Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 16, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1124 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local No. 1319, AFL-CIO, are entitled to perform the work of installing nailing channel at the Federal Office Building, Albuquerque, New Mexico. - 2. Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 238, AFL-CIO, is not and has not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require the Employer to assign the above work to lathers. 3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Wood, Wire, and Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 238, AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 28, in writing, whether it will or will not refrain from forc- ing or requiring the Employer, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), to assign the work in dispute to lathers rather than carpenters. Chrysler Corporation and International Union , United Automo- bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer- ica (UAW-CIO) and its Local No. 412 ,1 Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-582. September 16, 1964 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On February 24,-1964, the Petitioner filed a motion.to clarify certifi- cation in the above case. An opposition 'to the motion was filed by the Employer. Upon considering 'the matter; the Board on March 25, 1964, referred the proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 7 for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issues raised by the parties. A hearing was thereafter held on May 20 and 21, 1964, before Hear- ing Officer James R. McCormick. His rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Jenkins]. The motion for clarification, as supplemented by stipulations and testimony received at the hearing, indicates that the issue here is whether Russell Redd, an employee in the Employer's Brake Labora- tory, and any future replacement or similar employees, should be in- cluded in the unit as a mechanic and/or driver, or should be regarded as an engineering contact man and excluded from the unit. 'The Local Union was added as a party at the hearing. The original certification, issued January 26,, 1950, pursuant to a decision and direction of election reported in 87 NLRB 304 , ran only to the International Union. 148 NLRB No. 118. CHRYSLER- CORPORATION 1125 The parties- stipulated that Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of employees at the Employer's central en- gineering plant brake laboratory that presently includes, inter alia, mechanics and/or drivers, and excludes, inter alia, engineering con- tact men.' The parties further stipulated that the general duties of an engi- neering contact man primarily involve liaison work in the Employer's overall manufacturing and distributing complex, whereas the general duties of a mechanic and/or driver' involve skilled manual labor using customary mechanic's tools and are primarily limited to the brake laboratory. The dispute herein arose on April 29, 1963, when the Employer, after having assigned mechanic and/or driver Redd to engineering contact work, correspondingly changed his classification, and there- after excluded him, like other employees doing similar work, from the bargaining unit.' Petitioner, in its motion for clarification, argues that employee Redd is not performing "true" engineering contact work, but instead is per- forming duties of a mechanic and/or driver, and therefore should be included within the unit. In support of this position, Petitioner re= lies, inter alia, on the breadth of the mechanic and/or driver job de- scription, the somewhat limited scope of Redd's responsibilities under the engineering contact man job description, the deficiencies in Redd's educational qualifications, and the Employer's alleged ease in chang- ing an employee's classification from a unit to a nonunit job. The Employer argues that there is a significant and meaningful difference in the duties performed by Redd as an engineering contact 2 The record reveals numerous changes in the Employer 's administrative structure since the original certification , including the establishment of specialized laboratories within the central engineering plant, one of them being the brake laboratory , of immedi- ate concern herein. The parties further stated that the job classification of mechanic and/or driver , and the classification of engineering contact man , do not appear in the original certification , but have evolved through administrative change. The original certified unit included , inter alia , the classification of interplant contact and pickup man. The record indicates that this job classification is not involved in this proceeding. 3 The record shows that in December 1959, the Employer assigned Alfred King, a me- chanic and /or driver in the brake laboratory , to duties of an engineering contact man. King's classification , however, was not changed, and he was not removed from the bar- gaining unit . In March 1961 the Employer returned King to brake laboratory duties of a mechanic and/or driver , and assigned the engineering contact work to Redd, also class!- fled as a , mechanic and/or driver Redd worked as an; engineering contact man until February 1963, when he was returned to his duties as a mechanic and/or driver. As with King, the Employer did not change the classification of Redd during his tenure as engineering contact man and also as with King did not remove Redd from the bargaining unit In April 1963 the Employer reassigned Redd to engineering contact work , and for the first time changed his classification to engineering contact man and excluded him, like other employees similarly classified , from the bargaining unit. 1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD man and his former duties as a mechanic and/or driver . The Em- ployer admits that it improperly classified Redd from March 1961 to February 1963, but that this should not prevent it from correcting its mistake and now correctly classifying Redd as an engineering contact man, a job concededly outside the bargaining unit. Further, the Em- ployer points to the Petitioner 's past acquiescence in the exclusion of other engineering contact mnen. We believe that Petitioner 's motion to clarify its certification by in- cluding Redd 's present job should be denied . We particularly rely on the record evidence showing that Redd, in fact , performs work prop- erly described as that of an engineering contact man , which is clearly distinguishable from the manual work of assembly , installation, test driving, and tearing down brake components performed by mechanics and/or drivers . It is true that Redd may not be performing all the duties outlined in the job description of an engineering contact man. But that is explained by the fact that when the job description was drafted, an engineering contact man performed his duties throughout all areas of the Employer 's manufacturing and distributing complex, whereas now each contact man is in fact limited to specific kinds of work, in this case, brake contact work. Even though there is evidence that mechanics and/or drivers occa- sionally perform some work of a type similar to engineering contact work, it is not their primary duty ; it is usually performed pursuant to specific directions from their supervisor or regular engineering con- tact man; and it usually also involves performing manual work on the assembly lines, or test driving. We do not consider the fact that Redd does not meet the educational standards of the job description to be determinative in this case , as the record reveals that Robert Mouille- seaux likewise does not meet the standards , yet lie is classified as an engineering contact man , apparently without objection by the Peti- tioner. We find that the Employer 's apparently inadvertent error in not reclassifying employees King, and later Redd , after assigning them to engineering contact work , is not determinal ive of this dispute, par- ticularly since Redd has now been properly reclassified. We conclude that Redd is now regularly performing the duties of an engineering contact man , that these duties are clearly distinguish- able from the duties of a mechanic and/or driver, and , therefore, that employee Redd has been properly excluded by the Employer from the bargaining unit of mechanics and/or drivers. '[The Board denied the Petitioner 's motion to clarify its certification.]