Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 26, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 876 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC., and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS,OF
AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
Case No. 16-R-968.-Decided February 26,1945
Messrs. H. L., Hurt, and Lee J. Robinson, of Oklahoma City, Okla.,
and Mr. Ralph Clifford, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Company.
Messrs. Maurice Sugar and Ernest Goodman, of Detroit, Mich., for
the CIO.
Mr. C. L. Mulholland, of Dallas, Tex., and Mr. J. E. Wheeler, of
Oklahoma City, Okla., for the AFL.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO),
herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Douglas
Aircraft Company, In., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Glenn L. Moller, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held on November 8, 9, and 10, 1944,
at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Company, the CIO, and Inter-
national Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the AFL,
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file briefs with the Board.
The Company's request for .oral argument is hereby denied. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. Subsequent to the hearing, the Board
issued an order to show cause why the petition of the CIO should not
be dismissed unless the CIO should present to the Regional Director
of the Sixteenth Region, evidence of substantial representation ac-
60 N. L. R. B., No 149.
876 °
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. , 877
quired subsequent to April 28, 1944, in the claimed appropriate unit.
Thereafter,'the Regional Director filed with the Board a report of
additional evidence of representation submitted by the CIO in response
to the said order to show cause.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft parts for the United
States Government. The Company operates plants in the States of
California, Illinois, and Oklahoma, including a plant at Oklahoma
City, which plant is the only one involved in the present proceeding.
During the period from May 31, 1942 to May 31, 1943, purchases of
raw materials by the Company for use at its different plants were
valued in excess of $75,000,000, of which approximately 40 percent was
shipped to the Company's various plants from points in other States.
During this period, the Company purchased for use at its Oklahoma
City plant raw materials valued at more than $3,000,000, of which
approximately 40 percent was obtained from points outside the State
of Oklahoma. During the same period, company-wide sales of fin-
ished products were in excess of $400,000,000, of which approximately
$30,000,000 represents sales of products produced by the Oklahoma
City plant. All the products produced at the Oklahoma City plant
were delivered at the United States Army Air Forces at an airport
adjacent to the plant.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, UAW, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi
zations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May 25, 1944, the CIO, claiming majority representation, ad-
dressed a letter to the Company requesting recognition as bargaining
agent for the Company's employees. The Company refused the CIO's
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
request for recognition and stated at the hearing that it declined to
recognize the CIO until and unless it was certified by the Board.
The Company contends that the CIO has made an insufficient show-
ing of interest to maintain the present proceeding, particularly in view
of the fact that less than a year ago, the CIO sought an election for
substantially the same group of employees but received less than a
majority of the votes cast in the election conducted by the Board under
a consent election agreement.' The Board has held that, in the ab-
sence of a background of unfair labor practices on the part of an
employer, or other unusual circumstances to which the Board may
give special weight, an organization seeking a second election in a short
interval of time after an election defeat must present definite evidence
of increased strength among the employees concerned in order that the
Board may be assured that a second election among them will not be in
vain .2 In the present instance, however, the report of the Regional
Director with respect to additional evidence of representation sub-
mitted by the CIO in response to the Board's order to show cause here-
inabove referred to, discloses that the CIO has a substantial number
of additional designations acquired since the date of the consent elec-
tion.3 In addition thereto, it appears that approximately 10 months
have elapsed since the election aforesaid. Since no bargaining repre-
sentative was chosen as a result of that election and in view of the fact
that a substantial number of the Company's employees have since in-
dicated a desire for representation by the CIO, we believe that the
policies of the Act will best be effectuated by conducting an election
on the present petition.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties are in substantial agreement that all hourly paid em-
ployees of the Company's Oklahoma City plant' who are regularly
1 See 16-R-864. While the election held ' on April 28, 1944, did not result in the selec-
tion of a bargaining representative , the CIO received on a run -off election approximately
49 percent of the votes cast therein.
Y See Matter of General Electric Company , 15 N. L. R. B. 1018; Matter of Continental
Roll & Steel Foundry Company, 44 N. L. R B. 1051; Matter of Van Raalte Company, 55
N. L. R. B. 696; Matter of Trojan Powder Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 1433.
3 The Regional Director reported that the CIO had submitted 6,000 application cards
dated variously between April 28, 1944, and January 26, 1945. The Regional Director
further reported that a spot -check of these cards against the Company's pay roll revealed
that the CIO had recent authorizations amounting to approximately 29.53 percent of the
employees in the claimed appropriate unit. In addition thereto, the record indicates
that the AFL has some membership among employees in the maintenance department
included within the unit sought by the CIO.
4 See Matter of Dibrell Brothers , Inc., 59 N . L. R. B. 429; Matter of Vermont Copper
Company, Inc., 59 N. L. R. B . 853; Matter of Columbia Aircraft Corporation, 60 N. L. R B.
257.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 879
employed outside the administration building, excluding secretaries,
tool designers, the technical illustrator, draftsmen, research laboratory
analysts, time-study (time-standard) men, employees of the Safety
Department, welfare, medical, and plant-protection employees, cafe-
teria employees, all supervisory employees above the rank of leadman,
and all employees in previously established craft units, may properly
form the basis of an appropriate unit. The only dispute with respect
to the appropriate unit concerns certain plant clerical, production
control, and miscellaneous employees whom the Company would in-
clude and the CIO exclude from the plant-wire unit .5 The specific
categories remaining in dispute as the result of final positions assumed
at the hearing and in the briefs of the parties, comprise timekeepers,
department clerks, general clerks, material analysts, procurement fol-
low-up men, shop follow-up men, production planners, salvage plan-
ners, production processors, and couriers.
Timekeepers: These employees are stationed in, booths throughout
the plant which they use as bases for their operations. Their duties
require that they go through the departments several times a day
collecting time slips which show the time spent by each employee on
individual jobs during the day. They also have charge of the em-
ployees' regular time cards showing the time at which the employees
begin and, quit work each day. While timekeepers are subject to
the same shop safety rules, working hours, lunch and rest periods as
the production employees, they are not subject to the same super-
vision, but are under the supervision of the timekeeping department
through group leaders who are stationed in the plant area. The group
leaders report directly to the head of the timekeeping department,
who has an office in the administration building. The Company's
contention that timekeepers be included within the unit of hourly
paid employees is based primarily upon the allegation that time-
keepers have been included under the unit descriptions of prior Board
decisions affecting the Company's Tulsa,6 Chicago,' and El Segundo
plants. However, from an examination of these decisions, it appears
that the case relating to the Tulsa plant was concerned with a con-
sent election which involved no determination of the appropriate unit
by the Board; furthermore, that, while in the cases affecting the
Chicago and El Segundo plants, respectively, the Board issued formal
decisions, it did not therein determine the status of timekeepers or
6In addition to the groups hereinabove referred to, the CIO would also exclude from
the unit certain named departments . However, since the employees in these departments
fall within the specific disputed categories set forth above, we see no reason for con-
sidering the question of including or excluding the departments from the unit herein
concerned.
e 16-R-956.
753 N. L. R. B. 486.
s 49 N. L. It. B. 819.
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
i
indicate that such employees were to be deemed included within' the
units therein found appropriate. The Board has, as a rule, both with
respect to other plants of the Company and throughout the aircraft
industry generally, excluded timekeepers from units of production
and maintenance employees.9 In view of the dissimilarity between
the interests of timekeepers and those of production employees gen-
erally, we shall, in accordance with our usual practice noted above,
exclude timekeepers from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. ,
Plant clerical employees: The remaining plant clerical employees
consisting of department clerks,10 special clerks, typists, file clerks,
and general clerks, constitute a group of factory clerical employees
of varying duties and responsibilities yet with many interests in
common and to some extent interchangeable with one another. - Of
the group as a whole, general clerks are the lowest in order of clerical
ability and the nearest to the production and maintenance employees
with whom they are 'closely associated. The other classifications,
particularly the department clerks, special clerks, and typists, spend
certain portions of their time in plant offices or "lean-tos" where they
perform the more skilled clerical assignments. While all plant cleri-
cal employees are assigned by and are subject to the supervision of a
clerical coordinating department known as department 351,11 they are
in some instances also subject to the supervision of the departments
to which they are assigned. The evidence discloses that clerks in the
categories above-mentioned are rotated from one clerical assignment
to another and perform alternating duties according to their then
current assignment 12 While the same classifications are found in the
administration building, the record shows that there is very little, if
any, transfer of employees from the administration building to the
plant. On the other hand, it appears that throughout the manu-
facturing departments there are frequent transfers of factory classi-
fications to and from clerical positions.13 In all previous decisions
° See Matter of American Propeller Corporation , 43 N. L. it. B. 518 ; Matter of Consoli-
dated Aircraft Corp, 47 N. L . R B 30 ; Matter of Julien P. Friez d Son, Bendtix Aviation
Coip , 47 N L . R B 43; Matter of General Motors Cotporation , Eastern An craft, Trenton
Division, 51 N. L. It. B. 1366 ; Matter of Republic Aviation Corporation, Indiana Division, 51
N. L R B. 1287 ; Matter of General Motors Corporation ( Eastern Aircraft Division,
Baltimore Plant ), 52 N. L . R. B. 954 ; Matter of Bendix Aviation Corporation (Philadel-
phia Division ), 53 N. L . R B. 869 , lfatter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc . ( Long Beach
Plant ), 54 N L it . B. 67 , Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company , Inc (Santa Monica Plant),
21-R-2368 ( unpublished ), issued October 24, 1944. ,
10 Of the employees in this category , certain department clerks who handle personnel
records known as 35-A cards, are not presently included but will be considered hereinafter
as a separate group
11 The relation of the plant clericals to department 351 in no way connects them with
the main office , since the department referred to is concerned only with the supervision
of clerical employees assigned to factory operations.
12 Among the clerical classifications thus interchanged are depai tment clerks who at
times perform the duties of stock clerks , checking material on the floor of the plant.
's The Company ' s industrial relations manager testified that of the department clerks,
general clerks , and file clerks now employed in the plant , 25 percent of the department
clerks , 43 percent of the general clerks, and 19 percent of the file clerks were tormerly
in production job classifications.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 881
affecting the other plants of the Company, ordinary plant clerical
employees have been included within units of production and mainte-
nance employees.14 Under the circumstances, we shall include within
the unit herein found appropriate all clerical employees 'working
within the plant area in the categories above mentioned in accord-
ance with our usual policy with respect to such employees.15
Personnel records clerks: The Company employs a number of clerks,
usually department or special clerks, who handle personnel records
known as 35-A cards. These employees were excluded as a group from
the unit in the consent election hereinabove referred to. Both the
Company and the CIO would likewise exclude them from the unit
to be determined in the present proceeding. The record discloses that
these employees together with secretaries maintain personnel records
for supervisors from information received from the personnel depart-
ment. They also have occasion to prepare letters or memoranda for
supervisors on matters pertaining to labor relations, including the
typing of reprimands to employees. Since it appears that such clerks
in charge of personnel records occupy a confidential status with respect
to management, we shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.""
Production control categories: The employees in this group com-
prise procurement follow-up men, shop follow-up men, material
analysts, production control dispatchers, material control clerks, inven-
tory control men, and production planners and processors.
Procurement follow-up men, shop follow-up men, production control
dispatchers, inventory control men and certain of the material control
clerks,17 perform work of similar character and are of a type of
employee generally known as inside expediters. As such, they fre-
quently handle materials and tools used in the production process.
We find that they have substantial interests in common with the pro-
duction employees and shall, accordingly, include them in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.18
With respect, however, to the classifications of material analysts,
production planners and processors, and salvage planners, the-record
14 See footnotes 6, 7, 8, and 9.
"See Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L R. B 531; Matter of
J. S. Abercrombie Company, 58 N. L. R. B . 1013; Matter of Kearney it Trecker Corpo-
ration, 60 N. L . R.B. 148.
"See Matter of Electric Boat Company, 57 N. I. R. B. 1348; Matter of The Hoover
Company, 55 N. L R. B 1321.
17 The rest of the material control clerks perform duties substantially similar to those
of stock clerks whom the CIO agreed should be included within the plant-wide unit.
18 See Matter of Worthington Pump and Machinery Corporation , 44 N. L . It. B 779; Mat-
ter of Chemical Construction Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 223; Matter of Bendim Aviation
Corporation ( Philadelphia Division ), 53 N. L It. B 869; Matter of Sandy Hill Iron a
Brass Works, 68 N. L . It. B. 949.
628563-45-vol. 60-57
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discloses that such employees perform duties of an administrative char-
acter not intimately connected with those of the production employees.
In the case of the material analysts, these employees confer with
various department heads regarding the type of tools needed for a
particular operation, and write up purchase orders which then, go
directly to the purchasing department. The- employees in the classi-
fications of planners and processors are in substance efficiency experts
whose duty it is to see that the production processes are carried on
smoothly and efficiently, and who, in some instances, instruct the pro-
duction employees in the various steps of the manufacturing opera-
tions. We are of the opinion that the material analysts, the produc-
tion planners and processors, and the salvage planners have interests
differing substantially from those of the production employees gen-,
erally. Accordingly,. we shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter
found appropriate.19 ,
Couriers: The Company employs about 12 female employees for the
purposes of operating company automobiles between the plant and
various outside points. Such employees, known as couriers, wear uni-
forms furnished by the Company and work the greater part of the
day from headquarters located in the administrative building. Their
only contacts with production employees are on occasions when they
drive some employee to the clinic for medical attention or to his home.
While their working hours are theoretically the same as those of the
production employees, the nature of their work makes rigid adherence
to fixed hours impossible. We find that couriers, whose work is sub-
stantially that of messengers, have few if any interests in common
with the production employees as a group. We shall, accordingly,
exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate 20
We find that all hourly paid employees of the Company's Oklahoma
City plant, who are regularly employed outside the administrative
building, including ordinary plant clerical employees, procurement
follow-up men, shop follow-up men, production control dispatchers,
material control clerks, inventory control men, stock clerks, helpers
general, warehousemen, tool liaison men, tool crib attendants and
utility workers, but excluding timekeepers, secretaries, personnel rec-
ords clerks, material analysts, production planners and processors,
salvage planners, couriers, draftsmen, research laboratory analysts,
time-study (time-standard) men, employees of the Safety Department,
Welfare, Medical and Plant Protection Divisions, cafeteria employees,
all supervisory employees above the rank of leadman with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, and all
11 Matter of Cleveland Pneumatic Aerol, Inc., 55 N. L . R. B. 1269.
20 See Matter of North Carolina Shipbuilding Co., 56 N. L R B. 1799.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. -883
employees in previously established craft units'21 constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The evidence reveals that the Company designates all new employees
as trainees for a period of about 16 weeks and that of this group known
as trainees, approximately 97 percent eventually become regular em-_
ployees. In addition thereto, regular employees are at times taken
from production work and given special training, during which
time they are carried on the pay roll as trainees. The CIO con-
tends that only the latter group should be deemed eligible to vote
and that all other trainees should be found ineligible. Since it ap-
pears that the trainees here in dispute are in effect probationary em-
ployees with the prospect of becoming regular employees after a short
period of time, we find that they have substantial interests in common
with the regular employees in the unit involved in the present proceed-
ing. Accordingly, we shall include them in such unit following our
usual practice with respect to employees of this type .22
The CIO contends that the AFL has not shown sufficient interest
in the proceeding to permit it to participate in the election. We are
of the opinion, contrary to the contention of the CIO, that the interest
shown by the AFL, although not substantial, is sufficient to entitle it
to a place on the, ballot in view of the fact that the AFL is an inter-
venor and that we are directing an election in a unit including em-
ployees among whom the AFL has apparently some membership at this
time .23
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion.
The C. 1. 0. and the AFL request that they may appear on the ballot
as "International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO," and as "I. A. of
M.-A. F. L.," respectively. The requests are hereby granted.
21 The Board has recognized separate craft units at the Company's Oklahoma City plant
in the following cases : 16-R-615, 16-R-684, 16-R-759, 16-R-794, 16-R-812, 16 -R-845,
and 16-R-875.
22 See Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc ., 53 N. L. R. B. 486; Matter of Bell Air-
craft Corporation, 54 N. L. R. B. 1095; Matter of R. R. Donnelly t Sons Company, 59
N L. R. B. 122.
11 See Matter of Kennecott Copper Corporation, Nevada Mines Division, 51 N. L R. B.
1140.
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act;
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby '
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Douglas Aircraft
.Company, Inc., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, an election 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 Sixteenth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including trainees and employees
who did not work during the 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 election, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, or by I. A.
of M.-A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.