Boeing Co.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 2001

337 N.L.R.B. 152 (N.L.R.B. 2001)

152 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Boeing Company and International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–
CIO, Petitioner. Case 11–RC–6424
December 20, 2001
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN HURTGEN AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND WALSH
On November 13, 2000, the Regional Director for Re­
gion 11 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
(relevant portions of which are attached as an appendix)
finding appropriate the petitioned-for unit of recovery
and modification employees, including mechanics, tools
and parts attendants, and quality assurance employees
employed by the Employer at its Charleston Air Force
Base location in South Carolina. Thereafter, pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely re-
quest for review of the Regional Director’s determina­
tion, contending that the petitioned-for unit is not appro­
priate and that the only appropriate unit is one that in­
cludes all employees at Charleston Air Force Base. By
Order dated December 7, 2000, the Board granted the
Employer’s request for review.1 Thereafter, the Em­
ployer filed a brief on review.
Having carefully examined the entire record and the
brief on review, we reverse the Regional Director’s find­
ing that the petitioned-for unit is appropriate and find
that the smallest appropriate unit must include all
production and maintenance employees at the Charleston
Air Force facility.
Facts
The Employer maintains and repairs C-17 cargo air-
craft for the United States Air Force at the Charleston Air
Force Base in Charleston, South Carolina. The portion
of the Air Force base devoted to the Employer’s opera­
tion encompasses four buildings (buildings 80, 543, 545,
and 551) and a 1-1/2 mile long flight line. The four
buildings are all located within 500 yards of each other
and the flight line.
The petitioned-for recovery and modification (RAM)
group, which consists of five mechanic aircraft mechani­
cal employees, three mechanic aircraft electrical employ­
ees, one aircraft inspector, and one material handler,
works on the flight line. This group is responsible for
repairing, inspecting, and maintaining the engines of C-
17 aircraft pursuant to the orders of the United States Air
Force. RAM employees utilize time compliance tech
1 On December 12, 2000, the Board denied the Employer’s motion
to stay the election.
order kits (TCTO kits), which include all of the parts
needed to inspect and repair a specific engine part. Be-
fore beginning the repairs and inspections indicated in
the TCTO kits, RAM employees also do a general in­
spection of the aircraft. If during that inspection, the
RAM employees discover a problem with a portion of
the engine not due for repair according to that aircraft’s
TCTO kit, the RAM group is responsible for notifying
the United States Air Force of this problem and, if di­
rected, repairing that portion of the engine as well.
The engine support equipment (ESE) group, which
consists of eight mechanics and one quality specialist,
works mainly in building 545. This group is responsible
for maintaining, inspecting, and repairing the support
equipment used by the RAM employees. This support
equipment literally supports the engines or portions of
engines while the RAM employees are repairing them on
the flight line. The ESE group is also responsible for
servicing the support equipment, both in building 545
and on the flight line. The ESE group delivers the sup-
port equipment to the flight line upon request of the
RAM group and subsequently removes it. Finally, the
ESE group is sometimes responsible for repairing C-17
engines. This responsibility arises if a RAM employee
determines that the engine cannot be fixed on the flight
line. The damaged engine is then removed from the
wing of the aircraft, transferred to building 545, repaired
by an ESE employee, and stored in building 545 for fu­
ture use.
The repair of repairables (ROR) group, which consists
of four ROR coordinators, eight ROR analysts, and one
lead ROR analyst, works in buildings 80, 543, and 545.
This group is responsible for storing all of the parts and
materials needed to repair C-17 aircraft, including the
TCTO kits. When a RAM employee needs a specific
part or TCTO kit, either an ROR employee will deliver
that item to the RAM employee or the RAM employee
will pick it up from ROR. If a RAM employee needs a
specific part that the ROR group does not have in stock,
the ROR group is responsible for ordering that part and
delivering it to the RAM employee upon its arrival. Fi­
nally, if a RAM employee has a part that cannot be fixed
on the flight line, the RAM employee will bring it to the
ROR group, which then packages the part and ships it
out for repair.
Analysis
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit limited to the
10 RAM employees. The Regional Director found that
because the RAM employees work on different equip­
ment, are geographically separate from the ESE and
ROR employees, and have minimal contact or inter-
337 NLRB No. 24
BOEING CO. 153
change with those employees, they alone constitute an
appropriate unit for collective bargaining. We disagree.
The Board’s procedure for determining an appropriate
unit under Section 9(b) is to examine first the petitioned-
for unit. If that unit is appropriate, then the inquiry into
the appropriate unit ends. If the petitioned-for unit is not
appropriate, the Board may examine the alternative units
suggested by the parties, but it also has the discretion to
select an appropriate unit that is different from the alter-
native proposals of the parties. See, e.g., Overnite
Transportation Co., 331 NLRB 662, 663 (2000); NLRB
v. Lake County Assn. for the Retarded, 128 F.3d 1181,
1185 fn. 2 (7th Cir. 1997). The Board generally attempts
to select a unit that is the smallest appropriate unit en-
compassing the petitioned-for employee classifications.
See, e.g., Bartlett Collins Co., 334 NLRB 484 (2001),
and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 163
NLRB 677 (1967). In determining whether the employ­
ees in the unit sought possess a separate community of
interest, the Board examines such factors as mutuality of
interest in wages, hours, and other working conditions;
commonality of supervision; degree of skill and common
functions; frequency of contact and interchange with
other employees; and functional integration. Ore-Ida
Foods, 313 NLRB 1016 (1994), affd. 66 F.3d 328 (7th
Cir. 1995). It is well settled that the unit need only be an
appropriate unit, not the most appropriate unit. Morand
Bros. Beverage Co., 91 NLRB 409, 419 (1950), enfd. on
other grounds 190 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951).
We find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the
RAM employees do not possess a community of interest
separate and distinct from the ESE and ROR employees
that would justify a separate unit of RAM employees.
The ESE employees have the same skills, qualifications,
and certifications as the RAM employees. The RAM
employees do not receive specialized training or partici­
pate in an apprenticeship program. Rather, the ESE and
RAM employees attend the same Employer-provided
training and certification classes. In fact, during the last
year, the ESE and RAM employees have attended 6
weeks of training classes together.2 Moreover, ESE and
RAM employees do the same type of work, albeit usually
on different types of equipment. If a C-17 engine cannot
be repaired on the flight line, however, an ESE employee
will be responsible for that engine’s repair.
Additionally, the ESE and ROR employees’ work is
highly integrated with that of the RAM employees. The
2 William Kenneth Forsher Jr., manager of the RAM group, testified
at the hearing that one of the reasons all ESE employees are required to
have the same qualifications, training, and skills as the RAM employ­
ees is because the Employer plans to utilize the ESE employees as
backup for the RAM employees in the near future.
ESE employees supply and service the support equip­
ment needed by the RAM employees to hold the aircraft
engine, or portions of the engine, during repairs. The
ROR employees supply the TCTO kits that direct the
RAM employees’ work. In sum, the Employer’s servic­
ing of the C-17 aircraft is only accomplished through the
coordinated efforts of the RAM, ESE, and ROR groups.
Finally, the RAM, ESE, and ROR employees receive
the same benefits, are subject to the same personnel poli­
cies, receive comparable wages, share a common lunch
area, and, on occasion, permanently transfer into each
other’s group.3
We recognize that the RAM employees are separately
supervised, attend separate employee meetings, work in a
separate area from the ESE and ROR employees, and
never temporarily transfer into the ESE or ROR groups.
These distinctions, however, are offset by the highly in­
tegrated work force, the similarity in training and job
functions between the RAM and ESE employees, and the
comparable terms and conditions of employment among
all three groups. Chromalloy Photographic Industries,
234 NLRB 1046 (1978).4
For these reasons, we conclude that a unit consisting of
the RAM, ESE, and ROR employees constitutes the
smallest appropriate unit. Accordingly, we reverse the
Regional Director’s decision and find appropriate a unit
consisting of RAM employees, including mechanics,
tools and parts attendants, and quality assurance employ­
ees; ESE employees, including mechanics and quality
specialists; and ROR employees, including repair of re­
pairables coordinators, analysts, and lead analysts.
ORDER
This proceeding is remanded to the Regional Director
for further appropriate action consistent with this deci­
sion.
MEMBER WALSH, dissenting.
For the reasons stated by the Regional Director, I
would find the petitioned-for unit appropriate.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
The Employer is a Delaware corporation with its headquar­
ters in Seattle, Washington, and a business situs at the Charles-
3 In the past year, there has been one permanent transfer from the
ROR group to the ESE group and three permanent transfers from the
RAM group to the ESE group.
4 In making his determination, the Regional Director relied heavily
on an earlier proceeding, Case 11–RC–6312, involving the same Em­
ployer. We do not attach any weight to this decision as unreviewed
Regional Director’s decisions have no precedential value. Rental Uni­
form Service, 330 NLRB 334, 336 fn. 10 (1999). Moreover, the ESE
group did not exist at the time of that earlier decision.
154 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ton Air Force Base in South Carolina where it is engaged in the
manufacture, modification, and repair of aircraft. During the
preceding 12-month period, the Employer purchased and re­
ceived goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly
from points outside the State of South Carolina, and during the
same period of time the Employer derived gross revenues in
excess of $50,000 for services it performed.
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL–CIO (the Petitioner), seeks to represent the
following unit: all recovery and modification employees includ­
ing mechanics, tool and parts attendants and quality assurance
employees employed by the Employer at its Charleston Air
Force Base location; excluding all temporary employees, inde­
pendent contractors, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
There are approximately 10 employees in the unit the Petitioner
seeks to represent, and this departmental group is identified in
the record as the RAMS Team. In a previous decision in Case
11–RC–6312, the undersigned specifically found the depart-
mental unit sought by the Petitioner herein to be an appropriate
unit. In this regard, the current record testimony established
that the classification formerly named “tools and parts atten­
dant” is now denominated as “material handler.” Thus, the unit
description in Case 11–RC–6312 contained a “tool and parts
attendant” classification.
The Employer proposes that the unit herein should include
all resident production, maintenance, and warehouse employees
employed by the employer at its Charleston Air Force Base
location, including those holding the position of inspector air-
craft, mechanic aircraft, electrical mechanic aircraft, mechani­
cal, support equipment mechanic, quality specialist 3, material
handler, repair of repairable analyst, lead repair of repairable
analyst, and repair of repairable coordinators, but excluding all
visiting speed line employees, all employees of United Air
Lines and all temporary employees, independent contractors,
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined by the Act. There are approximately 30
employees in the unit proposed by the Employer, comprised of
the RAMS Team employees and two additional departmental
groups identified in the record as Repair of Repairable Techni­
cians (ROR employees) and Engine Support Equipment em­
ployees (ESE employees). The undersigned Regional Director
specifically excluded ROR employees from the unit found ap­
propriate in Case 11–RC–6312. However, the Employer argues
that the decision in Case 11–RC–6312 is not a “final and bind­
ing adjudication.” The Employer further argues that because the
ESE department did not exist at the time of the decision in Case
11–RC–6312, the overall nature of the workplace has changed
since the earlier decision and that RAMS employees, ROR
employees and ESE employees now perform tasks that are
functionally interrelated in servicing and maintaining C-17
aircraft for the United States Air Force, making a departmental
unit comprised of RAMS Team employees an inappropriate
unit. Alternatively, the Employer argues that the minimum
appropriate unit must contain RAMS Team employees and ESE
employees. There is no bargaining history involving the Em­
ployer at the location in question.
Contrary to the Employer’s assertion that “the overall nature
of the workplace has changed since the earlier decision,” I find
that the record herein provides no evidence to establish that the
relationship between RAMS team employees and ROR em­
ployees has changed in any significant way since the decision
in Case 11–RC–6312. Rather, the record demonstrates that
some ROR employees now share a building with ESE employ­
ees and may, as a result, have more frequent contact with ESE
employees.
In Case 11–CA–6312, the undersigned found that the Rams
Team was part of an overall complement of approximately 120
employees employed by the Employer at the Charleston Air
Force Base. These employees perform work to fulfill the obli­
gations of the Employer pursuant to a flexible sustainment pro-
gram under an agreement between the Employer and the U.S.
Air Force. Specifically, the duties of the Rams Team employ­
ees under this project, at the direction of the U.S. Air Force, are
to maintain, service, repair and install compliance tech quarters
on U.S. Air Force aircraft. Based on the record as a whole, in
Case 11–RC–6312, the undersigned specifically noted that:
RAMS Team employees were geographically separated from
ROR employees; RAMS Team employees had infrequent con-
tact with ROR employees; there was no significant employee
interchange between RAMS and ROR employees; and RAMS
employees and ROR employees did not share any meaningful
functional interaction in their daily work. Accordingly, the
undersigned concluded that a unit comprised solely of RAMS
Team employees constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.
At the time of the instant hearing, William Forsher directly
supervised 22 RAMS Team employees. Ten of those employ­
ees are permanently stationed at the Employer’s Charleston Air
Force Base location and 12 of those employees are RAMS
employees from Long Beach, California, who are known as
“visiting speed line employees,” whom the parties agree should
not be included in the unit herein. Forsher testified that RAMS
employees assist the Air Force in correcting “open discrepan­
cies” on aircraft. Although he reports locally to the Charleston
Base Manager, he and his group are directed in their work by
the Director of the Flex Contract who is stationed in Long
Beach, California. This Director, and/or his subordinates at
Long Beach, California, assign work to the Charleston Air
Force Base RAMS department via work orders (worktime
compliance tech orders called “TCTO’s”). In making repairs
pursuant to TCTO’s, RAMS Team employees obtain required
parts from Long Beach. RAMS employees repair “live”aircraft
on the Air Force Base flight line. In making such repairs,
RAMS Team mechanics utilize “support equipment,” which
literally supports, or lifts and keeps in place, heavy aircraft
components such as engines. At the time of the decision in
Case 11–RC–6312, Air Force personnel maintained and re-
paired this support equipment.
On January 20, 2000, the Employer, pursuant to a contract
with the Air Force, began servicing and maintaining the support
equipment. It recruited employees via its company wide web-
site to fill positions within the ESE department. Three RAMS
mechanics have transferred to ESE and one ROR employee has
transferred to ESE. However, it is not clear whether those
RAMS employees came from the local “permanent” RAMS
BOEING CO. 155
contingent or the visiting speed line employees. Forsher merely
testified that they came from his department. Nonetheless, all
job postings, as noted above, are offered on the Employer’s
company wide website and are open to all Boeing employees.
RAMS Team employees, particularly mechanics, and ESE
employees possess similar skills and training. They are re­
quired to possess similar work certifications. However, they
work on different equipment and do so in geographically dis­
tinct areas of the Charleston Air Force Base. RAMS Team
employees are stationed in building 540 and work on “live”
aircraft on the base flight line. ESE employees primarily work
in building 545, which is located 150 yards from building 540.
The Employer asserts that support equipment changes hands
between RAMS mechanics and Support Equipment mechanics
every time it is used. And, RAMS mechanics and Support
Equipment mechanics do significant portions of their jobs
along the same flight line where the aircraft are parked and the
support equipment is used. However, the record herein does not
support these assertions or the Employer’s claim that there is
frequent contact between RAMS mechanics and ESE mechan­
ics. RAMS mechanic Charles Stroud testified that he has had
little if any contact with ESE mechanics. He stated that support
equipment was often on the flight line when he arrived to do
repairs. At other times, he procured needed support equipment
himself without contacting ESE personnel. At other times, ESE
personnel delivered support equipment to the flight line and
then left. At the completion of a scheduled repair, Stroud either
returns the support equipment or just leaves the support equip­
ment on the flight line for later pickup by ESE employees.
Contrary to the Employer’s assertion, the record provides no
evidence of significant or frequent contact between RAMS
Team employees and ESE employees
In its argument that the appropriate unit would include Rams
Team employees, ESE employees, and ROR employees, the
Employer contends that these three groups of employees share
a community of interest. The record does reflect that the
RAMS Team, ESE and ROR employees have the same em­
ployment benefits, are subject to same personnel practices, and
the rate of pay of the three groups of employees is comparable.
However, RAMS Team employees and ESE employees work a
4-day workweek while ROR employees work a 5-day work-
week. ESE employees wear uniforms, while RAMS Team em­
ployees and ROR employees do not. Moreover, RAMS Team
employees work a different holiday schedule than do ROR and
ESE employees, as a result of their differing lines of supervi­
sion. Although all Boeing employees can use Air Force mess
and club facilities for meals and breaks, there is no indication in
the record the RAMS Team employees, ESE employees and/or
ROR employees in fact use these facilities in common. The
record further reflects that RAMS Team employees use differ­
ent parking facilities than do ROR employees and ESE em­
ployees.
The daily meetings of Rams Team employees are not at-
tended by ESE or ROR employees, and the record in Case 11–
RC–6312 shows that during the 5 years preceding that decision
there had not been an employee meeting for just RAMS Team
and ROR employees. Whenever social functions such as cook-
outs or dinners occur, all of the employees of the Employer at
the Charleston Air Force Base and possibly others in the base
community are included. There is no indication that there has
ever been a social functions limited to these three groups.
Citing Golden Eagle Motor Inn, 246 NLRB 323 (1979), the
Employer contends it would be inappropriate to allow RAMS
Team employees to comprise a separate unit because they come
in frequent contact with ROR and ESE employees. However,
the record reflects that RAMS Team employees have minimal
and infrequent contact with ESE employees and ROR employ­
ees, while the employees in the cited case had daily contact.
The Employer also asserts that RAMS Team employees,
ROR and ESE employees share common supervision. It is true
that the entire flexible sustainment program of the Employer is
under the responsibility of James Sams, the Flexible Sustain­
ment Contract’s Program Director, who has ultimate supervi­
sory authority over all of the 120 employees of the Employer
working at the Charleston Air Force Base. However, the su­
pervisor of the Rams Team has no authority over ESE or ROR
employees; and similarly the supervisors over the ESE and
ROR employees have no authority over Rams Team employ­
ees. Significantly, the record establishes that the RAMS Team
Manager reports, for daily operational matters, to the Long
Beach, California Manager and not to the Charleston, Air Force
Base Manager. The RAMS Team Manager only reports to the
Charleston Air Force Base Manager in the event of accidents or
major problems. The ROR and ESE managers, on the other
hand, report for all matters directly to the Charleston Air Force
Base Manager.
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole, I find that
the bargaining unit sought by Petitioner consisting of only
Rams Team employees constitutes an appropriate unit and I
hereby direct that an election be conducted therein. In so con­
cluding, I note that the record is clear that there exists signifi­
cant geographic separation in day-to-day working conditions,
which contributes to the infrequent contact and interchange
between Rams Team employees and ESE and ROR employees.
Though three RAMS employees and an ROR employee trans­
ferred to ESE and became part of the initial complement of
ESE employees, there is no history of ESE employees transfer-
ring to the RAMS Team and only one ROR employee trans­
ferred to the Rams Team for an approximate period of 2 years.
Without more, this does not establish a pattern of employee
interchange. St. Vincent Hospital & Medical Center of Toledo
Ohio, 241 NLRB 492 (1979). Moreover, these three groups do
not share any meaningful functional interaction in their daily
work. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 313 NLRB 1016 (1994). Although
centralized administration and common benefits and personnel
policies may well support a finding that a broader unit, if
sought, also would be an appropriate unit, it is up to the Em­
ployer to establish that the petitioned-for narrower unit is inap­
propriate. NLRB v. Living & Learning Centers, 652 F.2d 209,
213 (1981); Omni International Hotel, 283 NLRB 475, 476
(1987). The Employer has not established that the petitioned-
for unit is inappropriate. While the Employer maintains that
the appropriate unit herein should consist of an overall unit
comprised of the Rams Team, ESE employees and the ROR
employees, who ship, receive and store aircraft parts, or alter-
natively, that the minimally acceptable unit should include
156 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RAMS Team employees and ESE employees, the Board has (1994); Omni International Hotel, 283 NLRB 475 (1987);
long held that the Act does not require that the bargaining unit Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. NLRB, 705 F.2d 570 (1st Cir.
approved by the Board be the only appropriate unit, or even the 1983); NLRB v. J. C. Penney Co., 620 F.2d 718, 719 (9th Cir.
most appropriate unit; it is only required that the unit be an 1980); Morand Bros. Beverage Co., 91 NLRB 409, 418 (1950),
appropriate unit. Lundy Packing Co., 314 NLRB 1042, 1043 enfd. 190 F.2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951).