Curtiss-Wright Corp.

In the Matter Of CURTISS-`RIGHT CORPORATION and AMERICAN FEDERA- TION OF LABOR Case No. R-4399.-Decided November 13, 1940 Jurisdiction :'airplane propellers manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : re- fusal to bargain with petitioner. until certified by the Board ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees working as guards, excluding sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and special investigators. Spence, Windels, tiValser, Hotchkiss ct Angell, by Mr.-Andre Maxi- mov and Mr. Eric Nightingale, of New York City, for the Company. Mr. Jacob Friedland, of Jersey City, N. J., for the A. F. L. Mr. William C. Baisinger, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by American Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. L., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Curtiss-Wright y Corporation at its plants located at Clifton and Caldwell, New Jerse, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William T. Little, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at New York City; on October 14, 1942. The Company and the A. F. L. 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. The Company filed a brief which the Board has considered. On November 10, 1942, a stipulation, signed by all parties, pro- viding for correction of certain errors in the transcript was filed with the Board. The stipulation is hereby made a part of the record and the transcript is hereby ordered corrected in accordance'therewith. I Associated Propeller Workers did not appear at the hearing , although it had been, served with notice and had submitted membership cards to the Regional Director. 45 N. L R. B, No. 86. 592 CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION , 593 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a Delaware corporation, having its principal office in New York City. At the two plants here involved, which are located at Clifton and Caldwell, New Jersey, the Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of airplane propellers. For the purpose of this proceeding, the two above-- mentioned plants are considered as a single unit. During the 12- month period ending September 15, 1942, the Company purchased raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, more than. 90 percent of which was shipped to the Company from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period the Company produced and manufactured finished products valued at more than $3,000,000 over 90 percent of which was shipped by the Company to points out- side the State of New Jersey. The Company admits that it is en- gaged in interstate .commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The American Federation of Labor is, a labor organization ad-' mitting to iembership employees,of the Company. Associated Propeller Workers is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The A. F. L. had requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining agent of the plant-protection employees at the Clifton and Caldwell, New Jersey, plants. The Company questioned the appropriateness of the unit urged by the A. F. L. and refused to bargain with it until the Board had resolved this question and had certified the A. F. L. , A statement of the Regional Director introduced in evidence at the hearing indicates that the A. F. L. represents a substantial num- ber of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2 2 The statement of the Regional Director shows that the A F L submitted to him 73 authorization cards dated between June 16. 1942, and June 24, 1942, all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures of persons, whose names were on the Company's pay roll of July 25, 1942. This pay roll contains the names of 158 guards within the unit alleged appropriate by the A. F. L Associated Propeller workers submitted 33 application cards dated between June 6, 1942, and June 16, 1942, all of which bore apparently. genuine original signatures ` Of the 33 signatures . 31 are the names of persons on the Company's pay roll of July 25, 1942. 493508=43-vol. 45=38 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 A. F. L: contends that all employees working as guards in the Company's Clifton and Caldwell, New Jersey, plants, including sergeants, but excluding lieutenants, captains, and special investi- gators, comprise an appropriate unit. The, Company employs approximately 158 guards including ser- geants. The guards protect the plants against espionage, theft, tres- pass, fire, and accident hazards. Each .guard is required to take an oath of allegiance to the United States Government and is subject to the Articles of War while on duty. The record indicates that the guards are hired and paid by the Company and that the Company otherwise maintains all the aspects of the employer-employee relation- ship. The Company contends that, because of the intimate relation-, ship of their work to the war effort, the guards do not constitute an appropriate unit. For the reasons we have heretofore stated in similar cases, we find no merit in this contention.3 The sole controversy with respect to the scope of the unit concerns the sergeant guards. The Company argues that, because of their supervisory duties, the sergeants should be excluded from the unit. On'the other hand, the A. F. L: contends that the sergeants are work- ing foremen and should, as such, be included. The company employs 4' sergeants in each of the plants here involved. Each sergeant is in charge of approximately 24 guards, and spends a majority of his time maintaining discipline among the guards and preparing reports on their activities. The sergeants do not have the authority to hire or discharge guards under them, but neither do the lieutenants or cap- tains, who admittedly should be excluded from the unit. Each ser- geant receives $7 per week more than the guards and acts as a lieutenant when the lieutenant over him is absent. Inasmuch as the duties of the sergeants indicate that they are supervisory employees, we shall exclude them from the unit. We find that all employees working as 'guards in the Company's Clifton and Caldwell, New Jersey, plants, excluding sergeants, liev- tenants, captains, and special investigators constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.4 8 See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Parb Plant and Local 114, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America agiliated with the C. I. 0., 44 N. L. R. B . 881, and subsequent cases. 4 We find no merit in the Company's contention that the A. F. L. Is precluded from representing the guards because in a consent election agreement between the Company and the International Association of Machinists, an affiliate of the A. F. L., guards were excluded from a unit of production and maintenance employees. CURTIS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 595 V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate 'unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. On October 23, 1942, the Board received a request from the Asso- ciated Propeller Workers that it be allowed a place on the ballot in the event the Board ordered an election -herein. We shall afford it a place on the ballot. ' 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 Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations 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 Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Clifton and Caldwell, New Jersey, plants, 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 of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second 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 all employees. of the Company 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 in the active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by American Federation of Labor, or by Associated Propeller Workers, for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, or by neither.