Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT- COMPANY; INC. 443 There remains the matter of determining whether the new evidence , considered to- jeether with relevant evidence in the previous record,, establishes Respondents',de- fense that the applicants made no bona fide attempts to obtain employment . Laying aside (as the -court did) the point that Gilker's statements were made during the course of settlement negotiations , the statements do, of course, constitute evidence of relevance in support of that defense. But the new evidence does not establish the defense; it does not refute the testimony of the applicants themselves (still undenied) as to their need of work and their genuine desire for it, or their denials that they had been coached by or had received instructions from the union representative as to how to present themselves. Indeed, Gilker's testimony now corroborates them in the latter respects. The new evidence thus leaves their testimony uncontradicted and unimpeached. _ What the new evidence shows is that during the course of the settlement con- ference Gilker made certain representations which reflected seriously on his good faith if they were true, and which, if false, reflected on his judgment and his tactics. What the entire evidence shows is that his representations were false. In sum, the entire evidence does not establish that the applicants were aware of or, that they had knowingly participated in a scheme to entrap Respondents into a viola- tion . of the Act. Cf. Vaughn Bowen, 93 NLRB 1147, 1179-80. It shows to the= contrary that the applicants genuinely desired to work for Respondents and would have accepted the jobs they sought if offered to them. The Babcock & Wilcox Com- pany, 110 NLRB 2116, distinguishing Vaughn Bowen, supra. It being concluded and found that the evidence fails to establish Respondents' de- fense that the applicants made no bona fide attempt to obtain employment, it is ac- cordingly recommended that the Board reaffirm its previous findings of unfair labor practices against Respondents. Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. and Aircraft Technical Workers Union, Local No. 1, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1562. July 09, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William H. Renkel, 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 employees of the Employer.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represents tion 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: The Petitioner seeks to sever from a plantwide unit presently repre- sented by the Intervenor, employees in the tooling subdivision in the following job classifications : master layout man, loftsmen, planners, tool designers, tool liaison men, tool project men, duplicating machine operators, production control clerks, planning clerks, planning release IInternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO, and its Local No. 1093 were permitted to intervene at the hear- ing in this proceeding on the basis of their certification and contract with the Employer for the-production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Tulsa division. 113 NLRB No. 47. 444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clerks, and production control dispatchers. The record reveals that employees in the first six of these classifications perform the technical functions necessary for the translation of engineering blueprints and designs into the graphic and written instructions and specifications required to direct the actual fabrication of tools and the assembly of the aircraft and its subassemblies. They include all the technical employees in the tooling subdivision. Employees in the last five of the above-listed job classifications-the duplicating machine operators, clerks, and dispatchers-although they work in close association with the planners and may be promoted to lower planner classifications-are engaged entirely in clerical work. The record in this case does not establish to our satisfaction that the unit sought includes all the technical employees working in the many subdivisions of the Employer's Tulsa division plant. For this reason 2 and because the unit requested by the Petitioner also includes non- technical employees, we find the requested unit inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 See Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 702, at 703; E. I. Dupont do Nemours ,and Company, Inc., 107 NLRB 734, at 740. American Loose Leaf Corporation and Bookbinders & Machine Operators Union No. 25, International Brotherhood of Book- binders, AFL. Case No. 2-CA-4?61. August 1, -1955 DECISION AND ORDER On May 25, 1955, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Interme- diate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor 113 NLRB No. 49.