The Ryan Aeronautical Co.

In the Matter of THE RYAN AERON \L"TICAL Co., EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 21-R-4092.-Decided February 25, 194 •Ajr. James 1'17. Bunnell, of San Diego, Calif., for the Employer. Mr. F. R. White, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner. Mr. Fred 0krand, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at San Diego, California, on November 13, 1047, before George H. O'Brien, 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 Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE 13n7SIN SS OF TIIE EMPLOYER The Ryan Aeronautical Co. is a California corporation engaged in the manufacture of aircraft, aircraft exhaust systems, caskets, and stainless steel products. The plant of the Employer involved in this case is located at San Diego, California. During the year prior to August 26, 1947, the Employer purchased supplies worth in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped from points outside the State. During the same period the value of the Employer's output exceeded $1,000,000, of which more than 25 percent was shipped to points outside the State. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man pan9l consisting of the undersigned Board Members [Houston, Reynolds, and Gray] 76 N. L. R. B , No. 49. 356 THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO. 11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 3.37 The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its Local 506, herein collectively called the Intervenor, are labor organizations affiliated with the Con- gress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. TilE QUI,:STLON CONCI?RNING REPRESEN'T'ATION 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. The Intervenor was certified on October 21, 1940, as exclusive bar- gaining representative for the employees whom the Petitioner now seeks to represent.2 The Employer and the Intervenor executed a collective bargaining contract on February 26, 1946, to continue in force until February 18, 1947, and from year to year thereafter unless notice of a desire to modify or terminate should be given not more than 60 days, nor less than 45 days, prior to February 18 of any year. Provision was further made that if such a notice is given, negotiations should be opened on proposed changes in the contract but that, unless terminated by either party on 30 days' notice, the contract should remain in force until agreement was reached. Prior to February 18, 1947, the Intervenor gave timely notice of a desire to amend the contract and negotiations on the proposed changes continued until about August 13, 1947. In the meantime, on July 22, 1947, the Intervenor gave 30 days' notice of a desire to terminate the contract. However, this notice was re- scinded on August 21, and it is the position of the Intervenor that the old contract is, therefore, still in effect and is a bar to the present proceeding. Even if we accept the Intervenor's contention that the provisions of the contract executed on February 26, 1946, including the automatic renewal clause, are still in effect, inasmuch as the instant petition was filed on August 15, 1947, prior to the operative date of that clause, we 2 27 N L It B 14. This certification did not, however, include the employees in the Customeis' Service Department, referred to below, inasmuch as that department was not then in existence Theie were, moreover, specifically excluded from this certification certain employees who were represented by United Aircraft Welders of America, Ind. See fn 4, vnfin. 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD are compelled to find that the contract is not a bar to a determination of representatives.3 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Iv. THE APPROPRIATE U'N'IT The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's San Diego plant, including air- craft mechanics, but excluding the inspector in the Customers' Service Department, office workers, employees in the engineering depart- ment, all foremen, subforemen, all other supervisors, guards, and those employees who are represented by United Aircraft Wielders, Ind.4 The Employer and Intervenor have no objection to a unit so constituted, except that the Intervenor would not exclude from the unit the inspector in the Customers' Service Department and the Employer, on the other hand, would exclude both the inspector and the aircraft mechanics, all of whom work in that department. The Customers' Service Department is a comparatively new opei - ation of the Employer, having been established on September 1, 1947. It is housed in a building which is 500 yards distant from the main factory building, where the employees in the existing unit perform their work. The employees in the Customers' Service Department are hired by the same individuals who recruit production workers generally, and they are subject to the same personnel procedures. and are carried on the same pay rolls as the rest of the workers in the plant. The disputed categories are, as already noted, the aircraft mechanics and the inspector in this department. The aircraft mechanics: Unlike the "field and service" mechanics employed in the main factory buildings, the aircraft mechanics are required to be licensed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration.' The field and service mechanics work on aircraft in the process of completion. The aircraft mechanics install special equipment de- sired by a customer after the airplane has been completed and is ready for delivery. They also service and repair airplanes brought in by customers, whether or not the planes were manufactured by 3 Matter of Dreicrps Limited. U S .4 , Inc , 74 N L R. B 3.- 4 In inlaIter of Ifryan Aeronautical Co, 17 N L R B 231, the Boaid certified United _1ii- craft welders of America, Ind , as the bargaining agent for all employees at the Emplo3ei s San i,.iego plant who spent moie than 50 percent of then Working time in oxv-acetylene ox7-h3diogen, and electric ate melding, in gas-torch cutting. and in work as neldct s helpers 6 nowevel, some of the field and service mechanics have the same licenses as the aircraft inc hailics THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO. 359 the Employer. While the field and service mechanics may have sufficient technical skill to qualify for a job as aircraft mechanic, they would not be transferred to such a job unless, in addition, they had the requisite C. A. A. license and sufficient poise and personality to meet customers. The inspector: The inspector examines the work of the aircraft mechanics. The record is barren of any evidence as to what happens if the inspection discloses faulty work as whether the inspectors findings might affect the earnings of thu aircraft mechanics. So far as the record discloses, the inspector is not a supervisor. Like the air- craft mechanics, lie is subject to the same personnel procedures, and is on the same pay roll, as the rest of the employees in the plant. There is no evidence that his duties are essentially different from those of inspectors in the main factory building who, it would appear," are presently included in the unit.' Ordinarily we would include in a production and maintenance unit employees whose working conditions are, as here, similar to those of the other production and maintenance employees." However, inas- much as the aircraft mechanics and inspector were not included in the past bargaining contract, we shall order a self-determination election 9 so that they may indicate whether or not they desire to be included in the plant-wide bargaining unit sought here. We shall, therefore, make no finding concerning the appropriate unit for employees of the Employer pending the outcome of the elec- tions. We shall direct that separate elections be conducted among em- ployees in the voting groups described below, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Di- rection of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction : 1. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's San Diego plant, excluding those described in paragraph 2, below, and, also, excluding all office workers, employees in the engineering department, foremen, subforemen, all other supervisors, all guards, and those em- ployees who spend more than 50 percent of their working time in oxy- °The pi oduction and maintenance unit certified on October 21, 1940, contains no express exclusion of inspectors, and there is no evidence in the instant case or in the prior case that they have been excluded ' A point of distinction stressed by the Enrplover Ni as that this inspector is sated by the Civil Aeronautics Adnnnistiation as a Designated Aircraft Maintenance Inspector with authority to make annual inspections on behalf of that agency with the same effect as its own inspectors It does not appear, however, that this fact precludes a community of interest between the inspector and the other employees. 'Matter of Piper Ao craft Corporation, 73 N L R B 427 (inspectors) , and Matter of Dl Campo Rice Milling Conipanil, 73 \ L R B. 927 (mechanics). 8Mattct of Sorq Paper Conipani/, 74 N L R B. 5, and 11attcs of Gunnison Homes, Inc 72 N L R. B 940. 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD acetylene , oxy-hydrogen and electric are welding, in gas-torch cutting and in work as welder's helpers ; and 2. All aircraft mechanics and the inspector in the Customers' Serv- ice Department at the Employer's San Diego plant. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with The Ryan Aeronautical Co., San Diego, California, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the T\venty-first Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the separate voting groups described in Section ITT, 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, 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, and also exclud- ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter- mine whether they desire to be represented by International Associa- tion of Machinists or by United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America. Local 506, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.