Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, ElVi- PLOYER and ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, AIRCRAFT CHAPTER, PETITIONER Case No. 21-R32.51.-Decided July 241, 1946 Pruitt, Hale ct Courser, by Mr. C. C. Sawyer, of San Diego, Calif., for the Employer. Katz, Gallagher & Margolis , by Mr. Ben Margolis, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner. Mr. L. Nikodem , of Downey, Calif., for the Automobile Workers. Mrs. Augusta Spaulding , of counsel to the Board. , DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Los Angeles, California, on May 15, 16, and 17, 1946, before Daniel J. Harrington, Trial Examiner. 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 National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, a Delaware corpora- tion, is engaged in the manufacture of airplanes at Downey, Cali- fornia. During 1945 the Employer used at its Downey plant materials valued in excess of $14,000,000, more than 50 percent of which was shipped to the plant from points outside California. During the same year, the Employer produced at its Downey plant airplanes valued in excess of $37,000,000, substantially all of which was shipped to points outside California. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 69 N. L. R. B., No. 104. 860 CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 861 The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. International Union of United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, Local 904, herein called the Automobile Workers, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations. It is recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of production and main- tenance employees at the Downey plant.' III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees concerned unless and until the Petitioner is certified as bargaining representative by the Board. We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS The Petitioner contends that professional, semi-professional, and technical employees at the Employer's Downey plant constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The employer contends that the pro posed unit is not appropriate in scope for bargaining purposes. The Petitioner and the Employer further disagree with respect to the unit placement of certain professional employees, more particularly de- scribed below. The Employer's headquarters and general offices are at San Diego, California. Its plants are located at San Diego and Downey, Cali- fornia; Fort Worth, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; and Wayne, Michigan. Professional and technical employees working at the Downey plant, known as the Vultee Field Division, are the employees directly concerned herein. These employees fall administratively into two groups : (a) employees in the development engineering and experi- mental shop departments, a function of the Employer's general offices, and (b) employees under the local plant management of the Vultee Field Division. The development engineering department, though physically lo- cated in the Vultee Field Division building at Downey, is not adminis- tratively part of the plant or under plant supervision. It is under the direct supervision of the chief development engineer, all executive I The Automobile Workers does not claim to represent any employees covered by the peti- tion herein, as amended. The Petitioner claims to represent no employees presently repre- sented by the Automobile Workers and covered by its contract. 862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vice-president of the Employer, whose offices are at San Diego. The development engineering department performs research work for all the Employer's plants. It designs and tests experimental airplanes and parts, its employees performing all tasks from the originating and developing of the designs to the preparing and executing of flight tests programs. Their work embraces a wide range of activities, including scientific research, the preparation and analysis of detailed technical data, the investigation and solution of problems involved in the fabri- cation and assembly of experimental aircraft and parts, the collection of information and data, and the compilation of manuals, reports, and catalogues. Airplanes designed and planned for test purposes in the development engineering department are constructed in the experi- mental department under the same supervision. The experimental planes so made are tested in the development engineering department. Any plane designs made, tested, and approved for commercial produc- tion by the Employer are manufactured in production departments at one or more of its plants. At the hearing, the development engineering department was functioning with a normal quota of approximately 300 employees. The management of the Vultee Field Division is vested in a plant works manager, under whom function all local plant depart- ments. There are 11 plant departments in which professional and technical employees are working when the plant is in normal opera- tion. At the time of the hearing the plant was not in active produc- tion. Only 2 professional and technical employees, in categories which the Petitioner seeks to represent, were working in the plant depart- ments, 1 employee in the plant engineering department and one employee in the industrial engineering department. The Employer contends that both these plant employees are confidential and man- agerial. Within the plant engineering department one professional em- ployee, known as the procurement engineer, is presently working. This employee investigates requirements, establishes specifications, obtains and evaluates bids, and specifies or selects the most suitable type of machinery or equipment for purchase by the Employer to meet its manufacturing needs. He reviews department requests for machinery; he coordinates department requests in establishing ma- Ichine requirements; and he arranges for interviews and makes con- tacts with vendors for discussion of production or engineering prob- lems. Within the industrial relations department one professional employee, the manufacturing engineer, is presently working. This employee is assistant to the plant manager's consultant on inter- department relations. His duties are to investigate and plan manu- facturing facilities, to determine plant requirements for the procure- CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 863 ment of tools and equipment, and to determine production personnel requirements for the undertaking of production projects. He an- alyzes operations, processes, and manufacturing sequences and the introduction of improvements to reduce operation time. and costs. The entire projected plans for all work under consideration for the plant are entrusted to him and to no subordinates. The plant engineering department, under the plant works manager of the Vultee Field Division, is engaged in the planning, procure- ment, lay-out, installation, and maintenance of all plant equipment, plant facilities, and plant buildings. The industrial engineering de- partment, under the plant works manager of the Vultee Field Di- vision, is charged with achieving maximum efficiency in the plant and the analysis and control of costs. Both departments are broken down into several separate functions. The work carried on in these depart- ments, from the standpoint of training, experience, and assignment, is in no way related to aeronautical engineering, which is the kind of engineering restricted to the development engineering department. Since the plant at Downey is not in active production at this time, no adequate investigation may be had of the functions of the various professional and technical workers who would be normally employed in the several plant departments. We question whether the status of the two professional plant employees now employed can be satis- factorily adjudicated in the absence of other plant professional and technical employees in their respective departments . Employees in the development engineering and experimental departments, how- ever, constitute a clearly homogeneous group of employees engaged in the research field of aeronautical engineering in a well -defined ad- ministrative sector of their Employer's operations. We believe that employees in these two departments may properly constitute a unit appropriate for bargaining purposes apart from employees in the Vultee Field Division. We shall, therefore, at this time make no decision respecting the status or unit placement of professional em- ployees in the plant engineering, industrial relations, or other depart- ments of the Vultee Field Division. The Petitioner and the Employer agree, and we find, that employees in the category of engineering planner A and B in the development engineering department are managerial employees and should be ex- cluded from the bargaining unit.2 They disagree as to the proper unit placement of aerodynamics engineer A, flight test engineer A, design group engineer, group engineer, and design specialists .3 The Peti- 2 They likewise agree that employees in the presently inactive category of personnel engineer should be excluded from the bargaining unit. 3 The parties further disagree as to the unit placement of employees classified as wind tunnel test engineer A, engineer representative A, salvage engineer A, patent engineer A. and patent investigator A, in the development engineering department, and that of tool 864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tioner would include them. The Employer contends that they are confidential and managerial or supervisory employees. Aerodynamics Engineer A: Employees in this classification con- duct the preliminary analysis of new or modified airplane designs and predict the performance of the airplane as developed in preliminary design. From time to time they may direct the activities of other employees away from the plant in wind tunnel tests. They analyze the result of these tests and prepare reports based. upon them. They are from time to time called upon to make recommendations to their supervisor on the performance of employees under their direction during the tests. During the course of the tests, they determine to some extent the schedule and hours of employees engaged in making the tests. They do not handle personnel records. They do not wear the red badge with which the Employer designates, for the benefit of all employees, those in whom it vests supervisory authority. While it appears that aerodynamic engineers are highly skilled employees, it does out appear that they formulate and effectuate management poli- cies. Their supervisory functions are of an incidental or minor nature. We will include the aerodynamics engineer A in the bargaining unit. Flight Test Engineer A: Employees in this classification devise and direct the more complicated method for testing the performance of aircraft and aircraft components under actual flying conditions. Approximately one-half of their time is spent on flight test projects away from the Downey plant. In the absence of their superior, the chief flight test engineer, one of them is generally designated to direct for the time the activities of the other engineers. He directs the tech- nical action and schedules the work of the test. As an incident of this assignment, lie is consulted by his superior about the performance of the men working under his temporary direction. While it appears that these employees are trained professional men, it does not appear that they formulate and effectuate management policies. Their super- visory powers are minor and incidential. They do not wear the red badge which indicates supervisory authority. They exercise no func- tions with respect to labor relations and, hence, are not confidential employees within our meaning of the term. We will include flight test engineers in the bargaining unit. engineer in the experimental shop. The Petitioner would include, and the Employer would exclude, such employees . At the time of the hearing , no persons were employed in any of these work categories . For this reason, we shall make no determination respecting them. If, however , as the result of this proceeding, a certification issue covering professional and technical employees in the development engineering and experimental shop departments, and the Employer later hires employees to fill these presently inactive and disputed cate- gories , and the Employer and the Petitioner then disagree as to their proper placement in the unit, we will consider , upon proper motion filed for clarification of the unit , the inclu- sion or exclusion of such employees . If the parties are then agreed that the job descrip- tions, set forth in the record , substantially set forth the work of such employees in dis- pute, it will not be difficult to determine their unit placement upon the basis of the present record. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 865 Design Group Engineers; Group Engineers and Design Specialists: Design group engineers and group engineers supervise the work of from 3 to 15 engineers working on parts and experimental planes. They direct the work of engineers in their groups. They check their reports and the progress of the work performed. They recommend employees for hire, discharge, and transfer and for wage increases, and their recommendations are effective. In conjunction with their superiors, they make performance ratings on the engineers in their respective groups.' Design group engineers and group engineers wear red badges as indicia of their supervisory authority. We excluded group engineers from the unit found appropriate for clerical and tech- nical employees at the San Diego plant.,' Design group engineers and group engineers working in the development engineering department at the Downey plant are clearly supervisory employees, and, as such, we will exclude them from the unit of technical and professional em- ployees. Design specialists are very highly trained professional employees. They are assigned projects. They create, design, and develop highly complex mechanisms or systems to investigate specific conditions, re- quirements, or phases in one or more specialized fields of airplane per- formance manufacturing. Design specialists may or may not have groups of engineers working under them. At the time of the hearing, of the Employer's six design specialists, two had formerly had groups of engineers working under them, but not. at the time of the hearing, and two had groups of engineers presently working under them. The remaining two design specialists had had no groups of engineers work- ing under them since they had been transferred to the classification of' design specialist from higher and clearly supervisory positions. All design specialists, like design group engineers and group engineers,. wear the red badge indicating supervisory authority, whether or not at any given time groups of engineers are specifically assigned to work with them. We will exclude design specialists from the bargaining unit for non-supervisory employees. The Petitioner has organized design group engineers, group engi- neers, and design specialists, and desires to represent them. Design group engineers and group engineers in research work are like fore- men in production work in their relation to employees working under their direction. Design specialists are more highly trained techni- cians. They exercise no supervisory authority over design group engi- neers and group engineers. They exercise comparable supervisory power. Under these circumstances we will find appropriate a unit Of design group engineers, group engineers, and design specialists. 4 The Employer requires that two persons must collaborate in the making of rating or- performance sheets for professional employees. 5 Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 54 N. L. R. B. 103, 111. 701592-47-vo1.69 56 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that professional, semi-professional and technical employees in the Employer's development engineering and experimental shop departments at Downey, California, including the aerodynamics en- gineer A and flight test engineer A, but excluding engineering planners A and B, design group engineers, group engineers, design specialists, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We find that all design group engineers, group engineers, and de- sign specialists in the Employer's development engineering and ex- perimental shop departments at Downey, California, excluding all supervisory employees above these categories, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Downey, California, separate 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 super- vision 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, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the respective units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi- ately 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 including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Engineers & Architects Association of Southern California, Aircraft Chapter, for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring in part, dissenting in part: I agree that non-supervisory professional and technical employees in the development engineering and experimental shop departments CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 867 at Downey, California , constitute an appropriate bargaining unit; that aerodynamics engineers and flight test engineers should be in- cluded in the unit ; and that design group engineers , group engineers, and design specialists should be excluded from the unit found ap- propriate for non-supervisory engineering employees. For reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in hatter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division,6 I am constrained to dissent from the decision so far as it relates to setting up a separate unit for design group engineers , group engi- neers, and design specialists. 6 66 N. L. R. B. 386.