Garner Aviation Service Corp.

GARNER AVIATION SERVICE CORPORATION 517 The radio and radar electricians constitute, therefore, but a segment ,of the electrical craft in the Employer's plant .4 As it is well estab- lished that the Board will not find a segment of a craft to be appro- priate,-' we shall dismiss the petition.6 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. '' Although there is a reference in the record to a maintenance electrician classification elsewhere in the plant, the record does not establish whether or not such employees are craftsmen. 5 Milprint, Inc., 90 NLRB 98 ; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 87 NLRB 40. See also The Baldwin Locomotive Works, 89 NLRB 403. E If the field and service electricians were added to the voting group , the Petitioner's showing of interest would not be sufficient for the purpose of directing an election. GARNER AVIATION SERVICE CORPORATION AND LYNCHBURG AIR TRANS- PORT & SALES CORPORATION, VIRGINIA CORPORATIONS AUTHORIZED TO DO BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA , D/B/A GARNER AVIATION SERVICE CORPORATION 1 and., INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-IBC=1956. November 21, 19510 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged, under contract with the United States Government, in the operation of a facility at Bartow, Florida, where it trains aviation cadets and performs the necessary maintenance on aircraft used in such training. Pursuant to the contract, title to all property and equipment is vested in the United States Government .2 As additional supplies or items of equipment are needed, the Employer obtains them from the nearest Air Force depot, or if they are not thus available, it purchases them locally and is reimbursed by the Govern- ment for the purchase price plus freight charges. Title to supplies or equipment thus purchased vests in the Government upon delivery 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The real estate on which this training base is located is leased by the Air Force from the city of Bartow. 101 NLRB No. 102. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to the Employer at the training base, except for items determined by the administrative contracting officer 8 not to be necessary to the performance of the Employer's contract. The Employer is responsible for the hiring and discharging of employees engaged to operate the facility, and determines their wages and other conditions of employment. Wage scales, however, are subject to approval by the administrative contracting officer and authority is reserved to the Air Force commanding officer at this facility to order the discharge of any employee whenever he deems, it to be in the best interest of the operation to do so. In the light of the foregoing facts, we find, contrary to the Em- ployer's contention, that it is an "employer" of the employees at the training base, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act' And it is the Board's policy to assert jurisdiction over an employer engaged in activities affecting commerce whose operations are part of the national defense effort.5 The record now before us fails to disclose the extent to which the Employer's operations involve movement of goods or planes across State lines from which it may be determined whether the Employer is, in fact, engaged in activities affecting com- merce within the meaning of the Act. We need not, however, deter- mine in this proceeding the issue as to "commerce," for we find, in any event, that the petition should be dismissed because the unit sought is inappropriate. 2. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the employees in the Employer's aircraft maintenance department. The Employer opposes this request, contending that the only appropriate unit is one which includes also the employees in its other operative departments.s The Board has granted maintenance department units, in the absence of collective bargaining history, on the ground that they have consti- tuted essentially multicraft groups of maintenance employees, pos- sessing interests sufficiently different from those of the production employees to justify their original establishment in a separate unit.? In the present case, the record discloses that a substantial number of job classifications in the aircraft maintenance department, such as electricians, carpenters, painters, and mechanics, as well as vehicle operators, laborers, and janitors, are also to be found either in the base maintenance department or in some of the other departments." 9 The contract provides for a Government official , known as the administrative contract- ing officer, who is located on the base and serves as Air Force 's representative from the procurement district. * See Great Southern Chemical Corporation, 96 NLRB 1013 , and cases therein cited. 6 Westport Moving and Storage Company, Crate Making Division, 91 NLRB 902. e The Employer's operations are divided into the following departments : Flying training, academic training, base supply, fire, ground transportation, base maintenance, and aircraft maintenance. ' Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328. 8 The specific duties of such categories in base maintenance and several other depart- ments were not, however, developed in the record. SENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 519 As it thus appears that the unit sought omits a substantial number of the Employer's maintenance craftsmen, we find it is inappropriate for collective bargaining." We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. Cf Stenolind Oil and Gas Research Section, 81 NLRB 1089 . See also Marshall Mid and Co , 97 NLRB 5. KENT PLASTICS CORPORATION 1 and UNITED AIITOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER.. Case No. 35-RC-786. November 21, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John W. Hines, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer and the Petitioner substantially agree that a unit of production and maintenance employees, including the watchmen- janitors and excluding office and clerical employees, is appropriate. They disagree concerning approximately 25 group leaders; the Peti- tioner claims that these employees are supervisors. The Employer opposes their exclusion from the unit on the ground that they have no supervisory authority. For the 300 employees presently employed, there are, excluding the group leaders, about 17 supervisors and foremen, a ratio of 1 super- visor to 17 or 18 employees. The group leaders, usually longer em- ' The Emplo-, er's name appears as amended at the hearing. 101 NLRB No. 107.