Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record, including the proximity of the two plants and the interchange of employees, we find that the two-plant unit may be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act. We will be guided in our final unit determination by the outcome of the election directed below. We will direct an election in the following voting group : All employees at the Employer's pyridine plant at Pasadena, Texas, excluding electricians and their helpers, laboratory testers, guards, P. B. X. operators, clerical, administrative, professional, and technical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.2 If a majority of the employees in the foregoing voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be added to the existing unit of employees at the Employer's am- monium sulphate plant, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 'The foregoing exclusions were stipulated by the parties. The record shows that the Employer does not intend to hire any electricians or other maintenance employees for the pyridine plant but, as already stated, intends to use its maintenance crew at the ammo- nium sulphate plant to service the other plant. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, FORT WORTH DIVISION and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 776, INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1153. November 25,195w 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 Sulton J. Boyd, hear- ing 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.,' 1 The Federated Independent Texas Unions , Aircraft Local No . 900, intervened at the hearing. 101 NLRB No. 112. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 585 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.2 The Petitioner originally sought in this proceeding a unit consist- ing of all tool planners, tool designers, tool liaison employees, and fab- rication specification planners. This unit is substantially the same- as that found appropriate by the Board in two prior proceedings.3 Since its certification on February 7, 1947, the Intervenor has rep- resented the employees in this unit. At the hearing, the Petitioner amended its petition to include not only employees in the classifica- tions listed above, but also employees classified as installation plan- ners "A", "B", and "C", planning control men "A" and "B", and planning 'requirements clerks. This latter group of employees com- prises a unit for which the Petitioner has bargained since its certifi- cation following a consent election held in 1950.4 The effect of the amendment to the petition is to request a merger- of the bargaining group currently represented by the Intervenor with the Petitioner's existing unit described above. The Intervenor ob- jects to the scope of the amended unit, contending that it is not ap- propriate. The employees in the two existing bargaining units per- form similar work and are all located, with but a few exceptions, in the same office area, which is physically separated from the rest of the plant. They have the same general working conditions and the immediate supervision of many of the employees cuts across unit lines. Accordingly, we find that the over-all unit sought in the amended petition may constitute an appropriate unit.' However, in view of the history of separate bargaining set forth above, it would not be consistent with Board policy to permit the re- quested merger of the unit now represented by the Intervenor and 2 The Intervenor in its brief contends that the Petitioner has not made an adequate showing of interest , and urged that no election be directed at this time. It is well settled that the adequacy of a petitioner 's showing of interest is an administrative matter, not subject to challenge at any stage of the proceeding. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536. 8 70 NLRB 1357 , and 88 NLRB 49 416-RC-502, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions The original unit description in the consent proceeding covered installation planners "A", "B", and "C" only. However, the other classifications listed above-planning control men "A" and "B" and planning requirements clerks-were at the time of the consent election classified as instal- lation planners "B" or "C". As an alternative to the amended unit, the Petitioner pro- posed that tool and operations planners "A", "B", and "C" be added to the amended unit. This proposal would , however, merely reflect a recent change in nomenclature of certain of the classifications already included in the amended petition . The Petitioner would, also, as part of its alternative proposal , exclude the planning requirements clerks. S The Employer took no position as to the scope of the unit except insofar as it includes the planning control men "A" and "B" and the planning requirements clerks As these employees are all clericals , the Employer contends that they should not be included in the same unit with the other employees , who are all technical employees . However, these clerical employees work in the same office as the technical employees and perform their clerical duties solely in conjunction with the work done by the other employees . We find, therefore, that their interests are not so diverse from those of the other employees that their inclusion in the same unit would render that unit inappropriate. 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that represented by the Petitioner without first granting the former group an opportunity, by means of a separate election, to express its desires on the questions We shall, therefore, make no final unit de- termination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. We shall direct that an election be held among all tool planners, tool designers, tool liaison employees, fabrication specification planners, and tool service liaison men "A" and "B"' at the Employer's Fort Worth, Texas, division, not performing manual work, excluding all other employees, confidential clerks, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in this voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con- ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Intervenor for a unit consisting of the em- ployees in the foregoing voting group, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining. In the event a majority of the employees in the foregoing voting group vote for the Petitioner, they shall be represented by the Petitioner as part of the existing unit of installation planners, plan- ning control men, and planning requirements clerks, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] ' Merck & Co., Inc., 98 NLRB 372; Valley Motor Company, 98 NLRB 1416. T In amending its petition , the Petitioner sought to include in the requested unit the employees classified as tool service liaison men "A" and `B." These classifications were established in the Intervenor's unit subsequent to the filing of the instant petition. None of the parties objects to the inclusion in the unit of the employees covered by these classifications. JEFFERSON GROCERY COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, OPERATING AS SPARKLE- MCCANN MARKETS and AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 424, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 6-RC-1024. November 25, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Thackery, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 101 NLRB No. 124.