Consolidated Aircraft Corp.

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT, CORPORATION and AERONAU- TICAL INDUSTRIAL LODGE 1125, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. L. Case No. B-5033.-Decided May 6, 1943 Mr. Harris G. Nelson, of San Diego, Calif., for the Company. Mr. David Sokol, of Los Angeles, Calif., and Messrs. K. G. Phillips and L. E. Poesnlecker, of San Diego, Calif., for the Union. Mr. Robert_Silagi, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition and amended petition duly filed by Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 1125, International Association of . Machinists, A. F. L., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting, 'commerce had arisen concerning representation of employees of Con- solidated Aircraft Corporation, San Diego, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert C. Moore, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at San Diego, California, on March 12, 13, 15, 16, and 17, 1943. The' Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On April 14, 1943, the Company filed a brief which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Consolidated Aircraft Corporation,' a Delaware corporation, has its main office and plants in San Diego, California. The Company maintains several plants throughout the United States, but it is only ' Shortly after the hearing the name of the Company was changed to "Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation," but the corporate entity was not changed. 49 N. L.' R. B , No. 73. 528 iCONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 529 , with the plants ' located in San Diego and Camp Consair that we are presently concerned. The Company is engaged in the design, manufacture, development, and sale of aircraft, aircraft parts, and accessories. It is one of the largest manufacturers of airboats in the United. States, one of the largest contractors for the United States' Army and Navy for aircraft, and one of the largest airplane manu- facturing establishments in the United States. During the fiscal year ending November 30, 1942, the Company spent in excess of $50,000,000 for materials, supplies, and equipment, more than half of which was purchased and transported to'its plants in San, Diego from outside the State of California. During the same time the Company made sales of its products amounting to more than $95,- 000,000, substantially all of which were made to the Army and Navy. At the present time the Company is, engaged exclusively in the pro- duction of military and naval aircraft for purposes of war and all aircraft produced by the Company is sold to the United States Gov- ernment through the Army and Navy pursuant to various supply contracts between the Company.and the Government. The Company, admits that it is engaged in commerce" within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 1125, International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In 1937 the Union won an election conducted by the Board and was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of all hourly .paid employees of the Company.' A contract covering these em- ployees was signed by the Company and the Union. In 1938 a second election among the same employees was held by the Board, which again resulted in a victory for the Union.3 Several contracts, the latest of which was executed in 1941 and is still in effect, 'covering over 40,000 hourly paid employees, ' were entered into by the Com- pany and the Union. The Union now seeks to represent all sal- aried employees of the Company of whom there are 6,968. The Com- pany maintains 3 different pay rolls for its salaried employees : an executive pay roll which is not in issue and therefore not included I Matter of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and International Association of Machin- ists, Aircraft Lodge No 1145, 2 N. L. R. B. 772 ; 2 N. L. R. B. 774. 3 Matter of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation and International Union, United Automo- bile Workers of America, Local No. 506, C. I. 0., 7 N. L. R. B. 1061; also 8 N. L. R. B. 205. 530 DECISIONS OF NAT'LONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the total given above; a flat salary pay roll; and a biweekly pay roll. > The flat salary pay roll is composed exclusively of employees who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. 'They occupy either executive, administrative , or professional jobs. The biweekly pay, roll contains all other employees who are on salary. The testimony of a Board attorney reveals the following facts with respect to the claims to representation of the petitioning union: The Union submitted a total of 1,511 cards, all of which bore appar- ently genuine original signatures. All cards, with the exception of 18, were dated between June 1942 and March 1943. Of the 1,511 cards submitted, 1,045 bore names which appeared on the Company's biweekly , pay roll, containing a total of 6,174 names. This repre- sents only 16.9 percent of the total involved. As to the flat salary pay roll which contains 794 names , the Union submitted 8 cards or 1.007 percent. In addition, the Union offered a list containing 303 naives which, it claimed, represents salaried employees for whom the Company is currently checking off dues to the Union. These. employees, it is al- leged, signed authorization cards while they were hourly paid 'em- ployees, and have since been transferred to salaried jobs. The Company vigorously 'objected to the introduction of this list on the ground that it did not represent present union authorizations . The Company claimed that it had received a great many requests from these em- ployees to stop their dues payments to the Union, but that it was power- less to do so iii view of the fact that the check-off cards stated that the 'signers agreed not to revbke the authorization for the term' of the con- tract, which is for the duration of the war. The Trial Examiner ad- mitted the list as evidence that the employees named thereon had at one time joined the Union. An analysis of the list reveals that 192 of the 303 names appeared on the biweekly pay roll. An additional 47 names appeared on this pay roll but were duplicated by names on cards presented by the Union. Three names on the list appeared on the flat salary pay roll. The record snakes no mention of the status of the remaining 61 names. Even should the Board add the 192 names on this list to the cards containing names of employees on the biweekly pay roll, the total would be only 1,237 or 20.03 percent of the names on the biweekly pay roll. The addition of the 3 names on the list to the 8 cards on the flat salary, pay roll does not substantially improve the Union's showing with respect to the employees carried on that pay roll. Toward the close of the hearing the Union requested that the Trial Examiner undertake to cross-check certain additional proof of repre-_ sentation . Thereupon approximately 500 application-for-membership cards were submitted to the Trial Examiner who reserved an exhibit CONSOLIDATED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 531 number for his statement covering an examination of those cards. The Union has now moved the Board to withdraw its request and does not offer such additional proof of representation. The motion is.hereby granted. It thus appears that the Union has, at the most, made a showing that it represents a total of 1,237 out of 6,174 employees (20.03 percent) on the biweekly pay roll and that it represents 11 out of 794 employees (1:38 percent) on the flat salary payroll or a total of 1,248 out of 6,968 (17.91 percent ) on the combined salary pay rolls. We are of the opinion that the Union has not made a sufficient showing of present representa- tion of the employees named in its petition to raise a question con- cerning representation .4 Under these circumstances , we find that no question has arisen concerning representation of the employees of the Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, San Diego, California, filed by Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 1125, International Association of Machinists, A. F. L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 4 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America and International Union, Aluminum Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 44 N L R B. 1111; Matter of Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc. and District 50 United Mine Workers of America, ( Utility Division ) C. 1 0., 42 N L R . B. 639 ; Matter of A me) icon Manufactuo Ong Company and Upholsterers' International Union, Local No 187 A F of L , 41 N L R. B 995; Matter of Food A. Smith at at d / b%a Smith Cabinet Manufacturing Company and United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Local No. 1699 (A F L ), 36 N L R. B. 363; Matter of Union Hardware and Metals Company and International Long- shoremen and Warehousemen's Union, Local 1-26, C. 1. 0., 31 N. L. R. B. 710. x I 531647-43-vol. 49-35 - 0