McDonnell Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1268 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
result by omitting to. include the current payment for overtime and
bonuses, which, it asserted, it could not continue to pay in the event
the union-shop contract went into effect.
Without considering the effect of other statements contained in the
letter, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that the
above statements, which convey a thinly veiled threat of replacement
and a clear threat, in any event, of pecuniary loss, constituted improper
interference with the employees' free designation as to whether a
majority desired their representative to enter into a union-security
agreement. We shall, therefore, set the election aside.
Order
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on December 1, 1950,
among the employees of Kingsley Stamping Machine Company, Hol-
lywood, California, be, and it hereby is, vacated and set aside, and that
this proceeding be remanded to the Regional Director for further
proceedings in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations.
MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and HOMER RICHARDS , JR., PETI-
TIONER and DISTRICT No. 9, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, AFL. Case No. 14-RD-41. April 9,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a decertification petition duly filed , a hearing was held before
Milton O. Talent, 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 this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner , an employee of the Employer , asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative , as defined in Section 9 (a)
of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition.
The Union, a labor organization, is the currently recognized repre-
sentative of these employees.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit consisting
of all inspectors employed at the Employer 's St. Louis , Missouri,
plant, excluding safety and engineering inspectors and all super-
93 NLRB No. 212.
I McDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1269
visors. The Union contends that, in view of the similarity of inter-
ests, skills, working conditions, and employee benefits of these em-
ployees and the Employer's production employees, and because of
the past bargaining history, the existing production and maintenance
Unit, including the Employer's inspectors, is alone appropriate and
that the unit sought to be decertified is inappropriate. The Employer
takes no position as to the appropriateness of the unit.
In 1941 the Union was certified as the bargaining representative
of all employees of the Employer, excluding porters and watchmen,
clerical, administrative and professional employees, and supervisors.
Pursuant to agreement between -the Union and the Employer, inspec-
tors were excluded from the unit as administrative employees. In
1943, following a petition filed by the Union requesting a separate
unit of inspectors, the Board found appropriate a unit consisting
of all inspectors, excluding safety and engineering inspectors and
supervisors,' and certified the Union as the representative of this
unit. Since 1943, however, the Uniori has bargained for the inspec-
tors as part of the over-all unit, and the parties have negotiated
and executed contracts including both the production and mainte-
nance employees and the inspectors. Thus, although the Board's
1943 decision established a separate unit of inspectors, this unit has
been merged into the production and maintenance unit. The ques-
tion is therefore presented whether the Employer's inspectors may
be severed from the plant-wide unit despite the foregoing bargaining
history.
The Employer operates only one plant, at St. Louis, Missouri, where
it is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft. The approximately
290 inspectors involved herein work in the Employer's inspection de-
partment, which is a part of the manufacturing division. They are
under the supervision of a chief inspector, who reports to the vice
president in charge of manufacturing. Inspectors are assigned to
the various departments of the manufacturing division of the plant
to determine whether parts and assemblies made by production em-
ployees conform to specifications. Although inspectors are subject
to separate supervision, they work in close physical proximity to the
production employees. They work the same hours, are paid on the
same basis, and enjoy the same employee benefits as do the produc-
tion employees.
While the Board has often held that employees classified as in-
spectors in aircraft manufacturing plants, working under similar con-
ditions and performing similar duties as the inspectors involved
herein, may either constitute a separate appropriate unit 2 or be repre-
McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 49 NLRB 897.
2 Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 55 NLRB 577, 88 NLRB 49 ; McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation, supra. See Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288.
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sented in the same unit with production and maintenance employees,3
such employees do not meet the Board's requirements for severance
from an existing plant-wide unit. Moreover, in view of the similarity
of working conditions, interests, and skills between the Employer's
inspectors and its production and maintenance employees, we find
no reason to separate the inspectors from the production and main-
tenance employees with whom` they have been bargaining for more
than 7 years. Under these circumstances, we find that the unit sought
by the Petitioner is not appropriate,4 and we shall, accordingly, dis-
miss the petition.5
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
H Boeing Airplane Company, 92 NLRB No. 263; Bell Aircraft Corporation, 61 NLRB
1352; Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., supra.
4 General Mills, Inc., Sperry Division, 91 NLRB 984; Pacific Trailways, 91 NLRB
559. See Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 702.
Under these circumstances, we find it unnecessary to consider the other issues raised
by the parties in this proceeding.
ELIZABETHTOWN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 118, A. F. L., PETITIONER and
GAS EMPLOYEES PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INTERVENOR . Case No.
4-RC-1057. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Julius Topol,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
I The Intervenor , Gas Employees Protective Association , was properly allowed to
intervene on the basis of a contractual relationship between it and the Employer . Neither
the Intervenor nor the Employer urges a contractual bar to this proceeding.
2 In accordance with the stipulation between the Petitioner and the Employer , entered
into after the Intervenor 's representative withdrew from the hearing , we have considered
as part of the record herein the transcript and exhibits in an earlier case (Case No.
4-RC-785 ) involving the parties to this proceeding.
.. 93 NLRB No. 222.