Chase Aircraft Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 7, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1158 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the original. charges that had been withdrawn, we believe that the
Regional Director was justified in relying upon the Petitioner's elec-
tion to utilize the Board's representation process that was implicit
in the earlier withdrawal of its charges. It was thus not improper
for him to proceed with the election despite the Petitioner's eleventh-
hour effort to postpone it.'
As the Board has found that the Petitioner's objections to the elec-
tion are without merit, and as the Intervenors have obtained a majority
of the ballots cast at. the election, we shall certify the Intervenors as
the duly elected representative.
Certification of Representatives
It is hereby certified that Local Union No. 196 and Local Union No.
88, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL, have been designated and selected
by a, majority of the Employer's employees at its Long Beach, Califor-
nia, branch, including office and clerical employees, installation and de-
livery men and helpers, warehousemen, parts clerks, outside service
men, dispatchers, technicians, benchmen, furniture finishers, but ex-
cluding professional men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining, and
that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the aforesaid organization is
the exclusive representative of all such employees for the purpose of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em-
ployment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above'
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives.
* Cf. 11'est-Gate Sun Harbor Company, 93 NLRB 830.
In so finding, we have not considered the matters alleged in the charges that were
incorporated by the Petitioner in its objections. These charges were dismissed by the
Regional Director after the election and, as set forth above, this action has become final
in the absence of any appeal therefrom by the Petitioner to the General Counsel. Cf.
Times Square Corporation, T9 NLRB 361 ; Columbia Pictures Corporation, 85 NLRB 1085.
CHASE AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED-
AUTOMQBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF'
AMERICA, CIO, LOCAL 181, PETITIONER. Case No.4-RC-1058. June
7, 1951
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 Harold Kowal , hearing,of-
94 NLRB No. 165.
CHASE AIRCRAFT . COMPANY, INC. 1159i
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from.
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board.
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel. [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, which represents production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's aircraft manufacturing plant at West
Trenton, New Jersey, desires to add to its unit expediters heretofore
excluded tlierefrom or, in the alternative; to represent expediters in a
separate bargaining unit. The Employer contends that expediters
have no such community of interests with production and maintenance
employees as to justify the inclusion of expediters in the production
and maintenance unit; and that expediters may not constitute a sep-
arate bargaining unit, urging that a proposed expansion and reclassi-
fication of expediters makes it inexpedient to make any unit place-
went for expediters at this time.
The Employer's aircraft manufacturing plant at. West Trenton,.
New Jersey, consists of two hangars used for production purposes, a
lean-to adjoining one of the hangars, and a separate administration
building.
Expediters and storeroom employees are part of the Employer's
.production control department, which, in turn, is part of the pro-
duction engineering division. Storeroom employees are already in-
cluded in the production and maintenance unit represented by the Pe-
' The Employer urges the dismissal of the petition , alleging in substance that the record
does not establish ( 1) that the Petitioner has complied with the filing requirements of
Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act; (2) that the Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing of interest among employees in the unit ; and ( 3) that the Petitioner is duly
qualified to represent the employees who are the subject of its petition : We find no merit
in the Employer 's contentions . As to ( 1), the fact of compliance by a labor organization
which is required to comply, is a matter for administrative determination and is not
litigable by the parties . Moreover , the Board is administratively satisfied that the Peti-
tioner is in compliance . See Sunbeam Corporation , 94 NLRB 844 : Swift & Company,
94 NLRB 917 ; cf, Highland Park Manufacturing Company , 71 S. Ct . 489. As to (2),
showing of interest is a matter of administrative determination and we are satisfied that
the Petitioner has made an adequate showing , Locke, Inc., 92 NLRB 864. As to (3),
the willingness of a labor organization to represent employees and the designation by
the employees in question of such labor organization as bargaining representatives are
the controlling considerations under the Act. Oklahoma as & Electric Company, 86 NLR$
437, and cases cited therein.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA13OR RELATIONS BOARD
titioner. The production control department supervisor in charge
"-of expediters has his office in the lean-to, described above. Expe-
-diters, including the chief dispatcher immediately over then, work in
the several production departments in the hangars where they are as-,
signed, reporting to, the chief dispatcher in the mezzanine., whe.re, their
'work orders are kept.2
Expediters provide a smooth, steady flow of material between the
;several production departments and the storerooms. They receive
work orders issued by the planning department, which inform them
of the materials needed by the several production departments spe-
'cifically assigned to them for service. Following these orders, exile-
diters supply these materials in proper sequence to the departments
-named to eliminate delay in production. Expediters are classified as
A and B, promotion from B to A being automatic after a certain pe-
rriod of service. Expediters B specifically shift the products to the
next work point. There is, however, no marked difference in the
'duties of the two expediter classifications.
Expediters at the Employer's plant have essentially the same duties
as employees generally classified as expediters in industry.3 Ex-
pediters generally spend approximately half their time on paper work,
.incidental to their material handling. They necessarily work closely
with supervisory production personnel and, by delivery of material,
have frequent work, contacts with nonsupervisory production em-
ployees. Complaints of production foremen on the quality of their
work receive serious consideration from the production control de-
partment. Expediters are hourly paid, punch time clocks, and have
the general working conditions of other plant employees. Their
wages, however, are less than those of manufacturing employees in
assembly and fabricating departments. Their line of promotion is to
.junior planning engineers.
Contemplating expansion in production, the Employer anticipates
that, on or about June 1, it will double or triple the number of persons
,doing expediting work and intends to divide the work and reclassify
expediters into two distinct work groups : (1) Those who will phys-
ically handle materials for production, and (2) those who will do
the analytical and paper work in connection with such handling. Al-
though the Employer urges that no unit determination for expediters
should be made before these new categories are set up, it does not
appear that any essentially new duties are contemplated for expediters
and that, whatever changes in job categories may be substituted by
' One expediter assigned to the tool engineering department is supervised by the engineer
In charge of that department.
' General Electric Company, 81 NLRB 654 ; Orleans Materials and Equipment Co. Inc.,
776 NLRB 351.
MIL-BUR, INC. 1161
redistribution of duties, employees in these categories Will essentially
be manual plant workers or factory clerical employees, both proper
categories for inclusion in a production and maintenance unit.
We see no reason to militate against the inclusion of expediters,
as they are, or as the Employer contemplates reclassifying them, in
the existing production and maintenance unit, if the expediters, who
now constitute a representative group of the expansion contemplated,
desire to be represented by the Petitioner. We shall therefore direct
an election in the following voting group : All expediters at the Em-
ployer's West Trenton, New Jersey, aircraft manufacturing plant,
excluding supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the
employees. voting select the Petitioner as their collective bargaining
representative, the Petitioner may bargain for expediters as part of its
production and maintenance unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MIL-BUR, INC., D/B/A HOWARD JOHNSON and UNITED AMALGAMATED
WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 12, PETITIONER. Case No.
7-IBC,-1226. June 8, 1951
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 George A. Sweeney, hearing'
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are freer
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a Michigan corporation. Its sole stockholders,
Earl R. Milliman and William G. Burgess, are the operating parties
to a standard "Operator's Agreement" with the Howard D. Johnson
Company, by which they agree to operate, under the Company's-
wupervision, an establishment for the sale of ice cream and other food
products in Ann Arbor, Michigan, under the Howard Johnson name,,
in a building owned by them but constructed according to Howard
Johnson specifications. Amc ng other provisions the agreement re-
quires that the operator shall diligently promote the sale of Howard
Johnson products, including ice cream, purchasing from the Johnson
Company all products manufactured or sold by it which the operator
may need, that it shall maintain acceptable standards of quality for
all goods sold, for service and for upkeep of the equipment and.
prennises,. and that it shall carry certain public liability and work-
men's compensation insurance in favor of the Johnson Company. The
94 NLRB No. 169.