Grand Central Airport Co.

In the Matter of GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED, AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI- CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO) PETITIONER Case No. 21-R-3-351.-Decided September 3, 1946 Latham & Watkins, by Mr. Paul R. Watkins , of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Employer. Mr. Scelecttor Gage, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner. Mr. Robert J. Freehling, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Los Angeles, California, on June 14, 1946, before James A. Cobey, 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 Grand Central Airport Company, a California corporation, is engaged in operating an airport, in overhauling, repairing and recon- verting airplanes and airplane engines, and in training personnel for work in the aircraft industry, at its Glendale, California, airport. The Employer is not a common carrier by air. During the 12 months preceding the hearing, the Employer used materials valued in excess of $400,000, of which more than 60 percent represented shipments from sources outside the State of California. During the same period, the Employer sold materials and services valued in excess of $3,500,000, of which approximately 1 percent represented shipments to customers outside the State. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- Ing of the atrona. 70 N. L. R. B., No. 91. 1094 GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT COMPANY ' 1095 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1 The Petitioner 2 is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. , III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has 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 UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including the storekeeper and stock clerks of the airplane division, and the gas dispensers, but excluding project planners, timekeepers, plant-protection employees, firemen, leadmen and all other supervisory employees.3 The Employer takes the pri- mary position that the appropriate unit should generally include all its nonsupervisory employees; in the alternative, it would limit the unit to its production employees, including therein the project planners and leadmen, and excluding therefrom the storekeeper and stock clerks of the airplane division, and the gas dispensers. Scope O 'f unit: The Employer's operations are conducted at its Glendale, California, airport, where its physical facilities consist of an airfield, with build- ings and hangars on one side and additional buildings on the opposite side thereof. Organizationally, its operations are divided into various divisions including the' airplane, engine overhaul, transient service, field maintenance, operations control, normal overhead, and pur- chasing and stores divisions, and the Cal-Aero Technical Institute. These components function as follows : The Cal-Aero Technical In- 'On July 23, 1946, subsequent to the hearing in the instant case, the International Association of Machinists , hereinafter called the IAM, for itself and in behalf of District Lodge Number 727, filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding and to be placed on the ballot in any election directed herein. Thereafter, on July 30, 1946, the Board ordered the parties to show cause in writing, filed with the Board on or before August 12, 1946, why this motion should not be granted . By letter dated August 7, 1946, the Petitioner inter- posed objections to the proposed action. Inasmuch as it appears that the IAM did not have any representation interest in the employees in issue at the time of the hearing, we shall, for the reasons stated in Matter of The United Boat Service Corporation, 55 N. L. R. B. 671 , deny the IAM's motion . See also Matter of Swift and Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 440. z The name of the Petitioner appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. The unit appears above as amended at the hearing 1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stitute, which is located in buildings on both sides of the airfield, is a vocational school engaged in training students for skilled jobs in the aircraft industry; the airplane, engine overhaul and transient service divisions, which are situated in a group of the hangars, perform the repairing, overhauling and reconverting of airplanes and airplane en- gines; the field maintenance division4 is charged with the maintenance of the entire airport, including all facilities located therein; and the operations control, normal overhead and purchasing and stores di- visions are concerned pirncipally with the Employer's administrative and clerical duties. It is generally apparent from the foregoing, and from the entire record, that the individuals employed in the airplane, engine overhaul, transient service and field maintenance divisions comprise the Employer's production and maintenance employees, and that, except for occasional technical assistance rendered by instruc- tors of the Cal-Aero Technical Institute, no interchange of employees ordinarily occurs between the production and maintenance divisions and the remainder of the Employer's operations. Accordingly, inasmuch as the Petitioner has organized the Em- ployer's production and maintenance employees and the foregoing facts establish the appropriateness of a unit of such employees, we shall reject the Employer's contentions as to the scope of the unit.' We come now to a discussion of the disputed categories. Storekeeper: The Employer employs one storekeeper who is charged with the safekeeping of customers' property after its removal, from airplanes being serviced. He is assigned to a hangar of the airplane division and is supervised in his work by the'superintendent of that division. He is apparently subject to the same conditions of employment as the other production and maintenance employees. It is therefore clear that the interests of the storekeeper are closely akin to those of the production and maintenance employees and, accordingly, we shall include him in the unit. Stock clerks: The parties are also in dispute as to 2 stock clerks who, unlike the 30 to 35 stock clerks in the purchasing and stores division functioning generally as office clericals, are assigned'to the airplane division and work under the supervision of the superintendent of the latter division. Their duties include the safekeeping and issuing of equipment used in the overhaul and reconversion of airplanes and their storeroom,is 4 This division appears to include such employees as janitors , general utility workers, laborers , gardeners, maintenance mechanics, maintenance carpenters , maintenance painters and truck drivers. See Matter of Armour and Company, d/b/a Armour Creameries, 63 N L. R. B 1214; and Matter of Seripto Manufaeturmg Company, 65 N. L. R. B 222. GRAND CENTRAL, AIRPORT COMPANY 1097 located in a hangar of the airplane division. It is apparent that the stock clerks of the airplane division are in close contact with the pro- duction and maintenance employees and that their work closely re- sembles that of factory clericals. Under well established principles of the Board, such employees are included in units of production and maintenance employees in the absence of agreement of the parties to exclude them.6 Consequently, we shall include the stock clerks of the airplane division in the unit. Gas dispensers: The six gas dispensers employed by the Employer are part of the transient service division and are engaged in filling the gas tanks of aircraft on the Employer's airfield. Inasmuch as the gas dispensers form an integral part of the transient service division, which is ad- mittedly a production division, we are of the opinion that their inter- ests are closely identifiable with those of the production and maintenance employees. We shall, therefore, include them in the unit. Project planners: The Employer employs three project planners who plan and co- ordinate the flow of parts through the various repair and overhaul departments. Although they work in one of the hangars of the air- plane division, they are supervised by the head of the operations con- trol division and are considered by the Employer to be part,of the operations control division. Inasmuch as the project planners appear to serve in a capacity similar to that of efficiency experts, and on the entire record in the case, we are of the opinion that their interests are substantially different from those of the production and maintenance employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude the project planners from the unit.' Leadmen: The Employer's 30 leadmen are employed in the airplane, engine overhaul, and transient service divisions where each is assigned to oversee the work of from 2 to 10 employees. Although each leadman spends a substantial portion of his time performing the same type of work as his subordinates, he is also responsible for the latter's in- struction, the quantity and quality of their output, and the safety in the performance of their duties. In addition, he receives a higher rate of pay than that of his subordinates. The leadmen do not appear to have authority to hire, promote, or discharge, but they are required to submit periodic ratings of their subordinates, and these reports 6 Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L . R B 531 ; Matter of Cities Service Oil Company, 60 N. L. R. B 988 , and Matter of Rockford Screw Products Co , 62 N. L. R. B 1430. ' Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc , 60 N L. R. B 876. 7098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are relied upon and form the basis of action taken by persons having such authority. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the leadmen are supervisory employees within the Board's customary definition of that term and, accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees 8 of the Employer at its Glendale, California, airport, including the store- -keeper and stock clerks of the airplane division, and the gas dispensers, but excluding project planners, timekeepers, plant-protection em- ployees,-firemen, leadmen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such -action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Grand Central Airport Com- pany, Glendale, California, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted 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, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit 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 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 election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Union, United- Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), -for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part ii the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 8 We hereby adopt the agreement of the parties at the hearing to include in the estab- lished unit as production employees the inspectors and engine parts inspectors.