Douglas Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 682 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Douglas Aircraft Company, a Component of the
McDonnell Douglas Corporation i and Internation-
al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-12931
December 1, 1973
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND'KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on November 8, 9, and 17, 1972,
before Hearing Officer Theodore B. Horn. Following
the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 21, this case was transferred to the
National Labor Relations Board for decision. There-
after, the Employer and Petitioner filed briefs.
On April 18, 1973, the Board issued an order
reopening record and remanding proceeding to
Regional Director for the purpose of receiving
additional evidence as to the alleged supervisory
status of pilots. The Board directed that the further
hearing be held before an Administrative Law Judge.
Pursuant thereto, another hearing was held before
Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston. On
June 25, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge issued
his report in which he made certain findings of fact
relating to the alleged supervisory status of pilots.
The Employer and Petitioner subsequently filed
exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's find-
ings.2 The Employer also filed a brief in support of
its exceptions and an answering brief to Petitioner's
exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the'
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. Petitioner and the Intervenor-3 are labor organ-
izations claiming to represent certain employees of
the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(I) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of
aircraft pilots and flight engineers at the Employer's
Long Beach, California, facility. The Employer,
contrary to the Petitioner, contends that the pilots
are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11)
of the Act. The Intervenor took no position. The
parties agree that if pilots are excluded, a unit limited
to flight engineers would be appropriate. There is no
history of collective bargaining.
The Employer is engaged in the production of
commercial and military aircraft in Long Beach,
California. It has about 35 pilots4 and 16 flight
engineers employed in the flight operations depart-
ment, the department which is responsible for the
engineering testing and test flight programs. These
programs entail: (1) basic engineering testing and
flight testing prior to sale; (2) crew training for the
customer's pilots; (3) final testing and delivery after
sale to customers ; and (4) the revisit program after
sale to assist customers , to observe customer's crew
performance, to further train customer-crews, and to
trouble-shoot. The pilots are classified as transport
pilot, engineering test pilot, and production and
delivery pilot. They are licensed and certified by the
Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and they are rotated
among the various flight programs described above,
as needed. All pilots serve some of their time as
captains, at which time they are responsible for, and
in complete control of, the plane and all persons on
board, and this is the basis for their alleged
supervisory status.
The pilots work with a crew which varies according
to the characteristics of the aircraft. A normal
delivery and training flight crew consists of a
captain-pilot, copilot, and one or two flight engi-
neers . The crew for a revisit mission may consist of
only the so-called captain-pilot. An engineering and
flight test crew, in addition to the normal crew, may
have 30 other employees conducting various tests on
subsystems of the aircraft.
The record shows, inter alia, that the pilot is
responsible for the airplane and crewmembers
aboard, for the successful accomplishment of the
mission, and for assigning duties to the designated
copilot and flight engineer. He also has the authority
to relieve flight crewmembers of their duties aboard
the plane.
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. Implement Workers of America (UAW), was allowed to intervene on a
2 The Employer has requested oral argument This request is hereby sufficient showing of interest.
denied because the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present 4 In addition, the Employer has two pilots to fly helicopters but their
the issues and the positions of the parties . status is not in issue because they do not serve as captains.
3 International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural
207 NLRB No. 90
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO.
We have recently found in a similar case 5 that
pilots whose duties and responsibilities are identical
in major respects to those of the pilots in issue herein
were supervisors.
Accordingly, we conclude on the basis of the entire
record that the pilots are supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and we shall
exclude them from the unit.
In view of the foregoing, we find the following unit
to be appropriate for the. purposes of collective
683
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act:
All flight engineers employed by the Employer at
its Long Beach, California, plant, excluding
aircraft pilots, helicopter pilots, all represented
employees, office clerical employees, watchmen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
5 See Lockheed-California Company, a Division of Lockheed Aircraft
Corporation, 207NLRB No. 92, and cases cited therein.