Consolidated Aircraft Corp.

In, the Matter Of CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 776-A Case No. R-4712.-Decided January O6, 1943 Jurisdiction : aircraft manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re- fusal to accord recognition without certification of Board ; immediate election directed- notwithstanding contemplated increase in personnel when postpone- ment held not warranted under the circumstances ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all hourly rated production and maintenance employees at one of company's two plants, including confidential employees performing manual labor, tool designers who perform manual labor, tool provers, and leadmen, but excluding executives, administrators, profes- sional employees, draftsmen, and technicians, general office employees, general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, supervisors and assistant supervisors, department heads, assistants to department heads, engineers, medical em- ployees, plant-protection employees, accounting and cost employees, timekeepers and time clerks, inspectors, tool designers not performing manual labor, tool design checkers, tool clerks and student employees Mr. Raymond E. Buck and Mr. J. M. Hassler, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Company. Mr. L. M. Fagan, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Machinists. Mr. George Clifton Edwards, of Dallas, Tex., for the UAW-CIO. Mr. Leon Novak, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION ^ STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by International Association of Machinists, Lodge 776-A, A. F. L., herein called the Machinists, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Divi- sion, Fort Worth, Texas 1 herein called -the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due 'Incorrectly designated in the petition and other formal papers as "Consolidated Air- craft Corporation. Plant #3, Fort Worth Division" and corrected by stipulation at the hearing. 47 N. L R. B., No. 6. 30 "CONSOLIDATED"AIRCRAFT CORPORATION f 31 notice before Elmer Davis, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Forth Worth, Texas, on December 21 and 22, 1942. The Company, the Machinists, and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the UAW-CIO,2 appeared, participated, 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. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Consolidated Aircraft Corporation is a Delaware corporation with plants located at San Diego, California, and Fort Worth, Texas. We are here concerned with its plant at Fort Worth, Texas, known as the Fort Worth Division; which is maintained for the purpose of manu- facturing airplanes. During,the first 6 months of 1942, the Company, at its Fort Worth Division, used raw materials, the principal one being aluminum, valued in excess of $500,000, over 90 percent of which was shipped to it from points outside Texas. During the same period, the Company delivered to the United States Army at the plant of the Company in Fort Worth, finished airplanes valued in excess of $1,000,- 000. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, Lodge 776-A, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING"REPRESENTATION The Company refuses to recognize the Machinists as exclusive repre- sentative of the Company's employees until such time as the Machinists is certified by the Board. A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Machinists represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.' 2 During the course of the hearing , the UAW-CIO wrthdi ew from the proceeding . 2 The Field Examiner reported that the Machinists presented 5,030 application cards hearing apparently genuine sign a tures; that a spot check indicated that approximately 37.8 percent of the Company's employees on the pay roll as of October 30, 1942, which contained names in excess of 10,000, were names appearing among the signatures to the application cards presented. 32 'DECISIONS OF , NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD We find that aquestion 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 parties agreed that all hourly rated production and maintenance employees should be included in the unit, and that executives, admin= istrators, professional employees (including draftsmen and techni-% cians), general office employees,, general foremen, supervisors, department heads, assistants to department heads, engineers, medical employees, plant-protection employees, and accounting and cost em- ployees, should be excluded. They have failed to agree, however, upon the inclusion or exclusion of the classifications. of employees herein- after discussed. Foremen and assistant foremen. The Company seeks to exclude these employees from the appropriate unit. The Machinists takes no position as to their inclusion or exclusion. These employees have the authority to hire and discharge. Their functions are clearly of a supervisory nature. We shall, therefore, exclude them. Confidential employees. These employees are located in several of the Company's production departments and perform manual labor similar to that of other production employees. They are paid on an hourly, biweekly or monthly basis. There are, also, confidential em-' ployees who are engaged in ' experimental work who do not perform manual labor and whose duties are of a professional nature. These confidential employees, thus engaged in professional work, are ex- cluded by agreement of the parties. The Company seeks to exclude all other confidential employees, as well, from the appropriate unit. The Machinists would include those confidential employees who are en- gaged in manual labor. We shall include, in the appropriate unit, those confidential employees who perform manual labor, since their ,work is similar to that of other employees included and they have nothing to do with confidential matters relating'to labor relations. Inspectors. The company seeks to exclude all inspectors. The Machinists would exclude only supervisory inspectors,and would in- clude hourly rated inspectors working in a non-supervisory capacity. Although they do not have the authority to hire or discharge, these employees are engaged in the supervision of the quality of the work performed by production and maintenance employees. They receive special training and must be able to read blueprints, employ a knowl- edge of mathematics in their calculations, and be familiar with the qualities of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. They are paid on an hourly, biweekly or monthly basis. We shall exclude inspectors from the appropriate unit, since their interests are` identified with management. CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION' 33 Tool designers. These employees fall into two categories: those working exclusively with blueprints, slide rules, and technical instru- ments and those performing manual labor in the toolroom and about the plant. The Machinists seek to include all tool designers: in the appropriate unit. The Company takes no position as to their in= elusion or exclusion. We shall include in the appropriate unit only those tool designers performing manual labor, and exclude the other tool designers inasmuch as they are technical employees. ' Tool design checkers work in the engineering department checking on designs and blueprints. They perform no manual labor, but are primarily engaged in clerical and technical duties. We shall there- fore exclude them. Tool provers perform manual labor, being engaged in the repair of tools. We shall include them in the appropriate unit. Tool clerks keep records and accounts of tools. They are,hourly rated employees but perform no manual labor. We shall exclude them as'clerical employees. Assistant supervisors act as assistants to the heads .of administra- tive departments. They perform work in their respective depart- ment analogous to that of assistant foremen in the production depart- ments, whom we.have excluded. We shall exclude them from the appropriate unit. Timekeepers are engaged'in checking the time cards, and time clocks upon the 'arrival and departure of employees to and from work. They are hourly rated employees. Time" clerks transfer data from time cards to the records of the Company. They are biweekly rated em- ployees. The Machinists would include these employees in the ap- propriate unit while the Company would exclude •them. Since time- keepers and time clerks are engaged in clerical work, we shall exclude them from the unit. ` Leadmen are, engaged in the instruction of production and main- tenance employees-and perform manual labor as part of their work. They receive a higher rate of pay than the production employees. They do not Have the authority to hire or' discharge, but may recom- mend disciplinary action to the assistant foreman or foremen who are the first supervisory employees vested with disciplinary authority. The Machinists seek to include these employees in the appropriate unit. The Company takes no position as to their inclusion or exclu- sion. We shall•include them in the appropriate unit. Student, employees of the Company are trained in classes conducted by instructors on the Company's pay roll. They receive learners' .wages of 50 cents per hour, for a limited number ' of• hours while working.. They do not take regular places in" the production depart- ments of the, Company until their courses have been completed and they are not permitted to go about the plant until that time. The 513024-43-vol 47-3 V 34 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Machinists seeks to. exclude them from the appropriate unit ; the Com- pany would include them. We find that student employees should be -excluded, since they do not become regular production, employees until they have completed, their training course. We find that all hourly, rated production and maintenance em-- ployees of the Company; including confidential employees performs ing manual labor, tool designers who perform 'manual labor, tool provers, and leadlnen,, but excluding executives, administrators, pro- fessional employees, draftsmen, and technicians, general office em- ployees,general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, supervisors and assistant'supervisors, department heads, assistants to department heads, engineers, medical employees, plant-production 'employees, accounting and cost employees, timekeepers and time clerks, inspectors, tool designers not performing manual labor, tool design checkers, tool clerks, and student employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Actual production at the Fort Worth Division did,not begin until February 1942, and since that time the number of employees has rapidly expanded. On October 30, 1942, the Company had in its employ more than 10,000 employees. According to an estimate of the Company, about 25 percent of the expected total force was em-', ployed in October and it is anticipated that the full complement of,employees will not be reached until about December 1943. How- ever, it appears that this estimate may not be realized, since new employees are added at,the rate of about 500 per month. The Company contends that no election should be directed at this time on the ground that -a certification would be premature; in that a large number of workers who are expected to be employed would have _ no voice in the choice of their representative. However, the actual, rate of present expansion will not result in doubling the October pay roll until considerably more than a year hence., We do not believe that the large number of employees now working should be deprived of their, right at the present time to bargain colle- `,vely with the Company as provided in the Act. We shall accoruingly proceed with an immediate determination of a representative. Nevertheless, we shall not, in the event a collective bargaining repre- sentative,is certified-as a result of this proceeding, adhere to our usual rule of refusing to entertain. a petition for investigation and certifica- tion of representatives ,within 1 year after we have issued a certifica- tion. ,We shall instead, entertain a new petition for an 'investigation ,and .certification of rep'resentati'ves' at 'any time following issuance V CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 35 of any certification in this proceeding , provided we are satisfied, under all the circumstances then shown (including proof that there has been a substantial increase in the number' of employees at the, Fort Worth Division and that the petitioner/ represents a substantial number of employees ), that a question concerning, representation- affecting commerce has .arisen 4 We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the eri- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec- tion herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. 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 Re- lations 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 repre- sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated Aircraft •Corporation, Fort Worth Division, Fort Worthy Texas, 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, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Six- teenth 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 the employees 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 em- ployees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off , and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists , Lodge 776-A, affiliated with the A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. 4 See Matter of Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company and International Association of Machinists, Local 804 (A F of L ), 38 N, L R. B 404, r In the Matter Of CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION - OF, MACHINISTS,, LODGE, 776-A Case No. R-4712,- -AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND DI•RECTION'OF' ELECTION February 9,1943 On January 26, ,1943, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceedings Thereafter, on February 3, 1943, Consoli- dated Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Division, filed exceptions to' the said Decision and Direction of Election. Having considered the said exceptionsi the Board hereby amends that part of the, Decision 'and Direction of Election entitled "V. The determination of representatives" by striking therefrom the first para- graph and the first three-sentences of the second paragraph and sub- stituting therefor the following: r • V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Actual production at the Fort Worth Division began 'in February 1942, and since that time the number of employees has rapidly ex- paraded. On October 30, 1942, the Company had in its employ more than 10,000 employees. It is hiring new employees at the rate of about 500 per week. The Company estimates•that in December 1943, it will have 'about 80 percent of its anticipated full complement. However, it contends that no election should- be directed at this time on the ground that a certification,would:be premature, in that a large, number of workers who are expected to be employed would have no voice in the choice of their representatives. At the present rate of expansion it appears that by about March 1, 1943, the Company will have approximately 50 percent of the antici-- pated, force to be attained in December 1943. Under all the facts, we do not believe that the large number of employees now working,.many of whom have been employed for a period of about 1 year, should be deprived of their right at the present time to bargain collectively with the Company as provided in the, Act. - 1 47 N. L. R. B., No. 6. 47 N: L. R. B., No. 6a. 36