Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corp.

In the Matter Of PILOTLESS PLANE DIVISION , FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and METROPOLITAN FEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS , ENGINEERS , CHEMISTS AND TECHNICIANS, LOCAL 231, UOPWA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No.;?-R-6697-Decided February 3,1947 Mr. William E. Speeler, of Farmingdale, Long Island, N. Y., and Mr. E. W. Lenk, of Jamaica, Long Island, N. Y., for the Employer. Messrs. Victor Rabinowitz and Thomas R. Sullivan, of New York City, for the Petitioner. Mr. Herbert C. Kane, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New York City, on August 9, 1946 and January 3, 1947,1 before Sidney Reitman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Corporation, a Maryland corpora- tion, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and distributing aircraft and its component parts. For this purpose it maintains five divisions, one of which is the Pilotless Plane Division, solely involved in this proceeding. This Division was formerly located in Jamaica, and is now located in Farmingdale, Long Island, New York. Part of the Employer's over-all operations, the Division is exclu- sively engaged in design and research on a special project for the United States Navy. From February 1, 1946, to July 31, 1946, the 1 After August 9, 1946, the Board ordered that the record be reopened for the purpose of receiving additional evidence. This evidence was adduced on January 3, 1947 ' On January 20, 1947, the Board denied the motiod of the UAW-CIO, Local #616, to intervene, to reopen the record and to dismiss the petition, on the ground that it failed to produce proof of interest. 72 N. L. R. B., No. 72. 381 •382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Division purchased aluminum, hardware, and related products, valued at approximately $40,000, of which less than $3,000 worth came from points outside the State of New York. Devices to be used by the Division in the special project have been furnished by the United States Navy; all such devices have come from points outside the State of New York. At various stages during the project, experimental units embodying designs have been delivered to the United States Navy at the plant. All finished products go to the United States Navy, the Division operating on a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with the Navy. Parties to the contract, however, are the Employer itself and the United States Navy. The Division is under the ultimate control of the Empolyer's Board of Directors and under the immediate super- vision of the Employer's Vice President in charge of over-all opera- tions. All profits accruing from the work of the Division will be pooled with the other profits of the Employer for tax and dividend purposes. Funds under the contract are advanced to the Employer, which allo- cates them to the Division. Although the Division has a separate bank account, funds therein are deposited by the Employer upon their receipt from the Navy. The present work of the Division is being performed with the view of doing actual production work if the ex- periments prove successful. The Board has previously taken juris- diction over other Divisions of the Employer.3 We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the operations of the Pilotless Plane Division, as part of the Employer's integrated enterprise, affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.4 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner 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. ' Matter of Ranger Aircraft Division, 61 N L R B 1187 , Matter of Fairchild Aircraft Division, 41 N L R B 521 IN L R B. v Virginia Electric E Power Company, 314 U S 469, affirming on this point 115 F (2d) 414 (C C A 4), enf'g 20 N L R B. 911, Williams Motor Company V N L R B, 128 F. (2d) 960 (C C A 8), enf'g 31 N L Ii E 715; N L R B v. Schmidt Baking Co Inc, 122 F (2d) 162 (C C A 4), enf'g 27 N. L R B_ 864. FAIRCHILD ENGINE AND AIRPLANE CORPORATION IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT 383 We find, in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that all employees of the Engineering Department of the Employer's'Pilot- less Plane Division, excluding the chief engineer, assistant chief engi- neer, all section chief and assistant section chief engineers, all project and assistant project engineers, all group engineers, all technical clerks, all office and clerical employees, all managerial employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, 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. 0 V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On August 9, 1946, the first clay of the hearing, the Employer con tended, contrary to the desires of the Petitioner, that an immediate election should not be directed because (1) the Division would be moved from Jamaica to Farmingdale; (2) following the removal the number of employees in the appropriate unit would be increased from 80 to more than 200; and (3) due to the additional travel necessitated by the removal, a large number of employees comprising the appro- priate unit would resign. The Employer therefore asked that the election be deferred until December 1, 1946, or 30 days after the re- moval, whichever was later. Evidence adduced on January 3, 1947, the last day of the hearing (which was reopened by order of the Board), shows that the move has been completed, and that, despite the resignation of between 20 and 30 employees as a result of the removal, there were on January 3 approximately 115 employees in the appropriate unit. Inasmuch as it is likely that by this time more than one-half of the full complement of employees in the appropriate unit is employed by the Employer, and in view of the fact that approximately 30 clays have elapsed since the removal, we believe that an election should now be held. We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Pilotless Plane Division, Fair- child Engine and Airplane Corporation, Jamaica, Long Island, New York, 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, 731242-47-vol 72 26 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of Na- tional 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 or not they desire to be represented by Metropolitan Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, Local 231, UOPWVA, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.