McDonnell Douglas Corp.

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD McDonnell Aircraft Company, a Division of McDon- nell Douglas Corporation and International Associ- ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO. Case 14-RC-7254 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 before Hearing Officer Neil E. McDarby. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 14, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief. 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. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby' affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, including the brief filed herein, 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. The labor organization involved claims 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)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of air crew members in the following job classifications: project pilot-experimental, senior project test pilot, test pilot- experimental, test pilot-engineering, test pilot-prod- uction, business transport pilot, and systems opera- tor-experimental, excluding supervisors. The Em- ployer contends that the unit is inappropriate for the reason, inter alia, that the individuals sought to be represented are either supervisors or managerial employees. McDonnell Aircraft Company is a division of McDonnell Douglas Corporation and is engaged primarily in the design, development, and manufac- ture of military fighter aircraft and in conducting engineering research projects related thereto. The following are the job descriptions of the classifications Petitioner seeks to represent: A test pilot-production flight tests newly assembled production aircraft for final company approval prior to release to the customer. He has command of all crew and noncrew members while they are aboard the aircraft. Crewmen may consist of another pilot or a systems operator. Noncrewmen may be comprised of design or test engineers, photographers or other technicians required for the particular flight. These test pilots also act as chase, target, and ferry pilots. A chase pilot is in command of an aircraft which "chases" an experimental aircraft to observe and assist its flight test. The chase crew may consist of an engineering observer or a photographer, or another pilot or a systems operator. A target pilot is in command of an aircraft which serves as a coopera- tive adversary for another aircraft to evaluate its fire control systems. His crew might consist of a systems operator, an engineering observer, or a photographer. A ferry pilot moves an aircraft from one location to another as, for example, delivery to a customer. The ferry pilot has as his crew either a systems operator or another pilot acting as a systems operator. A test pilot-engineering performs the duties of a production test pilot, but in addition performs flight tests to evaluate subsystem performance, not to exceed previously established performance limits. A test pilot-experimental has the functions of production and engineering test pilots described above, but in addition he pilots initial flights of new types of research models of aircraft. These flights are more hazardous because they test the capabilities of the aircraft beyond any previously tested level. A project pilot-experimental has the duties of production, engineering, and experimental test pilots. In addition, he is assigned to work with flight test engineers on a specific project or part of a project to develop a flight test program. The senior project test pilot performs the same duties as those of the test pilots described above. He also acts in place of the chief test pilot, and the chief experimental test pilot, admittedly supervisory posi- tions, when the chiefs are assigned to work away from the St. Louis facility. A business transport pilot flies the Employer's transport aircraft in carrying passengers on company or corporate business or cargo to support test operations. The transport pilot flies with a crew which usually consists of a copilot, a navigator, and a flight engineer. Pilots are in command of their aircraft and of the 207 NLRB No. 91 MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT CO. 685 crews and other personnel who may be operating or checking on subsystems. In the Lockheed-California 1 case decision, issued this day, we concluded that pilots similar to those involved in this proceeding responsibily direct crewmembers and other plane personnel and are therefore statutory supervisors and excluded from the coverage of the Act. For the same reason, we find that the various pilots whom Petitioner seeks to represent in this case are supervi- sors? Accordingly, they may not be included in any bargaining unit which the Board may find appropri- ate. The systems operator-experimental is a nonpilot air crew member who flight tests and operates the aircraft's avionic systems, such as fire control, navigation, bombing, reconnaissance, radar, and navigation equipment. He spends about half his time in preflight preparation, flight testing, and postflight briefing. Part of his time is spent in collateral engineering assignments. For example, he may spend time working with engineers "on the development and/or set up" of systems which he tests. He may also participate with the avionics engineering team in preparing specifications and reviewing final specifi- cations for comments and recommended changes. At times he may visit the plant of a subcontractor to work with' engineering personnel in evaluating the early development of avionic hardware by a subcon- tractor. He may also be called upon to brief custo,ners as to the operation of avionic equipment. The four systems operators whom Petitioner seeks to represent have all received navigation and radar observer's training in the military services. Only one of them is an engineer. They receive a weekly salary plus flight pay. They are separately supervised and are assigned to a specific area of the Employer's organizational framework for purposes of hiring, training, payroll, personnel administration, and cost accounting. The systems operators do not direct the work of other employees. The Employer does not contend that they are supervisors. However, it does assert that they are managerial employees and so should be excluded from any bargaining unit. We do not agree that the systems operators are managerial employees. The systems operators have not "participated in the formulation, determination, or effectuation of policy with respect to employee relations matters. "3 It is quite clear, and the Employer does not contend otherwise, that the systems operators are not involved with the labor relations of other employees. Moreover, even in the nonlabor field the systems operators cannot be said to participate in the "formulation, determination or effectuation of policy." Their concern is with the technical problems of avionic systems, and not with policy matters. The Employer also contends that the Petitioner's proposed unit is not appropriate, in whole or in part, because it is not a distinct and homogeneous group. At this point we are concerned only with whether a separate unit of systems operators is appropriate, inasmuch as we have found that the pilots are supervisors and must be excluded from any unit. We reject the Employer's contention and find that a unit of systems operators is appropriate. The systems operators, although technical employ- ees, have interests different from those of other technical personnel arising from their duties and training as flying personnel. They constitute a distinct group under separate supervision. There is no history of bargaining for them and no union is seeking to represent them as part of a broader technical unit. Under these circumstances, we find that the systems operators may constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit .4 Accordingly, we find that the' following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. All systems operators-experimental at the Em- ployer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding all other employees, pilots, , office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and 'Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.] 1 207 NLRB No. 92. and on this ground are also to be excluded. 2 In view of the finding that pilots are supervisors and therefore to be 3 North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Inc., 185 NLRB 550, enforcement excluded from any bargaining unit, we find it unnecessary to consider the denied 446 F.2d 602 (C A. 8). Employer's alternative contention that the pilots are managerial employees 4 Cf. Federal Electric Corporation, 157 NLRB 1130.