Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 154 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of FAIRC H ILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION,
FAIRCHILD AIRCRAFT DI\ISION. EMPLOYER and FEDERAL LABOR
UNION , LOCAL 24015 , AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 5-R-093.-Decided April 3, 191^'y
Cravath, Swains cC Moore, by Mr. E. E. Buchanan, of New York
City, and Mr. Paul S. Cleavelamd, of Hagerstown, Md., for the Em-
ployer.
Mr. Joseph A. Padway, by Mr. James A. Glenn, of Washington,
D. C., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Robert J. Brylke, of Baltimore, lid., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Jack J. Mantel, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Hag-
erstown, Maryland, on August 14 and 15, 1946, before Earle K.
Shawe, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At
the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on various
grounds. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board. For
reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation is a Maryland corpo-
ration engaged in the manufacture and sale of aircraft and aircraft
engines and bonded plywood products at Hagerstown, Maryland;
Farmingdale, Long Island, New York; Jamestown, New York; and
Dallas, Texas. This proceeding concerns only the Fairchild Air-
craft Division located m and about Hagerstown, Maryland. Dur-
ing the year 1945, the Fairchild Aircraft Division purchased raw
73 N. L R. B, No 26.
154
FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION 155
materials, consisting chiefly of aluminum, steel, and other metals,
valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent of such
purchases originated from points outside the State of Maryland.
During the same period, the Employer made sales in excess of $2,-
000,000, of which more than 50 percent consisted of shipments to
points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. Til l-] OR(;ANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Intervenor,
is a labor organization, claming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
ILI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of any of its supervisory employees.
'The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
Board is without jurisdiction ),i this matter because the supervisors
herein sought to be represeute^, are not "employees" within the mean-
ing of the Act. The status of supervisory personnel has been con-
sidered in a number of cases, and both the Board' and the courts
have held that in relation to their employer supervisors are employees
within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the super-
visors involved in this proceeding are employees under the Act.
We find that, a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. Tun. APPIiOPRLA'i'E U- IT ; 'r l l i. DETIEROI1NA'rLON OF REI'RESENT_ATIVES
The Petitioner and the Intervenor seek a unit of supervisory enm-
ployees classified as foremen and general foremen who are employed
in the production department, quality control department, plant
operations department, and materials department. The Employer
contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate on the grounds that
13lotter of Jones