The White Motor Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 924 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE WHITE MOTOR COMPANY 1 and PATTERN MAKERS
LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, (A. F. OF L.)
J
Case No. R-1788.-Decided May 17,1940
Truck Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: petition for,
dismissed where no question concerning representation of employees in an
appropriate unit has arisen-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: unit
consisting of 11 woodworkers held inappropriate in view of history of collective
bargaining and existence of exclusive bargaining contracts establishing plant-
wide unit; (Madden, dissenting) Globe Doctrine applicable.
Mr. Drexel Spreclier, for the Board.
Mr. Robert D. Evans, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. C. D. Madigan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the League.
Mr. Maurice Sugar and Mr. Jack M. Tucker, of Detroit, Mich., and
Mr. Richard E. Reisinger, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the U. A. W.
Mr. Allan Lind, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 27, 1940, Pattern Makers League of North America,
(A. F. of L.), herein called the League, filed with the Regional Di-
rector for the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of The White Motor Company, Cleveland,
Ohio, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
March 15, 1940, 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 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Re-
gional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hear-
I Incorrectly designated in the petition for investigation and certification of representa-
tives as "White Motor Company."
23N L R B, No. 96
924
THE WHITE MOTOR COMPANY 925
ing upon due notice. On March 19, 1940, the Regional Director issued
a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Com-
pany, the League, and upon International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local No. 32, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, herein called the U. A. W., a labor organiza-
tion claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investi-
gation.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 3 and 4, 1940, at
Cleveland, Ohio, before Martin Raphael, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the U. A. W.
were represented by counsel, and the League by its representative; all
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. During the course of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to
the admission of the evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of
the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On April 23, 1940, a hearing
for the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C. The Company and the U. A. W. were represented by
counsel and the League by its representative; all participated in the
argument. The U. A. W. submitted a brief which has been duly con-
sidered by the Board. After the hearing the parties entered into a
stipulation correcting certain errors in the transcript of the record.
On April 26, 1940, the Board ordered that the stipulation be made a
part of the record.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The White Motor Company is an Ohio corporation engaged in the
manufacture of motor trucks and busses. The principal office of the
Company and the plant with which we are here concerned are located
in Cleveland, Ohio. It has branches and is licensed to do business in
26 States and the District of Columbia. During the year 1939, approxi-
mately $13,027,700 worth of raw materials were purchased by the
Company for its production operations at its Cleveland plant.
Approximately 50 per cent of these materials, by value, were secured
from outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the total
net sales of the Company amounted to approximately $23,500,000, of
which approximately 92 per cent, by value, were delivered to cus-
tomers outside of the State of Ohio.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On March 23, 1940, the Company employed 2,385 persons at its
Cleveland plant.
If. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Pattern Makers League of North America is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It is composed of
"associations of practical pattern makers, known to be competent
workmen, of good character, who acknowledge its jurisdiction and
conform to its laws." The League claims jurisdiction over the trade
in all its branches.
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America,
Local No. 32, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
is a labor organization which admits to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company normally employs about 2300 workers at its Cleve-
land plant. Among these employees are 11 woodworkers 2 who are
employed in the special equipment and experimental division of the
plant. The League contends that these 11 employees are wood pattern
makers and that a unit composed of such employees is appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The U. A. W. and the Company
assert that a unit consisting of all employees of the Company, including
the woodworkers, but excluding supervisory employees, was estab-
lished by a contract between the Company and the U. A. W. dated
October 29, 1939, and that such unit constitutes the appropriate bar-
gaining unit. The U. A. W. contends further that no question has
arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company in
an appropriate bargaining unit.
On July 24, 1937, the Company entered into an exclusive bargain-
ing contract with the U. A. W. concerning wages, hours, and other
conditions of employment. A supplement to this agreement, covering
office workers, was also entered into between the parties on or about
the same time. These agreements were extended by mutual consent,
and on January 24, 1939, a second agreement covering the same matters
was made between the same parties. On October 26, 1939, a third
contract superseded the previous agreements. This latter agreement
is to remain in effect until July 24, 1940, and shall then be auto-
matically renewed year by year, subject to the right of either party
on 30 days' written notice to the other party to cancel or terminate
the agreement or to call a bargaining conference to consider revisions
2 The League calls these employees wood pattern makers while the Company classifies
them as woodworkers. The term "woodworker" is used throughout the record. We
shall therefore continue to refer to them as woodworkers.
0 THE WHITE MOTOR COMPANY 927
thereof. By the terms of this agreement, as well as the two previous
contracts : `
The Company accepts the representations of the Union that its
membership constitutes more than a majority of the hourly and
piece workers and of the office workers below the positions of super-
visor and assistant supervisor in the company's Cleveland plants,
and consequently in accordance with Section 9 (a) of the National
Labor Relations Act, the company recognizes the Union as the
exclusive representatives of its hourly and piece workers and of
its office workers below the pc;ositions of supervisor and assistant
supervisor in its Cleveland plants for the purpose of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay or wages, hours of employ-
ment or other conditions of employment.
Thus it appears that since July 24, 1937, the U. A. W. has bargained
with the Company on the basis of a plant-wide unit as defined in
written bilateralI contracts. During this time there has been no
collective bargaining by the woodworkers as a craft.
Beginning in January 1940, the Company hired nine new wood-
workers and transferred two woodworkers from its own cab and coach
divisions to work in its special equipment and experimental division.
The woodworkers in the division are employed in the construction of
wooden models for the cab of a new truck. They are paid on the basis
of an hourly rate. In February 1940 the League, claiming to represent
a majority of the woodworkers, requested the Company to bargain
with it concerning such employees. The Company refused to do so
on the ground that it had, by contract, agreed to recognize the U. A. W.
as the exclusive representative of its hourly and piece workers, which
included the woodworkers claimed by the League. The League then
filed the petition in the present proceeding.
In support of its contention regarding the appropriate unit, the
League claims that the woodworkers in the special equipment and
experimental division are wood pattern makers and are engaged in
work requiring a high degree of skill and experience not possessed by
other employees of the Company. It also asserts that the successive
contracts between the Company and the U. A. W. are no bar to the
establishment of a separate unit composed of the woodworkers because
a majority of such employees were not working for the Company at the
S The record also shows that the Company has been dealing with representatives of its
employees on a plant -wide basis since 1933 . This is evidenced by letters , dated December
11, 1933, and May 12, 1934, from the Company to a shop committee representing Federal
Labor Union No 18463 ; by a written "Memorandum of Negotiations," dated May 27,
1935, between the Company and United Automobile Workers Federal Labor Union No.
18463; and by a written "Memorandum of Negotiations," dated June 22, 1936, between
the Company and representatives of Local No. 32 of the International Union United
Automobile Workers of America A F of L These labor organizations were the
predecessors of the present U. A. W.
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time the contracts were entered into and are, therefore, not covered
by their terms.
It is true that the woodworkers are engagd in work requiring a
high degree of skill and experience and that this skill and experience
is not possessed by other employees of the Company. It is equally
true, however, that there are other groups of employees whose work
requires skill and experience not possessed by all employees who com-
prise the plant-wide unit. The woodworkers claimed by the League
are all employed in the special equipment and experimental division.
This division, consisting of some 67 employees, engaged in 8 distinct
types of work, functions as an integrated unit under the sole supervi-
sion of O. F. Quartullo. The average hourly rates of the draftsmen,
machinists, and sheet-metal workers in this division exceed the aver-
age hourly rate of woodworkers.
With respect to the contention of the League that the woodworkers
do not come within the terms of the successive contracts between the
Company and the U. A. W., the contracts provide that all hourly
employees shall be covered. Since the woodworkers in question are
hourly employees they fall within the terms of the contract. Moreover,
the Company and the U. A. W. have treated employees hired after
the execution of any of the successive contracts as being covered by
the contracts, regardless of the nature of their work, so long as they
were hourly or piece workers or office workers, not employed in a
supervisory capacity. The League would distinguish the woodworkers
in the special equipment and experimental division from other new
employees on the ground that the woodworkers were performing work
which had not been done by the Company during the period when
bilateral contracts granting exclusive bargaining rights to the U. A. W.
were in effect. We think that the record does not support such a
distinction.
As we have noted above, two of the persons within the unit claimed
appropriate by the League were transferred to the special equipment
and experimental division from the coach and cab divisions of the
Company's plant. One other woodworker, whose inclusion in the
unit was not contested by the League, is presently engaged and has
been engaged for some time prior to 1940, in constructing wooden
forms for a truck grill in the general experimental division of the
plant. It is clear that these three woodworkers were covered by the
terms of the successive contracts between the U. A. W. and the Com-
pany and that they acquired seniority rights, vacations with pay, and
other rights as a result thereof. Furthermore, the record shows that
up until July 1939 the Company employed five or six other wood-
workers in its bus division. The woodworkers in this division were
engaged in work substantially similar to the work now being done
THE WHITE MOTOR COMPANY 929
in the special equipment and experimental division. As a matter of
fact, the machinery used by the woodworkers in the bus division was
transferred to the special equipment division for the use of the wood-
workers in the latter division. We find, therefore, that prior to the
hiring of the woodworkers in the special equipment division, the
contracts between the U. A. W. and the Company covered wood-
workers then employed by the Company and that the present con-
tract between the Company and the U. A. W. covers the woodworkers
in the special equipment and experimental division.
From the evidence set forth above, it is clear that since July 1937
woodworkers have been represented by the U. A. W. under valid
contracts which fixed the bargaining unit as covering all hourly and
piece workers and office, workers below the positions of'supervisors
and assistant supervisors. Under these contracts the U. A. W. has
been recognized as the exclusive representative of all the employees
included in the unit in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
We therefore find that the unit proposed by the League is not ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since as stated in Section III above, we are unable to find an
appropriate unit on the basis of the petition filed herein and the
evidence adduced in support thereof, we find that no question has
arisen concerning the representation of the employees of the Com-
pany in an appropriate bargaining unit.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of The
White Motor Company, Cleveland, Ohio, in a unit which is ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification filed by Pattern Makers
League of North America (A. F. of L.), be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
CHAIRMAN MADDEN, dissenting :
I think we should not dismiss the petition filed by the League,
and that the Board should allow the desires of the employees in a
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recognized subdivision of the industry to determine their inclusion
or exclusion from an industrial bargaining unit.4 The services per-
formed by the employees for whom the League seeks recognition re-
quire peculiar skill and experience which differentiate their employ-
ment from that of other employees in the industrial unit. Recogni-
tion of this status has been accorded to the League by employers who
are engaged in the same type of business as the Company.' In view
of this occupational differentiation and the evidence of the success of
the League in the industry on the basis of the separate unit, it is
clear that the pattern makers could bargain satisfactorily as a sep-
arate unit or as a part of the larger unit for which collective bargain-
ing has been conducted in the past. I believe, therefore, that the
desires of the employees themselves should control.°
4 Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Polishers Union, Local No. 3,
3 N. L., R. B. 294.
6 See 'Matter of Willys Overland , Inc. and Pattern Makers League of North America,
15 N, L. R. B. '864; Matter of General Motors Corporation and Pattern Makers League
of North America, affiliated with the A. F. of L, etc, 20 N L. R B. 950
° See my dissenting opinions in Matter of American Can Company and Engineers Local
No. 30, 13 N. L. R. B. '1252 , and Matter ' of Milton Bradley Company and International
Printing Pressmen and Assistants Union of North America (A. F. L.), 15 N. L. R . B. 938.
f