Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 860 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, ElVi-
PLOYER and ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA, AIRCRAFT CHAPTER, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R32.51.-Decided July 241, 1946
Pruitt, Hale ct Courser , by Mr. C. C. Sawyer, of San Diego, Calif.,
for the Employer.
Katz, Gallagher & Margolis , by Mr. Ben Margolis, of Los Angeles,
Calif., for the Petitioner.
Mr. L. Nikodem , of Downey , Calif ., for the Automobile Workers.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding , of counsel to the Board.
,
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at Los Angeles, California, on May 15, 16, and 17, 1946, before Daniel
J. Harrington, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, a Delaware corpora-
tion, is engaged in the manufacture of airplanes at Downey, Cali-
fornia. During 1945 the Employer used at its Downey plant materials
valued in excess of $14,000,000, more than 50 percent of which was
shipped to the plant from points outside California. During the same
year, the Employer produced at its Downey plant airplanes valued in
excess of $37,000,000, substantially all of which was shipped to points
outside California.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce , within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 104.
860
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
861
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, Local 904, herein called the
Automobile Workers, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations. It is recognized by the Employer
as the exclusive bargaining representative of production and main-
tenance employees at the Downey plant.'
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the employees concerned unless and until
the Petitioner is certified as bargaining representative by the Board.
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner contends that professional, semi-professional, and
technical employees at the Employer's Downey plant constitute an
appropriate bargaining unit. The employer contends that the pro
posed unit is not appropriate in scope for bargaining purposes. The
Petitioner and the Employer further disagree with respect to the unit
placement of certain professional employees, more particularly de-
scribed below.
The Employer's headquarters and general offices are at San Diego,
California. Its plants are located at San Diego and Downey, Cali-
fornia; Fort Worth, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Wayne,
Michigan. Professional and technical employees working at the
Downey plant, known as the Vultee Field Division, are the employees
directly concerned herein. These employees fall administratively into
two groups : (a) employees in the development engineering and experi-
mental shop departments, a function of the Employer's general offices,
and (b) employees under the local plant management of the Vultee
Field Division.
The development engineering department, though physically lo-
cated in the Vultee Field Division building at Downey, is not adminis-
tratively part of the plant or under plant supervision. It is under
the direct supervision of the chief development engineer, all executive
I The Automobile Workers does not claim to represent any employees covered by the peti-
tion herein, as amended. The Petitioner claims to represent no employees presently repre-
sented by the Automobile Workers and covered by its contract.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vice-president of the Employer, whose offices are at San Diego. The
development engineering department performs research work for all
the Employer's plants. It designs and tests experimental airplanes
and parts, its employees performing all tasks from the originating and
developing of the designs to the preparing and executing of flight tests
programs. Their work embraces a wide range of activities, including
scientific research, the preparation and analysis of detailed technical
data, the investigation and solution of problems involved in the fabri-
cation and assembly of experimental aircraft and parts, the collection
of information and data, and the compilation of manuals, reports, and
catalogues. Airplanes designed and planned for test purposes in the
development engineering department are constructed in the experi-
mental department under the same supervision. The experimental
planes so made are tested in the development engineering department.
Any plane designs made, tested, and approved for commercial produc-
tion by the Employer are manufactured in production departments at
one or more of its plants. At the hearing, the development engineering
department was functioning with a normal quota of approximately 300
employees.
The management of the Vultee Field Division is vested in a
plant works manager, under whom function all local plant depart-
ments. There are 11 plant departments in which professional and
technical employees are working when the plant is in normal opera-
tion. At the time of the hearing the plant was not in active produc-
tion. Only 2 professional and technical employees, in categories which
the Petitioner seeks to represent, were working in the plant depart-
ments, 1 employee in the plant engineering department and one
employee in the industrial engineering department. The Employer
contends that both these plant employees are confidential and man-
agerial.
Within the plant engineering department one professional em-
ployee, known as the procurement engineer, is presently working.
This employee investigates requirements, establishes specifications,
obtains and evaluates bids, and specifies or selects the most suitable
type of machinery or equipment for purchase by the Employer to
meet its manufacturing needs. He reviews department requests for
machinery; he coordinates department requests in establishing ma-
Ichine requirements; and he arranges for interviews and makes con-
tacts with vendors for discussion of production or engineering prob-
lems. Within the industrial relations department one professional
employee, the manufacturing engineer, is presently working. This
employee is assistant to the plant manager's consultant on inter-
department relations. His duties are to investigate and plan manu-
facturing facilities, to determine plant requirements for the procure-
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 863
ment of tools and equipment, and to determine production personnel
requirements for the undertaking of production projects. He an-
alyzes operations, processes, and manufacturing sequences and the
introduction of improvements to reduce operation time. and costs.
The entire projected plans for all work under consideration for the
plant are entrusted to him and to no subordinates.
The plant engineering department, under the plant works manager
of the Vultee Field Division, is engaged in the planning, procure-
ment , lay-out, installation, and maintenance of all plant equipment,
plant facilities, and plant buildings. The industrial engineering de-
partment, under the plant works manager of the Vultee Field Di-
vision, is charged with achieving maximum efficiency in the plant and
the analysis and control of costs. Both departments are broken down
into several separate functions. The work carried on in these depart-
ments , from the standpoint of training, experience, and assignment,
is in no way related to aeronautical engineering, which is the kind
of engineering restricted to the development engineering department.
Since the plant at Downey is not in active production at this time,
no adequate investigation may be had of the functions of the various
professional and technical workers who would be normally employed
in the several plant departments. We question whether the status
of the two professional plant employees now employed can be satis-
factorily adjudicated in the absence of other plant professional and
technical employees in their respective departments . Employees in
the development engineering and experimental departments, how-
ever, constitute a clearly homogeneous group of employees engaged in
the research field of aeronautical engineering in a well -defined ad-
ministrative sector of their Employer's operations . We believe that
employees in these two departments may properly constitute a unit
appropriate for bargaining purposes apart from employees in the
Vultee Field Division. We shall, therefore, at this time make no
decision respecting the status or unit placement of professional em-
ployees in the plant engineering, industrial relations , or other depart-
ments of the Vultee Field Division.
The Petitioner and the Employer agree, and we find, that employees
in the category of engineering planner A and B in the development
engineering department are managerial employees and should be ex-
cluded from the bargaining unit.2 They disagree as to the proper unit
placement of aerodynamics engineer A, flight test engineer A, design
group engineer, group engineer , and design specialists .3 The Peti-
2 They likewise agree that employees in the presently inactive category of personnel
engineer should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
3 The parties further disagree as to the unit placement of employees classified as wind
tunnel test engineer A, engineer representative A, salvage engineer A, patent engineer A.
and patent investigator A, in the development engineering department, and that of tool
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tioner would include them. The Employer contends that they are
confidential and managerial or supervisory employees.
Aerodynamics Engineer A: Employees in this classification con-
duct the preliminary analysis of new or modified airplane designs and
predict the performance of the airplane as developed in preliminary
design. From time to time they may direct the activities of other
employees away from the plant in wind tunnel tests. They analyze
the result of these tests and prepare reports based. upon them. They
are from time to time called upon to make recommendations to their
supervisor on the performance of employees under their direction
during the tests. During the course of the tests, they determine to
some extent the schedule and hours of employees engaged in making
the tests. They do not handle personnel records. They do not wear
the red badge with which the Employer designates, for the benefit of
all employees, those in whom it vests supervisory authority. While it
appears that aerodynamic engineers are highly skilled employees, it
does out appear that they formulate and effectuate management poli-
cies. Their supervisory functions are of an incidental or minor nature.
We will include the aerodynamics engineer A in the bargaining unit.
Flight Test Engineer A: Employees in this classification devise
and direct the more complicated method for testing the performance
of aircraft and aircraft components under actual flying conditions.
Approximately one-half of their time is spent on flight test projects
away from the Downey plant. In the absence of their superior, the
chief flight test engineer , one of them is generally designated to direct
for the time the activities of the other engineers . He directs the tech-
nical action and schedules the work of the test. As an incident of this
assignment, lie is consulted by his superior about the performance of
the men working under his temporary direction. While it appears
that these employees are trained professional men, it does not appear
that they formulate and effectuate management policies. Their super-
visory powers are minor and incidential. They do not wear the red
badge which indicates supervisory authority. They exercise no func-
tions with respect to labor relations and, hence, are not confidential
employees within our meaning of the term. We will include flight
test engineers in the bargaining unit.
engineer in the experimental shop. The Petitioner would include, and the Employer would
exclude, such employees . At the time of the hearing , no persons were employed in any of
these work categories . For this reason , we shall make no determination respecting them.
If, however , as the result of this proceeding, a certification issue covering professional and
technical employees in the development engineering and experimental shop departments,
and the Employer later hires employees to fill these presently inactive and disputed cate-
gories , and the Employer and the Petitioner then disagree as to their proper placement in
the unit, we will consider , upon proper motion filed for clarification of the unit , the inclu-
sion or exclusion of such employees . If the parties are then agreed that the job descrip-
tions, set forth in the record , substantially set forth the work of such employees in dis-
pute, it will not be difficult to determine their unit placement upon the basis of the
present record.
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 865
Design Group Engineers; Group Engineers and Design Specialists:
Design group engineers and group engineers supervise the work of
from 3 to 15 engineers working on parts and experimental planes.
They direct the work of engineers in their groups. They check their
reports and the progress of the work performed. They recommend
employees for hire, discharge, and transfer and for wage increases,
and their recommendations are effective. In conjunction with their
superiors, they make performance ratings on the engineers in their
respective groups.' Design group engineers and group engineers wear
red badges as indicia of their supervisory authority. We excluded
group engineers from the unit found appropriate for clerical and tech-
nical employees at the San Diego plant.,' Design group engineers and
group engineers working in the development engineering department
at the Downey plant are clearly supervisory employees, and, as such,
we will exclude them from the unit of technical and professional em-
ployees.
Design specialists are very highly trained professional employees.
They are assigned projects. They create, design, and develop highly
complex mechanisms or systems to investigate specific conditions, re-
quirements, or phases in one or more specialized fields of airplane per-
formance manufacturing. Design specialists may or may not have
groups of engineers working under them. At the time of the hearing,
of the Employer's six design specialists, two had formerly had groups
of engineers working under them, but not. at the time of the hearing,
and two had groups of engineers presently working under them. The
remaining two design specialists had had no groups of engineers work-
ing under them since they had been transferred to the classification of'
design specialist from higher and clearly supervisory positions. All
design specialists, like design group engineers and group engineers,.
wear the red badge indicating supervisory authority, whether or not
at any given time groups of engineers are specifically assigned to work
with them. We will exclude design specialists from the bargaining
unit for non-supervisory employees.
The Petitioner has organized design group engineers, group engi-
neers, and design specialists, and desires to represent them. Design
group engineers and group engineers in research work are like fore-
men in production work in their relation to employees working under
their direction. Design specialists are more highly trained techni-
cians. They exercise no supervisory authority over design group engi-
neers and group engineers. They exercise comparable supervisory
power. Under these circumstances we will find appropriate a unit Of
design group engineers, group engineers, and design specialists.
4 The Employer requires that two persons must collaborate in the making of rating or-
performance sheets for professional employees.
5 Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 54 N. L. R. B. 103, 111.
701592-47-vo1.69 56
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that professional, semi-professional and technical employees
in the Employer's development engineering and experimental shop
departments at Downey, California, including the aerodynamics en-
gineer A and flight test engineer A, but excluding engineering planners
A and B, design group engineers, group engineers, design specialists,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We find that all design group engineers, group engineers, and de-
sign specialists in the Employer's development engineering and ex-
perimental shop departments at Downey, California, excluding all
supervisory employees above these categories, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated Vultee Aircraft
Corporation, Downey, California, separate elections by secret ballot
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 Twenty-first Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among
the employees in the respective units found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding 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 elections, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented by Engineers & Architects Association of
Southern California, Aircraft Chapter, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I agree that non-supervisory professional and technical employees
in the development engineering and experimental shop departments
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 867
at Downey , California , constitute an appropriate bargaining unit;
that aerodynamics engineers and flight test engineers should be in-
cluded in the unit ; and that design group engineers , group engineers,
and design specialists should be excluded from the unit found ap-
propriate for non -supervisory engineering employees.
For reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in hatter of Jones
& Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division,6 I
am constrained to dissent from the decision so far as it relates to
setting up a separate unit for design group engineers , group engi-
neers, and design specialists.
6 66 N. L. R. B. 386.