Packard Motor Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 1005 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

I n the Matter of PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY, TOLEDO DIVISION and
MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY or AMERICA (CUA)
Case No. 8-R-1996.-Decided February 10, 1916
Mr. D. C. Livesay, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Earl S. Streeter, of Toledo, Ohio, for the MESA.
Mr. David A. Guberman, of Toledo, Ohio, for the UAW.
Mr. Jack Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Mechanics Educational Society of
America (CUA), herein called the MESA, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Packard Motor Car Company, Toledo Division, Toledo,
Ohio, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Thomas
E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Toledo, Ohio,
on October 19, 1945. The Company, the MESA; and International
Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Work-
ers of America, Local 12 (CIO), herein called the UAW, 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. At the hearing the Trial Examiner reserved for
ruling by the Board the UAW's motion to dismiss the petition. For
reasons hereinafter stated, this motion is hereby denied. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. 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
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Packard Motor Car Company is a Michigan corporation having its
principal office in Detroit, Michigan. The Company operates a plant
65 N. L. R B., No. 178
1005
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Toledo, Ohio, which is owned by the Defense Plant Corporation.
During the 12 months preceding the date of the hearing, the Company
purchased raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, a substantial
portion of which was shipped to its Toledo plant from points outside
the State of Ohio. During the same period, a majority of the Com-
pany's finished products, valued in excess of $1,000,000, was shipped to
points outside the State. '
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TILE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Mechanics Educational Society of America (CUA) is a labor or-
ganization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Local 12, is a labor organization, af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 12, 1945, MESA was certified by the Board as the collec-
tive bargaining agent for all hourly rated employees in the Company's
experimental engineering division, known as the TX Division, On
March 13, 1944, the UAW was certified as the bargaining representa-
tive for all hourly rated employees in the manufacturing or T Divi-
sion.2 In mid-August 1945, immediately after V-J Day, the T Divi-
sion of the Company's operations was disestablished because of con-
tract cancellations resulting in the release of all production and main-
tenance employees of this division. The Company, in 1 or 2 days,
rehired approximately 70 maintenance employees in its TX Division.
This group of employees, who are in dispute herein, had serviced the
TX Division during the time they were on the pay roll of the T
Division. The UAW, having formerly bargained for these employees
while they were in the T Division, requested the Company to continue
such recognition, whereas MESA, being the certified agent for all em-
ployees in the TX Division, also requested recognition. The Com-
pany refused to grant these requests. Thereafter, a strike was called
by the UAW.
On September 7, 1945, in order to settle the strike, the Company,
MESA, and the UAW entered into a stipulation which provided that
the Company should recognize the UAW as the sole collective bargain-
ing agent for the 70 employees herein involved; that a bargaining con-
tract between the Company and the UAW which expired in July 1945,
1 See Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, Toledo Division, 60 N. L. R. B. 871.
2 See Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1029.
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 1007
and which covered these employees, should be extended, and that the
Company and the UAW were to enter into negotiations for a new con-
tract within 7 days from the date of the stipulation; and, that the
foregoing provisions were to be without prejudice to the right of
MESA to petition the Board for bargaining rights with respect to the
disputed employees. MESA filed its petition on September 10; 1945.
The UAW moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
terms of the above stipulation and the extension of the July 1945 con-
tract resulting therefrom, operate as a bar to this proceeding. We find
no merit in the UAW's position; the extension agreement is for an
indefinite duration and, as such, cannot constitute a bar.3 Moreover,
the stipulation specifically provided for MESA's right to file a peti-
tion with the Board .4 Accordingly, we are of the opinion that neither
the stipulation, as a whole, nor the extension of the expired contract,
bars the instant proceeding.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that MESA represents a substantial number of employees
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.r,
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
MESA seeks to add to the existing bargaining unit of employees in
the TX Division, without an election, the approximately 70 powerhouse
plant engineering, heat treat, plating, painting, gage inspection, and
shipping and receiving employees, all of whom were previously repre-
sented by the UAW as part of the T Division unit. In support of its
position, MESA contends that these employees are subject to its certi-
fication by the Board as the bargaining representative of all hourly
rated employees of the TX Division, that the bargaining unit in which
they had formerly been included no longer exists, and that a substan-
tial number have become members of MESA. In the alternative,
MESA requests that the Board conduct an election among these em-
ployees and, if it obtains a majority, that they be included in the exist-
ing TX unit. The UAW takes no position other than that it is the
present bargaining representative of the employees involved, as evi-
8 See Matter of Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., 63 N. L It. B. 679; and Matter of
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturtino Company, 64 N. L. It. B 750.
4 The record indicates that the stipulation was an interim expedient to settle the strike
and provide for temporary representation of the employees involved herein until the Board
had determined the question concerning their representation.
8 The Board agent reported that the MESA submitted 45 authorization cards, 23 of
which checked with the Company's pay roll of September 8, 1945. There are approxi-
mately 70 employees in the appropriate unit.
The UAW's interest in the proceeding is evidenced by collective bargaining stipula-
tion of September 7, 1945.
679100-46-vol 65-65
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dented by the aforesaid stipulation . The Company 's position is neutral
with respect to the unit.
Although the Board is prone, to adhere to a prior unit determina-
tion upon which a bargaining history has been predicated, here the
unit for which the UAW was certified is no longer" in existence. Inas-
much as the employees in dispute are now part of the TX Division and
under the same supervision as those currently represented by MESA,
it appears that they could appropriately be included in a division-wide
unit. However, in view of their past bargaining history in a unit
apart from the TX Division, it is also apparent that they may be
separately represented . Under these circumstances , we shall make no
finding with respect to the appropriate unit; such determination will
depend, in part, upon the desires of the employees as expressed in the
election hereinafter directed. If the employees select MESA, they will
thereby be deemed to have indicated their desire to be included in the
existing TX Division unit, and will be part of such unit . If the em-
ployees vote for the UAW, they will thereby be deemed to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the power=
house, plant engineering, heat treat, plating, painting, gage inspec-
tion, and slipping and receiving employees in the Company's TX
Division , excluding supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees , or effectively recommend such action, who are employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the
Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions
set forth in the Direction. -
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 Packard Motor
Car Company , Toledo Division , Toledo, Ohio, an election by secret bal-
lot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Eighth 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 employees in the'unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
PACKARD MOTOR CAR COMPANY 1009
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre-
ceding 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 election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
Mechanics Educational Society of America (CUA), or by Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America, Local 12, CIO, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither.