Solar Aircraft Co.

150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD integrated enterprise with common operational and labor re- lations policies . We find , therefore , that they are not a single employer within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall not consider the business of the three corporations not in- volved in this proceeding in determining whether to assert jurisdiction. As the business of the Employers involved in this proceeding do not meet the Board's minimum standards for asserting jurisdiction , we shall dismiss the petition.' [The Board dismissed the petition.] ]Jefferson Co., Inc., and Service Corporation of America , 105 NLRB 202; Goodman's Inc., 101 NLRB 352; Chestnutt's Stores, Inc., 100 NLRB 490; Toledo Service Parking Co., 96 NLRB 263. SOLAR AIRCRAFT COMPANY and LOCAL 387, INTERNA- TIONAL MOLDERS AND FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3267. November 24, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul J. Driscoll, 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 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 employees of the Employer.' 3. No 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 for the following reasons: 2 The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of employees in the stainless steel foundry of the Employer's San Diego, California, plant, including leadmen, but excluding office and plant clerical workers, welders,' timekeepers, dispatchers, 'International Association of Machinists, District Lodge 50 and Aeronautical Mechanics, Lodge No. 685, hereinafter called the Machinists, and United Aircraft Welders of America, Local No. 52, hereinafter referred to as the Welders, were permitted to intervene upon the basis of their current contracts. 2As the petition was filed before the Mill B dates of the Machinists' and Welders' contracts, which dates have since passed, we find, contrary to the Machinists' contention, that these contracts do not bar this proceeding. 'As the Petitioner amended its petition at the hearing to exclude welders, whom the Welders represents, the Welders does not question the appropriateness of the unit. 107 NLRB No. 54. SOLAR AIRCRAFT COMPANY 151 maintenance employees , inspectors , watchmen , guards, pro- fessional employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Machinists contends that only its existing contractual production and maintenance unit, including the foundry em- ployees, is appropriate . It also argues that the unit is inappro- priate either because it excludes the molders and general helpers in the plant' s lead and kirksite foundry or because it excludes the welders , timekeepers , dispatchers , and mainte- nance employees who work in and are part of the stainless steel foundry. In addition , it urges that foundry employees do not possess the necessary craft characteristics to warrant separate representation . The Employer maintains a neutral position. The Employer, a California corporation with plants in that State and Iowa , is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft parts and accessories . For an undisclosed number of years, the Machinists has bargained with the Employer for its production and maintenance employees at its San Diego plant, excluding , among others , welders and electricians .4 In 1946, the Employer established the stainless steel foundry as part of its research and engineering division . There is some evidence in the record to the effect that , as part of the research and engineering division , the stainless steel foundry employees were originally excluded from the coverage of the Machinists' contract . However, although the record does not reveal when the stainless steel foundry employees were first included in the Machinists ' contract unit, it is undisputed that the Ma- chinists ' current contract , which was executed on November 15, 1952, covers these employees. The stainless steel foundry is a separate department under separate supervision . Its operations are integrated with the rest of the plant . Practically all of the foundry' s output is used in the manufacture of the Employer's finished product. Stain- less steel alloy castings fabricated in the foundry are often further processed in other departments of the plant. There are 78 employees in the foundry, of whom 7 are molder and coremaker leadmen , 4 molder and coremakers A, 11 molder and coremakers B, 2 induction furnace operators A, 1 induction furnace operator B, 4 general helpers, 47 molder and core- maker learners , and 2 journeymen welders. The Employer has no apprenticeship system. Learners must qualify either as molder and coremaker B or induction furnace operator B within a period of 4 months or be discharged . Advancement into the A classification varies from periods of 6 months to 1 i years .5 There is no evidence in the record whether the work of the stainless steel foundry requires or utilizes more or less skill than is to be found in the traditional foundry. 4 For the past 4 years the electricians have been separately represented. 5 The Employer explains that because of its urgent need for workers and the absence of skilled labor in the local labor market , the training of its learners in a relatively short period of time is a matter of vital necessity. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In addition to the stainless steel foundry, the Employer operates a second foundry in the plant, known as the kirksite foundry, which, insofar as the record discloses , is also inte- grated with the Employer' s manufacturing operations . In this foundry molders and general helpers , who also perform the customary functions of foundry employees , produce castings of lead and kirksite. The Petitioner does not seek to repre- sent these employees . It contends , in substance , that their skills are not comparable to those exercised by the employees in the stainless steel foundry. The fact appears, however, that the skills of the molders in the kirksite foundry and those of the molder and coremakers in the stainless steel foundry are basically the same . Indeed, the Employer, when it organized the stainless steel foundry, transferred into that foundry molders from the kirksite foundry. Some of these molders later became supervisors . While it is true that different techniques are employed in the stainless steel foundry because of the particular characteristics of stainless steel alloy, it is not disputed that basically the operations in both foundries are alike. Without determining whether all the foundry employees might be severed from the production and maintenance unit , we find that, where , as here , the proposed unit would exclude other foundry employees in the plant possessing comparable skills and interests , apart from other considerations , such a unit is too narrow to warrant separate representation . Accordingly, we shall grant the Machinists ' motion and dismiss the petition. (The Board dismissed the petition.] REPLOGLE GLOBES, INC. and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3556. November 24, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Kleen, 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 this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: 107 NLRB No. 57.