that done by the 7 whom the Petitioner seeks to include herein. Some of these general clerical employees also work in close association with represented technical employees or with represented engineering records and release clerks, but have never been included as part of the certified unit. To add these seven employees to the technical unit at central engi- neering, Highland Park, would, in effect, treat these typists and clerks differently from others doing similar work, solely because they had once been represented under the certification for the Briggs engineer- ing clerical unit which was based on quite different considerations from those applying to the technical unit at Highland Park. The Petitioner's alternative request, that its motion be treated as a petition for a representation election, subject to an administrative showing of interest, must also be denied. The unit sought is clearly inappropriate, since it would constitute only a small segment of the BROWNWOOD MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1027 unrepresented clerical employees at central engineering, Highland Park. Furthermore, these employees may not be granted an election solely because they were formerly represented as part of another unit which has now been reconstituted or dissolved. [The Board dismissed the Petitioner's motion to clarify its certi- fication in Case No. 7-R-1666.] Brownwood Manufacturing Company and Amalgamated Cloth- ing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 16-CA-1663. February 4, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On October 29, 1962, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in a certain unfair labor practice, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Inter- mediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging Party filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings and finds no prejudicial error. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations with the following exception. We do not agree with the Trial Examiner's finding that the Re- spondent, through Supervisor Heffington, did not unlawfully inter- rogate employee Haynes. As the Trial Examiner herself found, Hef- fington repeatedly interrogated Haynes about her union activity in conversations initiated by Heffington, and this interrogation took place during a period when Heffington was unlawfully threatening employees, Haynes included. In the circumstances, we hold that the interrogation of Haynes by Supervisor Heffington was a violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act. 140 NLRB No. 91. 681-492-63-vol. 140-66