Boeing Airplane Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 795 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter - of BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY, WICHITA DIVISION,
EMPLOYER and ROLAND F. TURNER, ET AL., EMPLOYEES , PETITIONERS
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE
No. 70, UNION
Case No. 17-RD-5.-Decided July 30, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. For the reasons hereinafter stated, the Union's motion to
dismiss the petition is hereby granted.
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members. *
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds that no question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of 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:
On July 12, 1943, the Union, as a result of an election conducted by
the Board pursuant to a consent election agreement, was certified as
the bargaining representative of the Employer's production and main-
tenance employees, excluding, inter alia, timekeepers.1 In 1946,
however, as a result of an election conducted by the Union and the
Employer to determine whether the timekeepers desired to be repre-
sented by the Union, the timekeepers were added to the over-all produc-
tion and maintenance unit and were included in the coverage of the
n Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock.
I Case No. 17-R-400.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 93.
795
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract then in effect between the Union and the Employer for that
unit. The timekeepers have likewise been included in a 1946 and a
current contract between the Union and the Employer covering pro-
ductionand maintenance employees.
The Petitioners now seek decertification of the Union as the bargain-
ing representative of the Employer's timekeepers. The Employer
takes the position that the petition is proper because the timekeepers
are technical and clerical employees who form an appropriate unit
separate from the production and maintenance employees. The Union,
however, urges dismissal of the petition on the ground that the time-
keepers are properly a part of the production and maintenance unit.
We recently held that, because Section 9 (c) of the amended Act
requires an appropriate unit as defined by Section 9 (a) for purposes
of a decertification proceeding as well as of a representation proceed-
ing, we would apply the same principles of severance to decertification
cases as to certification cases involving professional employees, and,
accordingly, permitted the severance of such employees from an estab-
lished contract unit for decertification purposes.2 In like manner,
we shall turn to ordinary representation principles here to determine
whether there is any basis for severing the timekeepers from the estab-
lished contract unit for the purpose of decertifying their present bar-
gaining representative.
The only argument advanced in support of such severance is that of
the Employer, who contends that the timekeepers form a separate ap-
propriate unit because they are technical and clerical employees 3 The
record shows, however, that the timekeepers are engaged in the ordi-
nary type of compilation of time records for production workers in
the plant,4 are hourly paid like the production workers, and have work-
ing conditions generally similar to those of the other employees in the
production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, they fall into the cate-
gory of timekeepers who we have held are no different than factory
clericals, and, therefore, belong in the same unit with production and
maintenance employees e
In view of the foregoing, and the additional fact that they are cur-
rently included in the production and maintenance unit, we find that
the Employer's timekeepers do not constitute an appropriate unit, and
accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
2 Matter of Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 1073.
'The Petitioners offered no reasons to support their claim that the proposed severance
is appropriate.
4 There is a timekeeping office out of which the timekeepers work, but they spend most of
their time working right in the plant
b Matter of Art Metal Construction Company , 75 N. L. R. B. 80 ; Matter of Chrysler
Corporation , 76 N. L. R. B. 55 ; and Matter of H. C. Canfield Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 606.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY
ORDER
797
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.