Piper Aircraft Corp.

In the Matter Of PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and AIRCRAFT WORKERS UNION (A. F. L.), PETITIONER Case No. 16-1?-1,971.-Decided April 16, 19417 Messrs. Felix Duval and A. Hans f ord Eckman, of Ponca City, Okla., for the Employer. Mr. Dean Baugh, of Oklahoma City, Okla., for the Petitioner. Mr. M. R. Lee, of Wichita, Kans., for the Intervenor. Mr. Thomas B. Sweeney, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Ponca City, Oklahoma, on January 8, 1947, before V. Lee McMahon, hearing officer. The hearing officer'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 Piper Aircraft Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal office and factory in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, and a branch factory at Ponca City, Oklahoma, is engaged in manufactur- ing and distributing airplanes. This proceeding is concerned only with the Ponca City plant. During the month of July 1946, the first month of operations, the Employer purchased $60,000 worth of ma- terials for use at the Ponca City plant, 80 percent of which was shipped to this plant from points outside the State of Oklahoma. During the same month, it sold airplanes produced at the Ponca City plant valued in excess of $10,000, approximately 85 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 73 N. L. it. B., No. 84. 427 428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer.2 International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organi- zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claim- ing 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 parties agree that the unit should include all production and maintenance employees and storeroom men but should exclude all supervisory employees, foremen, leadmen, timekeepers, _ guards, and clerical employees. The only disagreement concerns inspectors : the Petitioner and the Intervenor would include them; the Employer would exclude them. The record discloses that the inspectors perform the tasks of ascer- taining whether the manufactured parts conform to the drawings and specifications and of preparing the inspection reports. They may reject work but as the production employees are not working on a piece-rate basis the rejections do not affect the earnings of the latter. The pay of the inspectors varies from 82 cents per hour to $1.02 per hour depending upon the importance of the work assigned. Their remuneration exceeds that of the employees whose work they inspect by about 15 percent. The Employer does not contend that they are 2 The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act The evidence discloses that 145 of the Employer 's employees have banded together under the leadership of the Secretary of the Ponca City Trades and Labor Council for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the Employer with respect to working conditions and rates of pay. It is clear that the Act prescribes no special form of internal organization as a prerequisite for recognition as a labor organization . Section 2 (5) thereof defines a "labor organization " in the broadest terms , declaring that "The term `labor organization' means any organization of any kind , or any agency or employee representation committee or plan, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances , labor dis- putes, wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work " The Petitioner meets the test of a "labor organization" as defined in the- statute Accordingly, we find that Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act See Matter of The Regina Corporation, 57 N. L R. B. 4, N L R. B v.'American Furnace Company, 158 F. (2d) 376 (C. C A. 7). PIPER AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 429 supervisory employees but desires to exclude them because, in the Employer's opinion, the quality of the workmanship would be better controlled if they were excluded from the production and maintenance unit. We have frequently included inspectors whose duties were simi- lar to those of the inspectors here involved, in units of production and maintenance workers. Since no substantial reason appears for de- parting from our usual custom, we shall include them in the present unit.3 We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Ponca City plant, including storeroom men and in- spectors, but excluding leadmen, timekeepers, guards, clerical em- ployees, foremen, 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, con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Employer contends that no election should be held at the pres- ent time because of a contemplated expansion in its operations. In view of the following facts we find that the Employer's contention is without merit : At the time of the hearing, the Employer employed 290 persons, 220 of whom are in the unit hereinbefore found appro- priate. The Employer estimates that it will reach its full comple- ment of 800 employees in September or October 1947. The record reveals that the contemplated increase of personnel at its Ponca City, Oklahoma, plant, is dependent upon many factors, including the low- ering of production costs, the acquiring of title to the plant from the United States Government, and an increase in the, volume of its sales. In view bf the indefiniteness of the plans for, and the time at which, the anticipated increase in personnel will take place, together with the fact that the present complement is engaged in producing a finished product and is representative of the group which will eventually be employed, we shall adhere to our usual policy in such circumstances and direct an immediate election.4 We shall, however, entertain a new petition for investigation and certification of representatives covering the employees involved herein within less than a year, but not before the expiration of 6 months from the date of any certification we may issue in the instant proceeding, upon proof (1) that the number of employees in the appropriate unit 8 See Matter of Russell Electric Company, 72 N L R B. 278; Matter of Duramold Dive- sion of faire/ald Eugene & Airplane Corporation , 72 N L R B 1113 " Hatter of Tuttle Silver Company , Inc, 66 N L R B. 238 ; Matter of Adler Metal Products Corp, 67 N L R B 328 , Matter of Firestone Tire & Rubber ' Company, 69 N. L R B 634. 430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is more than double the number eligible to vote in,the election herein- after directed, and (2) that the Petitioner represents a substantial number of employees in the expanded appropriate unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Piper Aircraft Corporation, Ponca City, Oklahoma, an election 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 Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, 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. they desire to be represented by Aircraft Workers Union (A. F. L.), or by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft S-, Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 5 Any participant in the- election herein may upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director have its name removed from the ballot. °