Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1424 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

III the Matter of CHRYSLER CORPORATION and FOREMAN'S AssociATloN
OF AMERICA, CHRYSLER CHAPTER No. 3
Case No. 7-R-2038.-Decided August 13, 1946
Itathbone, Perry, Kelley cfi Drye. by lllessis. Nicholas Kelley, T. R.
Iserman, and D. L. Hastings, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Walter M. Nelson, of Detroit, Mich., for the Association.
Mrs. Augvsta •Spavlding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Foreman's Association of
America, Chrysler Chapter No. 3, herein called the Association, alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of Chrysler Corporation, Detroit, Michigan,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Max Roten-
berg, Trial Examiner- The hearing was held at Detroit, Michigan, on
various days between September 19, 1945, and February 26, 1946.
The Company and the Association appeared and participated. Upon
an interlocutory motion filed by the Company for reversal of certain
rulings made by the Trial Examiner during the first days of the
hearing, oral argument was heard, pursuant to notice, before the
Board at Washington, D. C., on September 25, 1945. The Company
and the Association appeared and participated. On October 3, 1945,
the Board reversed certain rulings of the Trial Examiner and granted
permission to the Company to inquire broadly into the relations be-
tween the Association and labor organizations representing rank and
file workers. During the course of the hearing then resumed before
the Trial Examiner, the Company moved to dismiss the petition. The
Trial Examiner did not rule on this motion. In its brief the Com-
pany renewed its motion to dismiss. For reasons which appear below,
the motion is denied. All parties were afforded full opportunity to
'19 N. L. It. B., No. 182.
1424
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1425
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, except as noted above, are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
After the close of the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the
amended petition so far as it related to the John R. plant, alleging that
organizational changes at the plant precluded a unit determination for
employees engaged therein at the present time. The Association con-
sents to the motion. The motion is hereby granted.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TILE COMPANY
Chrysler Corporation , a Delaware corporation , has its offices at
Detroit, Michigan , and operates plants at Detroit , Highland Park,
Hamtramck , and Marysville , Michigan ; Dayton , Ohio; Newcastle,
Kokomo, Evansville , and Indianapolis , Indiana; and Los Angeles and
San Leandro , California . The DeSoto -Wyoming, Dodge: Main,
Dodge-Forge , and McKinstry plants, all at Detroit , Michigan , are the
plants principally involved in this proceeding.
Until on or about February 1, 1942, the Company was engaged prin-
cipally in manufacturing Chrysler, Dodge, DeSoto, and Plymouth
automobiles Auld Dodge trucks. For several years prior to February 1,
1942, the Company manufactured on the average of more than 1,000,-
000 automobiles and trucks per year. The aggregate value of automo-
bile products manufactured and sold by the Company in Michigan
exceeded on the average $625.000,000 per year. Approximately 25 per-
cent of the automotive parts manufactured by the Company were de-
livered to purchasers within the State of Michigan, and the remainder
delivered to purchasers outside the State. Between February 1, 1942,
and August 15, 1945, the Company was almost exclusively engaged in
manufacturing war materials , delivering to the United States Govern-
ment or its contractors products at the plant where they were finished.
In each annual period since 1938 , and by August 15, 1945, the Company
purchased for use at its several plants raw materials and finished prod-
ucts having an aggregate value of more than $250;000,000 approxi-
1 During the course of the hearing the Company sought to introduce evidence which the
Trial Examiner, upon the objection of the Association , refused to admit. Such evidence
was rejected, either because it was irrelevant to the issues or because it was merely
cumulative of evidence already in the record. The Company requests that, if the Board
deny its motion to dismiss the petition, the case be remanded for further bearing. The
request is denied.
701592-47-vol. 09-91
1426 DECISIONb 01 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mately 45 percent of which by value was purchased front vendors lo-
cated outside the State and shipped to the Company's properties
within the State.
At the time of the hearing in this proceeding the Company was en-
gaged in converting its plants into full peace-time production, anti-
cipating that it would receive raw materials and finished parts for
the manufacture of automobiles and other products at a rate at least
equivalent to that which it received before the w ar. The Company ex-
pects to receive from sources outside the State goods in about the same
proportion as before the war and to deliver its products to customers
as before the war. At the time of the hearing , the full peacetime quota
of hourly paid workers had not been reached , but supervisory em-
ployees in full force were preparing their departments for production.
We find that the Company , contrary to its contention , is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Foreman 's Association of America, Chrysler Chapter No. 3, is an
unaffiliated labor organization , admitting to membership employees
of the Company?
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to grant recognition to the Association as the
exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the unit proposed
by the Association.3
The Company urges that the Association's petition be dismissed
contending, inter alia, (1) that foremen are not employees within the
meaning of the Act, and (2) that the relationship between the Asso-
ciation and United Automobile, Aircraft and Agriculture Implement
Workers, herein called the Automobile Workers, precludes the former
from serving foremen in a representative capacity for bargaining
purposes.
2 One of the grounds urged by the Company in support of its motion to dismiss the
petition was the claim that the Association is not a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act. Section 2 (5) of the Act states : The term `labor organization' means any
organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan,
in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of
dealing with employees concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or conditions of work." The Association is clearly a "labor organization" within
this definition.
3 The Company contends that no question has arisen concerning the representation of
its employees covered by the amended petition on the ground that the unit as amended
during the course of the hearing covered plants other than those covered in the Asso-
ciation's original request for recognition. We find no merit in this contention. The fact
of the Association's demand for recognition and the scope of its proposed unit and the
Company's refusal to accord the desired recognition was clear at the hearing.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1427
With respect to the Company's contention that its foremen, as a
result of training, power, duties, and privileges, are a part of man-
agement and, therefore, are not employees under the Act, we find no
merit for reasons which we have set forth in earlier decisions and
recently affirmed.4
With respect to the Company's second contention, we likewise find
no merit. The Automobile Workers and its several local unions
represent the Company's hourly paid workers at its Detroit plants
for bargaining purposes. The Automobile Workers is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The
Association claims to be an independent organization, and we have
elsewhere so found. No evidence was offered by the Company to
indicate that the Association is dominated or controlled by the Auto-
mobile Workers. Hourly paid employees at the Company's plants
expressed their sympathy with foremen in their efforts to organize
and gain recognition for themselves for bargaining purposes, refusing
to substitute for striking foremen and to work under foremen who
refused to cooperate in the foremen's strike for recognition. Comity
existing between members of these two labor organizations at the
Company's plant may be due in part to the Company's practice of
selecting its foremen from the ranks of hourly paid workers and its
promotion and demotion of employees between hourly paid categories
and salaried supervisory positions, as the production needs of the
Company may require. We cannot predicate domination and control
of the Association upon the sympathy and assistance tendered to fore-
men and their Association by hourly paid workers, their labor organi-
zation, or its affiliates. So far as the record discloses, the Association
is free to formulate its own policies, to decide on its own course of,
action, and to make its own collective bargaining contracts."
4 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N. L. R. B. 348 ; Matter of Packard
.Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4. and 64 N. L. R. B. 1212; Matter of L. A. Young
Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. It. B. 298; Matter of Jones & Laughlin. Steel Corpo-
ration, Vesta-Shanno,pin Coat Division. 66 N. L. R. B. 386; Matter of Westinghouse Elec-
trical Corporation (East Springfield Works), 66 N. L. R. B. 1297.
5 Matter of American Smelting and Refining Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 477.
0 Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, supra.
The Company contends that even though the Association may presently be independent
of the Automobile Workers, it will inevitably be absorbed by that organization , if it gains
a foothold in the plants, in somewhat the same fashion as organizations of the plant-
protection, clerical, and technical employees, at first independent, were absorbed by the
Automobile Workers. We have found that supervisory and hourly paid employees may
-he represented by the same parent organizations . (fatter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Cor-
poration, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, supra . In the instant case the contract between
the Company and the Automobile Workers, entered into on January 26, 1946, and binding
for the period of 1 year and subject to automatic renewal thereafter, contains an express
provision that the Automobile Workers will not "for any purpose represent anyone in a
supervisory capacity such as superintendents, general foremen, assistant general foremen,
foremen, or assistant foremen, or other supervisors or other representatives of manage-
ment." If the Association becomes affiliated with the Automobile Workers, we will, upon
proper motion, consider the effect of the contract provision on the validity of any certifica-
lion which we may have issued to the Association as a result of this proceeding.
701592-47-vol. 69-92
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Statements of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing,
indicate that the Association represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the respective units hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 ,(6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Association contends that general foremen, assistant general
foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen s in the production, main-
tenance, inspection, power, material handling and stores, machine
repair, tool stores, shipping and receiving departments s at the Com-
pany's DeSoto-Wyoming, Dodge-Main, Dodge-Forge, and McKinstry
plants constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. Subject to its
contentions noted in Section III, above, the Company takes no position
with respect to the categories joined in the proposed bargaining unit.
The Company has its principal offices at the Highland Park plant.
Under the Company's board of directors are the president, its chief
executive, and a number of vice presidents in general charge of the
Company's manufacturing, engineering, financial, selling, and other
activities. Its manufacturing operations comprise five principal divi-
4 The Field Examiner's reports indicate that the Association submitted application cards
and dues receipts indicating its interest among employees in its proposed unit as follows :
Designations submitted Designations appearing oncompany list of employeesEmployees
Plant in proposed
unit Application Dues Application Dues
cards receipts cards receipts
McKinstry----------------------- 11 10 9 10 9
DeSoto-Wyoming---------------- 191 185 15I 151 140
Plymouth----------------------- 370 ------------ 241 ------------ 231
Dodge-Main -------------------- 735 ---------- 448 ----------- 428
Dodge-Forge--------------------- 47 ------------ 48 ----------- 44
Total---------------------- 1,324 ------------- 897 ------------ 852
8 The Association would include in its proposed unit "foremen on special assignment."
The Company lists no such category of employment . "Special assignment men" is a
term used by the Company to indicate staff men who are detailed for special work, such
as investigation of trouble with the Company's products reported by a vendor. These
special assignment men are not supervisory employees , but specially skilled workmen.
Foremen during production changes at the plant are normally retained for preparatory
work in their departments during the time that hourly paid workers under them are tem-
porarily laid off. Such foremen do not lose their status as foremen. Foremen tempo-
rarily relieved of the supervision of hourly paid workers and retaining their job classifica-
tions as foremen are deemed included in the bargaining units found appropriate.
s Hourly paid workers within the departments named comprise the production and
maintenance unit presently represented by the Automobile Workers. Foremen in depart-
ments not enumerated for inclusion in the instant ease supervise clerical , technical, and
professional employees excluded from this unit. We approve units of supervisory em-
ployees which follow the pattern established by units of employees under them. Matter
of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta - Shannopin Coal Division, supra.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1429
sions : the Chrysler, Dodge, DeSoto, and Plymouth, and Air-Teinp, the
first four divisions making Chrysler, Dodge, DeSoto, and Plymouth
automobiles and Dodge trucks, and the fifth, making heating, refrig
eration, and air conditioning equipment. Each manufacturing divi-
sion has a divisional president. Each division has two or more plants.
Each plant functions under the direction of a plant manager or
counterpart. Plant managers may be directly over superintendents or
works managers. Plant or general superintendents may intervene
where the plant is large. Superintendents and assistant superin-
tendents are in charge of plant departments. Where large depart-
ments are subdivided, one or more sectors are under a general fore-
man. Foremen over individual sectors report to the general foremen
or to the department superintendent.
The central production office in the offices of the vice president in
charge of manufacturing operations forecasts the anticipated output
of automobiles to be made in the ensuing 3-month period. The several
planning schedules are approved upon the advice of the divisional
presidents and the heads of the purchasing, selling, engineering, and
other groups. These schedules are then broken down and dispatched
to the planning departments .in the offices of the respective divisional
presidents. The planning departments of the several divisions are
responsible not only for placing in the several plants of the division
the materials, parts, and machines for the various manufacturing
processes, but for establishing the rate at which parts shall be made
and assembled at the several plants for final output. For meeting the
anticipated rate of production, "shop" schedules are made and dis-
patched to the superintendents of the several divisions and depart-
ments within the plants, who in turn pass them as pertinent to the
general foremen under them. General foremen relay the schedules
to foremen and assistant foremen, who thus are informed in detail of
the equipment to be requisitioned by them from the plant stores and
the exact amount of work to be performed under them within a given
period. The performance of such work is exactly timed by test pro-
cedure. Upon the assistant foremen, foremen, and general foremen
within the group areas assigned to them rests the immediate respon-
sibility of overseeing the performance of work done by hourly paid
employees under them upon appropriate materials and equipment in
readiness at the proper place.
The DeSoto-Wyoming plant includes a toolroom, a maintenance
department, and two large manufacturing divisions, (1) where sheet
metal parts are manufactured and (2) where parts are assembled.
Under the president of the DeSoto Division is a factory manager in
charge of production at Desoto-Wyoming, under whom are superin-
tendents, general foremen, assistant general foremen, and foremen..
As of January 2, 1946, there were 19 general foremen, 7 assistant gen-
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eral foremen, and 69 foremen at the DeSoto-Wyoming plant, and the
ratio of hourly employees to supervision was 19 to 1.
The Dodge-Main plant is a large integrated part of the Dodge Divi-
sion which includes the Dodge-Main, Dodge-Forge, and Dodge Truck
plants. Under the president of the Dodge Division is a vice president
and general manager of the Division and a general works manager in
charge of all manufacturing operations of the Dodge Division. An
assistant general works manager is in charge of the manufacturing
operations at the Dodge -Main plant , which includes a foundry and ex-
tensive machinery, assembly, and manufacturing departments.
Under the assistant general works manager are general superintend-
ents, assistant superintendents , general foremen, assistant general
foremen, foremen , and assistant foremen. As of January 2, 1946,
there were 71 general foremen, 15 assistant general foremen, 230
foremen, and 423 assistant foremen at the Dodge -Main plant, and
the proportion of hourly paid employees to supervisory employees was
19 to 1.
The Dodge-Forge plant, also a part of the Dodge Division, makes
steel forgings and brake shoes for Chrysler cars and trucks. A plant
manager in charge of the Dodge-Forge plant reports to the general
works manager at the Dodge-Main plant. Under him is a plant super-
intendent and foremen of various classifications . As of January 2,
1946, there were at the Dodge -Forge plant 7 general foremen , 1 assist-
ant general foremen, 25 foremen , and 14 assistant foremen, and the
ratio of hourly paid workers to supervisory employees was 25 to 1.
The Plymouth plant is part of the Plymouth Division, which in-
cludes plants in Indiana and California. Under the president of the
Division at the Plymouth plant is a plant manager, a factory manager,
plant superintendent , superintendents , general foremen , assistant gen-
eral foremen, and foremen . As of January 2 , 1946, there were at the
Plymouth plant 50 general foremen, 23 assistant general foremen,
and 287 foremen, and the ratio of hourly paid workmen to supervisory
employees was 1S to 1.
The McKinstry plant is a part of the Chrysler Parts Division, which
stores, prepares for shipment, and distributes parts. The McKinstry
plant is a warehouse headed by a plant manager and superintendent
and assisted by foremen in various categories. As of January 2,
1946, there were 1 general foreman, 4 foremen, and 4 assistant fore-
men at the McKinstry plant, and the ratio of hourly paid employees
to supervisory employees was 9 to 1.
The Company's foremen attend a training school where they re-
ceive instructions regarding their duties. They attend meetings
to discuss plant problems. They perform no manual work. They
are salaried employees as distinguished from the skilled and unskilled
non-supervisory employees who are hourly paid. Probationary em-
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1431
ployees are under their special care during their period of probation,
and, principally upon the recommendation of foremen, probationary
employees acquire their seniority status as regular employees of the
Company. Foremen report and replace absentees by drawing on
extras within their department or borrowing men from other depart-
ments. They assign work, inspect defects, note and check slow work,
check shortages in material and men, assign men to work within their
area, and patrol their departments. Their principal care is to see
that hourly paid workers perform the work assigned to them. They
check tools and enforce safety rules. The nature of their duties
requires a proportionate amount of paper work. They issue parcel
passes, tool passes, tool clearances, authorization in rates where hourly
men under them are shifted to jobs paying a different hourly rate,
receipts for badges, hospital passes, and interdepartment transfers.
They report accidents. They grant limited leaves of absence. They
requisition equipment and materials as needed to perform the portion
of the shop schedule covered by the area assigned to them.
Foremen do not hire employees. They request additional help
from the employment office. If such requests are approved by the
i ime-study departments and supervision over them, additional
employees are allotted to them.
For certain offenses such as drunkenness, fighting on company prop-
erty, and insubordination, foremen discharge employees and, upon the
request of foremen, plant-protection employees escort discharged em-
ployees from the property. Such discharges are noted by foremen
upon appropriate company forms. For lesser offenses, such as ab-
senteeism, tardiness, etc., warnings and discriminatory lay-offs are
customarily given. The penalty assigned is a matter of rule or tra-
dition. Foremen have some initial discretion in meting out such
discipline, taking into account the employee's record, the seriousness
of the offense, and other circumstances.
The contract between the Company and the Automobile Workers
provides for elaborate grievance machinery. Individual grievances
are usually first presented by union representatives to selected foremen
specially designated by management for this purpose. Most griev-
ances are thus settled at this initial stage. The second stage of the
grievance machinery requires the commitment of the grievance to
writing, and the further processing of the grievance by union repre-
sentatives and other designated representatives of management. At
the time of the hearing, superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and foremen represented the Company as designated representatives
in respective parts of the plants at this second stage of the grievance
procedure. The contract specifically provides that the labor rela-
tions supervisor at the plant concerned shall represent the Company
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the third stage of the grievance,10 the plant manager at the fourth
stage of the grievance, and the Company's director of labor relations
at the fifth stage of the grievance. An appeal board constitutes the
sixth and last stage in the grievance machinery. All disciplinary
discharges by foremen are the subject of review by company manage-
ment whether or not they may invoke the exercise of grievance ma-
chinery under the contract.
Foremen do not participate in the negotiations between the Company
and the Automobile Workers leading to the contract which governs
the relations between the Company and its hourly paid employees.
Their instruction covers a study of the grievance machinery ill which
they participate. Foremen may suggest shop rules and changes in
work procedure in their respective areas. All such suggestions are
reviewed before they may be adopted.
The Company does not draw any distinct line of demarcation be-
tween the respective job descriptions of assistant foremen, foremen,
assistant general foremen, and general foremen at its plants. At the
time of the hearing, not all categories of foremen were employed at all
of the five plants covered by the petition as finally amended. Changes
in job category may occur without appreciable change in work. Skill
and experience, the extent of the area covered, the nature of the work
performed, and the number of employees to be supervised determine
at any given time the categories of foremen to be employed. All fore-
men of these four categories spend from 50 to 90 percent of their work-
ing time directly among the hourly paid workers under them. The
nature of the work done and the requisite skill of the workers determine
in each case the ratio of, hourly paid employees to supervision. Al-
though the manufacturing plants differ in size and output, and the
storage and parts plants are not manufacturing plants as such, the
several categories of supervision herein concerned are within the same
respective salary ranges. Assistant foremen are paid at least 25 per-
cent more than hourly workers under them. Other foremen receive
higher wages. The number of subordinates and the skill and ability
of the individual supervisors determine their placement within the
respective salary ranges. At the several plants, the pay, hours of work,
and vacation and sick leave privileges of foremen of all classes are
relatively the same.
There is no interchange of supervisory employees among the plants.
Although the plants are subject to over-all control, the plants are at
some distance apart and each plant maintains a considerable degree
of autonomy under a plant manager.
iu Grievances of general nature involving working conditions at the plant, as disinguished
from grievances of one or more employees as individuals therein, are processed initially
with the labor relations supervisor at the plant concerned, and do not pass through the
two initial stages of procedure.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1433
Foremen of all classes recommend for promotion hourly paid em-
ployees within their areas. Foremen, assistant general foremen, and
general foremen recommend for promotion or discipline supervisory
employees respectively under them. The decision with respect to such
recommended action lies entirely with higher authority. No foremen
of any category may discipline a lesser supervisory employee in his
area.
The Company questions whether foremen at the four plants herein
concerned should be included in a single bargaining unit.
The proposed four-plant unit does not follow any pattern of unit
organization previously established among the Company's employees,
nor does it follow any administrative line drawn by the Company for its
manufacturing operations. Hourly paid production and maintenance
employees and plant-protection employees were respectively organ-
ized on a plant basis and originally included in respectively separate
plant units. Hourly paid employees at the several plants who selected
the same bargaining representative were later grouped in a multi-plant
unit for bargaining purposes. Similarly, plant protection employees
at the several plants, originally found to constitute separate plant units,
when represented by the same labor organization, began to bargain
with their employer on a multi-plant basis. The Association is engaged
in oranizing the Company's foremen in the Detroit area and, as-7,
desires to add to the proposed four-plant unit foremen at
other plants as organized. Under these circumstances, we are of the
opinion that foremen in the several categories at each of the four plants
now organized may properly constitute separate appropriate plant
units at this time.
We find that general foremen, assistant general foremen, foremen,
and assistant foremen as employed in the production, maintenance,
inspection, power, material handling and stores, machine repair, tool
stores, and shipping and receiving departments at the Company's
DeSoto-Wyoming, Dodge-Main, Dodge-Forge, and McKinstry plants,
respectively, excluding all supervisory employees above the rank of
general foremen, constitute separate units appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
I
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
employees in the appropriate units who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3 , as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Chrysler Corpora-
tion, Detroit, Michigan, separate elections by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11,. of said Rules and Regulations, among employ-
ees in the respective units 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
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
elections, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by Foreman's Association of America, Chrysler Chapter No. 3, for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR, GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
The issues presented by this case are not materially different from
those considered by the Board in Matter of Packard Motor Car Com-
pany (61 N. L. R. B. 4) and Matter of Jones do Laughlin Steel Corpora-
tion, Vesta-,Shannopin Coal Division (66 N. L. R. B. 386 ). As I still
believe the majority erred in the result reached in both of those deci-
sions , I therefore feel constrained for the reasons set forth in my
dissenting opinions on those occasions to disagree with the conclusions
and Order in the instant matter.
There is one further observation which I should like to make, how-
ever. A number of commentators who felt that the Jones c6 Laughlin
decision was wrong, since the Board ignored the rule of a fiduciary
serving conflicting interests when it certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative for the supervisors the same union which was already rep-
resenting their subordinates, have indicated that a sound distinction
could be drawn between affiliated unions and organizations like the
petitioner which take into membership only supervisory employees.
Indeed, there is a hint of this in the second majority opinion in the
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1435
Packard case' in which the Chairman said: "Here, however, we are
not concerned with foremen's relations with their subordinates, but
with their own status vis-a-vis the company that hires, discharges and
compensates them and directs their work."
Since the problem of divided loyalty is the principal reason urged
against the extension of the Labor Relations Act to foremen, it must
be conceded that as an abstract proposition this distinction has a cer-
tain amount of logic in its favor. As a matter of the realities of cur-
rent industrial relations, however, it cannot be said that the Foreman's
Association, despite the high intentions of its sponsors, is a truly in-
dependent entity. In the absence of any special legislation by Con-
gress or any safeguards in the rules of decision of this Board, it is
under constant temptation to ally itself in its policies and tactics with
labor organizations representing the employees whom the foremen are
hired to supervise. Accordingly, decisions of this sort have the same
deteriorating effect upon the ability of employers to secure the undi-
vided allegiance of their foremen with respect to such management
functions as are delegated to them as are noted in a more accentuated
degree in the Mine Workers case.12
If there is any doubt on this score, the record in the case before us
is revealing. In the Packard case 13 the record contained some evi-
dence of collaboration betwen the petitioning union and unions affili-
ated with the CIO which was the subject of the following comment in
my dissenting opinion :
It is common knowledge that under normal industrial condi-
tions, strikes of factory foremen have little chance of succeeding,
for the places of the strikers can readily be filled by promotion
from the ranks from which the foremen themselves were origi-
nally selected. The record of this case reveals that in order to
prevent its strikes from being broken, the Foreman's Association
of America, the petitioner in the instant case, though nominally
independent, has also been driven to resort to treaties of mutual
aid and assistance with rank and file unions. In response to a
question from the bench, counsel for the petitioner admitted in
oral argument that "when the foremen struck there was a direct
and express agreement between us and the responsible C. I. O.
leaders that members of the C. I. O. maintenance and production
workers union [the United Automobile Workers] would not be
permitted to take the plac^ of foremen." And in answering a
question as to whether there was any agreement with the C. I. O.
against crossing picket lines of the foremen, he stated that there
^i 64 N . L. It. B. 1212 , at 1214.
Matter of Jones S Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta -Shannopin Coal Diviisioi, 66
N. L. It. B. 386.
1361 N . L. R. B. 4.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
had been in Republic Steel and that this matter was "adjusted
in each plant in each instance." Can anyone doubt that if such
an "agreement" or "adjustment" was being negotiated on the eve
of a foremen's strike, that supervisors would be inclined to think
twice before overruling any union steward on grievances, no mat-
ter how unfounded, or disciplining, for infractions of the plant
rules, employees influential in the rank and file union whose con-
sent was necessary to the strike agreement? Is it theoretical to
assume that the average worker, whose susceptibility to his fore-
man's influence we have so often noted in unfair labor practice
cases, would hesitate to advocate adoption by his union of poli-
cies evincing lack of sympathy with the objectives of the organi-
zation to which his foreman belongs? Under these circumstances,
"proper provision for organizational autonomy" is as unrealistic
as the former notion-now discredited by the majority opin-
ion-that the mere placing of different levels of supervisors in
separate bargaining units somehow achieved the effect of segre-
gating conflicting interests into watertight compartments. It
is difficult to find any logical distinction between supervisors'
unions which have such alliances with the rank and file groups,
and the labor organizations which we have hitherto proscribed
because of the presence of supervisors in their councils."
When this case was under hearing before the regional trial exam-
iner, counsel for the company sought to develop exhaustive evidence
with respect to collaboration between the petitioner and unions affili-
ated with the CIO. In this connection he obtained a subpoena for
correspondence which had passed between officers of the Foreman's
Association and certain CIO officials, and offered about 1,200 exhibits,
most of which were rejected by the trial examiner.
These exhibits show conclusively that the Foreman's Association
had received active assistance from one CIO affiliate, the United Auto-
mobile Workers (hereinafter referred to as "UAW"). Among them
are 22 letters from UAW locals pointing out that foremen in, various
plants desired to organize, requesting information concerning the
organizational procedure of the Foreman's Association, and offering
to assist in the formation of a foremen's chapter.?4
A fairly typical situation is set out in a request of April 25, 1944,
from the financial secretary of Local 887, UAW-CIO. His letter
states in part :
We are also attempting to organize North American Aviation
100% in all departments and inasmuch as it is impossible for
14 See rejected exhibits C-250, -255, -260, -267, -273, -282, -287, -304, -326, -329, -332,
-339, -341, -345, -350, -354, -357, -3661/2, -375, -379, -398, and -401.
CHRYSLER CORPORATION 1437
foremen to hold membership in our local union, we would like
them to organize.
If it is possible to secure 500 copies of the April issue of your
publication, free of charge, we would be glad to make distribution
of same to all foremen at North American Aviation. (Rejected
Exhibit C-287.)
In reply, the president of the Foreman's Association states :
Your offer to distribute our publication to foremen is grate-
fully received and fully appreciated, but we are faced with the
constant al legation on the part of employers at our hearings before
the various Governmental Boards that we are an affiliate of the
UAW-CIO. We, of course, deny such allegation and the officers
of the locals and the international UAW-CIO deny them also.
Therefore, if ways and means can be found to see that the fore-
men receive this material other than being distributed by mem-
bers of the UAW-CIO themselves, it would probably eliminate
further argument and further allegations on the part of the
employer. (Rejected Exhibit C-2S8.)
In the letter quoted in part in the preceding paragraph, the Fore-
man's Association president suggested that the UAW local furnish a
list of supervisors to whom Foreman's Association literature could be
sent direct. On May 13, 1944, the local replied that it would be im-
possible to secure such a list but stated :
However, we have close to 200 stewards in the plant, for both
day and night shifts, therefore, if you would send us about that
many papers, we are certain of a good distribution of them right
on the foremen's desks. We shall also be glad to handle any other
material you may care to send us.
F. S. Material can be left on the foremen's desks without any-
one knowing who left it there. (Rejected Exhibit C-290.)
These are not the only exhibits indicating the close relationship
between the Foreman's Association and the CIO. In a letter of
December 8,1944, from the Foreman's Association president to Walter
Reuther, the vice president of the UAW, there is the following:
Mr. Gosser [UAW-CIO regional director at Toledo] and I
discussed our problem of organizing the foremen in that area
who are carrying associate member cards in the UAW-CIO, and
he is very familiar with the problems of foremen, and impressed
me immensely with his views on this subject. I am looking for-
ward to other pleasant discussions with Mr. Gosser, and feel sure
that our problem will be settled to our satisfaction through his
understanding. (Rejected Exhibit C-344.)
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In a letter of October 6, 1945, a national representative of the Fore-
man's Association writing to the International secretary-treasurer
of the United Electrical Workers (CIO) stated :
Some time ago our president, Mr. Robert H. Keys, met with
Mr. Philip Murray, president of the United Steelworkers of
America, to discuss the situation. At that time Mr. Murray
appointed Mr. J. J. Brownlee and Mr. Keys appointed me to meet
and further discuss the situation and agree on the field we were
to organize to avoid any possibility of dispute as to where the
United Steelworkers' field stopped and ours as an organization
of supervisory employees started. This agreement has been made
and is very satisfactory to both parties . . . I met with Mr.
Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, president of your organization at the
Westinghouse Company at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to discuss
the possibility of securing the same cooperation from your
people . . . (Rejected Exhibit C-408.)
Other pertinent material in the record included the following :
1. The Foreman's Association has furnished wage information
concerning supervisors to the UAW. (Rejected Exhibits C-369, -372,
-374).
2. United Rubber Workers, CIO, strongly urged foremen on strike
at Akron to return to work as the rank and file was feeling the pinch.
There is a veiled threat that the rank and file would break the fore-
men's strike if they did not return, and the return presumably
followed shortly after this letter. (Rejected Exhibit C--223, and
Company brief, pp. 113 and 114.)
3. UAW assures the Foreman's Association that the members will
not do the work of striking foremen. (Rejected Exhibit C-270).
4. Local of the UAW-CIO pays for complimentary ad in the
"Supervisor." (Rejected Exhibit C-299.)
5. A regional director of the CIO writes to the Foreman's Associa-
tion that he is signing up foremen at the Firestone assembly plant for
the Foreman's Association and is signing them up on CIO cards tem-
porarily until he is sent a supply of Foreman's Association cards.
(Rejected Exhibit C-390.)