Douglas Aircraft Co.

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Douglas Aircraft Company, a Component of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation i and Internation- al Association of Machinists and Aerospace Work- ers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-12931 December 1, 1973 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND'KENNEDY Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on November 8, 9, and 17, 1972, before Hearing Officer Theodore B. Horn. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 21, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. There- after, the Employer and Petitioner filed briefs. On April 18, 1973, the Board issued an order reopening record and remanding proceeding to Regional Director for the purpose of receiving additional evidence as to the alleged supervisory status of pilots. The Board directed that the further hearing be held before an Administrative Law Judge. Pursuant thereto, another hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Thomas D. Johnston. On June 25, 1973, the Administrative Law Judge issued his report in which he made certain findings of fact relating to the alleged supervisory status of pilots. The Employer and Petitioner subsequently filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's find- ings.2 The Employer also filed a brief in support of its exceptions and an answering brief to Petitioner's exceptions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the' National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. Petitioner and the Intervenor-3 are labor organ- izations claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(I) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of aircraft pilots and flight engineers at the Employer's Long Beach, California, facility. The Employer, contrary to the Petitioner, contends that the pilots are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. The Intervenor took no position. The parties agree that if pilots are excluded, a unit limited to flight engineers would be appropriate. There is no history of collective bargaining. The Employer is engaged in the production of commercial and military aircraft in Long Beach, California. It has about 35 pilots4 and 16 flight engineers employed in the flight operations depart- ment, the department which is responsible for the engineering testing and test flight programs. These programs entail: (1) basic engineering testing and flight testing prior to sale; (2) crew training for the customer's pilots; (3) final testing and delivery after sale to customers; and (4) the revisit program after sale to assist customers, to observe customer's crew performance, to further train customer-crews, and to trouble-shoot. The pilots are classified as transport pilot, engineering test pilot, and production and delivery pilot. They are licensed and certified by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) and they are rotated among the various flight programs described above, as needed. All pilots serve some of their time as captains, at which time they are responsible for, and in complete control of, the plane and all persons on board, and this is the basis for their alleged supervisory status. The pilots work with a crew which varies according to the characteristics of the aircraft. A normal delivery and training flight crew consists of a captain-pilot, copilot, and one or two flight engi- neers. The crew for a revisit mission may consist of only the so-called captain-pilot. An engineering and flight test crew, in addition to the normal crew, may have 30 other employees conducting various tests on subsystems of the aircraft. The record shows, inter alia, that the pilot is responsible for the airplane and crewmembers aboard, for the successful accomplishment of the mission, and for assigning duties to the designated copilot and flight engineer. He also has the authority to relieve flight crewmembers of their duties aboard the plane. 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. Implement Workers of America (UAW), was allowed to intervene on a 2 The Employer has requested oral argument This request is hereby sufficient showing of interest. denied because the record, the exceptions, and the briefs adequately present 4 In addition, the Employer has two pilots to fly helicopters but their the issues and the positions of the parties . status is not in issue because they do not serve as captains. 3 International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural 207 NLRB No. 90 DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT CO. We have recently found in a similar case 5 that pilots whose duties and responsibilities are identical in major respects to those of the pilots in issue herein were supervisors. Accordingly, we conclude on the basis of the entire record that the pilots are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act, and we shall exclude them from the unit. In view of the foregoing, we find the following unit to be appropriate for the. purposes of collective 683 bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All flight engineers employed by the Employer at its Long Beach, California, plant, excluding aircraft pilots, helicopter pilots, all represented employees, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 5 See Lockheed-California Company, a Division of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 207NLRB No. 92, and cases cited therein.