Hughes Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 1016 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACIIINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-2095. Jame 26,
1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Daniel J. Harrington,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing plant-wide unit
all general machinists, precision machinists, precision development
mechanics, bench machinists, precision tool grinders, milling machine
operators, setup men for machine tools, turret lathe operators, tool
and die makers, jig and fixture builders (metal), experimental me-
chanics whose work is predominantly that of machinists, and drill
press operators and hand and power burrers in the general machine
shop and aeronautical machine shop, but excluding jig and fixture
builders (wood), office and clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors. The Employer and the Intervenor, Aircraft Industry
Workers, Local 1553, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America, AFL, contend that only the existing plant-wide unit is
appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, research, and de-
velopment of electronic equipment, aircraft, and ordnance at plants
and facilities in Culver City, Inglewood, and Long Beach Harbor,
California. For approximately 8 years the Intervenor has been
the recognized bargaining representative of the Employer's produc-
tion and maintenance employees including the employees whom the
Petitioner now seeks to represent in a separate unit.' In 1949, on
'Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 NLRB 867; Hughes Tool Company , d/b/a Hughes Air-
craft Company , 52 NLRB 715.
99 NLRB No. 145.
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 1017
the petition of the Petitioner, the Board found appropriate a unit of
production and maintenance employees, excluding electricians and
welders2 The Intervenor won this election . The Petitioner now seeks
a machinist craft unit.
The Employer and the Intervenor refer to the bargaining history
and the fact that collective bargaining in the southern California
aircraft industry has been on a plant-wide basis, in urging the Board
to find the proposed machinist unit inappropriate.
However, the Employer is already bargaining for electrician and
welder craft units in the very plants involved in this proceeding .3
The Board has also found craft units, including machinist craft
units , appropriate at other aircraft plants.4 We perceive no reason,
therefore, why machinists in the Employer's plants cannot similarly
bargain on a craft basis, notwithstanding a previous Board determi-
nation finding a plant-wide unit appropriate,5 a bargaining history
on a broader basis,6 or the bargaining practice in other aircraft plants
in southern California.7
There remains only the question of the composition of the proposed
unit. Except for drill press operators and burrers, the employees
in the proposed unit appear to be the kind of skilled machinists who
the Board has found may constitute a separate appropriate unit.'
The drill press operators and the burrers do not have the skill of
machinists and therefore do not have the community of interest
binding together members of the same craft. We shall exclude them.
The Petitioner would include, and the Employer and Intervenor
exclude, experimental mechanics whose predominant work is that of
machinists. The job classification "experimental mechanic" covers
highly skilled mechanics who have different specialized skills. Some
do sheet metal work, some do machinist work, some do silver soldering
or template work. As stated, the Petitioner desires to include only the
experimental mechanics whose work and training is predominantly
that of machinists. In view of the fact that these employees are
2 Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 NLRB 867.
8Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 NLRB 867.
* NEPA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation , 88 NLRB 99 ; Consoli-
dated Vultee Aircraft Corporation , 88 NLRB 49.
8 Section 9 (b) (2) of the Act provides that the Board shall not "decide that any craft
unit is inappropriate for such purposes on the ground that a different unit has been estab-
lished by a prior Board determination , unless a majority of employees in the proposed craft
unit vote against separate representation ." See also National Tube Company, 77 NLRB
1199.
'Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division , 96 NLRB 1075 ; Consolidated Vultee
Aircraft Corporation, supra.
7 NEPA Division of Fatrehtld Engine and Airplane Corporation, supra.
8International Harvester Company, 87 NLRB 1101.
1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machinists in background and in the work they perform, we shall
include them.' -
Although machinists may constitute an appropriate unit, they may
also continue to be represented, as in the past, in the plant-wide unit.
In these circumstances, we shall not make any unit determination until
we have first ascertained the desires of the employees themselves. We
shall direct an election in the voting group described below. If a ma-
jority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described
below, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority
vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appro-
priate and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results :of
election to such effect.
The voting group is :
All general machinists, precision machinists, precision development
mechanics, bench machinists, precision to grinders, milling machine
operators, setup men for machine tools, turret lathe operators, tool
and die makers, jig and fixture builders (metal) and experimental
mechanics whose work is predominantly that of machinists, in the
Employer's plants and facilities at Culver City, Inglewood, and Long
Beach Harbor, California, excluding drill press operators, hand and
power burrers, jig and fixture builders (wood), office and clerical
employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication, in this
volume.]
'The Employer and the Intervenor contend that an existing contract bars the inclusion
of experimental mechanics in the unit . This contention is based on the fact that in its
original and amended petitions the Petitioner did not list experimental mechanics for inclu-
sion in the unit. Thereafter , the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a collective
bargaining contract covering all production and maintenance employees with the exception
of those listed in the petition filed in this case . At the hearing, which was held after the
execution of the contract , the Petitioner amended its petition to include experimental
mechanics who worked predominantly as machinists . As the amendment made by the
Petitioner did not change the nature of the unit sought, or materially enlarge its scope, we
do not consider the amendment as a new claim or petition barred by the existing contract.
B. L. Bruce Company , 74 NLRB 1354 ; Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 73 NLRB
784; International Harvester Company , supra.
Compare Hy8ter Company, 72 NLRB 937, wherein the petitioning union amended its
petition at the hearing by alleging as appropriate a unit much larger and substantially
different from that which it originally sought. In that case the Board dismissed , the peti-
tion because the amendment was in the nature of a new claim or petition , and as such was
clearly unseasonable with respect to an existing contract.