Ford Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1317 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of FORD MOTOR COMPANY (CHICAGO BRANCH) and
UNITED OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 13-B-3219.-Decided March 28, 1946
Messrs. I. A. Capizzi and Malcolm L. Denise, both of Detroit, Mich.,
for the Company.
Messrs. Meyers cC Meyers, by Mr. Ben F. Meyers, of Chicago, Ill.,
for the Office Workers.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Office Workers, alleg-
ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Ford Motor Company (Chicago
Branch), Chicago, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice before Benjamin B. Salvaty, Jr., Trial Examiner. The hear-
ing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on October 12, 1945. The Company
and the C. 1. 0. appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
On October 5, 1945, the Company filed with the Board a written
motion to dismiss the proceedings. On October 8, 1945, it filed with
the Regional Director an application to take the depositions of cer-
tain named individuals. The application was denied by the Regional
Director. The motion to dismiss was received in evidence at the
hearing by the Trial Examiner and ruling thereon was reserved for
the Board. For reasons stated in Section III, infra, the motion is
hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
and the Regional Director's denial of the Company's application
made prior thereto, are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
66 N. L. R. B., No. 157.
1317
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
affirmed. Subsequent to the close of the hearing, Chicago Branch
Office Workers Association, herein called the Association, filed with
the Board a motion requesting a place upon the ballot in any directed
election. Since it appears that the Association was formed subsequent
to the hearing and secured its designations thereafter,' the motion is
hereby denied.' All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Ford Motor Company , a Delaware corporation with its principal
offices located at Dearborn , Michigan , is engaged in manufacturing,
assembling , selling, and distributing automobiles and various types of
automobile parts and accessories . The Company owns and operates
assembly plants in many States of the United States, among which
is the Chicago Branch , with which we are concerned herein. Dur-
ing the first 6 months of 1945, the Company received at its Chicago
Branch automotive parts valued at approximately $2,267 ,077, of which
about 90 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Illinois.
During the same period , the Chicago Branch sold parts and acces-
sories valued at $2,885,952 , which were delivered outside the State of
Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Office and Professional Workers of America is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Office
Workers as the representative of certain of its employees.
In its motion to dismiss the proceeding, the Company alleged, in
substance. that (a) the Office Workers and United Automobile, Air-
craft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, herein called
the U. A. W.. are both affiliated with the same parent organization :
1 See Matter of Columbia Malleable Castings Corporation , 57 N. L. R. B. 1143 ; Matter
of United Boat Service Corporation, 55 N. L R B 671 : Matter of Bethlehem -Alameda
Shipyard, Inc., et al, 53 N. L. R. B. 999.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1319
(h) the U. A. W. and the Company are bound by a contract in which
the U. A. W. has undertaken not to organize certain employees, among
whom are the workers involved herein;2 (c) the U. A. W. is "en-
couraging, supporting and participating in the drive" of the Office
Workers to organize its office employees; and (d) it is the intention
of the U. A. W. to obtain the transfer to itself of any bargaining
rights which the Office Workers may obtain among such employees.
It urges, in effect, the applicability of the doctrine enunciated in the
Briggs Indiana case.3 The purpose of the Company's application to
take depositions was to adduce evidence to support certain of these
allegations.
Although the Office Workers and the U. A. W. are both affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, each is a separate
autonomous International. Consequently, an undertaking by one
of them not to organize certain employees does not constitute a com-
mitment by the other not to do so. Furthermore, the fact that the
U. A. W. is "encouraging, supporting and participating in the
drive" of the Office Workers to organize the Company's employees
does not in any way detract from the fact that the latter organiza-
tion is a separate and independent entity. Finally, even assuming
that the Office Workers may decide to transfer jurisdiction over the
employees involved herein to the U. A. W., any certification which
may issue as a result of this proceeding will run to the Office
Workers, and inasmuch as the Company can insist upon bargaining
with the certified representative of the employees and no other, this
allegation is irrelevant. Under these circumstances, we are of the
opinion that the evidence sought to be adduced by the Company by
way of deposition is immaterial, and we are further of the opinion
that the principle of the Briggs Indiana case is inapplicable. For
these reasons we have affirmed the Regional Director's ruling on the
Company's application to take depositions, and have denied the Corn-
pany's motion to dismiss.
A statement of it Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Office Workers represent a substantial number
of employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate.'
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 Act.
0 This agreement , dated November 4, 1942, contains an undertaking by the U. A. W.
not to organize all employees in the * * * pay roll and employment departments;
* * * all employees at branch plants who are engaged in work which corresponds to
that done in (the ) Administration Building * * * ; confidential clerks ; time study
men * * •"
S 63 N . L. R. B. 1270.
'The Field Examiner reported that the Office Workers submitted 51 designations, and
that the alleged appropriate unit contained approximately 95 employees.
1320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
A. The contentions of the parties
The Office Workers seeks a unit comprised generally of all office
clerical employees of the Company at its Chicago Branch, including
time study employees, but excluding supervisory and certain other
employees.5 In the event the Board finds that time study employees
are not properly part of an office clerical unit, the Office Workers asks,
alternatively, that they be established as a separate collective bargain-
ing unit. The Company contends that the office clerical unit should
be Company-wide in scope. In addition, it contends that certain em-
ployees and classifications of employees (including time study em-
ployees) are confidential, managerial, or supervisory employees and
should be excluded. It would appear that the Company also opposes
a separate unit of time study employees.
B. Functional considerations
As previously noted, the principal offices of the Company are
located at Dearborn, Michigan, where also is its principal manufac-
turing headquarters. In addition, the Company operates 32 branches
in the principal cities of the United States where automobiles are
assembled, and distributed, and parts and accessories are sold 6 Some
of these branches, including the Chicago Branch, assemble cars and
sell and distribute cars, parts and accessories; others confine their
operations to selling and distributing products of the Company.
The office clerical work and the office job classifications are similar
in all the Company's operations. All office clericals are salaried, and
their rates of pay are uniform throughout the Company. The chief
clerk in charge of each branch is responsible to the general supervisor
in the auditing department of the Company's main office, and is
charged with the enforcement of the Company's rules, policies, and
procedures. However, he is permitted to exercise discretion within
certain clearly defined limits. Except on rare occasions, there is no
interchange of personnel among the various branches.? Thus, the
employees at each branch constitute a clearly definable group.
5 Thus, the Office Workers does not seek to represent the chief clerk, the assistant chief
clerk, the internal auditor, the traffic division head, the buyer, sales clerk Haim, the
follow-up and production man, sales managers, service supervisors, the car distributor,
the time study foreman, labor relations department personnel, and the employment man-
ager. The Company agrees that these employees should be excluded.
6 There are approximately seven manufacturing plants located throughout the country,
where automobiles, parts, and accessories are manufactured and thereafter shipped to the
various branches.
7 There are instances of permanent transfers of employees from one branch to another.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1321
Until the instant case , no labor organization has seriously sought to
represent the clerical employees at any of the branches.,, The Office
Workers has sought thus far to represent only employees engaged
at the Chicago Branch.
It is true that the optimum office clerical unit may be Company-
wide in scope, as urged by the Company. Nevertheless, we are per-
suaded that a -unit of employees of the Chicago Branch is appro-
priate. There is but a slight interchange of office clerical personnel
among the various branches. Moreover, the office clerical employees
of each branch are under separate supervision and are geographically
separated from similar employees in other branches. Consequently,
inasmuch as there has been no history of collective bargaining with
respect to office clerical employees of the Company, and the Office
Workers has confined its organizational activities to those engaged
at the Chicago Branch, we perceive no valid reason to deny such
employees an opportunity to bargain collectively, if they so desire.
C. The time-study unit
As previously noted, the Office Workers seeks to represent the time-
study employees engaged at the Chicago Branch either as part of an
office clerical unit, or as a separate unit. The Company contends
that time-study employees are confidential personnel and that their
interests and duties are closely allied to management. For these
reasons it contends that time-study employees should neither be in-
cluded within an office clerical unit, nor constitute a separate collec-
tive bargaining unit.
As of the date of the hearing the Company employed six time-
study employees at its Chicago Branch. These employees are under
the supervision of a time-study foreman, whom both the Company
and the Office Workers agree to exclude as a supervisory employee;"
the time-study foreman is, in turn, responsible to the plant super-
intendent.10 The time-study employees are usually college graduates.
and each of them has had special time and motion study training.
Their duties are to make time and motion studies of the various plant
job classifications, suggest new methods for improving plant effi-
ciency, and set production standards. They are hourly paid workers
who spend the major portion of their working time in the plant.
Although they determine the manpower necessary to produce a certain
unit upon the basis of given production figures, they do not set the
rates of pay, these matters being left to negotiations between the
S The U. A. W. once sought a unit of office and clerical employees at the Company's
Somerville branch , but subsequently withdrew its petition.
See footnote 5, supra.
10 As previously noted, the Chicago Branch includes an assembly plant.
1322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company and the U. A. W. as the representative of the production
and maintenance employees.
In view of the Company's contention that time-study employees
are either managerial or confidential personnel, it becomes necessary
for us to re-examine our definitions of these terms, and to consider
the functions of these employees in the light of this examination.
We have customarily excluded from bargaining units of rank and
file workers executive employees who are in a position to formulate,
determine, and effectuate management policies."' These employees
we have considered and still deem to be "managerial," in that they
express and make operative the decisions of management.
We have also excluded from units of rank and file employees per-
sons who, in the regular course of their duties, have access to confi-
dential data bearing directly upon the employees' labor relations,
designating them as "confidential." However, upon reappraisal, we
are of the opinion that this definition is too inclusive and needlessly
precludes many employees from bargaining collectively together with
other workers having common interests. Consequently, it is our in-
tention to limit the term "confidential" so as to embrace only those
employees who assist and act in a confidential capacity to persons
who exercise "managerial" functions in the field of labor relations.
We do not believe that the duties of time-study employees, when
viewed in the light of the foregoing definitions, warrant a finding
that they are either "managerial" or "confidential." The common
denominator of all time-study personnel is their performance of fact-
finding duties through means of time and motion studies which are
utilized by management in determining techniques of production and
rates of pay. The performance of these functions alone is not suffi-
cient to warrant their exclusion. They cannot be regarded as formu-
lating, determining, and effectuating management policies, for they
merely supply information which may be used by the employer in
establishing policy regarding labor relations. Nor can they be con-
sidered as "confidential," inasmuch as they are primarily concerned
with the gathering of technical data, and do not assist and act in a
confidential capacity to a managerial employee in the field of labor
relations.12 Absent other factors present in this proceeding, no reason
exists, therefore, why the time-study employees should not be bar-
gained for in the same unit as other rank and file employees sought
by the Office Workers.
However, as previously indicated, the time-study employees have
specialized technical training not shared by other employees sought
n Supervisory personnel have also been excluded from units of rank and file employees
"To the extent that Matter of The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, 60 N. L.
R. B. 626, Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 54 N. L . R. B. 103, and
similar cases are inconsistent with the views expressed above , they are hereby overruled
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1323
by the Office Workers. Furthermore, they perform their duties under
different conditions of employment. And, finally, they are under
different supervision.13 In view of these circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the time-study employees should be placed in a unit
separate from the other employees sought by the Office Workers.
We find that all time-study employees of the Company, excluding
the time-study foreman and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
D. The office clerical unit
Although there is general agreement upon the composition of the
unit,14 the following employees are in dispute, the Office Workers
desiring to represent them and the Company contending that they
be excluded.
From the evidence adduced at the hearing we are of the opinion
and find that the following persons whose status is in dispute possess
authority effectively to recommend the discharge, discipline , or change
of status of employees: Ii. II. Ilartnman (accounts receivable and
general ledger bookkeeper); G. Olson (cashier); G. McNally (head
pay-roll clerk); G. Burgas (head order clerk). E. A. Dietrich (head
telegraph operator); H. H. Schlup (head .serrice clerk); Katherine
Paul (head comptorneter operator); Mildred Steiner (head stenog-
rapher); and N. K. Milliken (assistant traffic department head). We
shall therefore, exclude them or persons now occupying their posi-
tions. a'
Pay-roll clerks : The three pay-roll clerks supervised by McNally,
compute the factory pay-roll from time cards and make entries on
the employment records. There is no evidence, however, that they
act in a confidential capacity to persons exercising "managerial'"
functions in the field of labor relations. Consequently, we shall in-
clude them.15
As noted before , time-study eniplorees are ultimately responsible to the plant supe)
nrtendent whereas the office clerical workers sought by the Office workers are under the
supervision of the chief clerk when a dispute exists with respect to fringe groups, ae
have attached great weight to the factor of supervision . See Matter of Goodman Manu-
facturing Company, 58 N L. R B 531.
"The parties agree upon the inclusion of bookkeepers, assistants to the cashier, order
cierl.s, pricers , price checkers, billers, telegraph and teletype operators , service clerks
(except II II Schlup), back order clerks, comptonreler operators (except Katherine Paul),
stenographers ( except Mildred Steiner), clerks engaged in the traffic department, motor
record clerks and sales clerks (except James Halm ), and the exclusion of the employees
set forth in footnote 5, supra
i° See Matter of American Central Manufactar tag Coi poratron , 65 N L. It. 11 '342
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rate checker: The rate checker or rate clerk "checks" each fac-
tory employee at work in order to ascertain whether or not the em-
ployee is performing a job within his classification. The rate checker
is hourly paid and under the supervision of the plant superintendent.
Under these circumstances, we shall exclude him.16
Telephone operators: These employees perform the duties usual
to their classification. We find no merit to the contention that they
are confidential employees, and shall include them.
General clerks: The Company employs two general clerks. One,
George Mattran, prepares all records pertaining to the office em-
ployees. In addition, he handles special assignments that are sent
from the home office at Dearborn, Michigan, and which pertain to
rates, salaries, personnel, and accounting. Significantly, he is in com-
plete charge of the office whenever the chief clerk and the assistant
chief clerk are absent. The other general clerk, Edward Daas,
handles all group insurance records, approves and pays claims for
disability and hospitalization, and passes upon expense accounts of
the traveling salesmen. We are of the opinion that the interests of
these two employees are not sufficiently akin to those of the other
office clerical employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate,
and we shall, therefore, exclude them.
Assistant to the employment manager: This hourly paid employee
works under the supervision of the employment manager, who, in
turn, is responsible to the plant superintendent and not the chief
clerk. As in the case of the rate checker, we are of the opinion that
this employee is not properly part of the office clerical unit, and we
shall exclude him.17
We find that all office clerical employees of the Company at its
C'fticago Branch, including bookkeepers, assistants to the cashier,
order clerks, pricers, price checkers, billers, telegraph and teletype
operators, service clerks (except H. H. Schlup), back order clerks,
comptometer operators (except Katherine Paul), stenographers (elk-
cept Mildred Steiner), clerks engaged in the traffic department, motor
record clerks, sales clerks, pay-roll clerks (except G. McNally), and
telephone operators, but excluding time-study employees, rate
checkers, general clerks, the employment manager and his assistant,
labor relations department personnel, the car distributor, service,
supervisors, sales managers, the follow-up and production man, sales
clerk Holm, the buyer, the traffic division head and his assistant, the
internal auditor, the chief clerk, the assistant chief clerk, the accounts
receivable and general ledger bookkeeper, the cashier, the head pay-
roll clerk, the head order clerk, the head telegraph operator, the head
]d Cf. Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, supra.
as Cf. Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, supra.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY 1325
service clerk, the head comptometer operator, the head stenographer,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate 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 by elections by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit 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.
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations 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 Ford Motor Com-
pany (Chicago Branch), Chicago, Illinois, two separate elections 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 Regional Director for the Thirteenth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said
Rules and Regulations, among employees in the units found appro-
priate 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 em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding these employees who have
since quit or been discharged 'for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by United Office and Professional
Workers of America, C. I. O., for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
Mn. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.