Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION (FORT WORTH DIVISION), EMPLOYER and LOCAL AIRCRAFT No. 900, AFFILI- ATED FEDERATED INDEPENDENT TEXAS UNION, PETITIONER Case No. 16-R-1774 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES February 7, 1947 On October 18, 1946, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Elections issued herein by the Board on September 20, 1946,E elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region among the employ- ees in the units found appropriate in the Decision. Upon completion of the elections, Tallies of Ballots were issued and duly served by the Regional Director upon the parties concerned. No objections to the elections in voting units Nos. 1, 3, and 4, were filed by any of the parties within the time provided therefor.2 Inasmuch as it appeared from the Tallies in these units that collective bargaining representatives had been selected, the Board, on December 2, 1946, issued Certifications of Representatives therein. As to voting unit No. 2, the Tally showed that, of the approximately 143 eligible voters, 73 cast votes for the Petitioner, 6t for the IAM, and 6 for neither. The IAM filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election in this unit. Thereupon, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and issued and duly served upon the parties a Report on Objections, dated October 31, 1946. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that the IAM's objections be overruled. Sub- sequently, on November 5, ,1946, the IAM filed a protest in the nature of exceptions to this report. 1 70 N L. It. B 1357 The Board found appropriate therein separate units of the follow- ing employees ( 1) production an(' maintenance employees , t2) inspectors ; ( 3) timekeep- ers; and (4) tool planners , tool designers, and tool liaison employees 2 The objections filed by International Association of Machinists , Local No 776 , herein called the IAM, to the election held in voting unit No 4 were heretofore overruled by the Board as untimely made 72 N L. R B, No. 90. 497 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On December 2, 1946, the Board', having considered the IAM's objections, the Regional Director's Report on Objections and the TAM's exceptions thereto, directed that a hearing be held on the objections relating to the alleged assignment of five employees 3 to the job classifi- cation of inspectors before the eligibility date fixed in the Decision-and Direction of Elections herein end the subsequetit denial by the Board agent of the alleged right of these individuals to vote in the inspectors' unit.4 Thereafter, a hearing was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on December 11, 12. and 13, 1946, before Elmer Davis, heaving officer. All parties appeared and participated. 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 Board makes the following: SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT TV. W. Weaver: This individual was assigned by the Employer to the job of inspector in June 1946, and was serving in that capacity both on September 15, 1946, the pay-roll eligibility date, and at the time of the elections herein. He was classified as an inspecting department employee on the eligibility lists, and it is clear that he participated in the election held in the inspectors' unit. In view of the foregoing, we find that the IAM's objections to the election held in the inspectors' unit relating to the vote cast by W. W. Weaver are without merit and they are hereby overruled. E. E. Coursey, C. C. Davis, G. Harlewood, and P. R. Riley: The record shows that these individuals were working for the Employer as production and maintenance employees on September 15, 1946, and that, in the interim between the eligibility date and the date of the elections, they were permanently transferred to the job classification of inspectors .6 However, they were designated on the eligibility lists 3 W W. Weaver, E E Coursey, C C. Davis, G Hazlewood and P R Riley Most of the IAM's further objections to the election held in this unit were overruled by the Poaid on the ground that they raised no substantial or material issues The remain- der were overruled as untimely made, inasmuch as they were presented for the first time in the 1AM's exceptions At the reopened hearing, the IAM sought for the first time to adduce evidence on objec- tions relating to alleged changes in the Employer's records after the election, which the JAM contends, reflect on the status of approximateiy 40 employees and indicate that these employees were entitled to vote in the inspectors' unit, although they were placed on the eligibility list of, and voted in, the production and maintenance employees' unit The hearing officer excluded such evidence Thereafter, the LAM moved that the proceeding he further reopened to receive this evidence, and submitted an offer of proof in connection with its motion The offer of proof was rejected by the hearing officer and ruling on the motion was reserved for the hoard We find that the evidence in question was not within the scope of the present hearing and was properly excluded we also find that the objec- tions raised in the IAM's motion are untimely made Accordingly, the IAM's motion for further hearing is hereby denied and the ruling by the hearing officer rejecting the offer of p'oof in connection therewith -is hereby upheld c The tiansfeis of the employees in issue became effective on the following dates : Hazle- wood-September 16, 1946 , Riley-September 23, 1946 , Coursey and Davis-October 14, 1946 CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 499 as production and maintenance employees, and were apparently directed to cast their ballots with such employees. Under established Board practice, the individuals in issue were not entitled to participate in the election held either in the production and maintenance employees' unit or in the inspectors' unit.' However, it is apparent that their votes did not affect the results of the election conducted among the production and maintenance employees." And, as to the election held in the inspectors' unit, these individuals were properly denied ballots to participate therein. Accordingly, we find no merit in the IAM's objections to the election held in the inspectors' unit with respect to the votes cast by E. E. Coursey, C. C. Davis, G. Hazlewood, and P. R. Riley, and they are hereby overruled. Inasmuch as the results of the election held in voting unit No. 2 show that the Petitioner has received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representa- tive of the employees in this unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that Local Aircraft No. 900, Affiliated Fed- erated Independent Texas Union, has been designated and selected by a majority of all inspectors of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corpora- tion, at its Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth, Texas, excluding the chief inspector, supervisors and assistant supervisors, and all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees, for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment. ' Matter of Basic Magnesium, Incorporated, 56 N L R B 412, and Matter of Manganese Ore Company, 54 N L R.B. 1192. Cf. Matter of Air Products, Inc, 63 N L R. B. 1338, and Matter of Bendix Aviation Corp, Bendix Radio Division, 61 N. L. R. B 142 1In the election held in the production and maintenance employees' unit, the Tally of Ballots showed that, of the approximately 5,498 eligible voters, 4,904 cast valid votes, of which 1,874 were for the Petitioner, 2,883 were for the IAM, and 147 were for neither ; in addition, there were 15 challenged ballots and 19 void ballots.