LTV Aerospace Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1968

170 N.L.R.B. 200 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LTV Aerospace Corporation (Range Systems Divi-
sion), Employer-Petitioner and International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
District 37, AFL-CIO, et al. Cases 23-RM-198
and 23-UC-25
March 11, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, ,IENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was,held before Clayton Corley, Hearing
Officer of the National Labor Relations Board.'
Thereafter, the Employer and District 37, Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called "IAM,"
each filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the Employer and the IAM, 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. The labor organization involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.2
3. Early in October 1967, the National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration,, hereinafter called
"NASA," awarded the Employer a contract (NAS
9-7500) to furnish certain facility and equipment
maintenance service to the Manned Spacecraft
Center near Houston, Texas. This contract, to
become effective on December 1, 1967, involved
the very same work which, prior to that date, had
been performed by three separate contractors
under three separate contracts with NASA. Until
December 1, Graham Engineering furnished
general facilities maintenance; Darius Fields Facili-
ties, a subsidiary of Brown & Root Northrup,
hereinafter called "DFF," furnished special pur-
pose equipment maintenance; and Lockheed Elec-
tronics Company, a subsidiary of Lockheed Air-
craft Corporation, performed engineering and
planning functions. There was no difference in the
statement of work required by NASA under the
consolidated contract from that required in the
three predecessor contracts, nor was there any
requirement that contractor personnel be reduced.
In fact most of the personnel employed by the
predecessor contractors became employees of the
Employer-Petitioner on December 1. The Em-
ployer hired 80 of the 140 Lockheed employees,3
90 of the 100 DFF employees, and all of the 500
Graham employees. Nevertheless, the consolidation
of the contracts permitted NASA to reduce costs in
that its supervision of one contractor did not neces-
sitate as large an administrative effort as did the
management of three contractors.
Prior to the actual award of the contract by
NASA, in late September 1967, LTV commenced
negotiations with the representatives of the 13 In-
ternational Building Trades unions who had
represented the Graham employees in six separate
' Pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director issued an order transferring the case to the Board for
decision
In addition to the IAM, the Building Trades Unions General President's
Committee and the following 13 International Building Trades Unions in-
tervened for the limited purpose of protecting their interests under their
contract with LTV Aerospace Corporation, International Association of
Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers,
Bricklayers, Masons & Plasters International Union of America, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Operative Plasters & Ce-
ment Masons International Association, International Hod Carriers, Build-
mg and Common Laborers Union, International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators & Paperhangers of America,
United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe
Fitting Industry of the United States and Canda, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, International Association of Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Iron Workers, Sheet Metal Workers International Association,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen &
Helpers
•` The former Lockheed employees, principally professional and techni-
cal employees, are not involved in the unit questions presented by these
cases
LTV AEROSPACE CORPORATION 201
Board certified collective-bargaining units,' and on and the IAM undertook negotiations regarding the
November 3, 1967, LTV entered into a collective - former employees of DFF, which the IAM had
bargaining agreement with these 13 International similarly represented in a Board certified unit.5 For-
unions. At or about the same time the Employer mal negotiating meetings with the IAM were held
4 The employees formerly employed by Graham are certified as follows
Case Number
23-RC-2567
Certified 12-6-65
IBEW LU #716
Consent Agreement
23-RC-2583
Certified 12-22-65
Pipefitters #211
Stipulation
23'^RC-2584
Certified 12-22-65
Plumbers LU #68
Stipulation
23-RC-2586
Certified 12-22-65
Carpenters Union
Stipulation
23-1ZC-2595
Certified 1-31-66
Asbestos Local 22
Boilermakers #74
Plasterers #681
Laborers #313
Oper. Eng. #450
Painters #130
Painters #550
Iron Workers #84
Teamsters #968
Stipulation
23-RC-2596
Certified 1-31-66
Sheet Metal LU 54
Stipulation
Unit
All inside wiremen and apprentices at Ellington Air Force Base and the NASA
Manned Spacecraft Center located in Harris County, Texas, performing electrical
work in connection with NASA Contract No. 9-1383 and any amendments thereto,
excluding all office clericals, administrative and professional employees, all
managers, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All journeymen pipe fitters and apprentices at Ellington Air Force Base and the
NASA Manned Space Craft Center located in Harris County, Texas, performing
work under the Project Agreement for maintenance by contract in connection
with NASA Contract No. 9-13 83 and any amendments thereto, excluding all
other employees, office clericals, administrative and professional employees,all
managers, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All journeymen plumbers and apprentices at Ellington Air Force Base and the
NASA Maimed Space Craft Center located in Harris County, Texas, performing
work under the Project Agreement for maintenance by contract in connection
with NASA contract No. 9,1383 and any amendments thereto, excluding all other
employees, office clericals, administrative and professional employees, all
managers, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All millwrights, carpenters, roofers, pile drivers, millmen and apprentices at
Ellington Air Force Base and the NASA Manned Space Craft Center located in
Harris County, Texas, performing work under the Project Agreement for mainte-
nance by contract in connection with NASA Contract No. 9-1383 and any amend-
ments thereto, excluding all other employees, office clericals, administrative
and professional employees, all managers, watchmen, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
All journeymen asbestos workers, boilermakers, heavy equipment operators, iron
workers, painters, cement masons, sign painters, laborers, truck drivers, material
checkers, warehousemen, and their related apprentices, employed at Ellington
Air Force Base and the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center located in Harris County,
Texas, performing work under the Project Agreement for maintenance by contract
in connection with NASA Contract No. 9-1383 and any amendments thereto,
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, including those work-
ing in the Employer's Real Property Department, administrative and professional
employees, all managers, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
All metal workers, including those engaged in the fabrication and erection, weld-
ing and other related work connected therewith, employed by Graham Engineer-
ing at Ellington Air Force Base and the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center located
in. Harris County, Texas, performing work under the Project Agreement for main-
tenance by contract in connection with NASA Contract No. 9-1383 and any amend-
ments thereto, excluding all other employees, office clericals, administrative and
professional employees, all managers, watchmen, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
' Employees formerly employed by DFF are certified as follows;
Case Number Unit
23-RC -2357 All employees engaged in preventive and reparative maintenance support
Certified 4-26-65 services for the laboratories , test facilities , and technical service shops at
Machinists Dist. 37 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration , Manned Spacecraft
RD Direction Center (tASA/MSC), and installation and maintenance workers, employed
by the Employer at the Manned Spacecraft Center , Houston, Texas , excludy
ing all professional, executive , and office clerical employees , guards,
watchmen , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on November 11, 15, and 30 and another was
scheduled for December 8. However, the Em-
ployer, having already filed the instant petitions the
previous day, refused to proceed with the meeting
of December 8. It is the Employer's position that a
letter it had received on November 30 from an at-
torney who represented certain Building Trades lo-
cals purported to raise a question concerning
representation of the former DFF employees, who
had been represented by the IAM, which neces-
sitated the filing of the instant election petition. In-
both the election and clarification petitions the Em-
ployer seeks to replace the various units found ap-
propriate by the Board under the predecessor con-
tracts with a single broad maintenance unit on the
ground that such a unit is appropriate in view of the
reorganization presently contemplated. By its peti-
tions, the Employer seeks a unit to be composed of
all maintenance employees now employed by LTV
Aerospace Corporation (Range Systems Division)
engaged in work specified in LTV/RSD Statement
of Work, part II, sections C, E, and F, at the
Manned Spacecraft Center, Harris County, Texas,
including employees in the electrical, mechanical,
grounds and labor, general support and main-
tenance shops departments, excluding all other em-
ployees, including office clerical employees,
watchmen, guards, technical employees, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.6
At the hearing the IAM moved to dismiss the
petitions on the grounds that they were untimely
filed, there is a contract bar, and the unit requested
is inappropriate. The contracts asserted to be a bar
are the agreements between DFF and the IAM' and
that between LTV and the 13 International Build-
ing Trades unions as well as the purported agree-
ment between the Employer and the IAM.'I The In-
ternational Building Trades unions intervened for
the limited purpose of protecting their interests
under their contract with LTV but stated that they
would take no position on the issues involved until
such time as a charge filed by the IAM under arti-
cle 21 of the AFL-CIO constitution (the no-raid
section ) against the 13 International unions could
be resolved by the Federation's tribunals.
The view we take of the matter makes it unneces-
sary to resolve many of the issues raised by the
IAM and the Employer. The fact that no union
seeks to represent all of the employees in the
proposed unit, we believe, is sufficient grounds to
dismiss the petition in 23-RM-198 entirely aside
from contract bar and 'unit issues raised by the
IAM The attorney who wrote the November 30
letter, purportedly on behalf , of the Building Trades
unions, claiming representational rights over the
former DFF employees, and which was used as the
basis of the Employer's contention that a question
of representation existed, testified that this letter
was written without authorization on the part of
any of the 13 International unions signatories to the
contract with LTV, or any subordinate labor or-
ganization, none of which has made any claim of
representation regarding the former DFF em-
ployees. Thus, although the Employer may have be-
lieved that a question of representation existed re-
garding the former DFF employees prior to its filing
the petition, no such question did in fact exist. In
any event, not 1 of the 13 International Building
Trades unions has made any claim that it seeks to
represent all of the employees in the proposed new
overall maintenance unit. Similarly, the IAM, argu-
ing that the employees it represented under DFF
are still doing exactly the same work as they had
done before and from the same geographical loca-
tion in spite of the Employer's attempted reor-
ganization, seeks only to have the petitions
dismissed and to continue this same representation.
The suggestion of the Employer that the 13 Interna-
tional Building Trades unions and the IAM, none of
whom have indicated any desire to represent all of
the employees in the proposed new unit, should not
participate in an election to represent the em-
ployees involved solely because some person,acting
without the authorization of any labor organization,
disputed the regularity of the Employer's de facto
recognition of the IAM as the representative of the
DFF employees hired by the Employer cannot but
disturb industrial stability and is contrary to the
purposes of the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the petition in 23-RM-198.
4. Nor do we find that the purposes of the Act or
the advancement of stability in the labor relations
in this particular industry would in any way be
enhanced by our finding that the unit sought in the
Employer's UC petition is an appropriate one. The
Employer has introduced evidence attempting to
show, on the one hand, that it envisions doing busi-
ness under a new form of organization wholly in-
tegrated, autonomous, and distinguished from the
M1 In its brief the Employer has also urged that employees of the
warehouse section of the logistics department and the operators and chief
roving operators of the operations department be included in the proposed
unit due to their close working relationship and identity with the main-
tenance employees
' Prior to the award of the consolidated contract by NASA to LTV, the
termination date of the collective-bargaining contract between DFF and
IAM was November 30, 1969
"The IAM has taken the position that its negotiations with the Employer
prior to the filing of the instant petitions resulted in a bona fide collective-
bargaining agreement sufficient to constitute a bar to the petitions in spite
of the fact that the agreement was never formalized
LTV AEROSPACE CORPORATION 203
organizations of its predecessors as to justify the
establishment and appropriateness of the proposed
new unit, the implementation of which to some ex-
tent has already been carried out. Nonunit profes-
sional and technical employees from Lockheed as
well as Graham have purportedly been integrated
on a functional if not entirely on a physical basis.
Similarly, unit maintenance employees are to be
functionally and geographically integrated into the
Employer's new organizational scheme in the next
few months. Certain standardizing programs have
already or will be implemented for all LTV em-
ployees. The Employer had indicated that it will,
among other things, _ establish new job classifica-
tions, centralized payroll, personnel, and purchas-
ing systems, a new safety and training as well as a
quality control program, and that it will furnish all
hourly rated employees with standardized uniforms.
On the other hand, the Employer admits, in sug-
gesting that perhaps it is a successor to the Graham
contract and that the former DFF employees are an
accretion to the former Graham unit, that its
proposed new organizational setup is essentially the
same form of organization used by Graham with the
exception of one new department, namely the
maintenance shop department. Furthermore, the
Employer admits that no substantial changes have
been made or are contemplated in reference to the
maintenance employees formerly employed by
Graham, and the evidence introduced indicates that
the largest segment of the former DFF employees
will in fact, upon the completion of the reorganiza-
tion, be employed in this new maintenance shop de-
partment. Only five former DFF employees have
been given added or changed assignments under
the implementation of this new organization; one
truckdriver , two mechanics , and two painters. The
remainder of the former DFF employees are still
geographically located offsite and their actual du-
ties have not as yet been changed.'
On the basis of the foregoing , we believe there is
insufficient, evidence to support the conclusion that
the Employer 's reorganization of its operations has
destroyed the appropriateness of the certified units
for purposes of collective bargaining. Thus, as to
the former Graham employees , the Employer in ef-
fect concedes that the reorganization will have little
or no effect on their functions and duties or on the
administrative arrangements under which they per-
form such functions . As to the former DFF em-
ployees , the largest group of them will be employed
in a separate administrative department , and there
is nothing to indicate that their functions and duties
will be greatly altered . Moreover , we do not believe
that the proposed merger or amalgamation of so
many different bargaining units represented by so
many different unions , none of which claims to
represent all the employees involved, is a matter
that may appropriately take place without an elec-
tion . Accordingly, we find that the request for
clarification is without merit , and we shall dismiss
the petition in 23-UC-25.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases
23-RM-198 and 23-UC-25 be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
" The Employer's witnesses have stated that the DFF employees will not
be moved on site nor merged into the proposed new organizational scheme
until such time as the Board resolves the matters presented by the instant
petitions