Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corp.

In the Matter of NEPA DIVISION OF FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 760, AFL, PETITIONER and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE 167, PETITIONER and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Cases Nos. 10-RC--652, 10-RC-660, 10-RC-661, 10-RC-663, and 10-RC-704.-Decided January 13, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions (Cases Nos. 10-RC-652; 10-RC-660; 10-RC-661; 10-RC-663) duly filed and consolidated, a hearing was held on August 10, 1949, before James W. Mackle, hearing officer. The Em- ployer's request for oral arguments is denied as the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .1 I The hearing officer, over the objections of the Petitioners, permitted the United Gas, -Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Chemical Workers, to intervene in this proceeding with a representation showing of 3 cards for the purpose of opposing craft severances and asserting that a plant-wide unit of 102 employees is the only appropriate unit at the Employer's plant. At the hearing, the Chemical Workers did not request that its name be permitted to appear on the ballot of any election directed therein. We are of the opinion that the Chemical Workers interest was sufficient for such intervention. Celanese Corporation of America, 84 NLRB 207 ; Swift & Company d/b/a H. L. Handy Company, 81 NLRB 425. On August 18, 1949, the Chemical Workers filed its own petition (Case No. 10-RC-704) seeking the same plant-wide unit which it had previously urged appropriate at the hearing. On September 6, 1949, the Chemical Workers' filed a motion with the Board requesting that said petition be consolidated with the petitions upon which the hearing was held, and that its name appear on the ballot of any elections directed therein. On September 12, 1949, the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause why such consolidation should not be effected. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 760, AFL (IBEW) and the International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 167 (IAM) filed answers to the Notice to Show Cause, opposing consolidation upon the ground that the Chemical Workers' petition was supported by a substantial showing of interest obtained subsequent to the hearing of August 10, 1949. Because the Chemical' Workers properly intervened at the hearing and presented its -position with respect to all issues herein involved, we know of no reason why such consolidation should not be granted. We shall, therefore, consolidate Case No. 10-RC-704 with Cases Nos. 10-RC-652 ; 10-RC-660 ; and 10-RC-661 ; and 10-RC-663, and permit the Chemical Workers name to appear on the ballots of the election hereinafter directed. 88 NLRB No. 22. 99 882191-51-8 :100 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 herein claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists 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 Chemical Workers seeks to represent a plant-wide unit of all hourly paid employees at the Employer 's Oak Ridge, Tennessee, plant; the IBEW requests a unit of all electricians ; and the IAM urges sepa- rate units of (1) all machinists together with welders who are assigned to the machine shops; ( 2) all sheet metal workers; and ( 3) all pipefit- ters; or in the alternative the IAM would represent the foregoing three categories in a single bargaining unit. The Employer and the Chem- ical Workers, while not disputing their craft characteristics, oppose the units requested by the IBEW and the IAM and contend that the only appropriate unit is a plant -wide one. This contention is based principally upon the following grounds : (1) That there is a very close integration of work among the various crafts; (2) that the pattern of collective bargaining in the aircraft industry is on an industrial basis; .and (3 ) that a multiplicity of bargaining agents, resulting from craft :severances , would not be conducive to national security . There is no bargaining history at the plant herein involved.. By virtue of a cost reimbursement nonprofit contract with the United States Air Force, and by the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Employer is engaged , at its Oak Ridge, Tennessee, plant, in research and development concerning the utilization of nu- clear energy for the propulsion of aircraft. There are 149 hourly paid employees in the plant, of whom 47 are guards.2 Of the remaining 102 hourly paid employees , 49 are sought in the various craft units petitioned for. These employees are en- gaged in the fabrication, installation, and maintenance of experi- mental equipment and test rigs of various kinds. It is clear from the record that they are highly skilled within the scope of their respective crafts. The Employer contends that, at times, the employees of the various crafts work as teams under the technical supervision of a professional engineer in the fabrication or installation of certain experimental equipment and should , therefore, not be established in separate units for purposes of collective bargaining. While, at times, employees of various crafts do work as teams under the technical supervision of a 2 The guards are presently represented by a guard union. NEPA DIVISION OF FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORP. 101 professional engineer, they nevertheless work within the ambit of their respective crafts and remain subject to the ultimate control of their respective foreman. We have generally held that employees ,engaged in craft work of a distinctive nature, although they may work in conjunction or close association with other employees, may consti- tute separate bargaining units.3 However, we have denied craft sev- erance from a plant-wide unit even in the presence of distinctive craft characteristics, when under certain circumstances the work performed by the craftsmen was an integral and inseparable part of a production process performed on an assembly line basis.4 The record in this case is clear, however, that the Employer's operations are not performed on such a basis. We therefore find no merit in this contention; nor do we find merit in the Employer's contention that the traditional bar- gaining unit in the aircraft industry is an industrial one.5 The Employer also contends that a multiplicity of bargaining agents, resulting from craft severence at its plant, would be contrary to national security. In this connection, the Employer points out that among the 102 hourly paid employees there are 11 different pos- sible craft units which work in close cooperation on various research and development projects, and that in the event that jurisdictional questions arise, they could not be settled without giving out in- formation to the various bargaining agents about the manner in which the various craftsmen are performing atomic energy research and development. We cannot anticipate jurisdictional disputes, but if such disputes should arise, the Employer, under laws regulating the control of atomic energy, could not be compelled, and would not be permitted, to divulge any information that the Atomic Energy Com- mission should deem inimical to the national security. The Atomic Energy Commission has unqualifiedly assented to col- lective bargaining among the employees herein concerned. It is only because of this assent that the Board has assumed jurisdiction in this case. That Commission has taken no position on the issue before its here. We therefore are advised of no reason why the existence of craft units at thins Employer's plant is any more inconsistent with national security than plant-wide units would be. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention. In view of the foregoing, we find that all employees in the units proposed by the IBEW and the IAM may, if they so desire, consti- tute separate bargaining units. However, these employees may also 3 Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368; Heyden Chemical Corporation , 85 NLRB 1181; Eagle Pencil Company, 82 NLRB 263; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 77 NLRB 507. 4Ford Motor Company ( Maywood Plant ), 78 NLRB 887. 5 Boeing Airplane Company, supra, and cases cited therein ; Lockheed Aircraft Corpo- ration, supra, and cases cited therein ; Hughes Aircraft, 81 NLRB 867 ; McDonnell Aircraft Corp ., 79 NLRB 1054. 102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appropriately be included in the plant-wide unit herein sought by the Chemical Workers. We shall, therefore, reserve final determination in this respect, pending the outcome of the election hereinafter di- rected. If a majority of the employees in voting group (2) vote for the IBEW and a majority of those in groups (3), (4), and (5) vote for the IAM, they will have indicated their desire to constitute separate bargaining units. We shall direct elections among the employees of the Employer at its Oak Ridge, Tennessee, plant, in the voting groups enumerated below, excluding from each office clerical employees, guards, profes- sional employees, and supervisors, as defined in the Act : (1) All hourly paid employees, excluding those included in voting groups (2),.(3), (4), and (5). (2) All electricians including the classification of mechanics, elec- trical; technicians, electronic; and repairmen, instrument. (3) All sheetmetal workers; and lay-out men, sheetmetal. (4) All machinists including the classifications of machinists, ex- perimental A, B, and C; machinists specialists; inspector, experi- mental ; helper, machinists ; machinists, group leader ; test opera- tors A and B; 6 test operator helpers; mechanics, maintenance; help- ers, maintenance; mechanics, refrigeration; mechanics, garage; and welders, experimental and welders, maintenance assigned to the machine shops. (5) All pipefitters. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election 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 super- vision 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 voting groups described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding 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 re- 6 The record indicates that the employees classified as test operators are highly skilled machinists who perform tests with various experimental equipment. NEPA DIVISION OF FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORP. 103 instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine : (a) Whether or not the employees in voting group (1) desire to be represented for the purpose of collective bargaining by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO. (b) Whether the employees in voting group (2) desire to be repre- sented for purposes of collective bargaining by International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local 760, AFL, or by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, or by neither. (c) Whether the employees in voting group (3) desire to be repre- sented for purposes of collective bargaining by International Associa- tion of Machinists, District Lodge 167, or by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, or by neither. (d) Whether the employees in voting group (4) desire to be repre- sented for purposes of collective bargaining by International Asso- ciation of Machinists, District Lodge 167, or by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, or by neither. (e) Whether the employees in voting group (5) desire to be repre- sented for purposes of collective bargaining by International Asso- ciation of Machinists, District Lodge 167, or by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO, or by neither.