Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 12, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1290 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter Of CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, FORT
'NORTH DIVISION, EMPLOYER and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DIS-
TRICT LODGE 776, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC-631.-Decided January 12, 1951
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. Carnie Russell, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the
Employer moved to dismiss the petition, which motion the hearing
officer referred to the Board. For the reasons hereinafter set forth,
the motion is granted.
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (e)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all employees in the blue-
print section of the Employer's engineering department, called by the
Employer the blueprint reproduction group, including department
clerks. Alternatively, Petitioner would include, together with the
above employees, a smaller group similarly classified in the tooling de-
partment. The Employer opposes the unit claimed on the ground
that the employees are an integral part of its engineering department.,,
At the hearing the Employer adduced evidence that from time to time these employees
reproduce material regarded by the Employer as confidential , including unspecified material
relating to collective bargaining and forecasts of future rates of pay and volume of em-
ployment . It is clear that these employees ' duties with respect to such material is solely
concerned with its reproduction and transmittal , that this method of reproduction is used
only occasionally and constitutes a small proportion of the employees' work. Under
92 NLRB No. 191.
1290
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1291
The Employer has on its technical and office payroll approximately
2,500 employees not represented by any labor organization, including
the employees sought herein. Petitioner now represents the produc-
tion and maintenance employees of the Employer, including some of
the plant clericals. The engineering department is housed in a build-
ing immediately in front of the manufacturing plant. For adminis-
trative purposes this department is divided into some 60 groups, each
under separate supervision, most of which are surrounded, for security
reasons, by glass partitions. The unit here sought is one of these 60
subdivisions. Drawings completed by the design groups in the de=
partment are recorded by the release group and sent on to the blue-
print reproduction group. Approximately one-third of the work
hours of this section are spent on reproductions for the production
control department. The balance is for the engineering department or
other nonmanufacturing departments.
There are approximately 31 employees in the blueprint reproduc-
tion group. They are classified as blueprinters A and B and depart-
ment clerks A and B. The blueprinters feed and run Ozalid and
Van Dyke reproduction machines and fold and trim the prints. The
department clerks file and pull drawings, keep records and do other
clerical work, and have custody of the vault. The tooling depart-
ment, located within the factory area, has a group of 3 blueprinters
A and B under supervision of that department, not represented by
any.labor organization. The job descriptions of both groups of blue-
printers are identical, and those of department clerks A and B are
identical throughout the Employer's technical and office departments.
The Employer's industrial relations assistant supervisor estimates
that there are 100 to 150 department clerks A and B in the engineering
department. The vacations, hours, insurance plan, sick leave, and
shift differential policy applicable to the blueprint group are the same
as for the other clerical employees. Of the 31 employees in the en-
gineering department blueprint group, 23 were hired directly into
the group and 8 were transferred from other ' office clerical jobs of
the Employer. In the past year, 17 employees have been transferred
from the blueprint group to clerical jobs outside the engineering
department, and 6 to other engineering department clerical jobs.
analogous circumstances , we have found employees not to be confidential employees. (The
Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 74 NLRB 536 .) These employees also reproduce
and have access to designs and information restricted by the Air Force and are required
to have security clearance from the Air Force. For reasons set forth in General Electric
Company, 85 NLRB 1316 , we do not believe these circumstances would warrant the denial
of collective bargaining rights to them . ( See also Nepa Division of Fairchild Engine and
Airplane Corporation, 88 NLRB 99.)
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is no contention that the employees concerned herein con-
stitute a craft or that they are technical employees. In the past we
have declined to include blueprint department employees in a residual
unit of technical employees on the ground that they were clerical
employees serving all divisions of the plant .2 The record herein
establishes that the employees sought by Petitioner are essentially
clerical employees with no peculiar skills or special working conditions
to set them apart from other office clerical employees of the Employer.
We therefore find no basis for their establishment as a separate unit.'
Under all the circumstances, we find that the proposed unit is inappro-
.priate. Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
Upon 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.
2 Chryser Corporation, 87 NLRB 304. Cf. Stewart-Warner Corporation, 50 NLRB 968.
8 Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Company, 72 NLRB 21.