Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 22, 194350 N.L.R.B. 784 (N.L.R.B. 1943) Copy Citation In the Matter of DouGLAs AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 584 ,(AFL) Case No. R-5379.-Decided June 22,1943 Mr. Wendell B. Barnes, of Tulsa, Okla., for the-Company. Mr: Robert L. Webb, of Tulsa, Okla., for the Union. _41,r. Arthur Leff, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION'OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE - Upon a second amended petition duly filed by International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 584, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Douglas Aircraft Company, Tulsa, Oklahoma, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due .notice before Bliss Daffan, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Tulsa, Okla- homa, on May 14, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, par- ticipated, 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. On May 24, 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 Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation engaged in manufacturing aircraft and aircraft parts, and has its principal office at Santa Monica, California. The Company operates a number of plants in the States of California, Oklahoma, and Illinois. This proceeding is concerned only with its Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant. The purchases on a Company-wide basis of raw material used by the Com- pany during a particular period ending November 30, 1942, were of a 50 N. L. R B., No. 108. 784 4 DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. l -785 dollar value in excess of $75,000,000, and approximately 40 percent of such purchases was shipped across State lines before being received by the Company at its various plants. In excess of $3,000,000, of such purchases, represented the cost of raw materials used at the Tulsa plant, and-approximately 40 percent of this amount was shipped across State lines. During the same period the sales on a Company-wide basis were in excess of $400,000,000, of which $40,000,000 represented sales made at the Tulsa` plant. All of the sales made at the Tulsa''plant were represented by the delivery of aircraft to the United States Army Air Force, delivery being made,at an airport adjacent to the plant. In a prior ,proceeding before the Board, the Company admitted that it was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-• tions Act.' II. THE ORGANIZATION INyOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 584, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION It was stipulated at the hearing that on March 25, 1943, the Union requested the Company by letter to recognize it as the exclusive bar- gaining representative of the employees in the unit alleged by the Union to be appropriate. On March 30, 1943, the Company replied that it was referring the Union's request to California officials of the Company for action. No further reply was made by the Company. Subsequently, officials of the Company advised the Regional Director of the Board that recognition would not be granted to the Union be- cause the Company disagreed with the Union as to the appropriateness of the unit claimed. - A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2 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 Union seeks a craft unit of all building maintenance electricians who are employed at the Company's Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant. The unit 'Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc (El Segundo Division), 49 N L R B 819 2 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 72 authorization cards, 63 of which bole apparently genuine original signatures of persons listed on the Company's pay roll of May 5, 1943 , which contained the names of 97 employees within the unit alleged by the Union to be appropriate. 786 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD proposed by the Union is described in its second amended petition as follows:, Building maintenance electricians engaged in electrical mainte- nance and repairing, replacing and caring for all electrical appli- ances and apparatus- and equipment including light and power, wiring and fixtures, sprinkler systems, temperature controls, re- frigeration electrical maintenance, escalators, conveyors, private telephone systems, air-conditioning equipment, -tube systems, radios, public address system, elevators, motor generators and all other electrical equipment used in the generation, transmission, distribution or application of electrical current, but,excluding air- plane electricians and trainees and supervisors. The Company takes the position that a building maintenance craft unit is inappropriate and that only an industrial unit composed of all production and maintenance employees at the plant is appropriate. The Company also contends that, in the event the Board should con- clude that the unit alleged in the petition is appropriate, all "A", "B", and "C" leadmen within such unit should be excluded as supervisory' employees. The record discloses that building maintenance electricians are grouped by the Company in a separate department, known as its Elec- trical Maintenance department, which is part of its plant engineering division. Except for about, seven employees whom the Union does not desire to include in the unit, this department is composed entirely of building maintenance electricians 3 Although it appears that the employees in the requested unit are engaged in electrical maintenance work throughout the plant and that their functions are to some extent integrated with that of other maintenance employees who are not elec- tricians, it is clear from the record that the maintenance electricians, 'alone, constitute a functionally distinct and cohesive group which is recognized by the Company as such. R. F. Hurt, the head of the Com- pany's plant engineering division, testified that the employees engaged in this work had been set up in a separate department because of their functional coherence. %It appears that the Union has confined its organization at the plant to building maintenance electricians, all of whom are members of a well defined and long established craft. Although the Company claims that an industrial unit is the only appropriate form of unit at the plant, the Company recently entered into a cross-check agreement with the National Union of United Aircraft Welders of America, as a result of which that union was certified by the Regional Director as '3 The employees in this department whose inclusion the Union does not seek are engaged in work of a clerical or mechanical nature. - Their job classifications are as follows : maintenance electrical truck and battery mechanic ; department clerk ; repair mechanic- electric or pneumatic portable tool ; and repair mechanic-spray gun. I DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 787 the bargaining representative for welders employed at the Company's Tulsa plant. There is ' no evidence indicating that, apart from the welders and maintenance electricians, any organizational efforts have been conducted among-employees at the Tulsa plant. Under the cir- cumstances the contention of the Company that only an industrial unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining between the Com- pany and its employees is not persuasive.' We do not consider our- selves obliged to give heed to the appropriateness of a hypothetical unit and, in the meantime, to deny the maintenance electrician employ- ees, who have organized themselves on a strictly craft basis, the right to engage in collective bargaining as provided by the Act. Upon the`facts of this case we are of the opinion that a unit limited to build- ing maintenance electricians is appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining. The record discloses that the. Company employs in its Electrical Maintenance department a number of employees, known as leadmen, who supervise and direct the work of other employees in the depart- ment. Leadmen in the Company are generally divided into three classes, styled "A", "B", and "C". It appears that class "C" leadmen, in addition to their supervisory functions, also perform work similar in nature to that of employees whose work they direct; the record does not clearly show, however, whether class "A" or class "B" leadmen also work along with the employees whom,they direct. According to the uncontradicted testimony adduced on behalf of the Company, all three classes of leadmen make recommendations concerning the dis- charge and discipline of employees working under them. All three classes are also authorized to make recommendations with respect to the "up,grading" or promotion of employees who are subject to their supervision. While only class "A" and class "B" leadmen sign the reclassification request forms, class "C" leadmen at periodic intervals prepare analysis sheets grading the employees under them on the basis of their ability, conduct, and production, and promotions are, in part, based on such analysis grades. As a general rule, it is our policy to exclude from the appropriate unit employees who supervise or, direct the work of employees therein, and who have authority, to hire, promote; discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of such employees, or whose official recommendations concerning such action are accorded effective weight. Applying this general rule to the facts disclosed by the record' in this case, we are of the opinion, and find, that the leadmen here in- volved are supervisory employees acid, as such, should be excluded from the appropriate unit. We find that all building maintenance electricians, who are em- ployed by the Company at its Tulsa, Oklahoma, plant, excluding I' 788 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD airplane electricians , trainees , and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, discharge, discipline, or otherwise• effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES At the hearing, the Company contended that, because it contem- plated an expansion of the number of persons employed by it as building maintenance electricians, no election should be ordered until a substantial percentage of, its estimated total complement of em- ployees in the unit had been employed. In support of its contention, the Company introduced evidence tending to show that; pursuant to its program for the manufacture of Army aircraft at its Tulsa plant, it was about to construct a number of additional structures known as modification centers, and that, upon the completion of these modi- fication centers, the building maintenance electricians' unit would be expanded from approximately 91 employees-who were in such unit at the time of the hearing, to approximately 265 employees by,the end of 1943. At the time of the hearing, however, the plans for these additional structures had not yet been, completed, and, according to the Comp'any's estimate, it was not anticipated that the structures could be completed before the end of September 1943. Moreover, the evidence indicates that at the present time the unit is not in the process of expansion, and that the number of employees therein has increased but slightly since July 1942. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that 'the employees affected should be deprived of their right at the present time, to bargain collectively as provided by the Act. We will accordingly proceed with an immediate determination of representatives. How- ever, in,accordance with the principles which we enunciated in the Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company case,4 we shall not, in the event a collective bargaining representative is certified as a result of this proceeding, adhere to our usual 1-year rule relating to, certification. We shall, instead, entertain a new petition for an in- vestigation and certification of representatives at any time following issuance of any certification in, this proceeding, provided we are sat-- isfied, under all the circumstances then shown (including that there has been a substantial increase in the number of employees at the Tulsa plant within the unit, and that the petitioner represents a substantial number of employees theiein).,,that a question concerning representation has arisen. We shall direct that the question concerning representation which 4Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company, Louisville Oodnante Divi- sion, 38 N . L. R. B. 412. I DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 789 has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees 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 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, 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., Tulsa, 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 supervision 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, 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 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 at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause , to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 584, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 536105-44-vol 50-51 r Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation