Hudson Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 1080 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of HUDSON MOTOR CAR COMPANY and LOCAL 154, INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. O. AFFILIATE
Case No. R-860-Decided September 14, 1938
Automobile Manufacturing Industi y-Investigation of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representation of employees : refusal by employer to recog-
nize union as exclusive representative-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bar-
gaining: hourly paid employees , excluding supervisory officials, foremen, as-
sistant foremen , strawbosses , and all other salaried employees ; no controversy
as to-Representatives : proof of choice : petitions authorizing union as bar-
gaining agency-Certification of Representatives : upon proof of majority
representation.
Mr. Harry N. Casselman and Mr. Harold Crane field, for the Board.
Beaumont, Smith cfi Harris, by 11 r. Albert E. Meder, of Detroit,
Mich., and Mr. Franlc E. Cooper, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company.
Davidow cC Davidow, by Mr. Larry S. Davidow, of Detroit, Mich.,
and Mr. Leonard B. Netzorg, of Detroit, Micli., for the Union.
Mr. Richard Salant, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 11, 1938, Local 154,-International Union, United Auto-
mobile Workers of America, C. I. O. affiliate, herein called the Union,
filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit,
Michigan) a petition alleging that a question affecting conunerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Hudson
Motor Car Company, Detroit, Michigan, 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 April 28, 1938, the National
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 1, as amended,
ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to con-
duct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
8 N. L. R. B., No. 135.
1080
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1081
On June 11, 1938, the Union filed with the Regional Director an
amended petition requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives.
On June 13 , 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company , the Union, and
upon Federation of Architects, Engineers , Chemists and Technicians,
a labor organization purporting to represent employees directly
affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was
held on June 27 , 28, and 30, 1938 , at Detroit , Michigan, before James
C. Batten, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The
Board, the Company, and the Union were represented by counsel and
participated in the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Company had
filed a motion to dismiss the petition on constitutional grounds. The
Company renewed this motion. at the close of the Union's case, and. at
the close of the hearing, at which time it was denied by the Trial
Examiner . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-exam-
ine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner made several other rulings on motions and on objections to
the admission of evidence. Both parties filed briefs, and on August.
26, 1938, oral argument was had before the Board . The Company
and the Union were represented by counsel and participated in the
argument. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Exam-
iner and finds that no prejudicial errors were made. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company was incorporated under the laws of the State of
Michigan in 1909. It is engaged in the manufacture, purchase, sale
of and dealing in engines, motor parts, motors, motor vehicles, and
all appliances and equipment connected therewith . Its general offices
and plants are located in Detroit, Michigan , with active subsidiaries
in Detroit, Michigan; in Tilbury, Ontario; in London, England; and
in Berlin, Germany.
During 1937 the total of the Company's purchases of supplies and
materials used in manufacture in its Michigan plants was approxi-
mately $47,000,000, of which about 63 per cent represented materials
shipped to the Company from sources in States other than Michigan.
These supplies andd materials consist largely of finished and semi-
finished materials such as steel , iron, rubber , and leather , which are
shipped to Detroit by rail, ship, truck, and air lines. The total aggre-
1082 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gate sale value of the products of the Company's Michigan plants in
1937 was approximately $68,000,000, of which 92 per cent represented
products sold and shipped to distributors outside the-State of Michi-
gan. These products were shipped by common carrier or otherwise
within a short time after manufacture and were resold by the dealers
throughout the United States, Canada, and most foreign countries.
Although the business of the Company has decreased in 1938, there
is nothing to indicate that there is an appreciable difference in
percentages.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local 154, International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization, admitting to its membership all employees of
the Company engaged in the manufacture and assembly of parts, and
engaged in the office work, sales, distribution, and maintenance there-
of. It excludes all persons with power to hire or discharge. All men'i-
I ers of the local union are also members of the International Union.
IIi. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 8, 1937, the Company executed a contract with the Union,
by which the Company agreed to bargain with the Union as the repre-
sentative of those employees of the Company who were members of
the Union. The contract was to continue in effect for 1 year. On or
: bout March 17, 1938, the Union began negotiations with the Coin-
pany regarding a new contract. During the negotiations, which con-
tinued until April 22, the Union claimed that it represented a ma-
jority of the employees in an appropriate unit and requested exclusive
bargaining rights. The Company took the position that it did not
know whether the Union represented a majority of its employees, in
an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining, and that,
therefore, it would continue to deal with the Union as the representa-
tive of its members only. On or about April 22, 1938, negotiations
were suspended, and no agreement has been reached. The Company,
however, has continued to deal with the Union under the old contract.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1083
described in Section I above, has a close , intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
It was stipulated between the parties, and we find, that all hourly
rate employees of the Company , excluding supervisory officials, fore-
men, assistant foremen , strawbosses , and all other salaried employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full
benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining
and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the request of the Board, the company introduced into evidence
its hourly rate pay roll for April 9, 1938. On this pay roll were
6,314 employees, excluding hourly paid foremen and assistant fore-
men. The Union introduced into evidence 266 petitions which had
been circulated among the employees of the Company and signed by
them between June 2 and 15, 1938. These petitions selected "the Inter-
national Union, Automobile Workers of America, as our representa-
tive for the purpose of collective bargaining ." A committee appointed
by the Trial Examiner and composed of representatives of both the
Union and the Company checked the signatures on the petitions
against the pay roll of April 9, and the committee 's report was re-
ceived in evidence without objection . This report showed that the
petitions contained the valid and complete signatures of 4,215 em-
ployees of the Company whose names appear on the pay roll of April
9. Approximately 70 per cent of the employees on the pay roll of
April 9, therefore , signed the petitions.
At the hearing , the persons who circulated these petitions testified
that their content and purport had been fully explained to the signa-
tories, and that the signatories had understood the printed material
which they were signing . These witnesses , employees of long stand-
ing in the departments through which they circulated the petitions,
testified that they knew the persons who signed, that they watched
them sign, and the signatures were wholly voluntary. The Company
produced no witnesses to deny that the signatures were voluntary.
The Company contends , however, that these signatures do not
establish that a majority exists for the purpose of certifying an ex-
clusive bargaining agent. Its contention rests on the fact that the pay
roll of April 9, 1938, against which the signatures were checked, is
1084 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not a representative pay roll since the number of hourly paid em-
ployees thereon, 6,314, is lower than the number ordinarily employed.
The Company claims that an election should be held late in the fall
of 1938.
The production and employment figures of the Company, submitted
in evidence, do not bear out the Company's contention. These figures
show that production has fluctuated over the past 4 years and that for
short periods as many as 14,000 workers were employed. The most
recent history of the Company, however, does not indicate that so high -
a figure is likely to be reached in the near future. For the year pre-
ceding April 1938, the average hourly paid employees numbered 8,669,
including the month of September when model changes reduce em-
ployment to a great extent. For the 20 weeks, preceding April 9,
1938, a fairly steady average of a little more than 7,200 hourly paid
employees was maintained. That even this figure will soon be reached
again is made remote by the fact that there has been a progressive and
sharp decrease in production and shipment during the first 5 months
of 1938. Even at its highest point in January, production during 1938
was well below the lowest point of any active month in the 4 prior
years. Immediately after June 2, 1938, there occurred a lay-off which
reduced the hourly paid employees from 6,314 on April 9, 1938, to
approximately 3,891. Although neither party claimed that a date
immediately following this lay-off would be proper for determining
the existence of a majority, the evidence showed that even after the
reduction in employment, the Union still maintained a majority of
70 per cent. This fact, coupled with the Company's policy of rein-
stating its employees in the inverse order of their lay-off, so that the
men working on or about April 9, 1938, would be the first to be
reemployed, indicates that the Union's majority will not be disturbed
by a substantial increase in the Company's business.
In view of these figures, the contention of the Company that April
9, 1938, is not a representative date cannot be sustained. There is
nothing to indicate that the decrease in 1938 was seasonal or that it
is likely that employment figures will, by next fall, approach a point
so high that the majority established as of April 9, 1938, will be
affected. Postponement until fall will serve only to delay collective
bargaining between the parties.
The Company further objects to certification on the ground that
the signed petitions designate "the International Union, United Au-
tomobile Workers of America" as the bargaining agent. The Com-
pany contends that the International Union cannot be certified be-
cause the petition for investigation and certification was signed by
Local 154, International Union, United Automobile Workers of
America, and also because the International Union has no power to
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1085
negotiate and conclude contracts. The, brief submitted for the Union
takes the position that the International can and should be certified.
The fact that one labor organization petitions for investigation and
certification does not prevent our certifying another labor organization
which has been designated by the majority of the employees. The pe-
tition is merely the machinery which institutes the 'investigation;
thereafter, the Board may certify whomever the investigation shows
to be the selected representative. As pointed out above, in any event,
all members of the local unions are also members of the International
Union. Moreover, the constitution of the Union expressly grants to
the Executive Council of the International Union power to negotiate
and conclude contracts on behalf of the Locals. It was established
that the Executive Council has so negotiated in several instances.
We find that the International Union, United Automobile Workers
of America, has been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees in the appropriate unit as their representatives for (he
purposes of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, and we will so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Hudson Motor Car Company, Detroit,
Michigan, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The hourly paid employees of the Company, excluding super-
visory officials, foremen, assistant foremen, strawbosses, and all other
salaried employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
3. International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
is the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
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 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
1086 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Union, United Automo-
bile Workers of America, has been designated and selected by a ma-
jority of the hourly paid employees of Hudson Motor Car Company,
Detroit, Michigan, excluding supervisory officials, foremen , assistant.
foremen, strawbosses , and all other salaried employees, as their repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursu-
ant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act , International Union,
United Automobile Workers of America, is the exclusive representa-
tive of all such employees for the purposes of -collective bargaining in
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other condi-
tions of employment.
MR. EDWIN S . SMITH took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.