Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EM- PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROT=, RHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERSI LOCAL 116, and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACIfINISTs, AERO- NAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, LODGE No. 776, PETITIONERS Cases Nos. 16-IBC-420, 16-RC-4.6, 16-RC-427, and 16-RC-428.- Decided January 11, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed, a hearing in the above-consoli- dated cases was held before James R. Webster, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed? Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer 2 I Federated Independent Texas Unions , Local Aircraft 900, moved to dismiss the peti- tions filed by the International Association of Machinists in Cases Nos . 16-RC-426, 16-RC-- 427, and 16-RC-428 on the grounds that ( a) there was no showing that the Petitioner has complied with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act , and (h) said petitions should properly have been filed as decertification petitions . We find no merit in these contentions . As to (a) the question of compliance is an administrative matter not litigable by the parties , Trueman Fertilizer Co., 81 NLRB 72. Moreover , we have noted administratively that the Petitioner has fully complied with the filing requirements of the Act. As to ( b) it is clear from the record that the Petitioner desires a certification in its own behalf as the bargaining representative of the Employer 's employees. After the hearing the Employer filed its motion requesting the correction of various errors in the transcript of testimony . As none of the parties has objected thereto, the motion is hereby granted , and the record is hereby amended to conform to the motion. . 2 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 116, the Petitioner in Case No. 16-RC-420, is herein called the IBEW ; International Association of Machinists, Aero- nautical Industrial District, Lodge No. 776 , the Petitioner in Cases Nos. 16-RC-426, 16-RC-427, and 16-RC-428, is herein called the IAM; and Federated Independent Texas Unions, Aircraft Local 900 , is herein called the FITU. 88 NLRB No. 12. 49 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The Employer is engaged at its Forth Worth, Texas, Division, in the manufacture of the B-36 Bomber and the RB-36 Reconnais- sance Bomber pursuant to contracts with the United States Air Force. The Employer has a working force of approximately 15,000 employees, 450 of whom are employed in the plant's maintenance department. This department is under the over-all supervision of the plant engineering chief and is divided into various subdivisions. including the electrical maintenance section. It appears from the record that the same hours, general working conditions, and employee privileges are enjoyed by all employees of the Employer. Case No. 16-RC-4:0: Maintenance electricians The IBEW seeks to represent a unit consisting of all maintenance electricians at the Employer 's Fort Worth, Texas, Division , exclud- ing all other employees and all supervisors . The Employer and the ,AM 4 oppose the severance of the electricians from the existing pro- duction and maintenance unit because of the long history of col- lective bargaining involving these employees on a more comprehensive basis. The electrical maintenance section is located on a balcony gen- erally known as the tooling balcony . It consists of an area about 50 or 60 feet in length and about 20 feet in width, and is the area where the maintenance electricians ordinarily report to work and where electrical materials and supplies are stored. The unit proposed by the IBEW would embrace approximately 73 employees in the electrical maintenance section.5 They are grouped into 3 classifications , depending upon the difficulty and responsibility 7 The IAM does not contend that the contract with the Employer is a bar in Case No. 16-RC-420. However, the FITU asserts that its contract with the Employer is a bar to a present election in Cases Nos. 16-RC-426, 16-RC-427, and 16-RC-428. The contract provides for a term of 2 years, effective October 13, 1947, and for automatic renewal from year to year thereafter in the absence of written notice to terminate or modify given by either party at least 60 days before the renewal date. Neither party served such notice. On August 11, 1949, the IAM notified the Employer of its claims of representation and thereafter filed its petitions on August 13, 15, and 19, 1949, respectively. As the JAM notified the Employer of its claims of representation before the operative date of the contract's automatic renewal clause and filed its petitions within 10 days thereafter, we find that the contract does not bar a present determination of representatives. Dallas-Fort' Worth Brewing Company, 84 NLRB 681 ; General Electric X-Rey Corporation, 67 NLRB 997. "The FITU is not a party to the proceedings in Case No. 16-RC-420. In addition to the above categories in this section there are eight laborers, two mechanics, and one truck driver, whom the IBEW would exclude from its proposed unit. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 51 of the work to which they are assigned. Approximately 41 are classi- fied as maintenance electrician "A", 19 are maintenance electrician "B", and 14 as maintenance electrician "C". The maintenance electricians are under the ultimate supervision of the electrical foreman, who is assisted by five assistant foremen. They are engaged in electrical maintenance, construction, and repair work, and are primarily responsible for the plant's electrical operations and for all incidental operations of a mechanical nature which relate to electrical operations. Some are engaged in trouble-shooting assign- ments, some in repairing and rewinding motors, and others in electrical maintenance and installation work. They work with the usual tools of their trade and do no production work. In connection with various assignments and projects, maintenance electricians may work with other employees from the mechanical 'maintenance department such as carpenters, plumbers, and mill- wrights. In such instances, however, the electrical work is performed by the maintenance electricians. Some of the maintenance electri- cians are subject to special occupational hazards from energized currents of high voltages, and are required by the- Employer to use special safety equipment such as high-tension rubber gloves and other electrical safety devices. Although the Employer maintains no apprenticeship program for its electricians, special courses in the electrical field are offered by the Employer through night school training. The record shows also that there are in the employ of the Employer many men who, although employed in production work, have had experience in various crafts. From the foregoing facts and upon the basis of the entire record in the case, we believe that the maintenance electricians comprise a co- hesive and well-defined craft group clearly distinguishable from the remaining production and maintenance employees, and that their establishment as a separate collective bargaining group is feasible. The history of collective bargaining shows that the IAM was certi- fied by the Board as the bargaining representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees, including the maintenance electricians involved herein, in 1943 s and again in 1946,7 and that it has bargained for these employees since the former date. In our opinion, the foregoing bargaining history does not preclude an election among the maintenance electricians at this time. In the aircraft manufacturing industry, the Board has frequently, since the enactment of the amended Act, granted self-determination elections 47 NLRB 30. 7 70 NLRB 1357. 882191-51-5 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to groups of maintenance electricians.8 We conclude, therefore that notwithstanding the bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, the maintenance electricians herein may, if they so desire, con- stitute a separate appropriate unit. However, as they may also con- tinue to function as part of the existing production and maintenance unit represented by the TAM, we shall not make any final unit deter- mination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the employees in the election hereinafter directed. We shall direct that an election be held among all maintenance elec- tricians at the Employer's Fort Worth, Texas, Division, excluding all other employees and all supervisors, as defined in the Act. If the employees participating in this election select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargain- ing unit. Cases Nos. 16-RC-426,16-RC-427, and 16-RC-11.28 The Petitions in these cases were filed by the TAM. The TAM, the FITU, and the Employer stipulated that separate units of inspectors, timekeepers, and certain tool classifications, established by the Board in prior proceedings are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.9 The Employer contends, however, that the representa- tion of these groups by the TAM which also represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees will impair orderly and effici- ent production 10 We find nothing in the record to support the Employer's contention. Moreover, we believe that the questions con- cerning representation which have arisen between the parties can best be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the employees in the units hereinafter found to be appropriate. In substantial conformity with the stipulation of the parties at the hearing, we find that the following constitute separate units appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining in Cases Nos. 16-RC1126, 8 Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368; Ryan Aeronautical Company, 85 NLRB 1189; United Aircraft Corporation, Chance Vought Aircraft Division, 85 NLRB 209; McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 79 NLRB 1054 ; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 77 NLRB 507. 9 Inspectors were set up as a unit of specially skilled employees in Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 55 NLRB 577. Timekeepers were originally excluded from the production and maintenance unit as clericals and were set up in a separate unit in Con- solidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation , 60 NLRB 525 . Tool planners, tool designers, and tool liaison , not performing manual labor were set up as a unit of specially skilled employees in Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 64 NLRB 400. io The FITU contends that the IAM cannot properly represent the employees involved herein because they are not machinists and are not eligible for membership under the con- stitution and bylaws of the IAM. We find no merit in this contention . We have frequently held that the willingness of the Petitioner to represent the employees in issue is controlling under the Act, not the eligibility of employees to membership , nor the exact extent of the Petitioner's constitutional jurisdiction. Chicago Railway Equipment Company, 85 NLRB 586. 0 CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 53 16-RC-427, and 16-RC-428 respectively, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. (1) All timekeepers of the Employer at its Fort Worth, Texas, Division, excluding all other employees, accounting supervisors, ac- counting section heads, group leaders, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All inspectors of the Employer at its Fort Worth, Texas, Divi- sion, excluding all other employees (including tool inspectors and template inspectors now represented by the IAM as set forth in Order Granting Motion by the National Labor Relations Board under date of May 23, 1947, in Case No. 16-RC-1724), and all supervisors as de- fined in the Act. (3) All tool planners, tool designers, tool liaison employees, and fabrication specification planners 11 of the Employer at its Fort Worth, Texas, Division, not performing manual work, excluding all other employees, confidential clerks, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elec- tions by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the voting group of maintenance electricians, and in the separate units found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately pre- ceding the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining : In the voting group of maintenance electricians, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 116, or by International 11 By stipulation of the parties , fabrication specification planners , a newly created classifi- cation, was added to the unit. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Association of Machinists, Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 776, or by neither; In Cases Nos. 16-RC-426, 16-RC-427, 16-RC-428, by Federated Independent Texas Unions, Local Aircraft No. 900, or by Interna- tional Association of Machinists, Aeronautical District Lodge No. 776, or by neither.