Consolidated Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 106 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORP.- and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AIRCRAFT LODGE 1125, AFL
Case No. R-4869.Decided March 16, 1943
Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry.
Investigation and, Certification of Representatives : existence of question: dis-
pute as to the appropriate unit; although the union desired an earlier pay roll,
current pay roll directed to be used to determine eligibility, when no reason
appeared for departing from Board's usual-practice; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : firemen in two plants of the com-
pany, excluding fire chiefs, fire captains, and engineers, notwithstanding
company's contentions that they were not employees within the meaning of the
Act and should not be represented by the same labor organization which repre-
sented the company's production and maintenance employees.
Mr. Harris G. Nelson, for the Company.
Mr. K. G. Phillips and Mr. H. C. Brown, of San Diego, Calif., for
the Union.'
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by International Association
,of Machinists, Aircraft Lodge 1125, AFL, herein called the Union,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation,
San Diego, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Robert 'C. Moore, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at San Diego, California, on February 10, 1943. The Company and
the Union 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 Company moved at the hearing
to dismiss the second amended petition filed by . the Union on the
ground that the proposed unit was inappropriate. Ruling on the
48 N L. R. B., No. 21.
106
CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORP. 107
motion was reserved for the Board. , In view of the findings set forth-
in Section 'IV, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are'hereby'affirmed. On March 1,.1943, the Company filed a brief
which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, a Delaware corporation,_inain-
tains its principal office and plants at San Diego, California, where it
is engaged in the design, manufacture, development, and sale of air-
craft.and aircraft parts and accessories. During the fiscal year end-
ing on November 30, 1942, the Company purchased materials, supplies,
and equipment having a value in excess of $50,000,000, of which more
than 50 percent was shipped to the Company's plants from points out-
side the State of California. During the same period, the value of
the products sold by the Company exceeded $95,000,000; substantially
all the sales were made to the United States Army and/or to the United
States Navy.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Aircraft Lodge 1125, is,
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that the Union requested a contract covering
the employees in the alleged .appropriate unit and that the Company
refused to grant the request on the ground that it did not consider
such employees to constitute an appropriate unit for collective bar-
gaining purposes. - '
A statement of the Trial Examiner, made at the hearing, indicates
that the Union represents a substantial number of employees-in the
unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.'
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.
' The Trial Examiner stated that the Union had submitted 59 application-for-membership
cards, all bearing apparently genuine original signatures , and that 28 of the cards bore
names of -persons whose names appeared on the Company ' s pay roll .for .February 6, 1943,
which listed 45 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union petitioned for a unit of all firemen and/or fire fighters
-employed by the Company, excluding the fire chief and assistant fire
chief. Evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that the Company
had no employees designated as "fire fighters" or "assistant fire chief."
Accordingly, at the hearing the Union contended for substantially the
following unit : all firemen employed by the Company in plant 1 and
plant 2 at San Diego, California, including fire engineers, but exchid-
-ing fire chiefs and fire captains. The Company contended first, that
the proposed unit was inappropriate because the duties and the re-
sponsibilities of firemen and their relationship to management is such
that they are not employees within the meaning of the Act; secondly,
-that even if firemen are employees within the meaning of the Act, they
should not be represented by the same union which now represents the
,Company's production and maintenance employees, because of differ-
'ences in functions and interests, because this would tend to destroy the
efficiency of firemen by leading to divided allegiance, and because it
would deter.the Company in the event of strikes'from`discharging. its
responsibilities of protecting government-owned property; and finally,
that should a unit of firemen be found appropriate, the fire engineers
should be excluded therefrom as supervisory employees.
The Company's two plants in San Diego, California, are located
.approximately 11/2 miles apart and are "connected by a private road-
way. A single plaiit protection department consisting of a fire fighting .
division and a police division serves both plants. Each plant has a
:single fire station under the immediate supervision of a fire chief, who
has under him 3 fire captains and 3 fire engineers distributed over 3
-shifts. The sole remaining classification is that of plant firemen, of
whom there are approximately 45 divided between the two plants.
'The plant firemen perform the normal duties associated with other,
fire fighting groups, and, in addition, patrol regular beats to watch for
fires, and fire hazards:
We have previously held that plant watchmen were not to be denied,
any of the rights or privileges granted to employees under Section
7 of the National Labor Relations Act, even though they chose to be
represented by a ,labor organization representing the production and
maintenance employees.2 The purposes served by plant firemen, and
thus their peculiar relationship to management, are substantially simi-
lar to those of plant watchmen. Furthermore, the instant proceeding
presents no facts justifying treating plant firemen any differently
2 Matter of Chrysler Corporattion, Highland Park Plant and Local 114, United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., 44
N. L R B 881, and subsequent cases.
CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT, CORP. 109
under the Act than plant watchmen. Accordingly, our decision
respecting watchmen is equally applicable to plant firemen. We find,
therefore, that the Company's first two contentions are without merit,
and that plant firemen are not only employees within the meaning of
the Act entitled to representation, but they may, if they choose, be
represented by the same labor organization which represents the
Company's production- and maintenance employees.
The Company, contended -further that should a.unit of its plant
firemen'be found appropriate, the fire engineers should be excluded
from the unit as supervisory employees. The fire engineer on each
shift cares for and operates the fire truck and pump. In addition,
lie is, in effect, second in command to the fire captain, regularly sub-
stituting for the captain on his day (or days) off. In the event of
emergencies, he may command a separate group of firemen. Both in
such emergencies and while acting as captain he has power to suspend
a firemen outright and to prefer charges seeking the latter's dismissal.
We shall exclude the fire.engineers from the appropriate unit.
We find that all firemen employed by the Company in plant 1 and
plant,2 at San Diego,:California,,excluding fire-chiefs,, fire captains,
and fire engineers, 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
I
We shall direct that the question concerning representation- which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The Union
requested that eligibility to vote be determined by a pay roll on or
about the date of the filing of its second amended petition (January
-28, 1943) . The record reveals no evidence justifying a departure from
our customary procedure. Accordingly, we find that those eligible to
-vote shall be the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our
Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions-
set forth therein.
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby I
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated
Aircraft, Corporation, San Diego, California, an election by secret
110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Twenty-first 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 any such 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
to 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, Aircraft Lodge 1125,
AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
M. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.