Air Line Pilots Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 929 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION 929
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL and UNION OF AIR
LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EM-
PLOYEES, PrtTITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1817. December 09, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ivan C. McLeod,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a labor uniou,2 maintains its principal office in
Chicago, Illinois, and smaller offices in several cities located through-
out the United States. It is engaged primarily in representing its
6,400 pilot members in their relationship with about 40 national and
international airlines.
This work requires that the employees covered by the petition
travel extensively throughout the country to participate in bargain-
ing negotiations, grievance proceedings, and organizational work.
Further, the record establishes that the Employer's Washington
office represents the Employer generally in its dealings with Federal
agencies having jurisdiction over matters affecting the interests of
airline pilots.
The Board has never in its 16 years Of experience been called upon
before to decide a case involving the employees of a labor union.
Accordingly, no standards have been established for testing the
Board's jurisdiction in such cases. However, it seems clear that
the Congress intended that labor unions be treated like any other
employer with regard to their own employees, because Section 2 (2)
I At the'hearing the Employer objected to the introduction in evidence of more than
150 documents which it alleged were purloined from its files by representatives of the
Petitioner . The hearing officer properly overruled the Employer ' s objection and received
the questioned documents It is well established as a general rule "that the admissibility
of evidence is not affected by the illegality of the means through which the party has been
enabled to obtain the evidence ." Wigmore on Evidence , 3rd Edition , Section 2183 ; Etevwson
v. Earnest, 80 Ill. 513 , 517. It has been Board practice to admit allegedly purloined
documents , unless it is established that an agent of the Government has been a party
to their unlawful seizure See Andrew Jergens Company of Calsfornia, 27 NLRB 521,
Cf Hoosier- Cardinal Corporation , 67 NLRB 49
2 The Employer is not a "labor organization" within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act; its participants or members are not "employees " within Section 2 (3), because
they are employed by airlines which are subject to the Railway Labor Act , and it exists
for the purpose of dealing with persons which are not "employers" within the meaning
of Section 2 (2).
However , it is an "employer" under the Act. Section 2 (2), in defining the term
"employer," excludes persons "subject to the Railway Labor Act ," but the Railway Labor
Act does not purport to regulate unions. It specifically provides in Article I, Fifth
(paragraph ) : "Nor shall the jurisdiction or powers of such employee organization be
regarded as in any way limited by the provisions of this chapter or by the orders of the
[Interstate Commerce ] Commission."
97 NLRB No 122.
930 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of both the original and amended Acts provide in part : "The term
`employer' . . . shall not include . . . and labor organization (other
than when acting as an employer)." 3 As the Board normally as-
sumes jurisdiction over enterprises which are multistate in character,'
and as no valid reason has been advanced for applying a different
standard here, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and that it would effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Appropriate Unit
The Petitioner seeks a bargaining unit composed of the attorneys
in the Employer's legal and conciliation department; the engineers
in the engineering department; the statistician in the statistical de-
partment; the contract negotiators in the employment agreement
department; the employees who organize and service affiliated or-
ganizations in the education and organization department; 5 the
council coordinator in the council coordination department; the
bookkeeper in the accounting and bookkeeping department; the
publicity man in the publicity department; the Washington repre-
sentative; and the works project expediter. The Petitioner takes
the position that all 18 of these employees are professionals within
the meaning of the Act and can properly constitute a single bar-
gaining unit; but, in the event the Board finds otherwise, it wishes
to represent all these employees in any units which the Board might
establish.
The Employer took the position at the hearing that the requested
unit was inappropriate, on the ground that all the 18 individuals
involved were either supervisors . r confidential employees. We find
no merit in this contention, except as to Charles Rohles, the Em-
ployer's bookkeeper, whose status is discussed below. It appears
from the record that except for Rohles and Herbert, David Behncke,
as president, and Maurice Conners, as personnel and office manager,
have exercised sole and exclusive supervision over the Employer's
employees. Further, the record establishes that only Behncke and
s Emphasis supplied.
The Borden Company,-Southern Division , 81 NLRB 628.'
S The record indicates that only Frank J. Albright, Glenn R. Johns, and William Schneider
were engaged in this work at the time of the hearing . A fourth person in this department,
Victor Herbert, is conceded by the parties to be a supervisor.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION 931
Conners have had legal access to confidential information concerning
the Employer's own labor relations-the Board's test for confidential
employees 6
The Professional Employees
The three attorneys who comprise the Employer's legal and.con-
ciliation department handle general legal work and represent the
Employer in court and administrative proceedings. The two engi-
neers, who comprise the Employer's engineering department, in-
vestigate air accidents, prepare information on air safety, advise
airplane manufacturers on equipment designed, and do other general
engineering work. The statistician, who possesses a master's degree
in business administration, has done considerable graduate work
in the statistical field. His duties involve the preparation of ana-
lytical studies of statistics which are used by the Employer in pre-
senting its views on proposed legislation, changes in the Civil Air
Regulations, modifications of aircraft design, and a number of other
subjects affecting the welfare of airline pilots. Each of the six
men discussed above works by himself or with the assistance of
a secretary only; each works without immediate supervision and does
nonroutine work which requires the consistent exercise of discretion
and judgment.
As each of the foregoing employees possesses the educational back-
ground requisite for professional status, and as all six are employed
in jobs within their respective fields of specialized-training, and
otherwise meet the statutory tests for professional status, we find that
they are professional employees within the meaning of the Act.
As such, they may, in accordance with their own desires expressed
in the election hereinafter directed, constitute a separate appropriate
bargaining unit, or become a part of the over-all unit discussed
below.
The Nonprofessional Employees
The Employer's bookkeeper, Rohles, whom the Petitioner would
include in the bargaining unit, oversees the work of the three clerks
who keep the Employer's membership and dues recorded. As Rohles
testified, without contradiction, that he regularly recommends the
-hiring and discharge of employees in his department, we shall ex-
clude him as a supervisor.
The remainder of the employees sought by the Petitioner are similar
in some respects to office employees in a regular commercial enter-
prise. However, they differ from regular office employees in one
important aspect, in that they, together with the professionals, con-
See Republic Steel Corporation, 94 NLRB 1294. _
932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stitute this Employer's "production employees." Each of them, while
not meeting the strict requirements for professional status contained
in Section 2 (12) of the Act, is a trained specialist who performs a
particular function necessary to the operation of the Employer. Thus,
the members of the employment agreement department negotiate the
labor contracts between the Employer and the airlines-probably
the Employer's most important single function; the members of the
education and organization department organize and assist affiliated
organizations; the council coordinator oversees the activity of the Em-
ployer's local councils throughout the country ; the publicity man
prepares and edits the Employer's magazine, the Air Line Pilot; the
Washington representative handles general relations with the Federal
Government; and the works project expediter follows the work in
the Employer's several departments to see that it is completed on
schedule. Further, these employees differ from usual office workers
in that most, if not all of them, are required to travel extensively
throughout the United States to carry out their normal duties.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that
the nonprofessional employees discussed above, excluding Rohles, pos-
sess skills sufficiently dissimilar from those of the Employer's regular
office employees to constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit
apart from the office employees. We 'further find that a sufficient
community of interest exists between the nonprofessionals and the
professionals that both groups together may constitute a single appro-
priate bargaining unit. Accordingly, we shall direct separate elec-
tions in the following voting groups :
(A) The Employer's professional employees (consisting of its
attorneys, its engineers, and statistician).
(B) The Employer's nonprofessional employees (consisting of its
contract negotiators in the employment agreement department, the
employees who organize and service affiliated organizations in the
education organization department, the council coordinator, the pub-
licity man, the Washington representative, and the works project
expediter, but excluding office employees and supervisors).
The employees in nonprofessional voting group (B) will be polled
as to whether or not they desire the petitioning union to represent
them.
The employees in professional voting group (A) will be asked
two questions on their ballot : (1) Do you desire to be included in a
unit with the nonprofessionals? (2) Do you desire to be represented
for the purposes of co]lective bargaining by the petitioning union?
If a, majority of the professional employees vote "Yes" to the first
question, indicating their wish to be included in a unit with the non-
professional employees, they will be so'included. Their votes on the
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 933
second question will then be counted together with the votes of the
nonprofessionals to decide the representative for the combined bar-
gaining unit. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional
employees vote against inclusion, they will not be included with the
nonprofessional employees; their vote on the second question will
then be counted to decide whether or not they want to be represented
by the Petitioner in a separate professional unit. If a majority vote
for the Petitioner in either the professional unit alone, the nonpro-
fessional unit alone, or the combined unit, the Regional Director
conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certifi-
cate of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit or units.
[Text of the Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this,
volume.]
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED and COMMUNICATIONS
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 35-RC-538.
December 29, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
After the conduct of an election pursuant to a stipulation for certifi-
cation upon consent election, the filing of objections to the election by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called
the IBEW, and issuance of a report on objections and challenged
ballots by the Regional Director, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction 1 overruling certain of the objections, reserving final ruling
on objection 4 concerning certain erroneous ballots, impounding 7
challenged ballots, and directing that certain other challenged ballots
be opened and counted. Thereafter the Regional Director counted
the challenged ballots as directed and issued a revised tally of ballots.
The IBEW objected to the revised tally, challenging the Regional
Director's declaration that one of the challenged ballots which had
been opened was void. The IBEW also requested a recount of all
ballots cast in the election. On November 13, 1951, the Board granted
the IBEW's request for a recount and deferred ruling on other matters.
At the recount the Petitioner and the IBEW challenged 32 ballots
which had been originally tallied as valid votes, but thereafter the
Petitioner withdrew the 23 challenges which it had made. On Decem-
ber 7, 1951, the Regional Director issued his report of results of re-
count and recommendations. The Petitioner filed a brief.
1 96 NLRB 318.
97 NLRB No. 141.
986209-52-vol. 97-60