Boeing Aircraft Co.

In the Matter of BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY and ASSOCIATION OF AIRCRAFT SUPERVISORS OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON Case No. R-4233.-Decided November 17, 1942 Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry. Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within the scope of the petition-unit composed-of general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen, held inappropriate. Mr. E. R. Perry, Mr. P. P. Ogden,, and Mr. Paul Fredrickson, of Seattle, Wash., for the Company. Chadwick , Chadwick i, Mills, by Mr. Stephen F. Chadwick, Mr. George James, Mr. Roy Farrell, Mr.*Lynn Morrell , and Mr. Willard H. Schultz, of Seattle, Wash., for the Association. Mr. L. Presley Gill, Mr. H. J. Gibson, Mr . William J. Muirhead, Mr. Gary Cotton, of Seattle, Wash., and Mr. James A. Duncan, of Washington, D. C., for Lodge 751. Mr. Louis A . Pontello , Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEbIENr OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by Association of Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, herein called the Association, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Boeing Aircraft Company, Seattle, Washington, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing and for a further hearing upon due notice before William A. Babcock, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearings were held at Seattle, Washington, on August 31, 1942, and September 14, 1942. The Company, the Association, and Aeronauti- cal Industrial District Lodge ,No. 751, of the International Associa- tion of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called Lodge 751, appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, 45 N. L R B., No. 95' 630 BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 631 and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the original hearing, Lodge 751 moved that the petition be dismissed on the grounds (1) that the Association is not a labor organization within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and (2) that the unit. sought by,the petitioner is not an,appropriate unit since it con- sists of a group of management employees. The Trial Examiner referred the motion to the Board. For the reasons which appear in Section III below, Lodge 751's motion to dismiss on the ground the proposed unit is not appropriate for bargaining is granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Association and Lodge 751 filed briefs which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Boeing Aircraft Company is a Washington corporation engaged in the manufacture of aircraft. It owns and operates three plants in Seattle, Washington, and one plant at Renton, Washington, which are the plants involved in this proceeding. The Company annually purchases and ships to its plants in the State of Washington from points outside the State, raw materials, supplies, machinery, and equip- ment valued in excess of $100,000. It manufactures products having a value in excess of $100,000 annually, which are shipped to points out- side of the State of Washington. The Company admits it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. H. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Association of Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, of the International Association of Machinists, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of,Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The Association urges that all general foremen, foremen, and as- sistant foremen in the factory divisions of the Company in both its Seattle and Renton plants, as well as comparable supervisory personnel in certain departments, but excluding executives, administrative as- 632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sistants, and supervisory employees of higher rank than general fore- men, constitute an appropriate unit. Lodge 751 contends that such a unit is inappropriate. The Company takes no position with respect to, the unit. The supervisory employees in the factory divisions are generally classified in rank as-general- foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen. The supervisory employees in the office divisions are called supervisors and assistant supervisors; they have powers and duties similar to the supervisory employees in the factory divisions. In the discussion which follows, reference to supervisors in the factory divisions will include supervisors in the office divisions. Except in some of the small shops or departments, there is a general foreman and several foremen and assistant foremen. A general fore- man has general supervision of all employees of a shop on all ,the shifts. He has the power to recommend, wage increases and promo- tions for all employees, and he may also discharge all supervisory or non-supervisory employees in the shop. He has the power to overrule any action taken by a foreman or assistant foreman under him. A foreman usually has charge of an entire shop on_ one of the shifts, but he is responsible to the general foreman for production and man- agement of the shop. He supervises the work of the assistant fore- men under him. An assistant foreman is in charge of a portion of a shop during one shift, and he is responsible to the foreman for its management. Although 'the assistant foremen may perform certain managerial acts, such as the discharging of'employees, these acts are subject to the approval of supervisory employees of higher rank. Freedom of action on part of the assistant foreman depends largely upon his experience and the nature of the relationship between him and his foreman. Each supervisory rank has meetings which are only attended by supervisors of such rank. The assistant foremen do not usually attend the meetings of the foremen nor do the foremen attend the meetings of the general foremen. Under all these, circumstances, we are' of the opinion, and find, that the various levels of supervisory employees of the' Company cannot appropriately be grouped, as the Association contends, in a single unit. The general foremen exercise a substantial degree of supervision over foremen and assistant foremen, while the assistant foremen are subject to both the foremen and general foremen. We find that the unit proposed by the Association is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' - ' See Matter of Stanley Company of America , et at. and United Office & Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , Case No. R-4244, decided this day, 45 N. L. R. B. 625. 1 BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 633 , IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since, as found in Section III above, the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, we find that no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and the entire record in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Boeing Aircraft. Company, of Seattle, Washington, filed by Association of Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring specially : I concur in the dismissal of the petition, since I believe that my observations in Stanley Company of America, Case No. R-4244,'de-- cided this day, apply with equal force to the instant case. t