Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

I In the Matter of DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. (EL SEGUNDO DIVISION ) and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS ' AERO- NAUTICAL DISTRICT LODGE 22, AFL - ^ In the Matter of DOUGLA's AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION7 UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA- (UAW-CIO) ' Cases Nos . R-,5188, R-5189, respectively.-Decided May 1'7, 1943 Mr. Harry TV. Elliott, of Los Angeles ; Calif., for the Company. Mr. David Sokol, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the I. A. M. Messrs. Charles J. Katz, Leo Gallagher, and Milton Tyre, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the C. I. O. Messrs. James M. Carter and Paul Hookey, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Welders. Mr. Joseph Lewis, of Los Angeles, Calif., for Douglas Employees' Association. Mr. Arthur Leff, of counsel to' the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION' OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petitions duly, filed by International Association of Ma- chinists, Aeronautical District Lodge 22, AFL, herein called the I., A. M., and by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein called the C. I. 0., respectively, alleging that questions affecting com- merce' had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., herein called the Company,' at El Segundo, California, and at Vernon, California, the National Labor- Relations Board consolidated, the cases and provided for an appro- 1 The petition of the I. A. M. In Case No. R-5188 incorrectly designated the name of the Company as Douglas Aircraft Corp. The caption of this case is hereby amended so as to set forth the correct name of the Company. 49 N. L. R. B., No. 118. 819 531647-43-vol. 49-53 820 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD priate hearing upon due notice before Maurice J. Nicoson, Trial Ex- aminer. The hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on April 12, 13, and 14, 1943. The Company, the I. A. M., the C. I. 0., the National Union, United Aircraft Welders of America, herein called ' the Welders, and Douglas Employees' Association 2 appeared, par- ticipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine apd cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on, the issues. At the close of the hearing the C. I. 0. moved to dismiss the I. A. M. petition in Case No. R-5188 on the ground that the I. A. M. failed to make a substantial showing of representation, and decision thereon was reserved for the Board. For reasons appearing below, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Company and the C. I. 0. filed briefs which have been con- sidered by the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation en- gaged in the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft parts and has its principal place of business at Santa Monica, California. It oper- ates a number of plants in the State of California. The principal raw materials used by it are aluminum alloys, magnesium alloys, steel, and steel alloys. During a typical year its purchases of such ma- terials amounted to approximately $70,000,000, and approximately 95 percent of such materials were purchased from sources outside the State of California. During a similar period, the Company sold air- craft and parts in a volume in excess of $180,000,000, nearly all of which was sold for delivery outside the State of California. , The, Company is engaged entirely in the war program. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within, the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, Aeronautical District Lodge 22, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed- 'After intervening in both proceedings, Douglas Employees' Association made an oral request on the record to withdraw its motions for intervention, which request was granted by the Trial Examiner. ' DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC . 821 eration of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting, to membership employees, of the Company. National Union, United Aircraft Welders of America, is an un- affiliated labor organization,, admitting to membership certain em-, ployees of the Company. III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION It was stipulated that,.prior to the hearing, the I. A. M. requested the Company to recognize it-as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of the Company at the latter's El Segundo division, and the C. I. O. requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining agent for employees of the Company at the latter's Ver- non location, and that in each instance the Company refused to accord such recognition until the labor organization making such request was certified by the Board. - A statement of a Board agent, introduced in evidence at the hearing, indicates that the I. A. M. and the C. I. 0., respectively, represent a substantial number of employees in the units hereinafter found appropriate.3 We find that questions affecting commerce have 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. a The statement sets forth that the I . A. M. presented authorization cards, 65 percent of which appeared to be signed by persons whose names appeared on the Company's El Segundo plant pay roll of February 24, 1943, and constituted 26 percent of the names on such pay roll It also sets forth that a spot check of the cards dated during March 1943, which were not found on the above pay roll , showed that approximately 30 percent of such cards bore signatures of persons whose names appeared on a more current pay roll of the Company. It further shows that the C. I. O. submitted authorization cards which appeared to be signed by employees on the said El Segundo pay roll of February 24, 1943, and which constituted 3 percent of the persons on said pay roll. As to the Company's Vernon plant, the statement shows that both the C . I. 0. and the I. A. M. 'submitted authorization cards which , appeared to be signed by persons whose names appeared on the Vernon plant pay roll of February 24, 1943, that the cards submitted by the C. I. 0. con- stituted 36 percent of the names on said pay roll, and that the cards submitted by the, I. A. M constituted less than 1 percent of such pay -roll names. The C. I. 0. moved to dismiss the I. A. M. petition • in the El Segundo case ( Case No. R-5188 ) upon the ground that, the I. A. M. 's 26 percent showing as indicated on the said statement was not substantial In finding that the I. A. M. has made 'a substantial showing, we have .taken into consideration the fact that the record in this case reveals an abnormally high labor turn -over of employees at the El Segundo plant, as well as the result of the spot check of the March 1943 authorization cards. The said motion of the C. I. 0. is hereby denied. 822 DECISIONS OF 14ATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS A. The unit issues In Case No. R-5188, the I. A. M., in its petition, requested a unit limited to the El Segundo division of the Company and composed of all maintenance and production employees excluding oxyacetylene, oxyhydrogen, and electric arc welders, employed to do fushion welding as gas torch -cutters, and helpers and apprentice welders, technical •employees, guards, supervisory employees haying the right to hire and discharge, and executives. The appropriateness of the El Segundo plant as a separate unit is not challenged by any of the parties. Issue has however been joined by the C. I. 0. concerning the inclusion and exclusion of certain employee categories, which will be discussed below. In Case No. R,-5189, the C. I. 0., in its petition, requested a unit limited to the Vernon plant. of the Company composed of all hourly paid production and maintenance employees, excluding executive, administrative,,professional, and clerical employees, and supervisory employees above, the classification of leadmen.- The Company and the I. A. M. take the position that the Vernon.plant is part of the Com- pany's Santa Monica plant, and- cannot appropriately be set apart from the latter as a separate unit, a, position which, if ,found correct, would require the dismissal of the C. I. 0. petition. Similar issues are. present in this case as in Case No. R-5188 concerning the inclusion and exclusion of certain employee categories. B. The Vernon location as an appropriate unit In 1941 the Company operated three separate aircraft manufactur- ing plants in southern California. Its principal office and manufac- turing plant was, and still is, located at Santa-Monica; it had another plant at -El Segundo ; and a third at Long Beach. In a prior Board proceeding, upon petition of the Welders, we found separate plant units to be appropriate for welders at Santa Monica and El' Segundo, respectively.' As already, noted, there is no dispute in the instant proceedings as- to the appropriateness of the El Segundo plant as. a seperate plant unit, and the parties apparently are also agreed that the Long Beach plant, which is not involved in,these proceedings, might also be regarded as a separate--unit. During the latter part of 1941 and the early part of 1942, a number of, departments atthe Company's Santa Monica plant, the Company's home office division, were taken out of that plant and placed at other 4 Matter of The Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.. El Segundo Division and United Aircraft Welders of America (Independent ), 16 N. L. R. B. 93. DOUGLAS A.PRCR.AFT COMPANY, INC. - 823 locations in and around southern California. Among them were the accounting department, the material and purchasing department, the final testing and equipment location, the master tooling department, and a number of lesser departments. The Company states that the relocations were made so that the Company's operations would not be wholly impaired in the event of enemy shelling or bombing of its Santa Monica plant. All of these new locations, but one, were leased; the exception was the Vernon location which was purchased in fee. The Company declined at the hearing- to state definitely whether the Vernon location is of a temporary or permanent character. Vernon is located about 15 miles from Santa Monica, and is about 8 miles from El.Segundo. The El Segundo plant, which the parties are agreed should constitute a separate unit, is closer than Vernon to the Com- pany's Santa Monica plant. The Company's master tooling department was transferred to Vernon. At the time of the transfer, employees were transferred from Santa Monica to Vernon, but the record shows that employees were likewise transferred to Vernon from other plants of the Company. The operations at Vernon are limited to master tooling. The Company argues that its Vernon location, although referred to on its records as "Plant K", is not in fact a plant in itself,•but is merely a subdivision of its Santa Monica plant, because; unlike its El Segundo' or Long Beach plants, it is not a, complete aircraft fabricating and assembly plant. Whether 'the Vernon location possesses all the attri- butes of .a complete plant or falls within the definition of that term is not the issue here. Even if it be considered a subdivision of the Santa Monica plant, this could not affect its character as a bargaining unit, if otherwise appropriate.5 The question as to whether Vernon, ,,alone, or Vernon joined with•Santa Monica,.is at this time better calculated to effectuate the policies of the Act must be decided upon a considera- tion of all 'the relevant circumstances, including, among -others, such factors as the functional and organizational cohesiveness .of the unit, and the,similarity in the work and interests of the employees therein. The evidence shows that there is no greater functional interdepend- ence between the Vernon plant and the Santa Monica plant than there is between the Vernon plant and -the Company's El .Segundo, Long Beach, or other plants which none of the parties contend should be grouped with Santa Monica in a single unit. At its Vernon plant, the Company construts master tools desigred for use not only at the Santa Monica plant, but at its El Segundo, Long Beach, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City plants as well. The master tools, built at Vernon, are also sent from Vernon to various subcontractors of the Company. See. Section 9 (b), National Labor Relations Act. 824 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD The,tools which bear the Vernon legend, "K", upon completion of their use, are returned to Vernon for storage or forwarding to some other plant. The master tooling done at Vernon is separate and distinct` from the production tooling done at other plants. There is evidence indicating that greater skill is required for master tooling at Vernon than for production tooling at other plants. It does not appear that master tooling is performed at any other plant or location of the Company. ' The organization of the Vernon plant, while related administratively to the home division of the Company, is, to some extent, self-contained. Vernon has' a; superintendent-in-charge who has general superyision of its employees. A separate employment office is maintained at-Ver- non, and two representatives of the' Company's personnel division are permanently stationed there. Employee grievances are' handled locally. Int, the scheme of the Company's recreational program, Vernon is apparentlyrecognized by the Company 'as having its separate place; there is evidence' in' the record showing that Vernon' is 'represented as'.a, separate unit in competitive 'sports with other Company plants. Although Company departments, such' as its, personnel and material purchasing departments,,,have their headquarters at San Monica where their records are kept;' these departments are represented' at Vernon by so-called"out post" representatives who are permanently stationed at Vernon and'conduct the immediate local functions of their depart- ments from that, point. Personnel and Tabor relations' matters are supervised from Santa'Monica where the 'heads of such departments are' stationed, but the evidence shows that 'this is equally true' in' the case of El Segundo which all parties concede` constitutes 'a iseparate appropriate unit.'Pay checks to Vernon employees, are. issued at Santa Monica lout -so also are pay checks' issued' to El Segundo' employees. Badges worn by Vernon employees are distinguishable in background color from those worn at Santa Monica, and will not admit a Vernon employee into' the Santa Monica plant. . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • There is no eviderice•'of any' marked interchange of employees 'be- twedn) Vernon and Santa Monica. ' Vernon employees' on' occasions are sent dut on special temporary assignment's to other plants. On such occasions; Vernon employees' continue on the' Vernon pay roll; and their time is telephoned in to a timekeeper at Vernon. •If they remain at their` temporary' location for more than 2 weeks, then for con-, venience to the'Company, they are transferred to the' temporary loca- tion pay roll. 'However, when. the particular job is' completed, they return 'to Vernon and resume then' place on that pay roll., In view of the specialized character of the work performed at Ver= non, its geographical separation from Santa Monica, the fact that the Vernon plant is-to some extent self-contained and bears no closer DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 825 relationship to the Santa Monica plant than to other plants in the Company's. system either in point of functional interdependence or community of interest, and upon the entire record of this case, we are- of the opinion, and find, that a separate unit is appropriate for the Vernon plant. C. Categories of employees in plant units At -the hearing the parties were in agreement that production and maintenance employees should be included in the units and that execu- tive, professional, administrative, and clerical employees, and super- visory employees above the rank of leadmen A should be excluded therefrom. Some question arose, however, as to the inclusion or exclu- sion of employees in the categories discussed below. Plant clerks: The I. A. M. requested at the hearing that clerical employees who were engaged, in the plant proper, as distinguished from. the Company's "front office" clerical employees, be included in the unit as falling within the category of production employees. The following classes of employees were referred to as illustrative of this group : stock clerks, storeroom clerks, inspection department clerks, order clerks, production control clerks, rate • clerks, and receiving clerks. In general, plant clerks were defined as those who work in the plant and who assist, manually or otherwise, the active flow of parts or materials. The evidence, indicates that plant, clerks do not come into, direct contact with office clerical employees,, and that their work is closely related to that of production employees. The C. I. 0. adduced no evidence which would indicate such inclusion to be improper. The Company took no position in this regard. Because of their 'close relationship to production employees, we are of the opinion, and find, that plant clerks should be included. 'Technical and engineering department employees: The' I. A: M. would exclude, whereas the C. I. 0. would include, employees in the Company's engineering department and other ' technical employees who'do not participate directly in production; work, but are concerned' principally with designing, drafting, research, planning, and produc- tion control. In addition to engineers, this 'group is composed of employees such as draftsmen, stress analysts,, designers, metallurgists, chemists, statisticians, industrial engineers,' and production planning and control personnel. The employees in this group, for the' most part, have had college or technical school training or its equivalent. They are generally paid on a monthly basis., They only occasionally come in contact with production and maintenance employees, In El ' Segundo they are housed in a building separated from the main 'plant. They are regarded by management as more closely aligned to man- agement than to the production and maintenance operations. 826 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'B'OARD Although they indirectly contribute to the production activities of ` the plants, their interests and their relations to the employer are dis- similar from that of production employees, and' we shall, therefore, exclude them from the unit. Welders: The I. A. M. in its petition in the El Segundo case asks that welders-be excluded. The position of the C. I. 0., as indicated by its petition in• the Vernon case, is that welders should be included. The Welders intervened in both proceedings and contended that they should be excluded from the appropriate units. In 1939 the Board found separate welders' units to be appropriate 'in the Santa -Monica 'and El Segundo plants of the Company, and following elections, the Welders was certified in both such units e The Welders has had col- lective -bargaining agreements with the Company, for said plants, since 1939. On January 9, 1942, the Welders and the 'Company entered into three. separate but identical contracts, covering the Com- pany's Santa Monica, El Segundo, and Long Beach plants, respec- tively. These contracts are for a term of at least 2 years. Although the Vernon plant,is not expressly referred to in these contracts, both the Company and the Welders acknowledged at the hearing -that they considered the terms of the Santa Monica contract as being applica- ble to welders at Vernon. It appears that they have dealt with each other on this'basis ever since the Vernon plant was' established. 'Since the welders here constitute a clearly defined group that has been treated, as a separate unit 'in each plant -for a considerable time, and are presently represented pursuant to contract, we,are of the opinion; and find, that welders should be excluded from the units. ' CONbLIISION We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Company's El Segundo division and Vernon plant, respectively, including,plant clerks,,but, excluding oxyacetylene, oxyhydrogen, ,and electric ,arc welders employed to do - fusion' welding as :gas torch cut- ters,,and ;helpers and apprentice welders, executives, administrative, professional, -office clerical, -technical and engineering department employees, guards, and supervisory employees above the classification of leadman A, constitute ,two units appropriate for the purpose of collective,bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among ',Matter of The Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. and United Aircraft Welders of America, 16 N. L R B , 93, 17 N. L. R. B. 984. DIOUGLAS A.PRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 827 the employees in each of the two appropriate units who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions ,set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions 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 Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., El Segundo, California, and Vernon, California, sepa-, rate elections 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 Twenty-first 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 each of the two units 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 temporarily laid off, and iricl'ud'= ing employees- in the' armed' forces of the United States' who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those empl'oyees•*l o have since quit or been discharged for cause, to,determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machin- ists; Aeronautical- District Lodge 22, AFL, or by International Union, United' Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO)', for the purposes of collective ,bargaining, or by neither. S • Mr. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration- of the above Decision and Direction of Election. •