Aerojet General Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1961

129 N.L.R.B. 1492 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of his discharge . On the other hand, the Respondents offered evidence that Santiago
was deficient in certain respects and Marcano testified that Santiago had been
criticized. I believe that it is unnecessary to recite and weigh the evidence. This is
so because certain facts combine to dictate the conclusion that the General Counsel
has not sustained his burden of proof. First, Flores' affidavits have probative value
only in discrediting Flores' testimony and not in supporting a finding that Santiago
was invalidly discharged . 12 Second, Santiago had been at work only a brief period
on a trial basis and there is no doubt that he incorrectly assembled a large number
of pile-ups and coils on the day of his discharge. Third, Santiago was not especially
active in the Union , his display of union insignia on his clothing and automobile was
not unusual, and no supervisor spoke with him concerning his union sympathies.
Fourth, the disposition above of the alleged violations of Section 8(a)( I) preclude
a finding that the Respondents were hostile to the right of Santiago to engage in
union activities.
In summary, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety.
I2 Assuming arguendo that Flores occupied such a supervisory status that his affidavits
could he considered as admissions against the Respondents ' interest (see Grove Shepherd
Wilson & Kruge , Inc., at at ., 109 NLRB 209 , 215), two sound reasons exist for rejecting
the affidavits as proof that Santiago was invalidly discharged : ( 1) Unlike some cases
before the Board in which witnesses did not repudiate , or sought unsuccessfully to repudi-
ate, their affidavits ( cf. County Electric Co ., Inc., et at., 116 NLRB 1080 ; Norrich
Plastics Corp., 127 NLRB 150), in the instant case Flores successfully repudiated his
affidavits by branding himself as a deliberate , willing perjurer ; and (2 ) unlike a case in
which there was credible testimony that an affiant upon another occasion had made oral
admissions consistent with statements in the affidavit which he sought to repudiate
(Anthony C . Markitell, et at., 99 NLRB 399 ), here there is no evidence that Flores made
such oral admissions.
Aerojet General Corporation and International Union , United
Welders, Petitioner .' Case No. 21-RC-6191. January 31, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wilford W. Johansen, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represent-
ation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever a craft unit of welders from the exist-
ing production and maintenance unit presently represented by the
I The name of the Petitioner appears as amended after the close of the hearing by
agreement of the parties.
2 The Employer also requested oral argument . This request is hereby denied as the
record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties-
129 NLRB No. 188.
AEROJET GENERAL CORPORATION 1493
United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Inter-
venor. The Petitioner would also include in this unit seven employees
classified as experimental mechanics A, who are admittedly highly
skilled welders working in the presently unrepresented research and
development division at the Employer's plant. The Employer and_
Intervenor contend that the unit sought is inappropriate.
The record shows conclusively that the welders in the various classi-
fications involved herein are highly skilled craftsmen. Although some
of them presently work on welding machines approximately 10 per-
cent of their time, they are required to be capable of exercising estab-
lished welding skills. They use the traditional welding processes of
,, and must pass Air Force certificationgas, electric are, and heliarc.
tests, which require renewal at 6-month intervals in each separate.
metal before they are permitted to work on such metals as stainless
steel, aluminum, 4130 molychrome, and other new and difficult metals.
used in the production of rockets and guided missiles. Some welders,
hold as many as six certifications, and, depending upon classification,,
are required to have a minimum of 5 years' welding experience before
they are hired. They must also be able to read blueprints or travelers.
to determine how the weld should be accomplished, and must follow
Air Force specifications to determine what type weld material should
be used on parts which are subjected to minute inspection by X-ray,,
magna flux, and ultraviolet light. Contrary to the contention of the
Employer and the Intervenor, the welders involved herein are, in
effect, engaged in the same industry as the welders found to be crafts-
men in Hughes Aircraft Company,3 and exercise duties and skills.
similar to those of the welders in that case.4 Accordingly, we find that
the employees sought by the Petitioner constitute a craft group of the
kind which the Board has held may constitute a separate appropriate
craft unit.' We further find that the Petitioner is the traditional
representative of such employees. However, because the experimental
mechanics are now unrepresented, they are, under established Board
policy, entitled to a self-determination election before being merged
in a broader unit.6 Before directing a self-determination election, the
Board must be administratively satisfied that the petitioning union
has a sufficient representative interest in the group of employees in
question. In the instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make the
117 NLRB 98.
See also Northrop Aircraft , Inc., 117 NLRB 1717; Royal Jet Incorporated, 118 NLRB
1558 , and Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 121 NLRB 1541.
5 See also R. I. du Pont de Nem.ours and Company ( Houston, Texas, Plant), 126 NLRB
885, footnote 3
9 See, e.g., Fs8her Corporation, Ltd., 128 NLRB 504; Sutherland Paper Company, 122
NLRB 1284 ; The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134 The Harvey Paper case , cited by our
dissenting colleagues , has never been followed by the Board and is clearly inconsistent with
the subsequently decided Sutherland Paper case
586439-61-vol. 129-96
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
necessary showing of interest among the experimental mechanics in
the research and development division although it has made an ade-
quate showing among the welders in the production and maintenance
unit. Therefore, we cannot direct an election among such employees.
Because a unit of welders excluding the experimental mechanics would
include only a segment of the Employer's welders and would therefore
not constitute an appropriate unit, we shall dismiss the petition 7
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS FANNING and KIMBALL, dissenting :
We are not cognizant of any rule, purpose, or logic which would
justify our colleagues' requirement of a self-determination election
for the small segment of the craft welders who are presently unrepre-
sented. Here the Petitioner is seeking for the first time a craft unit
of welders the bulk of whom are part of an existing production and
maintenance unit and the remainder unrepresented. The unrepre-
sented welders are not sought to be merged into a broader unit which
already exists and from which they have been excluded. There is
simply no reason therefore to accord this small group any special
status on the basis that the effective expression of their wishes would
otherwise be submerged because of the numerical superiority of those
in the existing unit.
We had thought the principle had been made plain beyond mis-
understanding in a long history of decisions. The lead Zia case 8
spells out the doctrine, viz:
. .. where a group of employees has been excluded from a unit
in which they may appropriately be included, they should not be
placed in the established bargaining unit without first being ex-
tended the opportunity to vote as to whether or not they desire to
be represented by the current bargaining agent of the established
unit. Adherence to this principle will, in the opinion of the
Board, tend to insure that the wishes of small groups of em-
ployees no longer will be thwarted by the numerical superiority
of employee-members of an existing historical unit from which
the former have been excluded . . . . [Emphasis supplied.]
Consequently, we disagree with the majority's dismissal of the peti-
tion on the ground that the Petitioner failed affirmatively to demon-
strate a separate showing of interest for the unrepresented welders.
We can only view the holding of the majority as an unreasonable ob-
stacle cast in the way of a union properly seeking an opportunity to
represent a perfectly appropriate craft unit concerning which it has
7 National Caeh Register Co., 119 NLRB 486, 489 , and cases cited therein.
8 The Zia Company , 108 NLRB 1134, 1136.
LONGS STORES, INC. 1495
made the customarily required showing of interest. We would direct
the election.'
° See, e.g., Harvey Paper Products Company, etc , 117 NLRB 26 . The majority avoids
the Issue , we believe, by centering its attack on the Harvey case which it states is In-
consistent with Sutherland Paper Co., 122 NLRB 1284 . Our citation of Harvey, as already
plainly shown , is illustrative of a longstanding and fundamental principle reflected in
the lead Zia case, to which , indeed, our colleagues advert as authority . Sutherland cer-
tainly did not in fact or contemplation overrule Zia and the many other like cases follow-
ing Its basic rule. Nor Is National Cash Register Co., 119 NLRB 486, also cited by our
colleagues , of any possible assistance to the majority position . There, severance was
sought of a craft unit composed of employees already represented in several different
-existing units . Under the Zia rule, the petition was properly dismissed because an ade-
•quate showing of interest was not established for each of the represented groups sought
to he combined in the craft unit. Here , as noted, the Petitioner 's showing of interest is
perfectly adequate within the rule.
Longs Stores , Inc., a California corporation ,' Petitioner and
Retail Clerks Union, Local 1222 , Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 21-RM-678 and 921-RM-679.
January 31, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Max Dauber,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The original petitions in these cases requested elections in units of all sales and stock
employees, including pharmacists , at both the College Grove and El Cajon stores of the
Employer . At the hearing , the Employer was permitted to amend the petitions to request
elections in separate units of pharmacists and sales and stock employees at each store, or,
in the alternative , separate overall units of pharmacists and sales and stock employees at
-all four of the Employer 's San Diego County stores . The Union moved to dismiss the
petitions on the ground they are inappropriate on their face because they request elec-
tions in a single unit containing both professional and nonprofessional employees without
giving the professionals the separate election required by Section 9(b) (1). Therefore, the
Union argues , the notice of hearing was improperly issued and the petitions could not be
-amended at the hearing to correct this defect . There is no merit to the Union's conten-
tions. Section 9(b) (1) of the Act is not a general prohibition against the establishment
of bargaining units composed of both professional and nonprofessional employees. Indeed,
-the Board consistently finds such units appropriate when professional workers indicate in
a separate election that they desire to be included in a larger bargaining unit. As the
-amendments simply requested the voting procedure required by the statute , we find they
- were properly permitted . Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 107 NLRB 16.
129 NLRB No. 186.