Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 7, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 497 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION (FORT
WORTH DIVISION), EMPLOYER and LOCAL AIRCRAFT No. 900, AFFILI-
ATED FEDERATED INDEPENDENT TEXAS UNION, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-1774
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 7, 1947
On October 18, 1946, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Elections issued herein by the Board on September 20, 1946,E elections
by secret ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employ-
ees in the units found appropriate in the Decision. Upon completion
of the elections, Tallies of Ballots were issued and duly served by the
Regional Director upon the parties concerned. No objections to the
elections in voting units Nos. 1, 3, and 4, were filed by any of the parties
within the time provided therefor.2 Inasmuch as it appeared from
the Tallies in these units that collective bargaining representatives
had been selected, the Board, on December 2, 1946, issued Certifications
of Representatives therein.
As to voting unit No. 2, the Tally showed that, of the approximately
143 eligible voters, 73 cast votes for the Petitioner, 6t for the IAM, and
6 for neither. The IAM filed objections to conduct affecting the
results of the election in this unit. Thereupon, in accordance with the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an
investigation and issued and duly served upon the parties a Report
on Objections, dated October 31, 1946. In his report, the Regional
Director recommended that the IAM's objections be overruled. Sub-
sequently, on November 5, ,1946, the IAM filed a protest in the nature
of exceptions to this report.
1 70 N L. It. B 1357 The Board found appropriate therein separate units of the follow-
ing employees ( 1) production an(' maintenance employees , t2) inspectors ; ( 3) timekeep-
ers; and ( 4) tool planners , tool designers, and tool liaison employees
2 The objections filed by International Association of Machinists , Local No 776 , herein
called the IAM, to the election held in voting unit No 4 were heretofore overruled by the
Board as untimely made
72 N L. R B, No. 90. 497
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 2, 1946, the Board', having considered the IAM's
objections, the Regional Director's Report on Objections and the TAM's
exceptions thereto, directed that a hearing be held on the objections
relating to the alleged assignment of five employees 3 to the job classifi-
cation of inspectors before the eligibility date fixed in the Decision-and
Direction of Elections herein end the subsequetit denial by the Board
agent of the alleged right of these individuals to vote in the inspectors'
unit.4 Thereafter, a hearing was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on
December 11, 12. and 13, 1946, before Elmer Davis, heaving officer. All
parties appeared and participated. 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 makes the following:
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
TV. W. Weaver: This individual was assigned by the Employer to
the job of inspector in June 1946, and was serving in that capacity both
on September 15, 1946, the pay-roll eligibility date, and at the time of
the elections herein. He was classified as an inspecting department
employee on the eligibility lists, and it is clear that he participated in
the election held in the inspectors' unit. In view of the foregoing, we
find that the IAM's objections to the election held in the inspectors'
unit relating to the vote cast by W. W. Weaver are without merit and
they are hereby overruled.
E. E. Coursey, C. C. Davis, G. Harlewood, and P. R. Riley: The
record shows that these individuals were working for the Employer as
production and maintenance employees on September 15, 1946, and
that, in the interim between the eligibility date and the date of the
elections, they were permanently transferred to the job classification
of inspectors .6 However, they were designated on the eligibility lists
3 W W. Weaver, E E Coursey, C C. Davis, G Hazlewood and P R Riley
Most of the IAM's further objections to the election held in this unit were overruled
by the Poaid on the ground that they raised no substantial or material issues The remain-
der were overruled as untimely made, inasmuch as they were presented for the first time
in the 1AM's exceptions
At the reopened hearing, the IAM sought for the first time to adduce evidence on objec-
tions relating to alleged changes in the Employer's records after the election, which the
JAM contends, reflect on the status of approximateiy 40 employees and indicate that these
employees were entitled to vote in the inspectors' unit, although they were placed on the
eligibility list of, and voted in, the production and maintenance employees' unit The
hearing officer excluded such evidence Thereafter, the LAM moved that the proceeding he
further reopened to receive this evidence, and submitted an offer of proof in connection
with its motion The offer of proof was rejected by the hearing officer and ruling on the
motion was reserved for the hoard We find that the evidence in question was not within
the scope of the present hearing and was properly excluded we also find that the objec-
tions raised in the IAM's motion are untimely made Accordingly, the IAM's motion for
further hearing is hereby denied and the ruling by the hearing officer rejecting the offer
of p'oof in connection therewith -is hereby upheld
c The tiansfeis of the employees in issue became effective on the following dates : Hazle-
wood-September 16, 1946 , Riley-September 23, 1946 , Coursey and Davis-October 14,
1946
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 499
as production and maintenance employees, and were apparently
directed to cast their ballots with such employees.
Under established Board practice, the individuals in issue were not
entitled to participate in the election held either in the production and
maintenance employees' unit or in the inspectors' unit.' However, it
is apparent that their votes did not affect the results of the election
conducted among the production and maintenance employees." And,
as to the election held in the inspectors' unit, these individuals were
properly denied ballots to participate therein. Accordingly, we find
no merit in the IAM's objections to the election held in the inspectors'
unit with respect to the votes cast by E. E. Coursey, C. C. Davis,
G. Hazlewood, and P. R. Riley, and they are hereby overruled.
Inasmuch as the results of the election held in voting unit No. 2
show that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in this unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local Aircraft No. 900, Affiliated Fed-
erated Independent Texas Union, has been designated and selected by
a majority of all inspectors of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corpora-
tion, at its Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth, Texas, excluding the
chief inspector, supervisors and assistant supervisors, and all or any
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative
of all such employees, for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment.
' Matter of Basic Magnesium, Incorporated, 56 N L R B 412, and Matter of Manganese
Ore Company, 54 N L R.B. 1192. Cf. Matter of Air Products, Inc, 63 N L R. B. 1338,
and Matter of Bendix Aviation Corp, Bendix Radio Division, 61 N. L. R. B 142
1In the election held in the production and maintenance employees' unit, the Tally of
Ballots showed that, of the approximately 5,498 eligible voters, 4,904 cast valid votes, of
which 1,874 were for the Petitioner, 2,883 were for the IAM, and 147 were for neither ;
in addition, there were 15 challenged ballots and 19 void ballots.