General Motors Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 25, 194239 N.L.R.B. 1108 (N.L.R.B. 1942) Copy Citation In the Matter Of FRIGIDAIRE DIVISION, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION and' UNITED ELECTRICAL,' RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO) Case No. R 3.488.-Decided March 25, 1942 Jurisdiction : electiical equipment and war material manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal to accord union recognition until it is certified by the Board; unnecessary for petitioning union to make formal request for recognition when such request has been made by an attiliate of the petitioning union, since the Company dis- putes the right of the employees here involved to be repiesented by any union; election necessary Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining :-plant protective employees at the Company's plants and warehouses in and around Dayton, Ohio, excluding supervisors and clerks Definitions : plant protective employees held employees within the meaning of the Act Mr. Henry M. Hogan and Mr. Robert C. Carson; of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. Mr. Arthur L. Garfield and Mr. Lem Markland, of Dayton, Ohio, for the U.- E. R. M. Mr. George A. Koplow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE On or about October 31, 1941, Local 801, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of Alnerica.'(CIO), herein called Local 801, filed with the Regional Director for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) a petition alleging that a, question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of Frigidaire Division, Gen- eral Motors Corporation, Dayton, Ohio, herein called the Company, ,and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act.' On December 9, 1941, the National 1 Near the beginning of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion to amend the petition by striking the words "Local 801." The caption in the case has accordingly been changed to correspond with the designation of the petitioner as amended ; deleting the words "Local 801." 39 N L. R. B., No. 208. 1108 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 1109 Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, or- dered an 'investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On December 12,1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear- ing, and on December 17, 1941, pursuant to the Company's motion for adjournment, a notice of adjournment and second notice of hearing, copies- of which notices were duly served upon the Company and Local- 801. Pursuant to the latter notice a hearing was held on Jan- uary 8, 1942, and January 26,'1942, at Dayton, Ohio, before Harold Weston, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Ex- aminer. The Company and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (C. I. 0.), herein called the U. E. R. M., were represented by counsel or other, representatives and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. The Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that there was no question concerning representation and that there was no showing that the petitioner was a labor organi- zation. The Trial Examiner made no ruling but referred those mo- tions to the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion's are denied. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. , The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Company and the U. E. R. M. filed briefs which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its prin- cipal office in New York City, for business reasons functions with several unincorporated divisions. One of these divisions is Frigidaire Division; which maintains plants in Dayton and Moraine, Ohio, where it normally manufactures electrical refrigerators, stoves, other house- hold appliances, and parts therefor. At the present time, it it also engaged in manufacturing war material for the United States Govern- ment. Approximately 40 percent of the productive materials, includ- ing raw material and fabricated or partially fabricated-articles used in the manufacturing and 'fabricating operations of Frigidaire Divi- sion are obtained from sources outside the State of Ohio. Approxi- 1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD mately 90 percent of the value of the products manufactured at the plants of the Frigidaire Division are shipped outside the State of Ohio. Frigidaire Division at the present time has two plants in Dayton, Ohio, one of which is an ordnance plant, one plant completed and another in the process of construction in nearby Moraine, Ohio, four warehouses in Dayton, and one warehouse in Springfield, Ohio. II. THE. ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED United Electrical, Radio & Machine `Yorkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.' III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING, REPRESENTATION On October 24, 1941, Local 801 wrote to the Company requesting "exclusive bargaining rights" for the plant-protective employees. In November 1941 the Company replied that it would grant such recog- nition only after a certification by the Board. The Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that no question concerning representation had arisen, since the demand for recognition was made by Local 801 rather than by U. E. R. M. We find no merit in this contention. Although Local 801, rather than the U. E. R. M., requested and was refused recognition, the record plainly shows that the Company disputes the right of the employees here involved to be represented by any union. Under such circum- stances, no good'purpose would be served by requiring the U. E. R. M. to make a formal request, for recognition. Accordingly, the Com- pany's motion is denied. A statement of an agent of the Regional Director introduced in evi- dence discloses that the U. E. R. M. represents a substantial number 2 Although the Company stipulated that the U E. R. M is 'a labor organization, it never---`" theless contends that the petition should be dismissed because the employees here involved had not established a'local organization to act in their behalf The record shows that the plant pi otective employees, who are also called plant patrolmen, affiliated directly with the U. E. R M, but for sometime operated under the "formal aegis" of Local 801, an affiliate of the U E R M which we previously certified as the representative of production and maintenance employees in certain plants of the Company's Frigidaire Division See Matter of Prigidaiie Dit.iston, General Motors Corp , Dayton, Ohio and Local 801, United Electrical, Radio Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation