Monsanto Chemical Co.

MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 69 2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter- mination of Dispute, International Longshoremen's Association, In- dependent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, and Locals 1758 and 1763, and their agents shall notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring Bellco Industrial Engineering Co., Pittsburgh- Des Moines Steel Co., Vogt & Conant Company, and Coastal Electric Co. by means, proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to as- sign the work in dispute to members of International Longshore- men's Association, Independent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast Dis- trict, and .Locals 1758 and 1763 rather than to employees of Bellco Industrial Engineering Co., Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Vogt &Conant Company, and Coastal Electric Co. Monsanto Chemical Company (John F. Queeny Plant) and Local No. 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-3164. October 32,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On January 28, 1955, the Petitioner duly filed a petition under Section 9 -(c) of the National Labor Relations Act.' The Regional Director dismissed this petition on March 3, 1955, on the ground that it sought to sever a unit which was inappropriate for bargaining purposes. Thereafter, on April 7, 1955, the Board reinstated the pe- tition and a hearing was held before William F. Trent, hearing officer. The Board, on March 7, 1956, dismissed the above petition on the ground that the Petitioner had permitted its compliance with Section 9 (g) of the Act to lapse,' and, in January 1957, 'the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a proceeding instituted by the Petitioner to require the Board to decide the case on the merits' Thereafter, on February 8, 1957, the Petitioner filed the instant petition, seeking to sever the same classifications of employees as it had sought in the prior proceeding, from the existing plantwide unit at the Employer's Queeny plant in St. Louis, Missouri, represented by the Intervenor.' A hearing upon this petition was held before Wil- ' Case No. 14-RC-2701. Monsanto Chemical Company (John F. Queeny Plant), 115 NLRB 702. Local 569, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO v. Leedom at at., 39 LRRM 2356 (D. C., D. C.). 4Local #16, International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the 'Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its contractual interest. 119 NLRB No. 6. 70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Liam F. Trent, hearing officer.5 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 : 7 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved herein claim to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing plantwide unit at the Employer's Queeny plant in St. Louis, Missouri, various cate- gories of employees discussed below. The Employer and the Inter- venor contend that the instant petition should be dismissed on the grounds, inter alia, that (1) there is a contract between them which is a bar; (2) the Petitioner is not in compliance with Section 9 of the Act; and (3) the Board's policy of denying severance in certain basic industries should also be applied to the basic chemical industry. We shall consider each of these contentions separately. Contract Bar The Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract on April 26, 1955, effective from April 15, 1955, to April 15, 1957, and from year to year thereafter absent 60 days' written notice by either party of a desire to amend the agreement. On April 25, 1956, these parties entered into a supplemental agreement which provided a wage in- crease and extended the terms of the existing contract until April 15, 1958. The Employer and the Intervenor concede that their supplemental agreement constitutes a premature extension of the 1955 contract under Board policy; however, these parties request the Board to reconsider its application of this policy and to exempt therefrom instances where the premature extension is shown to be motivated by economic con- siderations which result in increased labor stability, rather than from a desire by the incumbent union and the employer to freeze out a rival labor organization. In this connection, the record shows that a sister local of the Intervenor represents employees at the Employer's Krummrich Plant, located across the Mississippi River in Illinois, and that this local and the Employer executed a 2-year contract during April 1956 which provided wage increases in excess of the increases e At the hearing , the parties agreed to make the transcript , evidence, and briefs in Case No. 14-RC-2701 a part of the record in the current proceeding . Accordingly , we hereby incorporate herein the record and briefs in that proceeding. e The hearing officer referred to the Board several motions made by the Employer and the Intervenor to dismiss the instant petition. For reasons stated hereinafter , the motion to dismiss on grounds of inappropriate unit is hereby granted insofar as the proposed units of pipefitters are concerned , and all other motions to dismiss are hereby denied. 7 The Employer and the Intervenor request oral argument in this case . In view of our decision herein , and as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately set forth the positions and contentions of the parties , this request is hereby denied. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 71 that employees represented by the Intervenor received under the terms of the 1955 agreement. The Intervenor and the Employer state that the wage increase provided in their 1956 supplemental agreement was for the purpose of equalizing wage rates at the 2 neighboring plants, while the basic contract was extended 1 year to 1958 so that future contract negotiations could be carried on simultaneously with respect to both plants. The Board recently reaffirmed its application of the premature extension doctrine to situations where, as here, the extension was dic- tated by economic considerations .8 We perceive no reason for now modifying this policy and, as the instant petition was timely filed with respect to the Mill B date of the 1955 contract, we find that there is no bar to a present determination of representatives. Compliance The Employer contends that no question concerning representa- tion exists because the Petitioner is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act on several grounds. The Employer alleges, in part, that members of the Petitioner's examining board and finance committee are constitutional officers who have not filed non-Communist affidavits as required by Section 9 (h) of the Act. The hearing officer excluded evidence on this and all other compliance issues.' The Employer requests that the case be remanded,to take evidence on this issue or that, in the alternative, the Board hold a collateral hearing on compliance. It is clear that this contention raises questions of fact as to who are constitutional officers of the Petitioner, thereby putting in issue the adequacy of the Petitioner's compliance." However, questions as to who are constitutional officers under a union's constitution, for purposes of compliance, may be raised only in a collateral administrative proceeding directed solely to inquiring into a labor organization's compliance status.ll Accordingly, we deny the request that this case be remanded to the hearing officer to receive evidence on this compliance issue.12 We also deny the al- ternative request that the Board hold a collateral hearing on this issue, as such request may not be entertained unless presented in a 8 Wyman-Gordon Co., Ingalls Shepard Division, 117 NLRB 75. 9 The Intervenor takes no position as to whether the Petitioner is in compliance. How- ever, the Intervenor joins the Employer in alleging that the Employer has been denied due process of law in not being permitted to present evidence on the compliance issues it attempted to raise, and likewise joins the Employer in requesting that this proceeding be remanded for the purpose of taking evidence on the compliance issues or , in the alternative, that a collateral hearing be held to resolve the compliance aspects of this case. 10 The Board respectfully disagrees with the courts ' decisions cited by the Employer as a basis for permitting litigation of the factual issues of compliance , and does not deem itself bound thereby . See Langlade Veneer Products Corporation, 118 NLRB 985. 11 J. I. Case Company, 118 NLRB 520; Shoe Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1208. 19 Desaulniers and Company, 115 NLRB 1025. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD proceeding entirely separate and apart from a representation or unfair labor practice proceeding. 13 The Employer also attempted to introduce evidence pertaining to the compliance status of a district council and of the Building and Construction Trades Council of St. Louis and Vicinity, alleging that the Petitioner's international constitution requires the Petitioner to belong to the former and that the Petitioner is, in fact, affiliated with the latter. Such evidence was excluded by the hearing officer, and the Employer and the Intervenor object to this ruling. We find merit in this objection, as these compliance issues may be litigated in this proceeding because they deal with the necessity, rather than with the adequacy, of compliance of organizations with which the Petitioner is allegedly affiliated.14 However, while the hearing officer should have admitted evidence as to whether the foregoing councils are labor organizations with which the Petitioner is affiliated, and are therefore required to comply with Section 9 of the Act in order for the Petitioner to maintain this petition," this error was not preju- dicial because, for the reasons stated below, we find, after due consid- eration of the evidence tendered by the Employer in its brief and the stipulation by the parties, that the Trades Council is not a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that there is no district council in existence in the St. Louis vicinity. As pertains to the Trades Council, the Board found, in 1953, that the Petitioner was a member of this Trades Council," and our current administrative investigation shows that such is still the case. In addition, Board records show that the Trades Council is not in com- pliance with Section 9 of the Act and has not been in compliance at any time relevant to this proceeding. Accordingly, if the Trades Council is a labor organization within the Act's meaning, its com- pliance becomes essential to the Petitioner's right to maintain its petition in the case at bar. The Employer alleges that the Trades Council "... exercises or has the power to exercise direct, substantial and influential control over the conduct of Petitioner as a labor organization and over the terms and conditions of employment of employes represented by Petitioner . . .," and hence constitutes a "labor organization" which must comply with Section 9 of the Act.14 In support of this allega- 13 Standard Cigar Company, 117 NLRB 852. "Ibid. See also Plant City Welding and Tank Company , 118 NLRB 280. 15 International General Electric , S. A., Inc., 117 NLRB 1571. 1e Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL, et al. (Northwest Heating Company), 107 NLRB 542, 544. 17 Section 2 (5) of the Act defines the term "labor organization" as : any organization of any kind . . . in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose , in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions of work. [Emphasis added.] MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 73 tion, the Employer cites certain sections of the Trades Council's con- stitution and bylaws. We have carefully examined these sections, and find that they do not support the Employer's contention. It is true that the Trades Council has the power to exercise substantial con- trol over terms and conditions of employment of employees who are members of its affiliated local unions; 18 however, this power is exer- cised through its authority over the constituent local unions of the Trades Council itself, and not through direct negotiations or dealings with employers, as is required to meet the statutory definition of "labor organization." 19 We find, therefore, that the Trades Council is not a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and that, accord- ingly, the Trades Council's noncompliance with Section 9 of the Act does not bar this petition. Concerning the district council, section 125 (2) of the Petitioner's international constitution requires that ". . . it shall be compulsory and mandatory . . . to establish and set up a District Council, chartered by and under the supervision of the General Officers ...," whenever two or more locals are operating within the same city, town, or locality. The functions of such district councils are to standardize working rules, wages, hours and workweek, overtime, working agree- ments, organizational activities, and initiation fees. Furthermore, although locals may negotiate and execute collective-bargaining agree- ments,these agreements must thereafter be approved by the appro- priate district council before they may become effective. However, we have been administratively advised that there is no district council in the St. Louis area, and the Employer and the Intervenor do not allege the contrary. Accordingly, we reject the contention that the petition should be dismissed because of the alleged noncompliance of the district council 20 1s Section 16 of the Trades Council's constitution relates to sympathy strikes ; sections 27 and 29 to demands for such benefits as increases in wages or shorter workweeks and endorsement of such demands by the Trades Council ; sections 28 and 29 to the rights of assistance of affiliated members in event of strike or lockout ; section 30 to grievances affecting respective crafts ; section 31 to jurisdictional disagreements ; and sections 33 and 34 to the conduct of members of its affiliates on jobs where nonunion labor has been or will be used, or where work is being carried on under police protection . In all these areas, the Trades Council is empowered to regulate relations among its affiliates and not to deal directly with employers. 39 Section 26 notes situations where it is unlawful ". . . for this Trades Council or any other organization affiliated with it to enter into any agreement or contract with any employers. . . . ' However, nowhere is the Trades Council given affirmative authority to bargain on behalf of its affiliates , and the Employer does not contend that the Trades Council has in fact ever engaged in collective bargaining .. We conclude, therefore, that collective bargaining is not one of the functions of the Trades Council. Articles 5, 7, 8, and 15 of the Trades Council 's bylaws, also referred to by the Employer , deal with the same subjects already referred to in the Trades Council's. constitution, and in no way imply any direct dealings between the Trades Council and employers. m Plant City Welding and Tank Company , 118 NLRB 280 . We express no opinion as to whether the powers of a district council, as outlined in the Petitioner's international con- stitution , are such as to constitute it a labor organization. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Integration of Operations The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of organic chemicals. Its John F. Queeny Plant involved herein covers approximately 38 acres, and consists of about 60 buildings, approximately 50 of which are used exclusively for manufacturing purposes. There are ap- proximately 1,000 production employees and between 400 and 500 maintenance employees, the latter being subdivided into more than 20 mechanical classifications. The Intervenor has represented a plant- wide production and maintenance unit of these employees for ap- proximately 17 years. The Employer produces approximately 200 products 21 and, due to the highly integrated and interdependent nature of the production operations, the plant is operated 24 hours a day 7 days a week through- out the year. Any given chemical process takes place in several stages in several buildings, with the result that products, in addition to steam, refrigeration, brine, ammonia, air, and water, are transmitted throughout the plant by a highly complicated system of pipes and pumps.22 It is undisputed that there is a great amount of interchange among the various classifications of employees, both temporary and permanent; that there is diverse supervision of the same groups of employees; and that all hourly paid employees have similar working conditions and receive the same employee benefits. In view of this highly integrated character of the Employer's op- erations, the Employer and the Intervenor contend that the National Tube 23 doctrine should be applied in this case, thus ruling out any unit other than the existing plantwide unit. We find no merit in this contention. For the reasons stated in American Potash,24 we adhere to our decision therein not to extend the National Tube doctrine to in- dustries to which it had not theretofore been applied. 21 These products fall within such general classifications as pharmaceuticals , flavors, condiments , plasticizers, resinate chemicals , additives, and synthetic hydraulic fluids. Various intermediate and finished products may be sold as such, or may be further proc- essed to produce more complex chemicals and chemical products. 22Some of the operating equipment utilizes continuous -flow processes and operates 24 hours a day, while other operating units operate on a batch-cycle basis, with the cycles varying from a few hours to several days. Materials in continuous flow may be stored at some stages , while at other stages this is impossible without causing damage to either the product or to the equipment. 23 National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199. In that case , the Board refused to grant craft severance to a group of bricklayers in a basic steel plant because of the high degree of integration between the work of the bricklayers and that of the production operations in the plant . The principle of denying craft severance on grounds of integration of operations was thereafter extended to certain other industries. u American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418. There, the Board re- considered its National Tube doctrine , and decided that thereafter craft severance would be denied on grounds of integrated operations only in the basic steel , aluminum, lumber, and wet-milling industries , to which such policy had already been applied. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 75 The Proposed Units The Petitioner seeks to sever from the plantwide unit represented by the Intervenor a unit of pipefitters, including department me- chanics who have bid in as department mechanics from, and carry their seniority in, the pipefitters' seniority group, pipefitter leadmen, welders, and the apprentices of those classifications. Alternatively, the Petitioner requests separate units of (a) all pipefitters, pipefitter apprentices, pipefitter leadmen,. and department mechanics with pipe- fitter seniority, and (b) all welders and welder apprentices. As a final alternative, if the Board finds (a), above, inappropriate, the Petitioner requests separate units of (1) pipefitters, pipefitter lead- men, and pipefitter apprentices, and (2) department mechanics with pipefitter seniority. The Petitioner contends that the units sought comprise all employees exercising similar skills who are engaged in pipework. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the Pe- titioner seeks but a segment of the employees engaged in pipework and that, in any event, the employees sought are not true craftsmen.25 Assuming, arguendo, that the employees sought are true craftsmen, we nevertheless find, for reasons stated below, that none of the pro- posed units of pipefitters, with or without the department mechanics, is appropriate for purposes of severance because they do not include all the employees doing similar work. In a 1948 case involving the same parties and the same plant, the Petitioner sought to sever a unit composed of pipefitters, department mechanics, acidmen, and welders. The Board dismissed that petition on the ground, inter alia, that the Petitioner did not seek to include in its proposed unit all employees engaged in pipework 26 Thereafter, in 1955, Petitioner filed a petition for the same unit of employees it here seeks. This petition was dismissed, by the Regional Director on the ground that there had been no substantial changes in the operations of the Employer since the 1948 hearing which would justify the hold- ing of another hearing concerning the severability of the employees requested by the Petitioner. In its appeal from the Regional Di- rector's dismissal, however, the Petitioner made representations of material changes in the Employer's operations which the Board con- cluded, if substantiated by record testimony and evidence, might be sufficient to entitle the employees sought to separate representation The Intervenor has been the certified bargaining representative for a plantwide unit of the Employer's employees since 1940 , and has entered into successive contracts with the Employer since February 1941. The Intervenor was then known as Chemical Workers' Union #215368 . On November 1, 1941, the Intervenor assumed its present name. 21 Monsanto Chemical Company, 79 NLRB 1035. 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if they so desired. Accordingly, the Board ordered the petition reinstated .27 We now have before us a record of approximately 2,000 pages, made at 2 hearings, plus numerous exhibits offered in evidence by the parties. The Petitioner alleges many changes in the operations of the Em- ployer since the 1948 hearing in an effort to establish that, contrary to the situation existing in 1948, skilled pipefitting work is now done only by those employees that it seeks to sever. One of the factors relied upon by the Petitioner to show a change in circumstances since 1948 is the fact that numerous grievances have been filed during the last few years relating to work assignments. Although it is true that many such grievances have been filed, the record shows that over 90 percent of these have ultimately been denied by the Employer under its contractual right to make work assignments as Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention. The Petitioner also points to a job evaluation program conducted by the Employer during 1952 at the Intervenor's request as, in effect, producing a tightening of so-called craft lines in the making of work assignments. However, the record shows that, although the Inter- venor attempted to use the results of this program as a basis for pro- testing work assignments to various classifications, the Employer has rejected all such contentions and used this program only for the limited purpose of making some wage adjustments. The Petitioner further relies upon such factors as policy statements by the Employer, certain contract provisions, and changes in seniority groupings and job descriptions to support its contention that skilled pipefitter work is now done only by the employees it here seeks. However, none of these matters militates against a finding, as indi- cated below, that classifications other than those sought by the Peti- tioner actually perform work similar to that of the pipefitters and department mechanics whom the Petitioner seeks. The appropriate- ness of a craft unit must depend upon the nature of the work which is in fact done both within and without the proposed unit, and not upon such matters as formal job descriptions and seniority groupings. We find persuasive the record evidence that categories other than those sought actually perform comparable pipework in connection with their primary function, and that the basic considerations in making work assignments to these various groups relate to administrative a7 As already noted, that petition was dismissed on compliance grounds, and the record in that case has been incorporated in the present proceeding. All contracts between the Employer and the Intervenor contain the following clause: The work covered by the established hourly wage classifications applying to the mem- bers of the bargaining unit, herein described , shall be performed by such members, except as modified by this agreement. Nothing contained herein shall limit in any manner the right of the company to make work assignments or to engage the services of outside contractors. . . . MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 77 necessity and efficiency, rather than to the observance of traditional craft lines. As already stated, the Board, in 1948, dismissed a petition filed by the Petitioner seeking a unit composed of pipefitters, department mechanics, welders, and acidmen, on the ground that such unit did not include all employees engaged in pipework. The unit now re- quested is less comprehensive than the unit found inappropriate in that case, as it excludes acidmen and certain of the department mechanics. The unit proposed in the 1948 case was found inappro- priate, not because it included the latter two categories, but because it failed to include other classifications of employees engaged in com- parable pipefitting work, such as night mechanics, carpenters, and millwrights. The present record fails to show any substantial change in the duties of the night mechanics or of other categories assigned to pipefitting work. On the contrary, the record contains persuasive evidence, and we find, that in addition to the night mechanics,29 the powerplant mechanics 30 and the leadburners 31 engage extensively in pipefitting work comparable to that performed by the categories sought. This is also true of the acidmen 32 and those of the department mechanics 33 whom the Petitioner now wishes to exclude from its proposed unit. In view of the foregoing, we find that the proposed units of pipefit- ters, with or without the department mechanics, and the separate unit of department mechanics are not severable as craft units because they are not sufficiently comprehensive. 29 Night mechanics work throughout the plant on 2 night shifts, weekends, and holidays, and are under the supervision of the night superintendent. Night mechanics engage in pipework at least 50 percent of their time. They cut, bend, thread, install, and replace pipes. At times, night mechanics complete jobs begun by pipefitters on the day shift and, at other times, jobs begun by night mechanics on the night shift are finished by pipefitters or department mechanics. 3° Powerplant mechanics are assigned to the powerplant under the supervision of a maintenance foreman. They replace pipe that is stopped up or corroded add do substan- tially the same work on the powerplant distribution system as pipefitters and employees in other mechanical classifications perform elsewhere in the plant. 31 Leadburners work solely with lead pipe, but their functions clearly require the use of pipefitting tools and skills . These employees perform approximately 90 percent of the work required to be done with lead pipe at the plant. 32 Acidmen install pipings and fittings for the loading and unloading of tank cars and trucks, and maintain the sulphuric acid distribution system. They cut, bend, thread, and install pipe. They use pipefitter tools and exercise pipefitter skills in the performance of their functions. 33 An employee must, generally speaking, be a qualified pipefitter or millwright to qualify for the minimum rate of pay as a department mechanic. The Petitioner seeks only those department mechanics who are qualified pipefitters. However, regardless of background, all department mechanics spend a major portion of their time engaged in performing pipefitting work. They also perform such other functions as packing pumps, repairing grinding machines, and replacing and resetting valves, and engage in general maintenance work. in the area or department to which they are assigned. Employees bid for the posi- tion of department mechanic and must remain in that position for periods of 1 or 2 years, after which they may return to their former classification, if they so desire. 78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner does not contend, nor can we find, that any of the above-discussed units is appropriate for purposes of severance on a departmental basis. The diverse supervision and physical dispersion of these employees preclude such a finding 34 We find, therefore, on the basis of this record considered as a whole, that none of the proposed units discussed above constitutes a homogeneous, identifiable group of skilled craftsmen who may be severed from the existing production and maintenance unit repre- sented by the Intervenor. As to the final alternative unit request by the Petitioner for a separate unit of welders, such a unit may not be found to be appro- priate for severance purposes unless it is established that (1) the welders involved herein are craftsmen and (2) the Petitioner is the traditional representative of welders.35 With regard to the tradi- tional-representative test established in American Potash, the Board, in the exercise of its expert knowledge, has frequently taken notice of the fact that specific labor organizations have traditionally repre- sented certain groups of craft employees. In the case of welders, however, the Board has but recently held that such employees may comprise a true craft grouping 36 and, it appearing that more than one union has traditionally represented welders, there is insufficient infor- mation available to us to permit an independent determination as to what labor organizations qualify as the traditional representatives of welders. In these circumstances, and as the evidence presented at the hearing in the case at bar is not dispositive of this issue, we will re- mand the instant proceeding to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to present evidence as to the extent to which the Petitioner represents or has represented welders, with particular reference to representa- tion of welders as a separate group, and at the same time to take any further evidence which the parties may wish to adduce with respect to the craft status of the welders herein involved. [The Board referred the matter to the Regional Director for the purpose of holding a further hearing.] MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Order. 14 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. Most of the pipefitters have their headquarters in the pipefitting shop in the main maintenance building. How- ever, these employees regularly work throughout the plant. While working in the shop, they are supervised by their shop foreman ; elsewhere they are supervised, together with employees in other mechanical classifications , by an "area foreman" or by a "special projects foreman." The department mechanics do not have any central headquarters but regularly work at assigned locations throughout the plant, under the supervision of the various area foremen or department heads, as the case may be. 85 Ibid. 30 Hughes Aircraft Company, 117 NLRB 98.