United Aircraft Corp.

52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION PRATT & WHITNEY AIRCRAFT DIVISION, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL AIR- CRAFT LODGES NO. 1746 and 1746 A of the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Cases Nos. 1 -RM-171, 1-RM-172, and 1-RM-173. March 25, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a con-solidated hearing was held before Harold Kowal, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer filed these petitions to test the appropriateness of units in a number of plants in Connecticut in which the Union was certified by the Board.' Since those certifications the Employer and the Union have been in contractual relationship. The only contract in evidence covers the employees in the East Hartford plant, the Willgoos Laboratory, and the D. E. Laboratory and is for a 3-year period ending December 4, 1953. This contract, as well as the certifications, covers all production and maintenance employees with certain exclusions but makes no specific provision for the placement of leadmen or watch engineers. Heretofore the parties have bargained for these classifications as part of the unit but the Employer now urges that, because of changes in the duties and functions of the watch engineers and some of the leadmen, they are super- visors within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded from the units.' The Union denies that such changes have oc- curred and contends that the disputed employees should be included in the units. Neither of the parties desires an election at this time. The hearing officer referred to the Board the Union' s motion to dismiss the petitions on the ground, inter alia, that there is no question concerning representation. As it appears that the only issue raised by this proceeding is whether certain individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and that otherwise neither the validity of the existing certifications nor the Union's majority status among the Employer's em- ployees is challenged, we find that the petitions raise no present question concerning representation of the Employer's em- ployees. We shall therefore grant the Union's motion and dis- 'Pursuant to a Board-directed election (60 NLRB 190) the Union was certified as the representative of the Employer's employees at East Hartford on March 2, 1945. Pursuant to consent elections the Union was certified as the representative of the Employer's employees at the Willgoos Laboratory on July 14, 1950 (Case No. 1-RC-1531); at the D. E Laboratory on September 17, 1948 (Case No. 1-RC-626); at the Meriden plant on Novembers 23, 1951 (Case No. 1-RC-2433); at the Portland plant on November 26, 1951 (Case No. 1-RC-2444); and at the Southington plant on June 20, 1951 (Case No. 1-RC-2173). 2 At the hearing the Employer amended its petition to exclude the classification of group supervisor rather than leadman. 108 NLRB No. 10. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 53 miss the petitions as such3 and shall treat them as tantamount to motions by the Employer to amend the existing certifications with respect to leadmen and watch engineers.4 The Employer established the classification of leadman in about 1946 . Since the creation of the leadman ' s job, the Em- ployer has expanded its facilities substantially . As a result of the expansion , the Employer alleges, a number of super- visory duties and responsibilities have been assumed by many of the leadmen . The Employer plans to recognize this change in circumstances by reclassifying the supervisory leadmen as group supervisors ; the others are to be reclassified to a new hourly rated job to be known as working leader and will not possess supervisory duties . At the time of the hearing there were about 1,600 employees classified as leadmen, of whom the Employer contends that about 1,000 were, or within the ensuing 4-month period would become, supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The average leadman has a crew of about 11 employees. He works under a foreman who usually has about 3 leadmen under his direction . At the time of the hearing the Employer was unable to identify the leadmen who would become group super- visors . However, it did indicate that it would base its deter- mination in part, at least, on an evaluation of answers to questionnaires filled out by the Employer ' s foremen . In this connection the Employer introduced a tabulation of these questionnaires into evidence . Although the tabulation indicates, for example, that all leadmen assign and direct the work of other employees to some extent and that some of the leadmen play a part in the recommendation of promotion , transfer, and other changes in the status of employees , it is not clear to us whether the assignments and directions are more than routine or that the recommendations which they make are given effec- tive weight. In these circumstances , including the fact that the Employer indicated at the hearing that it was on the verge of reclassi- fying the leadmen and that the classification of leadman will be abolished when the proposed reclassification program is completed, we shall make no determination as to the unit placement of leadmen . And, while under the circumstances we make no disposition as to employees to be classified as group supervisors , we note the following : The Employer alleges that those who are reclassified to group supervisors , in addition to the duties they had as leadmen , will have the authority, inter alia, to make effective recommendations of changes in status of all employees under them . The possession of such authority will clearly render them supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and they will be excluded , as such, under the terms of the existing certifications. 3 Accordingly , we do not pass upon the other grounds urged by the Union for dismissing the petition. 4Tide Water Associated Oil Company , 101 NLRB 570. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer also contends that the watch engineers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The watch engineers work in the Employer's powerhouses at East Hartford, Wiligoos Laboratory, D. E. Laboratory, and Southington and are in charge of crews consisting of from 4 to 9 employees. The powerhouses operate on a 3-shift schedule, and the watch engineers take turns on each shift. Although there is. a fore- man in charge of each powerhouse during the day shift, a watch engineer is in complete charge in each powerhouse during the other 2 shifts. They also have complete charge of the assignment and direction of the work of the employees under them and maintain discipline among their crews. At times the foremen seek the watch engineers ' opinions about the work of employees in their crews and give great weight to these opinions when rating employees. In view of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the watch engineers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.5 We shall, therefore, amend our certifications of representa- tives issued in Cases Nos. 1-R-2194, 1-RC-626, 1-RC-1531, and 1-RC-2173 in accordance with these findings.6 [The Board ordered the certifications of representatives issued in Cases Nos. 1-R-2194, 1-RC-626, 1-RC-1531, and 1-RC-2173 amended so that the units for which the Interna- tional Association of Machinists, AFL, was certified shall exclude the classification of all watch engineers,7 and dismissed the petitions filed in this consolidated case.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 5 Tide Water Associated Oil Company, supra 6 There are no watch engineers at the Meriden or Portland plant. 7 This is not to be construed as a recertification. SOUTHBRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 86, A.F.L., Petitioner and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 1-RC-3326, 1-RC-3327, 1-RC- 3328, 1-RC-3329, and 1-RC-3331. March 25, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Leo J. Harroran, 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 these cases, the Board finds: 108 NLRB No. 13.