Boeing Airplane Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 368 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY and SEATTLE PROFEs
SIGNAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and SEATTLE PRO-
IESSIONAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION and AERONAUTICAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 751, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS ( IND.) and WASHINGTON STATE NURSES ASSOCIATION
and SEATTLE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION
and INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
46, AFL
Case Nos. 19-RC-341, 19-RC-342, 19-RC-344, 19-1C-361. 19-I1C-
367, and 19-RC-381, respectively.-Decided October 4, 1949
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed and consolidated,' a hearing was held be-
fore Robert E. Tillman and Melton Boyd, hearing officers. The hear-
ing oflicers'rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.2
During the hearing, the United Association of Journeymen and Ap-
prentices of the Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada,
' Case No. 19-RC-381 was consolidated after the hearing in the other cases. It was
proposed by the IBEW, and the other parties did not object, that the Board, in lieu of a
separate hearing in that case, should consider the questions raised therein on the basis
of the evidence adduced at the hearing in the other cases. we have 'acceded to this
request.
There was originally consolidated with these cases, Case No. 19-RC-363, involving cer-
tain professional employees. This case was later severed and dismissed, on motion of the
petitioner therein. Thereafter a petition was filed in Case No. 19-RC-377 covering most
of the employees in the severed and dismissed case. A consent election was held in the
new case. The Teamsters objected to the severance and dismissal of Case No. 19-RC-363.
This objection is without merit as the Teamsters had previously disclaimed at the hearing
any interest in professional employees among whom the election was held in Case No.
19-RC-377.
' There was objection. raised to the hearing officer's permitting the intervention of a
group of employees called Stenographers A and B, who sought to intervene for the purpose
of gaining their exclusion from any units found appropriate on the basis of their being
confidential employees. Without deciding whether or not the allowance of such interven-
tion was proper, we do find that no party was prejudiced thereby inasmuch as the Em-
ployer took the lead in presenting the case of these employees and also since all the in-
terested parties subsequently agreed that the stenographers in question were, in fact,
confidential employees,
86 N. L. R. B., No. 47.
368
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 369
Local 32, herein. called Plumbers; moved to intervene for the purpose
of securing a separate election in a unit of maintenance plumbers which
it desired to sever from the historical production and maintenance unit.
The hearing officer denied this motion, inasmuch as the Plumbers
failed to make a 30 percent showing of interest among the employees
in the unit it proposed for severance.' We have affirmed this ruling
as we are of the opinion that a union seeking to sever a craft unit from
an existing industrial unit, whether it appears as a cross-petitioner or
as an intervenor in a representation case involving the larger unit,
olight.to make the substantial showing of interest (30 percent under
the Board's present practice) which is required of petitioners in other
situations.' The Board's decisions in Matter of Richfield Oil Corpo-
ration, 59 N. L. R. B. 1554, and similar cases,' insofar as inconsistent
with this ruling, are hereby overruled.6
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 Houston, Reynolds, and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
These organizations are :
Washington State Nurses Association, herein called Nurses Asso-
ciation. _
Seattle Professional Engineering Employees Association, herein
called SPEEA.
Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, herein called Machinists.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 46, AFL,
herein called IBEW.
Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 451,
affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
3 The Plumbers produced cards indicating that it represented only 9 employees ,out of 72
in its proposed unit.
4 However, we do not endorse the hearing officer's advice to the Plumbers ' counsel in
colloquies at the hearing insofar as he indicated that, regardless of the Plumbers ' ability
to establish a substantial interest prior to the close of the hearing, the appropriate proce-
dure was for the Plumbers to file a separate petition . Had the Plumbers been able to
,show before the end of the hearing a substantial interest as defined above , it would have
been entitled to intervene in this proceeding without the necessity of filing a separate
petition . See Matter of United Boat Service Corporation , 55 N. L. R. B. 671.
See Matter of Standard Oil Company ( Ohio ), Cleveland Division, 63 N. L. It. B. 1248 ;
Matter of General Tire and Rubber Co., 63 N . L. It. B. 182.
u We do not mean by this ruling to affect in any way the showing of interest required
of an intervenor seeking merely to gain a place on the ballot in an election in a unit
petitioned for by another union.
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, herein called Team-
sters.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer's facilities within the State of Washington con-
sist of the following: Plants 1 and 2 in Seattle; a leased plant in
Renton; and test facilities on the United States Air Force Field .at
Moses Lake. Plant 1 is primarily an experimental plant where new
aircraft designs and models are worked out. It also handles some
production assembly of aircraft. Plant 2, which is 1 or 2 miles from
Plant 1, is devoted entirely to production operations, including fabri-
cation and assembly of aircraft. The Renton plant is engaged in
assembly operations primarily. Moses Lake is a small operation,.
consisting of the testing of jet bombers. Control of all operations-
is centralized in Seattle, the headquarters of the Employer being in
Plant 2.
The Machinists represented the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer in the State of Washington from 1936 until'
April 22,1948. On the latter. date the Machinists went on strike. On.
May 31, 1949, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
held that the strike was in violation both of the Machinists' last col--
lective bargaining contract and of Section 8 (d) of the Act, and that.
the Machinists had thereby forfeited its bargaining agency.' There--
after, the petitions herein were filed.
Case No. 19-RO- 61: Nurses
The petition in this case was filed by the Nurses Association, seek-
ing to sever from the previous Machinists' contract unit the staff-
nurses in the plants of the Employer. The Machinists intervened
but did not contest the professional character of the nurses or their-
right to vote in a separate group. However, the Machinists did ask
to be on the ballot in this case and to have the nurses added to the
production and maintenance unit if the Machinists are successful in
these two voting groups.
The nurses concerned are all registered nurses, licensed to practice
in the State of Washington. They do the usual work of nurses, in-
cluding minor diagnostic steps, such as taking blood pressure, cleaning-
and dressing wounds, determining whether further attention is neces-
sary, and segregating cases into occupational and nonoccupational
groups. We have consistently found in the past that nurses comprise-
a homogeneous group having interests and duties dissimilar to pro--
duction and maintenance employees, and therefore should not be in--
7 Boeing Airplane Company, et at. v . N. L. R. B., 174 F. 2d 988.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 371
cluded in a unit with those employees ." We so find here, and will
establish the staff nurses as a separate appropriate unit.
Case No. 19-RC-341: Chemists
The petition in this case was filed by SPEEA, seeking to represent
a unit of professional employees in the receiving and inspection de-
partment-who are perfprming,chemical or electrical. laboratory work.
These employees are generally referred to in the record as chemical
testers, but sometimes as chemical and electrical testers. They were
included in the unit represented by the Machinists before April 22,
1948. The Employer had no objection to this group being severed from
the over-all unit. On the other hand, the Machinists contends that
the chemical testers are not professional employees and that they
belong in the production and maintenance unit. The Teamsters in-
tervened but has now disclaimed any interest in this group of
employees.
There are 23 employees in the chemical testing division; 17 chem-
ists ° and 6 employees engaged in electrical chemical testing."' Prac-
tically all the chemists have a degree in chemistry or chemical engi-
neering. Their work is varied in character and continually involves
the use of the technical knowledge gained in their studies. The results
of their work cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of
time. Errors in the exercise of their discretion or judgment can
cause serious disruptions in production, and loss to the Company.
We find that these chemists are professional employees within the
meaning of the Act.
The other six employees in the chemical testing division perform
work of a more routine nature, and are, at the most, highly skilled
technical employees. They do not possess the educational qualifica-
tions of the chemists. We do not believe that these employees are
professional employees. However, they have a close community of
interest with the chemists and, as the entire chemical testers' group
is composed predominantly of professional employees,. we find that
the proposed unit as a whole qualifies as a professional group under
the Act.11
The Machinists contends, however, that even if the employees sought
in this case by the SPEEA are professional employees, the petition
should nevertheless be dismissed for the reason that this group consti-
tutes only a segment of the Employer's material testers and that the
8 flatter of Standard Oil Company ( Indiana ), 80 N. L . R. B. 1022 ; Matter of Ingersoll
Mining Company, 78 N. L . R. B. 535.
"Their job titles are Chemist A, Chemist B, Chemist C, and Chemist D.
I° The job titles under which these six employees work are Investigator A ; Inspector,
electrical laboratory A ; Inspector, electrical laboratory B ; and spectrographer.
11 Matter of 'estinghouse Electric Corporation , 80 N. L . R. B. 591 ; Matter of Conti-
nental Motors Corporation , 77 N. L . R. B. 345.
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only basis on which this unit could be established would be extent of
organization. The Employer has a department called the receiving
and testing department which is composed of three divisions. These
are the receiving group, the physical testers, and the chemical testers.
It is only the last group which SPEEA seeks to represent as a unit of
professional employees. The receiving employees do the actual receiv-
ing of the materials to be tested and also handle the clerical work
entailed in receiving the materials and dispatching them to the proper
departments. The physical testers inspect the materials for its physical
properties, such as- tension strength, compression strength, and hard-
ness. The chemical testers conduct chemical analyses of materials
going into the structure of the airplanes and also participate to some
extent in the investigation of plane and shop troubles, such as cor-
rosion. These three groups of employees occupy separate areas adja-
cent to each other. They have little contact with each other in the
course of their work. They are under the over-all supervision of the
head of the receiving and testing department, but each group also has
a separate supervisor. The chemical testers and the physical testers
inspect the same materials, but at different times.
The contention of the Machinists is that, if any of these employees
-are eligible for severance as professional- employees, the appropriate
unit must include both the physical testers and the chemical testers.
We do not agree. Although the unit suggested by the Machinists may
also be a possible appropriate unit, that possibility does not rule out
the appropriateness of the unit contended for by the SPEEA.
Furthermore, there is little evidence in the record concerning the exact
nature of the work of the physical testers,, and less concerning their
educational qualifications. It was stated-by one witness that "a couple"
of the physical testers are college graduates. It was also stated that a
college degree is now required for an applicant to be placed in a job
as a physical tester. On this state of the record, we could hardly hold
the physical testers to be professional employees,12 nor could we prop-
erly deny the chemical testers, a distinct group whose professional
status has been established, the opportunity to establish themselves as
a separate bargaining unit. For these reasons, and on the record as a
whole concerning them, we will grant the chemical testers.a self -'deter-
mination election. If in this election a majority of the employees vot-
ing select the SPEEA, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate bargaining unit. If, however, a majority of
such employees select the Machinists, they will be taken to have indi-
12 There was uncontradicted testimony that the SPEEA had ventured into organizing
the physical testers but stopped when it found that they did not have the necessary qualifi-
cations for professional employees.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 373
cated their desire to be represented, as in the past, as part of the
production and maintenance unit.
Cases Nos. 19-RC-342 and 19-RC-367: Production engineers
SPEEA is also the Petitioner in both these cases. It contends that
the employees involved are professional employees and therefore
entitled to vote as a separate unit, as provided for by the Act. The
Employer supports this stand. The Machinists and the Teamsters take
an opposite position, maintaining that these employees do not meet
the qualifications for professional employees under Section 2 (12) of
the Act, and that they properly belong in the production and mainte-
nance unit. Case No. 19-RC-34G concerns 28 employees at Plant 2 of
the Employer, while 19-RC-367 deals with 30 employees at Plant 1.
It was agreed by all the interested parties that the employees in both
cases do the same type of work and that the evidence adduced in the
first case should be considered as equally applicable in the second case.
Various titles were applied to these employees in the record; 13 we
will regularly use one title, production engineers. The job of the
production engineers is a combination of work previously done by two
categories of employees called, respectively, tool. planners and pro-
duction planners. Tool planning was by far the more highly skilled
work. It consisted of planning the manufacturing procedure of the
parts of the airplane, deciding what machines and tools would be used,
and, if a necessary tool was not available, formulating plans for
making it. The production planner tied in the work of the tool
planner with the actual operations of the plant. He planned the shop
routing, the sequence of operations based on the analysis of the tool
planner, and also worked out the proper place in the manufacturing
process of the more routine operations not set out by the tool planner.
After the strike of April 22, 1948, referred to above, the Employer
combined these two operations and the present production engineering
job resulted. The educational experience of the production engineers
is quite varied, ranging from grade and high school education to
college training, both academic and technical. The average of college
experience of these employees is about 2 years. Because of the disposi-
tion we make of this petition on other grounds, we find it unnecessary
to decide whether or not the production engineers are professional
employees within the meaning of the Act.
Under the situation as it existed prior to April 22, 1948, the produc-
tion planners were included in the bargaining unit represented by
the Machinists. The tool planners were not included in this unit, but
"Those at Plant 2 are called Senior Production Engineers B, Production Engineers A,
and Production Engineers B. Those at Plant 1 are Production Planners Special, and
Production Planners B.
867351-50-vol. 86 2-5
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rather were represented by the SPEEA. The latter organization
presently has a contract with the Employer covering these one time
tool planners, under the title of "Tool Engineer A and B," in a group
with many others of the Employer's engineers. It is clear from the
record, and is admitted by all the parties, that, since the Employer's
job reorganization after the strike, these "tool engineers" have done
work identical with that performed by the production engineers peti-
tioned for in these 2 cases. Therefore, it is apparent that the 58
employees covered by the 2 petitions herein are only a part of a larger
class of technical employees, consisting of both the production engi-
neers and the "tool engineers," who, as a whole, are distinct from the
other categories of employees in the production and maintenance unit.
Wherever they are placed, the production engineers should obviously
all be treated alike. We shall therefore exclude those sought here
from the production and maintenance unit. We shall also dismiss
SPEEA's petitions in these cases inasmuch as the units sought therein
comprise only a part of the employees in a single functional group, and
are inappropriate for that reason, if for no other.14
Cases 1Vos. 19-RC-3444 and 19-RC-381: Production and maintenance
employees.
In Case No. 19-RC-344, the Machinists is petitioning for the pro-
duction and maintenance unit as it existed before the strike. Except
as to certain of the professional or technical groups discussed above,
the Employer agrees with the Machinists as to the composition of
this unit. The Teamsters also substantially agrees, but would exclude
certain craft groups.
Electricians
The Petitioner in Case No. 19-RC-381 is the 113F,111. It, seeks to
represent the maintenance electricians Ili the employ of the Em-
ployer in the State of Washington. There are about 120 employees
in this group. The Employer and the Machinists oppose any separa-
tion of the electricians from the production and maintenance unit;
the Teamsters supports such separation. The electricians were in-
cluded in the production and maintenance unit during the period of
the Machinists' representation of that unit. Ili objecting to the estab-
lishment of a separate unit of electricians, the Employer and the
Machinists contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate because
the maintenance electricians, along with other maintenance groups,
11 As we are not required under these circumstances to determine what unit would be
appropriate for production engineers , we do not wish to he construed as implying that all
the production engineers together or all the engineers in the employ of the Employer, or
any other particular grouping, is an appropriate unit. We will make such a decision
if the quastion comes before us in a proper proceeding.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 375
regularly perform work which is an integral part of the production
process; because the maintenance groups are frequently interchanged
with production workers; and because the maintenance electricians
are not distinct, inasmuch as all the maintenance employees at differ-
ent times perform work of various crafts and are not limited to one
craft.
The Employer has no classification of journeyman electrician and
maintains no regular apprenticeship program. The Employer some-
times hires electricians from the outside and sometimes recruits
them from employees engaged in production work. The record shows
however, that the Employer is a large company and there are in its
employ many men who, though engaged in production work, have
had work experience in the crafts.
The maintenance electricans do the usual work of their craft, re-
pairing electrical wiring and fixtures, repairing and rewinding mo-
tors, and also, installing new electrical wiring and equipment in small
new construction or remodeling in the Employer's plant. In Plant 2,
the electricians have a. separate workshop in the warehouse and also
use two tool cribs within the production area of the plant. In Plant
1, their headquarters is in one -large room with other crafts, though
each craft has a separate; floor area.. In Plant 2, on the day shift,
there is a separate supervisor for the electricians, as well as for the
other crafts. On the second and third shifts at Plant 2, as well as on
all shifts at Plant 1 and at the Renton plant, there is one supervisor
over all the maintenance crafts.
Although there are separate craft groups in the Employer's main-
tenance department and each group works primarily at its own craft
occupation, sometimes an electrician may help the masons pour con-
crete, or the carpenters will assist in pulling a heavy wire cable. This
is especially true where the craftsmen are working in proximity to one
another. And sometimes the members of one craft working by them-
selves may do the work of another craft where the job is small and
relatively simple. We do not believe, however, that this sort of coop-
erative work destroys the separate identity of the craft maintenance
groups. Nor does the fact that in emergency rush situations the
production department and the maintenance department may recruit
temporary help from each other; or the fact that in slack periods in
one department, that department may have employees temporarily
transferred to the other.
It is also contended that the work of the maintenance crafts, includ-
ing the electricians, is closely integrated with that of the production
workers, and therefore, under the doctrine of the Ford case,15 severance
15 Matter of Ford Motor Company ( Maywood Plant ), 78 N. L . R. B. 887.
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the electricians should be denied. However, the record shows only
that the electricians and other maintenance craftsmen are often re-
quired to work in production areas, near production employees, in the
installation, repair, and maintenance of instrumentalities of produc-
tion, such as jigs and testing equipment. This work is not performed
at fixed stations, nor is it so repetitive and routine as to become an
essential step in the production process. Therefore the Ford decision
is not controlling.
In view of all the facts described above, we find that the mainte-
nance electricians covered by the petition in Case No. 19-RC-381 may
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act 16 However, we shall
make no final unit determination at this time, but shall be guided in
part by the desires of these employees as expressed in the elections
hereinafter directed. If, in this election, a majority of the employees
voting select the IBEW, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute-a, separate bargaining unit. If, however, a major-
ity of such employees select the Machinists, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be represented as part of the production and
maintenance unit.
Other maintenance craft groups
In addition to the electricians, the Teamsters would exclude from
the production and maintenance unit, three other maintenance craft
groups, namely, the plumbers, the painters, and the carpenters. The
facts concerning these three groups are similar to those pertaining to
the electricians detailed in the discussion above of the IBEW petition.
However, we see no cogent reason for excluding these additional
groups of maintenance employees from the production and mainte
nance unit. The principle of self-determination for craft groups does
not apply where there is no union seeking to represent the crafts sepa-
rately,17 and where there is no evidence to indicate a desire on the part
of the craft employees themselves to be removed from the unit in
which they have been represented.18 We occasionally have found pro-
duction employees to constitute an appropriate unit alone, but it has
been generally where another union represented, or was seeking to rep-
16 Matter of Reynolds Metals Company , 85 N. L. It. B., 110 ; Matter of United States
Rubber Company , 81 N. L . It. B. 17.
17 The Painters ' International Union and the Painters ' District Council No . 5, AFL,
sought to intervene to establish a separate unit of maintenance painters . Their interven-
tion was denied for failure to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.
The District Council and Locals of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, AFL,
moved to intervene to claim a unit of maintenance carpenters , but withdrew the motion
before the hearing officer ruled thereon.
11 Matter of Francis Keil and Son, Inc., 62 N. L. R. B. 1.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 377
resent, the maintenance crafts.19 Furthermore, the Teamsters does not
seek to limit the unit to production employees alone, but would include
all the maintenance crafts other than those mentioned specifically
above. Under all these circumstances, it is apparent that these mainte-
nance crafts, except for the electricians, should not be excluded from
the production and maintenance unit, and we shall therefore include
them.
Departments 521 and 525
After the hearing in these cases, a petition from certain employees
in Departments 521 and 525 of the Employer was investigated by the
Regional Office. These employees seek to be excluded from any units
found appropriate herein. A stipulation as to the facts concerning
the nature and the circumstances of the work done by these employees
was signed by the Employer, the Machinists and the Teamsters, and
submitted to the Board to be considered as evidence adduced at the
hearing.
The employees concerned have to do with the recording, tabulating,
and filing of production control records. Some of them operate office
machines such as key punch, tabulating, and verifier machines. It is
apparent from the stipulated record that these employees are office
clericals, and consistent with our usual practice, we will exclude them
from the production and maintenance voting group.
Summary
We will exclude office clericals as that is in accord with our long-
established policy. Power plant operators and truck drivers operat-
ing on the public highway will also be excluded in accordance with
the agreement of the parties, as they are presently covered by con-
tracts between the Employer and unions not concerned here. Guards
are also represented by another union and we exclude them in any
event, for statutory reasons. In accordance with the agreement of
all the interested parties, we will also exclude Stenographers A and B
working for foremen, general foremen, inspection supervisors, pro-
duction supervisors, and chief timekeepers.20 The coordinators origi-
nally named in the petition in Case No. 19-RC-363 but excluded in
the consent election in Case No. 19-RC-377,21 will be included in the
production and maintenance group herein.
We are urged by the Employer to define whatever units are found
appropriate in terms of the approximately 700 job titles and code
designations submitted by it. We believe that such a definition might
is Matter of Seripto Manufacturing Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 222.
20 We do not pass, however , upon the alleged confidential status of these employees.
21 See footnote 1, above.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
well raise more problems than it would solve, and we will therefore
adhere to our usual policy of defining the unit in broad terms with
specific exclusions.
In accord with our findings in all the consolidated cases, we will
direct elections in the four voting groups set out below.
In Case No. 19-RC-361 we find the following unit to be appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act:
1. All staff nurses employed by the Employer in the State of Wash-
ington, excluding supervisory nurses.
We will not at this time make any finding of the appropriate units
in Cases Nos. 19-RC-341, 19-RC-344, and 19-RC-381, but we will
direct elections in the following voting groups.
2. All employees of the Employer in the State of Washington who
work in the receiving and testing department performing chemical
or electrical laboratory work, excluding clerks and supervisory em-
ployees within the meaning of the Act.
3. All employees of the Employer in the State of Washington who
are engaged in electrical maintenance work, excluding clerical em-
ployees and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
4. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer in
the State of Washington, excluding staff nurses, and the employees in
voting groups 2 and 3, above; and also excluding Stenographers A
and B working for foremen, general foremen, inspection supervisors,
production supervisors, and chief timekeepers ; production engineers in
the Production Planning Department and the Experimental Produc-
tion. Department working under the job titles of Senior Production En-
gineer B, Production Engineer A. Production Engineer B, Production
Planner Special and Production Planner B ; the following employees
in Departments 521 and 525: production control records, working
group leaders, clerks, expeditors, stenographers, and operators of
tabulating, key punch, and verifier machines; power plant operators;
truck drivers operating on the public highway; and further excluding
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS22
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer , separate elec-
. 21 The Teamsters does not desire to participate in any of the elections for craft or pro-
fessional employees unless votes cast for the Machinists in those groups , Nos. 1, 2, and 3,
are to be counted towards the Machinists total in group 4, the production and maintenance
group . As we do not count votes in the manner suggested , we will place the Teamsters
only on the ballot in group 4 . See flatter of J. I. Case Company, 81 N. L . R. B. 969.
BOEING AIRPLANE COMPANY 379
tions by secret ballot 23 shall be conducted as early as possible, but
not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region
in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the Nurses unit and in each of the voting groups
set forth in the paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections, and also excluding employees on
strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they
desire to be represented :
In group 1, by the Washington State Nurses Association, or by the
Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751., International Asso-
ciation of Machinists (IND), or by neither;
In group 2, by the Seattle Professional Engineering Employees
Association, or by the Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751,
International Association of Machinists (IND), or by neither;
In group 3, by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 46, AFL, or by the Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No.
751, International Association of Machinists (IND), or by neither;
In group 4, by the Aeronautical Workers, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local No. 451, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
AFL, or by the Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge No. 751, Inter-
national Association of Machinists (IND), or by neither, for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed herein in Cases Nos.,
19-RC-342 and 19-RC-367 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
28 In the event any of the unions named below wishes to withdraw from any of the ballots
It may do so by giving 10 days notice of such desire to the Regional Director.