Consolidated Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 26, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In, the Matter Of CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH
DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE
776-A
Case No. R-4712.-Decided January O6, 1943
Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord recognition without certification of Board ; immediate election
directed- notwithstanding contemplated increase in personnel when postpone-
ment held not warranted under the circumstances ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all hourly rated production and
maintenance employees at one of company's two plants, including confidential
employees performing manual labor, tool designers who perform manual labor,
tool provers, and leadmen, but excluding executives, administrators, profes-
sional employees, draftsmen, and technicians, general office employees, general
foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, supervisors and assistant supervisors,
department heads, assistants to department heads, engineers, medical em-
ployees, plant-protection employees, accounting and cost employees, timekeepers
and time clerks, inspectors, tool designers not performing manual labor, tool
design checkers, tool clerks and student employees
Mr. Raymond E. Buck and Mr. J. M. Hassler, of Fort Worth, Tex.,
for the Company.
Mr. L. M. Fagan, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Machinists.
Mr. George Clifton Edwards, of Dallas, Tex., for the UAW-CIO.
Mr. Leon Novak, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION ^
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Association of Machinists,
Lodge 776-A, A. F. L., herein called the Machinists, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Divi-
sion, Fort Worth, Texas 1 herein called -the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
'Incorrectly designated in the petition and other formal papers as "Consolidated Air-
craft Corporation. Plant #3, Fort Worth Division" and corrected by stipulation at the
hearing.
47 N. L R. B., No. 6.
30
"CONSOLIDATED"AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
f
31
notice before Elmer Davis, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Forth Worth, Texas, on December 21 and 22, 1942. The Company,
the Machinists, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein
called the UAW-CIO,2 appeared, participated, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine' witnesses and
to introduce evidence bearing, on the issues. 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 Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Consolidated Aircraft Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
plants located at San Diego, California, and Fort Worth, Texas. We
are here concerned with its plant at Fort Worth, Texas, known as the
Fort Worth Division; which is maintained for the purpose of manu-
facturing airplanes. During,the first 6 months of 1942, the Company,
at its Fort Worth Division, used raw materials, the principal one
being aluminum, valued in excess of $500,000, over 90 percent of which
was shipped to it from points outside Texas. During the same period,
the Company delivered to the United States Army at the plant of the
Company in Fort Worth, finished airplanes valued in excess of $1,000,-
000. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Lodge 776-A, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING "REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Machinists as exclusive repre-
sentative of the Company's employees until such time as the Machinists
is certified by the Board.
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Machinists represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.'
2 During the course of the hearing , the UAW-CIO wrthdi ew from the proceeding .
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Machinists presented 5,030 application cards
hearing apparently genuine sign a tures; that a spot check indicated that approximately
37.8 percent of the Company's employees on the pay roll as of October 30, 1942, which
contained names in excess of 10,000, were names appearing among the signatures to the
application cards presented.
32 'DECISIONS OF , NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
We find that aquestion 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 agreed that all hourly rated production and maintenance
employees should be included in the unit, and that executives, admin=
istrators, professional employees (including draftsmen and techni-%
cians), general office employees,, general foremen, supervisors,
department heads, assistants to department heads, engineers, medical
employees, plant-protection employees, and accounting and cost em-
ployees, should be excluded. They have failed to agree, however, upon
the inclusion or exclusion of the classifications. of employees herein-
after discussed.
Foremen and assistant foremen. The Company seeks to exclude
these employees from the appropriate unit. The Machinists takes no
position as to their inclusion or exclusion. These employees have the
authority to hire and discharge. Their functions are clearly of a
supervisory nature. We shall, therefore, exclude them.
Confidential employees. These employees are located in several of
the Company's production departments and perform manual labor
similar to that of other production employees. They are paid on an
hourly, biweekly or monthly basis. There are, also, confidential em-'
ployees who are engaged in ' experimental work who do not perform
manual labor and whose duties are of a professional nature. These
confidential employees, thus engaged in professional work, are ex-
cluded by agreement of the parties. The Company seeks to exclude all
other confidential employees, as well, from the appropriate unit. The
Machinists would include those confidential employees who are en-
gaged in manual labor. We shall include, in the appropriate unit,
those confidential employees who perform manual labor, since their
,work is similar to that of other employees included and they have
nothing to do with confidential matters relating'to labor relations.
Inspectors. The company seeks to exclude all inspectors. The
Machinists would exclude only supervisory inspectors,and would in-
clude hourly rated inspectors working in a non-supervisory capacity.
Although they do not have the authority to hire or discharge, these
employees are engaged in the supervision of the quality of the work
performed by production and maintenance employees. They receive
special training and must be able to read blueprints, employ a knowl-
edge of mathematics in their calculations, and be familiar with the
qualities of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. They are paid on an
hourly, biweekly or monthly basis. We shall exclude inspectors
from the appropriate unit, since their interests are` identified with
management.
CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION' 33
Tool designers. These employees fall into two categories: those
working exclusively with blueprints, slide rules, and technical instru-
ments and those performing manual labor in the toolroom and about
the plant. The Machinists seek to include all tool designers: in the
appropriate unit. The Company takes no position as to their in=
elusion or exclusion. We shall include in the appropriate unit only
those tool designers performing manual labor, and exclude the other
tool designers inasmuch as they are technical employees. '
Tool design checkers work in the engineering department checking
on designs and blueprints. They perform no manual labor, but are
primarily engaged in clerical and technical duties. We shall there-
fore exclude them.
Tool provers perform manual labor, being engaged in the repair of
tools. We shall include them in the appropriate unit.
Tool clerks keep records and accounts of tools. They are,hourly
rated employees but perform no manual labor. We shall exclude
them as'clerical employees.
Assistant supervisors act as assistants to the heads .of administra-
tive departments. They perform work in their respective depart-
ment analogous to that of assistant foremen in the production depart-
ments, whom we.have excluded. We shall exclude them from the
appropriate unit.
Timekeepers are engaged'in checking the time cards, and time clocks
upon the 'arrival and departure of employees to and from work. They
are hourly rated employees. Time" clerks transfer data from time
cards to the records of the Company. They are biweekly rated em-
ployees. The Machinists would include these employees in the ap-
propriate unit while the Company would exclude •them. Since time-
keepers and time clerks are engaged in clerical work, we shall exclude
them from the unit. `
Leadmen are, engaged in the instruction of production and main-
tenance employees-and perform manual labor as part of their work.
They receive a higher rate of pay than the production employees.
They do not Have the authority to hire or' discharge, but may recom-
mend disciplinary action to the assistant foreman or foremen who are
the first supervisory employees vested with disciplinary authority.
The Machinists seek to include these employees in the appropriate
unit. The Company takes no position as to their inclusion or exclu-
sion. We shall•include them in the appropriate unit.
Student, employees of the Company are trained in classes conducted
by instructors on the Company's pay roll. They receive learners'
.wages of 50 cents per hour, for a limited number ' of• hours while
working.. They do not take regular places in" the production depart-
ments of the, Company until their courses have been completed and
they are not permitted to go about the plant until that time. The
513024-43-vol 47-3
V
34 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Machinists seeks to. exclude them from the appropriate unit ; the Com-
pany would include them. We find that student employees should
be -excluded, since they do not become regular production, employees
until they have completed, their training course.
We find that all hourly, rated production and maintenance em--
ployees of the Company; including confidential employees performs
ing manual labor, tool designers who perform 'manual labor, tool
provers, and leadlnen,, but excluding executives, administrators, pro-
fessional employees, draftsmen, and technicians, general office em-
ployees,general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, supervisors
and assistant'supervisors, department heads, assistants to department
heads, engineers, medical employees, plant-production 'employees,
accounting and cost employees, timekeepers and time clerks, inspectors,
tool designers not performing manual labor, tool design checkers, tool
clerks, and student employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Actual production at the Fort Worth Division did,not begin until
February 1942, and since that time the number of employees has
rapidly expanded. On October 30, 1942, the Company had in its
employ more than 10,000 employees. According to an estimate of
the Company, about 25 percent of the expected total force was em-',
ployed in October and it is anticipated that the full complement
of,employees will not be reached until about December 1943. How-
ever, it appears that this estimate may not be realized, since new
employees are added at,the rate of about 500 per month.
The Company contends that no election should be directed at
this time on the ground that -a certification would be premature; in
that a large number of workers who are expected to be employed would
have _ no voice in the choice of their representative. However, the
actual, rate of present expansion will not result in doubling the
October pay roll until considerably more than a year hence., We do
not believe that the large number of employees now working should
be deprived of their, right at the present time to bargain colle- `,vely
with the Company as provided in the Act. We shall accoruingly
proceed with an immediate determination of a representative.
Nevertheless, we shall not, in the event a collective bargaining repre-
sentative,is certified-as a result of this proceeding, adhere to our usual
rule of refusing to entertain. a petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives ,within 1 year after we have issued a certifica-
tion. ,We shall instead, entertain a new petition for an 'investigation
,and .certification of rep'resentati'ves' at 'any time following issuance
V
CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 35
of any certification in this proceeding , provided we are satisfied,
under all the circumstances then shown ( including proof that there
has been a substantial increase in the number' of employees at the,
Fort Worth Division and that the petitioner/ represents a substantial
number of employees ), that a question concerning, representation-
affecting commerce has . arisen 4
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the eri-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby -
DIRECTED that,' as- part of the investigation to ascertain repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated
Aircraft •Corporation, Fort Worth Division, Fort Worthy Texas, 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 supervision of the Regional Director for the Six-
teenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules
and Regulations , 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 em-
ployees 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 any who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by International Association of Machinists , Lodge 776-A,
affiliated with the A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
4 See Matter of Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company and International
Association of Machinists, Local 804 (A F of L ), 38 N, L R. B 404,
r
In the Matter Of CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH
DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION - OF, MACHINISTS ,, LODGE,
776-A
Case No. R-4712,-
-AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND DI•RECTION'OF'
ELECTION
February 9,1943
On January 26, ,1943, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceedings Thereafter, on February 3, 1943, Consoli-
dated Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Division, filed exceptions to'
the said Decision and Direction of Election.
Having considered the said exceptionsi the Board hereby amends
that part of the, Decision 'and Direction of Election entitled "V. The
determination of representatives" by striking therefrom the first para-
graph and the first three-sentences of the second paragraph and sub-
stituting therefor the following:
r •
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Actual production at the Fort Worth Division began 'in February
1942, and since that time the number of employees has rapidly ex-
paraded. On October 30, 1942, the Company had in its employ more
than 10,000 employees. It is hiring new employees at the rate of about
500 per week. The Company estimates•that in December 1943, it will
have 'about 80 percent of its anticipated full complement. However,
it contends that no election should- be directed at this time on the
ground that a certification,would:be premature, in that a large, number
of workers who are expected to be employed would have no voice in
the choice of their representatives.
At the present rate of expansion it appears that by about March 1,
1943, the Company will have approximately 50 percent of the antici--
pated, force to be attained in December 1943. Under all the facts, we
do not believe that the large number of employees now working,.many
of whom have been employed for a period of about 1 year, should be
deprived of their right at the present time to bargain collectively with
the Company as provided in the, Act. -
1 47 N. L. R. B., No. 6.
47 N: L. R. B., No. 6a.
36