Boeing Aircraft Co.

In the Matter of BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY and ASSOCIATION OF AIRCRAFT GENERAL FOREMEN In the Matter of BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY and ASSOCIATION OF AIRCRAFT FOREMEN In the Matter of BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY and ASSOCIATION OF AIRCRAFT ASSISTANT FOREMEN Cases Nos. R-4849 to R-4851 inclusive, respectively.Decided July 5, 1943 Todd, Holman, Spague & Allen, by Mr. DeForrest Perkins; Mr. E. R. Perry, Mr. Paul Fredrickson , and Mr. P. V. Ogden, of Seattle,, Wash., for the Company. Chadwick & Mills, by Mr. Stephen F. Chadwick, of Seattle, Wash.,. for the Associations. Mr. L. Presley Gill, of Seattle , Wash., for the A. F. L. Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petitions duly filed by Association of Aircraft General Fore- men, Association of Aircraft Foremen, and Association of Aircraft Assistant Foremen, respectively, herein collectively referred to as the Associations, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Boeing Aircraft Com- pany, Seattle, Washington, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board ordered the cases consolidated and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Louis S. Penfield, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on February 6 and 7, 1943. The Company, the Associations, and Aero- nautical Mechanics Industrial District Lodge No. 751, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. L., appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,, 51 N. L. R. B., No. 18. 67 540612-44-vol. 51-6 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.' The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon a motion of the A. F. L. to dismiss the petitions herein, on the grounds that the Associations are not labor organiza- tions within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the unit claimed in each petition is not appropriate.2 The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Associations and the A. F. L. have filed briefs which the Board has considered. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Boeing Aircraft Company is a Washington corporation engaged in the manufacture of aircraft. It owns and operates three plants in Seattle, Washington, and one plant at Renton, Washington, which are the plants involved in this proceeding. The Company annually purchases and ships to its plants in the State of Washington from points outside the State, raw materials, supplies, machinery, and equipment valued in excess of $100,000. It manufactures products having a value in excess of $100,000 annually, which are shipped to points outside the State of Washington.' II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Association of Aircraft General Foremen is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. Association of Aircraft Foremen is an unaffiliated labor organiza- tion admitting to membership employees of the Company. Association of Aircraft Assistant Foremen is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.' Aeronautical Mechanics Industrial District Lodge No. 751 is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. i At the hearing the parties stipulated that the entire record in the Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company and Association of Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, Case No. R-4233, reported in 45 N L R B 630 , should be incorporated in and considered a part of the present proceeding without restiiction upon the right to the pasties to adduce additional evidence. 2 Inasmuch as we hereinafter dismiss the petitions , we do not deem it necessary to rule on the motion of the A. F. L. I The above stated facts concerning the operations of the Company are set forth in the Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company and Association of Aiioiaft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, 45 N. L R B. 0:30. In the cited case it admitted that it as engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. In the instant case the Company stipulated at the hearing that its, organization and operations are sub- stantially the same as set forth in the cited decision. ' We find no merit in the contention of the A. F. L, that the Associations are not labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNITS 69 The Associations seeks three separate appropriate bargaining units, one comprised of general foremen and their equivalents in authority; the second comprised of foremen and their equivalents in authority, and the third comprised of assistant foremen and their equivalents in authority, employed at the Seattle and Renton divisions of the Company.5 The A.F.L. contends that the appropriate bargaining unit should be comprised of all employees of the Company, including foremen and assistant foremen, but excluding officers, administrative staff, bards, truck drivers, chauffeurs, and stationary engineers. The A.F.L. takes no affirmative position with respect to the general fore- men. ^ It contends that the -foremen and assistant foremen are, or should be, included in the unit established by collective bargaining contract now in effect between the A.F.L. and the Company. The contract referred-to was entered into on September 5, 1940, and covers production and maintenance employees exclusive of guards, truck drivers, chauffeurs, and stationary engineers. It contains no express reference to supervisory employees. The Company takes no position with regard to any of the alleged appropriate units. The supervisory employees in the Company's factory divisions are .generally, classified in rank as general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen. The supervisory employees in the office divisions are called supervisors and assistant supervisors; they have powers and duties equivalent to those of the supervisory employees in the factory divi- sions. Except in some of the small shops or departments, there is a general foreman, and several foremen and assistant foremen. A gen- ral foreman has general supervision over all employees of a shop on all shifts. He has the power to recommend wage increases and pro- motions for all employees, and he may also discharge all supervisory or non-supervisory employees in the shop. He has the power to over- rule any action taken by a foreman or assistant foreman under him. A -foreman usually has charge of an entire shop on one of the shifts. But he is responsible to the general foreman for production and the general management of the shop. He supervises the work of the assistant foremen and has the authority to hire and discharge pro- duction and maintenance employees under him. An assistant fore- man is in charge of a portion of a shop during one shift, and he is responsible to the foreman for its management. Generally speaking, the assistant foremen are also clothed with the authority to hire and discharge production and maintenance employees under them. They 5'At the hearing the parties stipulated that the Seattle division of the Company, which consists of three plants, and the Renton division of the Company, which consists of a single plant, comprise a single operating unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. TO , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD may initiate the hiring or firing of an employee by filling out an employee-requisition card or a termination-of-employment slip. Al- though the hiring or firing of a production or maintenance employee is subject to the approval of the foreman in charge, in the majority of the cases the action taken by an assistant foreman is accepted by the foreman. The supervisors and assistant supervisors in the office divisions possess managerial duties and authority equivalent to the supervisory employees in the factory divisions.e Each supervisory rank has meetings which are attended only by supervisors of such rank.' In view of the above facts concerning the duties and functions of the three distinct levels of supervisory personnel, it is apparent that the employees sought to be included in each unit, possess substantial supervisory and managerial duties and authority. We find, for reasons stated in the Maryland Drydoek Company case,' that none of the proposed units is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petitions. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions for investigation and certification of repre- sentatives of employees of Boeing Aircraft Company, Seattle, Wash; ington, filed by Association of Aircraft General Foremen, Association of Aircraft Foremen, and Association of Aircraft Assistant Foremen, respectively, in Cases Nos. R-4849, R-4850, and R-4851 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIS, dissenting : The record in this case conclusively shows that the Associations were formed for the express purpose of bargaining collectively for three distinct levels of supervisory employees, namely, general fore- men and their equivalents in authority, foremen and their equiva- lents in authority, and assistant foremen and their equivalents in authority. In the prior proceeding before this Board,' involving the Company and Association of -Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Wash- ington, we dismissed the petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed therein on the grounds that the various levels i I See case cited in footnote 1, supra. 9 See Matter of Maryland Drydock Company and Local No. 31 of the Industrial Union of Marne and Shzpbuildind Workcrs of Ametiea, et al., 49 N. L. R. B. 733. 8 See Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company and Association of Aircraft Supervisors of Seattle, Washington, 45 N. L. R. B. 630. BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 71 of supervisory employees of the Company could not appropriately be grouped in a single unit. In my opinion, the defect of the peti- tioner's position in that proceeding is not present in the case now be- fore us. Accordingly, for reasons stated in my dissent in the Mary- land Drydock Company case ,9 I am compelled to dissent from the majority opinion in the instant case. i 9 See Matter of Maryland Drydock Company and Local No. 31 of Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, et al., 49 N. L. R. B. 733.