Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 881 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of CHRYSLER CORPORATION, HIGHLAND PARK PLANT and
LOCAL 114, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT' AND AGRICULTURAL IM-
PLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE-C.' I. O.
Case No. R-40413.Decided October 7 , 1942
Jurisdiction : war materials manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: Com-
pany questioned union's majority among employees in the proposed unit and
the propriety of the proposed unit; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for. Collective Bargaining : all plant protection employees at
Company's Highland Park Plant, excluding chiefs, captains, fire chiefs, fire
marshals, sergeants, desk sergeants, relief sergeants, and confidential clerks.
Definitions : plant,, protection employees,. held, employees within the ,meaning of
the Act. ,
Mr. Max Rotenberg, for the Board.
Larkin, Rathbone and Perry, by Mr. T. R. Isernaan and Mr. Nich-
olas Kelley, of New York City, for the Company.
Cllr. Calvin C. Pratt and Mr. George J. Eckhardt, of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Protective Workers.
Mr. Maurice Sugar and Mr. Ernest Goodm(ln, of Detroit;-MiEh:,
and Mr. Lee Pressman, by Mr. Eugene Cotton, of Washington, D. C.,
for Local 114.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly,filed by United Protective Workers of America,
Local #1, herein called the Protective Workers, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided, for "an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Charles, E. Persons, Trial'
Examiner. Said hearing was held-at Detroit, Michigan,. on July 13
and 14, 1942: The Company,) the Protective Workers, and Local' 114,
United Automobile, Aircraft -and Agricultural Implement Workers
44 N. L. R. B., No. 173.
487408-42-vol. 44--56 881
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called Local 114, ap-
peared and participated. At the commencement of the hearing, the
Protective Workers and Local 114 moved that the petition filed in
this proceeding be amended to change the name of the petitioning
union, from that of the Protective Workers to that of Local 114. The
,Company opposed the granting of this motion. The Trial Examiner
did' not rule thereon. For reasons which appear^.in Section III, ,below,
the motion is granted. The caption, the petition, and all ' formal
papers in this proceeding are hereby amended to show the name of
the, petitioning union in accordance therewith. ' All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free, from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
On August 3 and 4, 1942, respectively, the Company and Local 114
'filed briefs which the Board has considered. On 'September 3; 1942,
a hearing was held before the Board at Washington, D. C., for the
purposes of oral argument. The Company and Local 114 appeared
and presented argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follontiing :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Chrysler, Corporation has heretofore been engaged in the manufac-
ture of automobile parts and accessories. Since February 1942 the
Company has been engaged almost exclusively in the manufacture of
.war materials for the, United States Government. The Company
operates plants in Detroit, Hamtranck,'Highland Park, Center Line,
and Marysville, Michigan ; Newcastle, Evansville, and Kokomo,
Iidiana; and Los Angeles, California'.- The Company also owns
between'25 and.30 subsidiaries in the United States. This proceeding
is concerned only with the Highland Park, McKinstry, and Dearborn
plants.
. Prior to February 1942 the Company manufactured approximately
1,200,000 automobiles and trucks per year. In May 1942 the Coin-
pany employed more than 65,000 persons at its various plants. , From
sources outside the State in which each plant is located, the Company
,receives, approximately 45 percent by value of the raw material used
at'said plant. The aggregate value of`raw materials used by the Com-
pany,exceeds $240,000,000 per year. At its respective plants, the Com-
pany. delivers substantially all its products to the United States
Government.
'CHRYSLER CORPORATION
II. THE ORGANI/,AXONS INVOLVED
883
United Protective Workers of America, Local #1, is an unaffiliated
labor organization , which formerly admitted to membership employees
of the • Company.
Local, 114, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, is a labor organization , affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Or'ga'nizations ,,- admitting to membership-
employees of the Company.
III. TIdE Q UESTION CONGPIINING REPRESENTATION
In' 1941 plant-protection employees in the metropolitan area. of
Detroit began organizing in the Protective Workers, an unaffiliated
labor organization. On March 4, 1942, the Board'certified the Pro-
tective.Workers as sole bargaining agent of plant-protection employees
at the Company's main plant, 6334 Lynch Rcad, 'and at its storage,
plant and arsenal, 6700 Lynch Road, Detroit, Michigan, which operate
as one manufacturing unit.' On April 10, 1942, the' Protective
Workers aslc&d the 'Company for recognition as bargaining agent of
the plant-protection employees at the Highland Park, ' McIiinstry,
and Dearborn plants of the Company. On April 18 'the Company
refused' to bargain, questioning the majority of the Protective
Workers among such employees: On May 11 the Protective Workers
filed the petition in this proceeding.
Previous to June 1942, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, herein called the International,
refused to charter local Iiuions restricted in membership to plant-
protection employees, although it frequently included proportionately
small numbers of such employees in industrial units primarily 'coln-
posed of production ,rid maintenance workers. In June 1942, while
the, petition( inn.'this-proceeding vas 1wudingg' before the Board;-'the
International changed its policy with respect to, chartering local
unions for plant-'protection employees. , On June 15,-when this had
become known, members of the Protective Workers, by a vote of
(delegates of local plant units, voted to apply for a charter from
the International. On June 16 the International granted a charter
for Local 114 for plant-protection employees in the Detroit metro-
politan area. Plant-protection employees in this'area who were mem-
bers of the Protective Workers thereupon, signed new cards authoriz-
ing the International to'act as their bargaining agent ahd became
members of Local 114. The Protectlve° Workers 'held no meetings
'Matter of Chiysler Cwpointion and United P)otectu,e iVo,kers of.4mrricn. 39 N L R I3
430 .
884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
after June 15, 1942, and ceased to function as an organizing agency.2
The Protective Workers does not desire that any additional certifica-
tion by-the Board require its continued existence as a labor organiza-
tion.
. A, statement prepared by the Regional Director and other evidence
introduced at-the hearing indicate that Local 114 represents a sub-
stantial number of employees 3 in the 'appropriate unit..4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The International contends that plant-protection employees at the
Highland Park, McKinstry, and Dearborn plants of the Company
in the Detroit metropolitan area constitute an appropriate, unit. As
in the.prior representation proceeding noted above, the&Company-takes
the position that the confidential and disciplinary nature of the tasks
assigned to plant-protection employees constitutes them instruments'
of management and that the proper performance' of their duties pre-
cludes their inclusion as employees in a bargaining unit. The Com-
pany, and the International agree that, if the Board finds that there
is an appropriate unit within the scope of the petition, chiefs, cap-
tains, fire chiefs,', fire marshal's;- sergeants, desk sergeants; relief ser-
geants, and confidential clerks should be excluded from the bargaining
unit.5
Plant-protection employees have similar duties in all the Com-
pany's plants. They guard the Company's property against espio-
nage, theft, trespass, and fire and accident hazards. They enforce
safety and disciplinary regulations. They examine packages leaving
and entering the plants. They investigate and report to the military
authorities occurrences which arouse their suspicion. The present
I /I
2 Since the Protective Workers is the certified bargaining representative of employees at
some plants , it has retained its formal existence in order to preserve their rights and to
represent them in the event their employers refused to recognize Local 114 of the Inter-
national as its successor and to bargain directly with Local 114.
For reasons stated in Section IV, below, we reject the contention of the Company that
plant-protection employees are not employees within the meaning of the Act.
4 The Protective Woikers submitted to the Regional Director 70 authorization -cards
bearing al . parently genuine signatures of employees of the Company . The cards are dated
between December 18, 1941, and April 30, 1942 , and indicate that the Protective Workers
repiesentcd 60 plant-protection employees at the Highland Park plant, 4 at the McKinstry
'plant, and 6 at the Dearborn' plant . There are about 77 non-supervisory plant - protection
employees at the Highland Park plant , 8 at the McKinstry plant, and 8 at,the Dearborn plant.
With one exception , all employees who had signed authorization cards in the Protective
Workers signed authorization cards of the International after Local 114 was chartered. - _
5 Employees'in these categories were excluded'from the unit for, plant-protection employees
in the prior representation proceeding cited in footnote 1, above.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 885
production of war materials, at the Company's plants, increases' the
importance-of their work and their responsibilities.
The War Department has recently, issued a directive order; making
plant-protection employees at plants producing war materials civilian
auxiliaries of the military police. Under appropriate Army super-
vision , they, are being trained and equipped to meet the additional
responsibility placed upon them. The Company contends that, even
if their ordinary duties do not bar them from rights guaranteed under,
the Act, this military regulation changes their employment status
and that they are no longer "employees," within the meaning of the,
Act. We do not agree. The directive order specifically preserves the
essential employment relationship. The employer's right to dis-
charge for cause remains. Hiring, compensation for services per-
formed" and general working conditions remain matters to be ad-
justed between the employer and the employees through the usual
employment contract.
On November 29, 1939, the Company and the International entered
into a contract covering production and maintenance employees at
several plants of the Company, including the plants herein concerned.
The contract was clarified and amended on December 10, 1940.
Plant-protection employees, inter alia, ,were expressly excluded from
coverage under the contract and the amended contract. On June 2,
1941, the Company and the International entered into a further
agreement providing that the terms and provisions of the contract
of December 29, 1939, as amended on December 10, 1940, should con-
tinue in full force and effect, and that "neither the Union nor the
corporation will request any amendments or changes in the said
agreements or classifications prior to November 1 and November 15,
1942."
The Company, contends that the- instant proceeding is a circuitous
device adopted by the International to secure a contract for plant-
protection employees and,thereby circumvent.an express prohibition
in_ the contract noted above. We find' no merit in this contention.
While plant-protection employees'are expressly excluded from cover-
age in the present contract, such exclusion cannot preclude the In-
ternational from representing the plant-protection workers nor can
it be construed to bar excluded employees from the right to bargain
collectively in an appropriate unit through any bargaining agent
whom they may desire to represent them.6
The Company further contends that the' Board - should dismiss this
proceeding on the ground that the organization of plant=protection
employees and their affiliation with the same labor organization which
6Cf. Matter of Chrysler • Corporataon. ( Marysoille Plaryt ) and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America , affiliated with the C. 1 0.,136 N . L R. B 157.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
represents the Company's production and maintenance employees,
whose activities they watch and guard; has-materially lessened•the effi-
ciency of the former. We perceive no necessary conflict between self-
organization for collective bargaining and the faithful performance
of duty. Freedom to choose,a bargaining agent, includes the right to
select a representative which has been chosen to represent other em-
ployees of the employer in a different bargaining unit. We are mind-
ful of the increased responsibilities placed upon plant-protection
employees in wartime, but the practices and procedures. of collective
bargaining are flexible, and may make full,allowance for such added
responsibilities.' If, in the instant case, the plant-protection employees
select a local affiliated with the International to represent them as
bargaining agent, it,will be incumbent upon the International to impose
a proportionate responsibility upon both organized groups of em- -
ployees in order that their respective duties may be adequately and
impartially performed. In any event, the remedy for inefficiency or
wilful disregard or-neglect of duty on the part of the plant-protection
employees lies implicitly in the power of 'the Company to'd'iscipline`or
discharge them and in the power of the military authority to take all
necessary steps to protect the public interest. We find, therefore, no
reason to deny the request of the Company's plant-protection employees
to constitute a separate bargaining unit and to deny them, as such, the
right to bargain collectively with their employer th}•ongh a representa-
tive of their own,choosing. , ' -
- The International would include within the same bargaining unit
plant-protection employees at the Company's Highland Park, McKins-
try, and Dearborn plants. Before April 17, 1942, plant-protection
employees at the McKinstry and Dearborn plants were under the super-
vision of the plant-protection superintendent at the Highland Park
plant. On April 17,,1942,; due toy the relative; locations -of the plants
and the hardship in furnishing relief for 7-hour shifts and for 247hour
coverage, the Company .-shifted the supervision of plant-protection
employees at the McKinstry and Dearborn plants to the plant-protec-
tion superintendent of the, DeSoto ,plant. On July 2, 1942, the Inter-
national,, claiming to represent a majority of plant-protection em-
ployees at the DeSoto.plant and at seven other plants of the Company
in the Detroit metropolitan area, asked the Company to recognize the
International as bargaining agent of such employees and thereafter
filed with the Regional Director a petition for investigation and certifi-.'
cation of representatives of such employees. This petition is now
' See also Matter of Fiigidaire Division, General Motors Corporation and United Electrical,
Radio cf Machine TVorkeis of Areiica ( C 1 0.), 39 N L. R . B 1108 , and cases cited therein.
8 The McKinstry plant is 8 to 9 miles , and the Dearborn plant 7 miles , from the Highland
Parr plant. The Dearborn plant is across the street from the Desoto plant , and, the
McKinstiy plant 3 miles distant • -
CHRYSLER CORPORATION - 887
pending in the Regional Office. The question of the representation of
employees in the DeSoto plant is not before the Board in the instant
proceeding. r
We shall, in view of the greater proximity of the-McKinstry and
Dearborn plants to the DeSoto plant and the joint supervisions of the.-
plant-protection employees at those plants , defer the matter - of, the
appropriate unit for employees at the McKinstry and Dearborn plants
until-such time as we shall consider the same question for employees
t:t the DeSoto plant. Since plant-protection employees at'the High-
land Park * plant apparently function under one supervision as an
administrative unit, we shall set apart such employees as a 'separate
bargaining unit.
We find that all plant -protection employees at the Highland Park
plant of the Company, excluding chiefs, captains , fire chiefs , fire mar-
shals, sergeants , desk sergeants , relief sergeants , and confidential clerks,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the ,meaning of Section 9 '(b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved in part by an-election by secret ballot among
employees within the unit found appropriate in Section IV,, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of our Direction of Election , subject to the'limitations and
additions set forth therein.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat . 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of Na=
tionai Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as
amended, it is,hereby
DIRECTED that, " as part of the investigation to ascertain repre 'senta-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Chrysler Corpora-
tion, Detroit, Michigan , an election by secret ballot shall be conducted-
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regionial.
Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec-'
tion 9, of said Rules and Regulations , among all employees of the
Company within the =unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction , including employees who did not work dur-
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing said pay,-roll period because they were- ill or on vacation or in the
active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily
laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been disc
charged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
-'sented by Local 114, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring specially :
I concur in the result reached by the majority that the plant-protec-
tion personnel are employees within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations' Act. In Union Collieries 9 and Godchaux Sugars, Inc.,"
I expressed the view that representatives of management should not be
deemed employees within the meaning of the Act. There is no evi-
dence, however, that plant-protection personnel, unlike foremen ,or
.assistant foremen, are considered representatives of management by
the production or maintenance employees. Although it is true that
the guards exercise monitorial functions, they are not fiduciaries.
Furthermore, the Board would not impute the organizational activi-
ties of the guards to management, since guards exercise no control over
the production process and do not occupy a supervisory status. Pro-
tection of the plant against fire, theft, and sabotage is similar to other
forms of equipment maintenance. Clearly, in the performance of this
function, the interests of the guards and the interests of the production
employees are closely allied. -
Furthermore, although we have frequently held that certain types
of plant-protection employees may, under proper circumstances, be
included in a production, and 'maintenance unit, I agree that armed
and uniformed- guards alone constitute a particularly appropriate
unit for collective bargaining, since their peculiar problems and re-
sponsibilities serve to differentiate them from the bulk of,the •produc-
tion and maintenance force.
O Matter of Union Collieries Coal Company , Oakmont, Pennsylvania, and Mine Officials'
Union of America (Ind.) 41 N. L R B 961; 44 N. L . R B. 165.
10 Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and United Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union
No. 1186, C. I. 0., issued this day. -