Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 517 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R-3725.-Decided April 23,1947
Mr. Robert H. Conan, of Burbank, Calif., for the Employer.
Mr. E. R. White, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner.
Miss Irene R. Shriber, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
March 3, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among the employees
in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether or not they de-
sired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally reveals that of approximately 85 eligible voters,
68 cast valid ballots, of which 57 were for the Petitioner, and 11 against
the Petitioner.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on March
3, 1947, before Maurice J. Nicoson, hearing oflice:r. The hearing offi-
cer'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 the ground that the employees here involved are not
employees within the meaning of the Act. The hearing officer referred
this notion 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
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, a California corporation whose
principal office is in Burbank, California, is engaged in the manufac-
ture and sale of aircraft and aircraft parts. The Employer operates
six plants in the general vicinity of Burbank, all of which are in-
73 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
517
518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
volved in this proceeding. During the year 1946, the Employer
purchased for its California plants more than $30,000,000 worth of
raw material, of which more than 50 percent was obtained from points
outside the State of California. During the same period, sales of
finished products of the Employer's California plants totaled more
thai? $50,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to out-
of-State purchasers.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
i)f Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner claims that a unit of all the Employer's plant guards,
excluding supervisory employees, is appropriate. The Employer, in
opposing the establishment of such a unit, contends that these persons
are part of management and, therefore, not employees within the
meaning of the Act; it also contends that the Petitioner may not in
any event represent the plant guards inasmuch as it currently repre-
sents a majority of the Employer's rank-and-file employees.
The record shows that there are 85 plant guards working in the
Employer's 6 plants, 21 of whom are commissioned by the city of
Burbank. They are neither militarized nor armed but wear uniforms.
In the performance of their general duties of maintaining order and
protecting the Employer's property from damage and theft, these
guards patrol the plant property, check incoming and outgoing per-
sonnel and materials, direct traffic, and report safety hazards and
infractions of safety and conduct rules. They also escort airplanes
in transit from one plant to another over the public thoroughfares
and, in the event of emergencies, they may control, the movements of
employees and visitors on the premises. Their usual procedure upon
the discovery of employee violations of company rules is to report
the infraction to the supervisor of the guards who, in turn, reports
the matter to the supervisor of the employee involved. .
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 519
We have already determined that persons performing duties similar
to those outlined above are employees under the Act.' We have also
held that employees engaged in such occupation are not to be denied
their statutory right to designate as their bargaining representative a
labor organization which also represents other categories of
employees.2
We find that all the Employer's plant guards, excluding all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section-
9 (b) of the Act.
V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast. We shall,
therefore , certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Association of Machinists:
has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in
the unit described in Section IV, above, as their representative for-
the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section
9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is the exclusive representa-
tive of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Company case 3 which I find equally applicable here, I
would dismiss the present petition.
'Matter of Seeger -Sunbeam Corporation, Evansville Division , 69 N. L -R B 985 See
also the cases sited in footnote 2, below Cf Packarde Motor Car Company v N. L R. B.,
67 S Ct. 789 ; 19 L. L R. 2379 , decided March 10, 1947.
2 Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company , 71 N L. R B . 11 ; Matter of Cudahy Packing
Co , 65 N L R B. 10, 12; Matter of Craeq Shipbunldinq Company, 65 N. L. R. B 97; Matter
of Solar Manufacturing Corp , 65 N. L R. B 1366, 1368.
871 N. L. R. B. 11.