Bell Aerospace Corp.

130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Bell Aerosystems Company, a division of Bell Aerospace Cor- poration and American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-2435. April 19, 1961 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 John W. Irving, 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 cage to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' 3. Locals 501 and 516 contend that certain of the technicians herein sought are performing duties identical with those in the units which they presently represent under contract, and that their contracts are therefore a bar to an election in any unit including these disputed em- ployees.' In an earlier case,4 Local 501 sought to include these same technicians in a unit of production and maintenance employees. The Board, in excluding the technicians from the unit, found that, al- though there were a few employees represented by Local 501 who were called technicians, the work performed by the latter employees dif- fered materially from the work of the technicians excluded from the production and maintenance unit. The record herein supports the same finding and shows further that none of the employees repre- The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the he-iring. The Electrical Workers Research Association , Inc, herein called the Association, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest . The Petitioner alleged that the Asso- ciation is not a labor organization . As the record shows that the Association was formed for the purpose of negotiating with the Employer regarding wages , hours, and other con- ditions of employment , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. See Mark J. Gerry, Inc , d/b/a Dove Manufacturing Company, 128 NLRB 778. The International Union of United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Locals 501, 516 , and 1286 sought to intervene in this proceeding We grant intervention to the International , herein called UAW, in view of its showing of interest, and accord it a place on the ballot . Local 1286 disclaimed interest at the hearing. As the contracts of Locals 501 and 516 do not cover employees in the appropriate unit (see discussion in paragraph 3, below ) and as these locals made no showing of interest among such employees , we shall not accord them a place on the ballot, but grant them intervention solely with respect to their contract contention. See Calorator Manufacturing Corp ., 129 NLRB 704. 8 Although the position was stated at the hearing that the contracts are not urged as a bar, the brief filed by UAW contends the contracts are a bar. As we find the contention without merit , our consideration of the question raised for the first time in the brief will not prejudice any of the parties. * See Bell Aircraft Corporation, 98 NLRB 1277 . The Employer, Bell Aerosystems Company, is also known and referred to as Bell Aircraft Corporation. 131 NLRB No. 26. BELL AEROSYSTEMS COMPANY, ETC. 131 sented by Locals 501 and 516 possess the skills necessary to perform the work of the technicians sought in this case. As we find that the contracts of Locals 501 and 516 do not cover the technicians here involved, we hold that the contracts do not constitute a bar. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The Petitioner seeks to represent all the technicians employed by the Employer in its avionics and rocket divisions. It was agreed by all parties that technicians could form an appropriate unit. In the earlier case, supra, the Board specifically found that the same technicians as involved herein were technical employees under the Act, and excluded them from the production and maintenance unit. It was clearly evidenced at the hearing, and the parties agree, that the work of the technicians is substantially the same now as it was at the time of the 1952 decision. The evidence shows, in fact, that the work of the technicians has become more complex. We accordingly reach the same finding as the Board did before, i.e., that the tech- nicians sought are technical employees. The Employer and the Association take the position that the tech- nicians in the two divisions should be set up as separate units, while the Petitioner and the UAW take the position that the technicians of the two divisions should be included in one unit. The Employer's operations are divided basically into two divisions, avionics and rockets. All of the technicians in question work in labora- tories attached to the two divisions. The rockets division is located at Modelton and Wheatfield, New York, while the avionics division is located at North Tonawanda and Wheatfield, New York. The work of the avionics division is primarily concerned with electronics, while the work of the rockets division is basically chemical and mechanical. The two divisions are functionally separate, and the work and immedi- ate end products differ. However, both are engaged in research and development. There has been very little interchange of employees between the two divisions, for the skills involved are substantially different. On the other hand, the payroll, accounting, plant protec- tion, personnel, and labor relations departments of the Employer uniformly service both divisions. The hours, hourly rates, fringe benefits, and other general working conditions are the same for technicians in both divisions. Apart from these considerations, there is the crucial factor that all existing bargaining units s cover the entire Niagara Frontier operations of the Employer, which embraces 5 The production and maintenance unit is represented under contract by Local 501. There are nine other separate contracts covering, for example , lithographers (Local 1286), timekeepers, fire captains , and guards (Local 516). 132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD both the avionics and rockets divisions. There is no basis, therefore, for establishing the separate bargaining units for the technicians, as contended by the Employer and the Association.' We find that a single unit of all the technicians is appropriate, consistent with the scope of the existing units. Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's Niagara Frontier facilities (Erie and Niagara counties in the State of New York) constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act : All technical employees in the avionics and rockets divisions of the Employer, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors' as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6It is well established that the Board will find inappropriate a technical unit which does not comprise all the Employer's technical employees. See Westinghouse Air Brake Company, Union Switch f Signal Division, 119 NLRB 1391 ; The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243. 7 Subsequent to the filing of the petition 24 technicians received promotions as a re- sult of an organizational change by the Employer. The Employer's witnesses testified that these 24 individuals effectively recommend the hiring and discharge, and responsibly direct the work of, the employees under their supervision. As there is no evidence to the contrary, we shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors. Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc. and United Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4528. April 19, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On January 10, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon 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 Intermedi- ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep- tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner except as modified below 2 1 Member Rodgers would not rely on the Trial Examiner's inference that because of the small size of its plant the Respondent knew or suspected that Agnes Garland was engaging in union activity. 2 The Respondent has excepted, inter alia, to the Trial Examiner's recommended remedy awarding reinstatement and backpay to Agnes Garland. The record reveals that a few ,131 NLRB No. 27.