Northrop Aircraft, Inc.

NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 227 •Northrop . Aircraft, Inc. and , Los Angeles County District Coun- cil of Carpenters, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC- 5004. March 28, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has `delegated its powers in connection with this , case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer. 4. At the hearing, the Petitioner amended its unit request to include : All carpenters maintenance and carpenters maintenance rough and all cabinetmakers and cabinet woodworkers employed in departments Nos. 5161, 5162, and 5925 of the Northrop Division of Northrop Air- craft, Inc., at its Hawthorne, California, plant including certain enu- merated installations and excluding others. As an alternative unit, the Petitioner would include all carpenters maintenance and car- penters. maintenance rough and all cabinetmakers and cabinet wood- workers employed by the Northrop Division of Northrop Aircraft, Inc., without reference to specifically designated departments at the same enumerated installations and with the same exclusions. The Employer does not contest the scope of either unit or seriously contest the appropriateness of a proposed craft unit of carpenters, but urges that, neither unit is appropriate because Petitioner would exclude certain classifications of -employees. In :a. previous case,1 involving the same Employer and the same proposed unit, the Board found that a unit of carpenters and cabinet- makers, substantially identical with the Petitioner's proposed alter- native unit, was appropriate. The Board held that the carpenters and cabinetmakers employed the traditional skills of their craft and that they constituted a homogeneous and cohesive craft group with 1 Case No. 21-RC-2972, issued May 19, 1953 ( not published). The Petitioner lost the .election, and there is no history of collective bargaining. 120 NLRB No. 37. 228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD common interests different from those of other employees . As there is no evidence in the present record that the duties and functions of these workers have changed, we find, in agreement with the Peti- tioner's alternative unit request, that such unit is appropriate. There remains for consideration the following classifications of employees whom the Employer would include and the Petitioner exclude : craters and packers, crater and packing man, and saw oper- ator. These employees work in the shipping department. Craters and packers and the crating and packing man make crates and boxes for shipping and they pack and load materials, parts, and tools for shipment. The saw operator saws wood to the proper size for making the crates. It takes from 1 to 18 months' experience to qualify for these duties. As we find these employees do not exercise the tradi- tional skills of the carpenters' craft, we shall exclude them from the unit. The mockup and tooling builder, precision, mockup and tooling builder; and mockup and tooling fabricator work in the woodshop of department 5515, in the mockup area. Their main function is to make a mockup, which is a small replica of something to be built. There are also mockup and tool builders in department 3317, where the plaster patternmakers and model builders are located. The mockup and tool builders work on models, which are full size replicas of a product to be built, and,they spend about half their time work- ing with, and as, model builders and plaster patternmakers in train- ing for their classification. There are also mockup and tool builders in department 5406, which is a part of the tool fabrication depart- ment. These men work with wood and also make some items similar to those made by the carpenters in other woodshops. They also make tooling items, such as jigs, fixtures, etc. The Employer's job descrip- tion manual states that "this occupation requires the complete lay- out, fabrication, and assembly of full scale master mockups of airplanes and their component parts for master tooling use, full scale operating models and wood tooling,s' whereas carpenters mainte- nance "plan, layout, construct and repair buildings, additions, parti- tions,' furniture and other wooden equipment." The job description for a cabinetmaker is "to layout, plan operational sequence, fabricate and assemble wooden office furniture , window frames, and special cabinets." The Employer usually requires from 6 months ' to 5 years' experience for a man to be placed in the mockup and tool builder classification. The Employer would include the mockup and tool builder people in the proposed unit of carpenters because they work with wood and use some of the skills and tools of the carpenters' craft. The Peti- tioner would exclude them because they do not exercise the traditional carpenters' skills but have tasks more closely akin to the skills, of NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 229 tool- and die-makers and patternmakers . They were excluded from the last election. We find merit in the Petitioner's position. The mockup and tool builders, though doing some work and exercising some of the craft of carpenters and cabinet makers , appear to be primarily toolmakers and patternmakers. They work with leadmen of their classification. There is no evidence of any substantial interchange between them and the carpenters. They appear to progress through their own classification. We find, on the basis of the record as a whole, that they are not part of the traditional carpenters' craft, and we therefore exclude them from the unit. Form block makers work in departments which are part of the tool fabrication department. Their job is to make tools used for the purpose of forming metals. The job description states that this occupation requires the layout and construction of single acting machine dies such as stretch press blocks, hydro press blocks and hand forming blocks. Although a cabinetmaker's background is considered helpful in becoming a form block builder, there is no evidence that the latter is a skilled craft, as the evidence shows it takes from 3 months to 2 years to qualify for a senior block maker, whereas it takes much longer to become a journeyman cabinetmaker. We find that the form block makers do not exercise the traditional skills of the carpenters' craft, accordingly, we exclude them from the unit. The Petitioner would exclude the leadmen of the carpenters and cabinetmakers, while the Employer would include them. In the last election of 1953, referred to above, the Petitioner contended that the sole duty of the leadmen was to relay assignments given by the as- sistant foreman. At the hearing in that case the parties stipulated that the leadmen were not supervisors, accordingly, they were in- cluded in the unit without any consideration of their status by the Board. In the instant case, the Petitioner contends that all but one of the former leadmen, who voted in the last election, are no longer in the unit and that the leadmen at present exercise supervisory duties. In support of this position, the Petitioner introduced testimony to show that leadmen assign all jobs to the individual crew members, that they are solely responsible for the final quality of the product produced, they are consulted in the matters of wage increases, they are required to and they do report any infraction of the rules to the assistant foreman, that they have made effective recommendations for discharge and that a leadman has interviewed a prospective employee to determine whether he was qualified for the job. When the crew is assigned to a job away from the customary shop, the leadman is the only person in charge at the scene. The leadmen usually lead some 8 men in a crew, and they are paid 20 cents an hour more than 230 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the highest classification they lead. Although no final determination is made by the foreman in disciplinary or wage matters without an independent investigation, the record shows that a leadman's recom- mendations are given serious consideration and substantial weight. We find, therefore, on the basis of the record as a whole, that the leadmen are supervisors and we shall exclude them from the unit? The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : ,All carpenters maintenance and carpenters maintenance rough and all cabinetmakers and cabinet woodworkers employed by the North- rop Division of Northrop Aircraft, Inc. at the Employer's Hawthorne, California, plant and its facilities, including the Lynwood and Mari- posa Maple warehouses; the Edwards Air Force facility, Muroc, California, the Northrop facility at the Los Angeles International Airport; the Torrance, California, facility; and Palmdale, California, facility, excluding the Anaheim, California, Division; Optical Lab- oratory, Pasadena, California, the Radio Plane Corporation, Van Nuys, California, and employees at all facilities located outside the State of California, leadmen, all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Humble Ott 4 Refining Company, 108 NLRB 1026 , 1027 ; General Telephone Company of Michigan, 112 NLRB 46, 50. Mid-South Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 15-CA- 925 and 15-CA-964. March 31, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On August 13, 1957, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. 120 NLRB No. 39.