Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or that it is estopped from urging that only the multiemployer unit is appropriate.15 Accordingly, we find that the single-employer units of employees of Halquist and Quality are not appropriate , and we shall dismiss the petitions herein. [The Board dismissed the petitions.] 15 Cf. Scougal Rubber Mfg Co, Inc, et al , 126 NLRB 470 ; Nevrolie Foundry Company, Inc., 122 NLRB 1187. We note that the union conduct relied on by the Employers con- cerned union attempts to represent groups not previously represented by it. Thus, it sought a separate unit of one employer 's inside workers who had previously been repre- sented by another union and attempted to engage in multiemployer bargaining for owner- drivers but thereafter filed separate petitions for those drivers. Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. and United Automobile, Air- craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW- CIO),1 Petitioner and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 1578.2 Case No. 21-R-2025. July 3, 1963 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION On February 18, 1944, after an election conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections,' the Board issued a certification of representatives in the above-entitled proceeding in which the UAW was certified as the bargaining representative in the following unit: All hourly paid production and maintenance employees of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. (Long Beach Plant), Long Beach, California, including leadmen, spot, flash, and seam welders, department and plant clericals, tool liaison employees, and 4-hour shift employees not employed at "feeder" plants, but excluding timekeepers, "feeder" plant employees, detached ware- house employees, school employees, plant protection employees, safety department employees, time and motion study employees, truck transportation department employees (external transporta- tion department), oxyacetylene, oxyhydrogen, and electric are welders, gas flame cutters, beginner welders, administrative em- ployees, confidential employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom- mend such action. i Hereinafter referred to as the UAW. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the IAM. 3 54 NLRB 67. 143 NLRB No. 63. DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 593 Thereafter, on December 22, 1961, the UAWT filed a motion for clarifi- cation of certification and requested that the Board conduct a hearing on the motion. In its motion the UAW contended that the IAM- represented experimental flight test employees who were physically employed at Long Beach, although assigned to department 862 of the Employer's Santa Monica division, had been transferred to de- partments 277 and 274 of the Long Beach division as a result of a corporate reorganization in August 1961. The UAW further con- tended that these employees were performing production and main- tenance work which hitherto had been customarily performed by members of the above-described UAW unit and, therefore, the experi- mental flight-test employees should be included in the Long Beach division unit, certified as described above, to the UAW. On Janu- ary 2, 1962, the Employer filed opposition to the UAW's motion as- serting that the employees in question are performing work covered by a Board certification issued on April 10, 1946, in Case No. 21-R- 3295, which certified the IAM as bargaining representative of test- ing employees, and by a collective-bargaining agreement with the IAM. The Employer contended that the instant dispute concerns work assignments rather than employee representation, but also re- quested that the TAM be made a party to any Board proceeding in view of its interest in the dispute. On January 24, 1962, the Board ordered a hearing for the purpose of taking testimony on the issues raised by the UAW's motion and further ordered that the IAM be made a party to the proceeding. Accordingly, a hearing was held before hearing officer, Harry C. Kessel, on various dates in March and April 1962. Thereafter, all of the parties filed briefs 4 The rulings of the hearing officer 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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manu- facture of military and commercial aircraft at several locations in the State of California and in other States; the instant proceeding involves only the Long Beach plant at Long Beach, California. The UAW disputes the unit placement of the IAM-represented experimental flight-test employees physically located at Long Beach; it claims that they work in close proximity with, and perform the same functions as, the production flight-test employees and the other hourly paid production and maintenance employees who have been 'The Board withheld further action after the close of the hearing pursuant to a joint request by the Unions , on June 28 , 1962, for an opportunity to adjust voluntarily their dispute through the AFL-CIO Internal Disputes Committee . Subsequently, on April 26, 1963, the UAW informed the Board that the Unions had been unable to resolve the dispute and requested that the Board process its motion. 594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD represented historically by it at Long Beach . It further contends that as a result of the Employer's corporate reorganization in 1961, the experimental flight-test employees have been permanently assigned to the Long Beach facility and should therefore be accreted to the UAW unit. The Employer and the IAM contend that the reorganization is merely a paper transaction which has affected neither the function nor the physical location of the experimental flight-test personnel. Thus, they assert that these employees have worked at Long Beach continuously since 1944 and that the Board certification for the Santa Monica facility of 1946 in Case No. 21-R-3295 included the employees at Long Beach as well as other locations . Likewise, contracts between the IAM and the Employer pursuant to this Board certification have consistently been regarded by the IAM and the Employer as appli- cable to all experimental flight-test employees, irrespective of their physical location. The record evidence shows that there are approximately 49 experi- mental flight-test employees working under the director of flight and testing in buildings 12 and 15, and at the flight ramp of the Long Beach facility. At these locations both UAW and IAM employees use the same parking lot, lunch areas , recreation facilities, and restrooms. The record demonstrates that the primary function of experimental flight-test employees is testing either wholly experimental aircraft or experimental components on old-type aircraft for the purpose of obtaining Federal Aviation Agency approval of the aircraft. The employees assigned to flight test perform this function by installing special testing instrumentation into the experimental aircraft. In addition, experimental flight-test employees have traditionally been assigned custody of (1) three Aero-Commanders, the airplanes used for transporting executive personnel, and (2) production aircraft which have been sold by the Employer but retained thereafter for the purpose of training purchasers ' pilots. The experimental flight- test employees have also customarily performed any incidental main- tenance required on aircraft within their custody. By contrast, the UAW-represented production flight-test employees perform tests to ascertain whether subsequent production aircraft conform to the ap- proved prototypes . These employees are not required to use special instrumentation to perform their function . Although the experi- mental flight-test employees and UAW employees work in adjoining work areas within the Long Beach facility, the record does not reveal any interchange between the groups except on occasions when the flight-test department borrows employees from the UAW's bargain- ing unit in order to complete a particular project. On such occasions, the borrowed employees only spend a small percentage of their time DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 595 on experimental flight-test work and retain their usual seniority and job classifications. Prior to August 15, 1961, the Employer's organization was com- prised of three separate and complete aircraft manufacturing divi- sions located at, and therefore designated as, Santa Monica, Long Beach, and El Segundo. In addition, the Employer maintained sev- eral smaller facilities wherein separate bargaining units had been established. From approximately 1946 to August 15, 1961, the experi- mental flight-test department was administratively attached to the Santa Monica facility but there were experimental flight-test em- ployees covered by contract with the IAM physically working at several of the Employer's other facilities. According to the record evidence, the experimental flight-test employees in question have been included in the foregoing contract even though they have been con- tinuously since 1944, and are now, physically employed at Long Beach. Thereafter, on August 15, 1961, as a result of the Employer's re- organization, the name of the Santa Monica division was changed to the missile and space systems division; the Long Beach division be- came the Long Beach plant of the aircraft division; and the El Segundo division became the El Segundo plant of the aircraft divi- sion. At that time, the experimental flight-test department was trans- ferred from the abolished Santa Monica division to the missile and space systems division which replaced it, but the experimental flight- test employees were otherwise unaffected. Subsequently, on Decem- ber 4, 1961, the experimental flight-test department was administra- tively transferred from the missile and space systems division at Santa Monica to the aircraft division at Long Beach. With respect to ex- perimental flight-test personnel, the reorganization has resulted in the following administrative revisions : (1) paychecks are now issued at Long Beach to flight-test employees wherever based; and (2) the flight-test branch is now under the supervision of the aircraft division vice president director, engineering and product development, whereas it was responsible formerly to corporate officers rather than to any division. However, its supervisory chain of command, except as noted above, remains unchanged and is separate from the UAW-represented employees. Thus, the experimental flight-test employees continue to perform identical job duties under the same immediate supervision and the same working conditions at the same geographical locations as they had been doing prior to the Employer's reorganization. Upon the entire record and in view of their long-established sep- arate bargaining history, their geographic location at Long Beach since 1944, their dissimilar work and independent function in the Em- ployer's operations, and because the record fails to demonstrate any significant changes, with respect to these employees resulting from the 717-672-64-vol. 143-39 596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD corporate reorganization, we find in agreement with the Employer and the IAM that the experimental flight-test employees are not an ac- cretion to or properly includible in the UAW's Long Beach, Cali- fornia, production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we deny the motion for clarification. [The Board denied the motion of the United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (AFL-CIO) to clarify the certification in Case No. 21-R-2025.] Pearl Beer Distributing Company of Jefferson County, Incorpo- rated and International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL- CIO Pearl Beer Distributing Company of Jefferson County, Incorpo- rated and Beer Drivers Local 253, AFL-CIO, International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Dis- tillery Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 23-CA-1460 and 23-CA-1510. July 11, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On May 3, 1963, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued his In- termediate 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 attached Intermedi- ate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner. ORDER The Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner. 143 NLRB No. 65.