Northrop Aircraft, Inc.

NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 23 Member Murdock , dissenting: I cannot agree with the majority that the premature extension doctrine should be applied in this case to remove the supple- mental agreement of March 31 , 1952, as a bar . The purpose of the Board ' s premature extension rule is to insure to em- ployees the right to challenge an incumbent union ' s representa- tive status at predictable and reasonable intervals .8 In cases such as this, where the premature extension agreement was executed at a time when the original contract was, under Board rules, a bar , the Board has inferred that the subsequent agree- ment was intended to preclude the employees from seeking a change of representatives at or about the time the original contract would have expired . Therefore , in such cases the Board has entertained a rival claim or petition if it preceded the expiration date9 or the Mill B date of the original contract," as the case may be . Where, however , the extension agreement was entered into at a time when the original contract was not a bard or where the rival claim or petition postdated the Mill B date of the original contract , 12 the Board has held that the subsequent agreement barred an election for the extended period. In this case the petition was filed after the Mill B date of the original contract . Therefore , it was, under the Board's con- tract -bar rules , untimely . The fact that the automatic renewal clause of the 1950 contract did not provide for renewal of that contract for a definite term is, I submit , of no significance in resolving the contract -bar issue in this case . I reach this conclusion because, in my opinion , the supplemental agreement, which was for a definite term, became effective as a bar immediately after the Mill B date of the original contract." Therefore , as the petition was filed after the Mill B date of the 1950 contract , the premature extension doctrine should not be applied to remove the supplemental agreement of 1952 as a bar to a present determination of representatives . Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition. 3Cushman's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121; Wichita Union Stockyards Company, 40 NLRB 369. 9Gimble Brothers. Inc , 87 NLRB 449; Republic Steel Corporation, 84 NLRB 483 10 International Harvester Co., 85 NLRB 1260; Northwestern Publishing Company, 71 NLRB 167 iiCushman's Sons, Inc., supr 12Pillsbury Mills, Inc., 92 NLRB 172 13Ibid. NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO (UAW-CIO), Petitioner . Case No . 21-RC-2931. July 7, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board on March 12 , 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was 'Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions. 106 NLRB No. 4 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD held on April 1, 1953 , under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty -first Region, among the employees at the Employer ' s Anaheim, California , plant , in the unit found appropriate in the Decision . After the election, the parties received a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 695 eligible voters, 653 cast valid ballots , of which 291 were for the Petitioner , 22 for the Intervenor , and 340 against both Unions. There were 16 challenged ballots, but no void ballots. Although all the parties signed the certification on conduct of election , the Petitioner declined to sign the tally of ballots. On April 17 , 1953, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the conduct of and to conduct affecting the results of the elec- tion . In accordance with the Board ' s Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on May 7, 1953, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections . In this report the Regional Director found that the objections to conduct affecting the results of the election raised substantial and material issues, concluded that 6 objections were without merit , and recommended that 3 objections be sustained , and that the election be set aside . On May 15, 1953, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report and to his recommendation that the election be set aside. The Petitioner filed no exceptions. 1. The Regional Director found that approximately 78 lead- men, who were permitted to vote by agreement of the parties, were supervisors and therefore not eligible to vote. This finding was based upon the fact that, beginning on March 5, 1953 , the Employer instituted a 1-year training course of all its supervisory personnel , including leadmen, and that on March 25, 1953, the Employer distributed a leaflet entitled "Northrop Promotes From Within" which described the "management team" as including everyone from leadmen to division heads, and which contained pictures of all supervisory personnel, including leadmen. The Employer pointed out in its exceptions that although the leadmen attended the training course, there was no evidence that they were given supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act . As to the leaflet , the Employer contended that the sole purpose of its preparation and issuance was to counteract the Petitioner ' s preelection propaganda statements that the Employer had discriminated against its Anaheim employees by giving supervisory positions to employees transferred from its Hawthorne , California , facility . This is borne out by the title of the leaflet as well as by the fact that the pictures in the leaflet are divided into two sections , one showing the men transferred from Hawthorne , the other showing the men hired or promoted at Anaheim. In view of the fact that there was no testimony at the hearing of this case with respect to the status of the leadmen, that all the parties agreed before the election that leadmen were to be included in the bargaining unit , that there is no evidence that the leadmen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, that the leaflet in question was circulated a week before the NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC 25 election , and the leadmen nevertheless voted without challenge although they wore badges identifying them as leadmen, we find merit in the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's finding on this issue. 2. The Regional Director found that 2 days before the elec- tion, a leadman had prepared an antiunion letter on one of the Employer's duplicating machines, using the Employer ' s paper, and had distributed it in the plant during working hours. The Regional Director was of the opinion that as the Employer had a rule prohibiting union activity during working hours, it was under a duty to permit the Petitioner to distribute literature in the plant , or to notify the employees that the letter had been distributed without the knowledge or sanction of the Employer. As the Employer points out in its exceptions , the letter, which is signed " Bert Sims 1932," is not coercive , expresses Sims' views without purporting to speak for the Employer, and was prepared and distributed by Sims without the Employer's knowledge. Furthermore , when the Petitioner brought the matter to the Employer's attention , the Employer immediately took steps to insure that its facilities would not be so used again. The Employer maintains that the Petitioner ' s repre- sentatives not only did not request permission to distribute literature in the plant or that the Employer take any further action regarding the Sims letter , but also expressed complete satisfaction with the steps the Employer had taken to prevent a recurrence of this incident . Furthermore , it appears that the Petitioner had distributed literature in the plant and its adherents had worn union insignia on their clothing in the plant prior to the election . Finally, as Sims was a leadman, a status we found above not to be supervisory within the meaning of the Act, we do not agree with the Regional Director that the Employer had a duty to disavow the Sims letter. Accordingly, we find merit in the Employer's exceptions to these conclusions of the Regional Director. 3. The Regional Director found that the Employer ' s election observers , Faranda and Field , were supervisors and therefore ineligible to act as observers. Faranda was an interviewer in the personnel department, while Field was a job analyst in the wage and salary adminis- tration . Faranda's job description states that he receives, interviews , and hires applicants for nonskilled and semiskilled jobs, and that he interviews men for possible transfer and termination. Faranda in most cases , but not always, has a supervisor talk to prospective employees, and he has authority to bargain with a new employee in setting his rate of pay within the range established for the job. Field's job description states that he analyzes occupations , prepares job descriptions and evaluations , establishes wage and salary rates, and adminis- ters details of wages and salaries . Field signs almost all progress and status review slips, and adjusts job descriptions and salaries for employees who show that there is a discrep- ancy between their job descriptions and the workthey perform, or between their rate of pay and the rate prescribed for the job. 26 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In its exceptions, the Employer states that both men are classified as nonsupervisory salaried employees, that neither of them has anyone under his supervision, that neither can affect the status of any other employee by an unfavorable decision, and that their authority is limited to routine deci- sions . The Employer further contends that the pictures of both men were included in the leaflet "Northrop Promotes From Within," and although the Petitioner met its observers before the election and was informed that they worked in the industrial relations department, there was no objection to their serving as observers, and their conduct at the election was exemplary. As we are not satisfied that these individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and as the Petitioner, although on notice of their status prior to the election, raised no objec- tion to their 'serving as observers, we find the Employer's exceptions to the Regional Director's findings in this regard to have merit. On the basis of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the Re- gional Director, that the objections filed by the Petitioner do not raise substantial or material issues. Accordingly, we find that no union won the election, and we shall therefore issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [The Board certified that a majority of the valid ballots was not cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO (UAW- CIO), or for International Association of Machinists, AFL, and that neither of the said labor organizations is the exclusive representative of the employees of the Employer, in the unit heretofore found appropriate.] Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election. J. E. McCATRON, R. F. NINE, AND M.M. DINKEL, Partners, doing business as PRICE VALLEY LUMBER CO. and BLUE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAW- MILL WORKERS, A. F. of L. J. E. McCATRON, R. F. NINE, LOREN WEEKS, AND LLOYD URQUARHT, Co-partners, doing business as IDAHO PINE MOULDING CO. and BLUE MOUNTAIN DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, A. F. of L. Cases Nos. 19-CA-698 and 19-CA-700. July 8, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On April 30, 1953, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they 106 NLRB No. 8.