Cessna Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1191 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY 1191
CH AumAN LLu noM, dissenting :
The 'evidence offered by the Petitioner is, in my opinion, material,
relevant, and for the most part competent, and should have been re-
,ceived for whatever probative value it might have in determining the
extent of the Employer's interstate purchases. I also believe that the
hearing officer erred when he rejected the offer of Employer's counsel
to produce at the hearing the full record of the Employer's monthly
purchases during the last fiscal year. Accordingly, I would remand
for the purpose of receiving the additional evidence offered by both
parties on interstate purchases and also any other available evidence
on the-relationship of this Employer to the other three corporations
us-respects employee interchange, labor and personnel policy, all of
which bear importantly on the jurisdictional issue.
BER Mulino M took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
Cessna Aircraft Company and National Independent Union
Council, United Tool & Die Makers of America, Local No. 252,
Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-29041. November 23, 1955,
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry Irwig, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
- •' i i"al£error-and are hee l y'a r-med'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
- 3. The, petitioner seeks to represent the tool and die department
employees at the Employer's Pawnee and Prospect plants at Wichita,
"'At the hearing, the hearing officer refused to allow Local Lodge No. 744 of District
Lodge No . 70, International Association of Machinists , AFL (which was permitted to inter-
vene- on the basis of its contractual interest ), to litigate the matter of the Petitioner's
•compliance with filing requirements of the Act. In view of the Board 's well-settled rule
that compliance is a matter for the Board 's administrative determination and is not
litigable in a representation hearing , the hearing officer's ruling was proper. However,
the Board will permit parties to a representation proceeding to cause to be instituted an
administrative investigation of those compliance matters which the Board may properly
decide in a collateral proceeding . Coca- Cola Bottling Company of Louisville , Inc., 108
NLRB 490. The Board is administratively satisfied that at all times pertinent herein the
Petitioner , has been and now is in compliance with the filing requirements of Section
'(f),' (g1, and (h) of the Act.
9 The record discloses and we find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act. Knox Corporation, 104 NLRB 789.
114 NLRB No. 181.
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Kansas. The Employer and the Intervenor, which has represented the
production and maintenance employees of both plants since 1950 in
a single multiplant unit, moved to dismiss on the grounds that the
petition was barred by their current contract.
The record shows that on June 18, 1955, the Petitioner made claim
on the Employer to represent the employees at the Pawnee and Pros-
pect plants, both located at Wichita, Kansas. On June 22, 1955, the,
Petitioner filed its petition herein, addressed to the Employer at the
Pawnee plant. Thereafter, on June 30, 1955, the Employer and the
Intervenor executed a 2-year contract covering the employees at both
plants. At the hearing on July 19, 1955, the Petitioner, by amend-
ment, clarified its petition to make unequivocally clear that the em-
ployees of the Prospect plant were included therein. The Employer
and the Intervenor claim that this clarification substantially enlarged
and changed the Petitioner's original unit request and was therefore
barred by their contract executed prior thereto. We do not agree.
It is clear from the entire record that the Petitioner sought to rep-
resent the employees at both plants, that the Employer and the Inter-
venor so understood and that all parties extensively litigated the
representation question with respect to both plants. Moreover,, it is-
reasonable and understandable for the Petitioner to have addressed its
petition to the Pawnee plant where the Employer's main office is
located. In these circumstances, as 'v e believe that the Petitioner's
original petition was intended to and did cover employees at both the
Pawnee and Prospect plants, we find that the contract does not serve,
as a bar to the instant proceedings.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the tool and die department em-
ployees at the Pawnee and Prospect plants within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever employees in tool and die depart-
ments 60 and 160 at the Employer's Pawnee and Prospect plants, re-
spectively, either on a craft or departmental basis. The Employer
and the Intervenor contend that under the American Potash prin-
ciple,' the employees sought to be severed do not constitute either a
true craft or a,traditional departmental group'; and that the Peti=
tioner is not a labor organization which traditionally represents the
employees sought for severance.4
3 American Potash and Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418
4 The Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that
the Petitioner does not meet the Traditional uni o n test for trait severance e n unciated in
the American Potash case , supra The record discloses that the Petitioner is a recently
formed labor organization , having as its purpose the representation of "tool and die
makers, apprentices and related workers ," and that , to date, it has negotiated a contract
with another employer under which it represents such employees in a toolroom unit The
Board has determined that a union , such as the Petitioner , newly organized for the sole
CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY 1193
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of airplanes and avia-
tion =equipment. For administrative purposes the Employer has
divided its manufacturing division into several separately supervised
departments, including tool and die departments 60 and 160, in which
the employees requested herein are employed. Of the 246 requested
employees in departments 60 and 160, 153 are highly skilled tool- and
die-makers. The other employees include: 27 crew chiefs;' 5 jig
borers; 22 milling machine operators; 8 engine -lathe operators; 2
precision grinder operators; 2 planer operators; 5 surface grinders;
2 saw operators, band, do-all; 6 patternmakers; 3 molders; 3 die.
finishers; 3 tool grinders, universal; and 5 toolmakers, sheet metal.
The Petitioner does not seek in the first instance, but would represent,
the remaining. 56 employees in the two departments if the Board finds
that departments 60 and 160 constitute an appropriate unit.'
The record shows that the 246 employees sought perform the usual
duties and exercise the customary skills of their classifications, and
that - a : substantial majority of them are highly skilled craftsmen.
However, the record also reveals that some of the craft skills found in
departments 60 and 160 are duplicated in other departments, and are
exercised by employees therein whom the Petitioner does not seek to
represent." In these circumstances, the 246 employees comprise, at
best, only a segment of a craft group possessing the same craft skills
and performing comparable work. Accordingly, we find that a unit
confined to the employees requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate
for severance as a craft unit.8
There remains for consideration the question of granting the Peti-
tioner's request on the basis of a departmental unit of departments 60
and 160, which the Employer and the Intervenor also oppose. The
existence, of similar craftsmen or skills outside the departmental unit
does not preclude severance of such a unit otherwise appropriate 9
The record shows that, except for some permanent transfers, there is
virtually,no interchange between the employees in the separately super-
vised departments 60 and 160 and other departments. Further, al-
though departments 60 and 160 employees may at times spend a por-
tion of their time working on parts for the Employer's end products,
it is well established that such production activity does not militate
and exclusive purpose of representing members of the particular craft involved , meets the
traditional union test. International Harvester Company, Faimall Works, 111 NLRB
600, 607 ; Fiiden Calculating Machine Co, Inc ., and Harchant Calculators , Inc, 110
NLRB 1618
5 The parties agree, and the record indicates, that the crew chiefs are mere strawbosses
and are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act
U These 56 employees consist of 40 jig builders , 2 car loader operators ; 1 stock mover,
leader grade 1 clerk. raw stock , 1 stock mover. and 11 factory clericals.
7 These include milling machine operators ; engine lathe operators, grinder operators ;
surface grinders ; patternmaker and toolmakers , sheet metal.
8 Bucyrus-Erie Company, 110 NLRB 314, 315-316.
9 Ibid , at 316.
1194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
against the appropriateness of the departmental unit sought . 1° Under
all the circumstances , and particularly in view of the separate super-
vision of the employees in departments 60 and 160 , their lack of inter-
change with other employees , their specialized function in the Em-
ployer's operation , and in view of the multiplant bargaining history
at the Pawnee and Prospect plants, we find that all the departments
60 and 160 employees comprise a distinct , homogeneous departmental
group which may constitute an appropriate unit." As the Petitioner
is a labor organization which we have found was organized for the
purpose of serving the special interests of such employees 12 we shall
permit departments 60 and 160 employees to determine whether they
desire to be represented by the Petitioner.
In view of our finding that a departmental unit may be appropriate,
we shall include in the unit the remaining 56 employees in departments
60 and 160 whom the Petitioner did not originally seek but whom it is
willing to represent.
In view of the foregoing determinations , we shall direct that an
election be held in the following voting group :
All employees in the tool and die departments 60 and 160 at the
Employer's Wichita, Kansas, Pawnee and Prospect plants, respec-
tively, including all tool - and die-makers ; jig borers ; jig builders;
milling machine operators ; engine lathe operators ; precision grinder
operators ; planer operators ; surface grinders ; saw operators, band,
do-all ; patternmakers , senior; patternmakers , wood and plaster;
molders; molders , bench and floor; die finishers ; tool grinders, uni-
versal; toolmakers , sheet metal ; car loader operators ; stock mover,
leader grade ; stock. movers ; clerk, raw. stock ; factory clericals;, and
the crew chiefs , but excluding all other employees , professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner , they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit , and the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for such unit which the Board , under the circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If
a majority vote for the Intervenor , they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the existing production and main-
tenance unit , and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certifi-
cation of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
io St Louis Car Company, 108 NLRB 1388, 1390.
See Cessna Aircraft Company, Wichita Division, 113 NLRB 450
Supra, at footnote 4.