General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Division And International Union Of Operating Engineers, Locals 30 & 30-a, 793 (1941)

Docket Number:R-2184
Party Name:798


30-A Case No. R-2184.--Decided December 30, 1940 Jurisdiction: automobile assembling industry.

Investigation and Certification of Representatives: existence of question: refusal to accord recognition to union; election necessary.

Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: operating engineers, including apprentice operating engineers but excluding chief engineers.

Mr. John T. Smith, by Mr. Kevin Mclnerney and Mr. Gerard Smith, of New York City, for the Company.

Goldstein & Goldstein, by Mr. Lawrence Kovalsky and Mr. Michael P. Connors, of New York City, for the Union.

Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 9, 1940, International Union of Operating Engineers,

Locals 30 & 30-A, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Tarrytown Division, North Tarrytown, New York, 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 November 14, 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 Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.

On November 14, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 2 and 6, 1940, at New York City, before Shad Polier, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Company and the Union were represented by counsel 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.

During the course of the hearing counsel for the Union moved to amend the petition as to certain formal matters. The motion was granted. 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 all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds...

To continue reading