Curtiss-Wright Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 207 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION and UNITED OFFICE
AND PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 9-R-1788.--Decided August 8, 1945
Messrs. Carl Tangemen and Harry E. Gregg, of Columbus, Ohio,
.and Mr. E. J. Lyons, of Buffalo, N. Y., for the Company.
Miss Anne Berenholz, and Messrs. William Ellis and Eugene
Burkey, of Columbus, Ohio, for the CIO.
Mr. E. C. Bundy, of Cincinnati, Ohio, .and Mr. J. Lawrence
Raimist, of New York, New York, for the AFL.
Messrs. Clarence D. Bowser, Paul M. Holmes, and Alvan Tall-
madge, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Engineers.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Office and Professional
Workers of America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Curtiss-Wright Corporation, Airplane Division, Co-
lumbus Plant, Columbus, Ohio, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before James A. Shaw, Trial Examiner . Said hearing
was held at Columbus, Ohio, on May 10. and 11, 1945. The Company,
the CIO, International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects
and Draftsmen's Union, A. F. of L., herein called the AFL, and Central
Ohio Group of Professional Engineering Employees, herein called
the Engineers, by its Committee on Employment Conditions, ap-
peared and participated.' All parties were afforded full opportu-
nity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings -made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
1 A representative of Office Workers Union, Local 21427, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, appeared at the hearing and stated that it claims no interest in the
employees involved herein.
l3 N. L. R. B., No. 30.
207
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board. The request of the AFL for oral argument is
hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
0
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Curtiss-Wright Corporation is a New Jersey corporation with a
plant at Cohimbus', Ohio, known as Airplane Division, Columbus
Plant, where it is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft frames and
in the assembly of airplanes, under contract with the United States
Government. The Airplane Division, Columbus Plant, is the only
operation of the Company involved in this proceeding. This plant is
owned by the Defense Plant Corporation, and the equipment therein is
the property of the Defense Plant Corporation and the Navy Depart-
ment; both are under lease to the Company.
At this plant the Company uses in its manufacturing processes raw
materials, consisting of aluminum and other metals, in excess of 75
percent of which comes to it from outside the State of Ohio. The
plant's entire product is delivered to the government of the United
States for use outside the State of Ohio.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Office and Professional Workers of America, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and
Draftsmen's Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
Central Ohio Group of Professional Engineering Employees is an
organization which claims to represent certain employees of Curtiss-
Wright Corporation for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
AFL questions the status of the Engineers as a labor organization.2
We find it unnecessary to decide this question, in light of our deter-
mination as to the appropriate unit and the elections to be directed,
in Section IV, infra.
7 The AFL based its allegation upon the grounds that ( 1) the Engineers is "employer-
dominated ," In that employers are officers and members of the American Society of Civil
Engineers which was instrumental in the establishment of the Engineers , and (2) the
Engineers is precluded by its organic law from engaging in collective bargaining.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 209
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of the Company's em-
ployees until the CIO has been certified by the Board in an appro-
priate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit it seeks.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen, concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO seeks a unit of all office and clerical, and technical and
professional employees of the Company, including hospital and first-
aid employees, but excluding confidential and supervisory employees'
This unit would be'composed of the same categories of employees who
voted in a consent election held in August 1944.11 The Company agrees
8 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 1,161 authorization cards ; that
the names of 3,622 persons were listed on the Company 's pay roll in the unit sought by
the CIO ; and that all of the 90 percent of the cards which were dated bore dates since
November' 1944.
The AFL submitted 216 authorization cards. The names of 782 persons were listed on,
the pay roll in the unit sought by the AFL. Over one-half of the cards were undated.
All of the dated cards bore dates since October 1944.
The Engineers submitted 399 authorization cards The names of 394 persons were listed,
on the pay roll in the unit sought by the Engineers . All of the cards bore dates since
January 1, 1945.
'The CIO and the Company agree that all of the employees whose positions are rated
as carrying "Factor 11" ( supervisory authority ) in "The Curtiss -Wright Plan of Salary
Job Analysis and Evaluation" are supervisory employees within the Board 's customary
definition . While at certain points in the record it appeared that not all parties agreed
that all of these employees had supervisory authority , no testimony was adduced which,
showed that any of them was not a supervisor.
5 Case No. 9-R-1492. The only union participating in that election was International
Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO
(UAW-CIO), which lost the election . The unit agreed to between the union and the
Company was "all salaried professional , technical , office and clerical employees . . . includ-
ing hospital and first -aid employees , but excluding all employees whose positions carry
weight in Factor No . 11 of 'Curtiss -Wright Plan of Salary Job Analysis and Evaluation'
... and . . . job evaluation and labor utilization employees , personnel counselors , employ-
ment interviewers , clerks handling supervisory -personnel records, the personnel reports
employee, clerks 'A' and I. B. M. operator 'A' in the Personnel Records Section of the
Personnel Department , the secretary to the section head of the Tabulating Section, clerks
'A' of the Pay-roll Department , teletype operators , training instructors , attorneys , physi-
cians and supervisor-nurses, public relations representatives 'A' and 'B,' the assistant
editor of the 'Curtiss -Wright-er,' field service representatives , field representatives, con-
tract administrators 'A' and 'B,' test -pilots , employees on the 'confidential roll, ' time-,
study 'A' employees , statistical control personnel , employees in the Contract Change Section,
of the Estimating Department , industrial relations personnel , confidential secretaries.
..., secretaries to the sectional heads of the Accounting Department ..., staff assistants,
administrative assistants , and all other confidential employees ." In the instant proceed-
ing, no party raised objection to any of the exclusions of office and clerical personnel,
which the CIO and the Company agreed are confidential , although the AFL objected to
certain exclusions sought pertaining to employees in the technical and professional sate.
gorses, which are discussed hereinafter.
`210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the contention of the CIO that not only is the unit sought by
-the CIO appropriate, but that it is the only appropriate unit for the
.employees of this plant under the circumstances of this case. It
.appears that all of the employees involved herein are salaried."
The AFL seeks a unit of all technical employees of the Company,
including group leaders,7 but excluding confidential and supervisory
employees. This unit would consist of the employees sought to be
represented by the CIO, except for the office and clerical workers. It
-is the claim of the AFL that technical employees cannot properly be
-included in a unit of office and clerical employees, because of inherent
differences in their working conditions and skills and the divergence
,of their interests in the conditions of employment.
The Engineers seeks a still smaller unit, limited to "professional
engineering" employees of the Company employed in the Engineering,
'Tool Design, and Plant Layout Departments "whose qualifications are
not lower than those specified in Factor 1-C plus 2-D or in Factor 1-D
of The Curtiss-Wright Plan of Salary Job Analysis and Evaluation"
,but excluding confidential and supervisory employees. The "factor"
:system thus referred to was established by the Company as a means
of evaluating the positions in its plant for salary purposes by assign-
ing to each job or position a certain numerical score. Such a score
-represents a composite of numerical values assigned to various degrees
or grades within certain "factors," such as the scope of duties, initia-
tive exercised, degree of concentration, working conditions, and the
experience or educational qualifications which are requisite to the sat-
-isfactory performance of the job." ' One of the factors considered in
-rating all jobs is Factor 1, "Scholastic Requirements"; another is Fac-
tor 2, "Previous Related Experience." Factors 1-C plus 2-D, stated by
-the Engineers as descriptive of the qualifications which would identify
the employees in its proposed unit, signify the equivalent of 4' years
of high school education plus over 1 year of night, trade, or extension
-training, or apprenticeship, plus 3 to 5 years of diversified experience
in a restricted field; Factor 1-D, the alternative characteristic stated
-by the Engineers, signifies the equivalent of 4 years of general college,
or study in a technical field.
It is to be noted that, whereas the Company assigns certain numer-
ical values in its scoring system to jobs for which these particular
degrees of education or experience are deemed a necessary qualifica-
6 For the past 2 years the Company has been under contract with Local 927 of the
-UAW-CIO, covering all hourly paid employees and all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Company . A separate contract covers the plant guards , who are represented
by the same local in a separate unit. None of the employees covered by those contracts
is involved in the instant proceeding.
7 The AFL stated that the group leaders are not supervisory employees , and no party
- objected to their inclusion in the unit sought by, the AFL.
8 The Company ' s evaluation plan is a method of appraising jobs, not individual efficiency
or merit on the part of the particular incumbents of the jobs.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 211
tion, the Engineers would apparently classify the Company's em-
ployees, as individuals, according to whether or not they possess the
specified degrees of education or experience, without regard to their
jobs. In other words, as we understand its position,° the Engineers
seeks to represent, inter alia, all college graduates in certain depart-
ments of the plant, even though some of these individuals may be
incumbents of jobs for which college training is not essential, and
engaged in work identical with that of other employees whose educa-
tional training does not meet the Engineers' standards.'° A unit thus
delineated, upon the basis of the scholastic (or equivalent) history of
individual employees rather than on the basis of their function, would
in our opinion be unworkable and inappropriate for collective bar-
gaining purposes.- We note, in addition, that the Engineers seeks
to represent "professional engineering" employees in only three
departments in the plant, while the record reveals that there are other
engineers of equally high skill, performing work of equal creative-
ness in other departments and throughout the plant as a whole. We
find that the unit sought by the Engineers is not appropriate.
We turn to the issues posed by the contentions of the CIO and the
AFL. Except for the consent election of 1944,12 there has been no
9 Our interpretation of the Engineers ' contention is confirmed by the provision of its
constitution which defines professional engineers as employees "who, . . . possessing
intimate knowledge of mathematics and the physical sciences , gained by technological and
scientific education , training and experience , and in a position of trust and responsibility,
apply their knowledge in controlling and converting forces and materials , to use in struc-
tures, machines, and products , and whose work requires the exercise of discretion and
judgment , is creative and original and of such character that the output cannot be stand-
ardized; and those who, without the experience set forth, but having been graduated
from an approved educational institution and having received the degree of Bachelor of
Science or its equivalent, in Engineering , are engaged in engineering work" ( Italics
supplied)
30 At the hearing , the Engineers ' representatives attempted to delineate the proposed
unit terms of certain listed jobs , designated by the Company's code numbers . ( Said code
numbers apparently bear no relation to the evaluation scores arrived at under the above-
described Plan.) The theory upon which certain code numbers were selected and others
rejected was not explained , however Thus, when a witness for the Engineers was asked
for the position of the Engineers in case the plant employed draftsmen of whom one had
professional education and the other three did not , but all four were engaged in the same
work, he replied, "well , that would seem to be some case of arbitration there . . . Somebody
would be in the wrong place ." Ultimately the Engineers ' representative , admitting that
lie might have mistakenly omitted certain code numbers from the list, suggested that the
Board delineate a "professional engineering " unit . For the reasons indicated in the text,
aside from the circumstance that the record herein does not contain a sufficient descrip-
tion of each and every job which might be involved , we consider that a classification
predicated upon the Engineers ' concept of "professional" would not be a proper classi-
fication for collective bargaining purposes.
11 We distinguish the cases in which we have recognized the appropriateness of units
of "professional" employees , since in those cases the units found appropriate were func-
tional groupings : Matter of Aluminum Company of America, The Aluminum cooking
Utensil Company ( Amendment to Decision and Direction of Election ), 62 N. L. R. B.
318; Matter of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation , 58 N L R. B 1188 ; Matter of General
Electric Company , 57 N L. R B . 81; Matter of Radio Corporation of America, RCA
Victor Division, 57 N L. it. B. 1283, Matter of Shell Development Company, Inc, 38
N. L. R B 192.
12 See footnote 5, supra.
662514-46-vol 63-15
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
collective bargaining history at this plant concerning the employees
involved herein. It is the contention of the CIO and the Company
that clerical and technical employees constitute an appropriate unit
in this plant for the reason that these employees work so closely
together that great problems would be created by establishing two
separate units. A. company witness testified that all of these em-
ployees work under the same pay plan ; that all work the salve hours
under the same conditions of employment; that it is impossible for
either of these two general categories of employees to perform its
duties without the assistance of the other; that they work in the same
rooms under the same supervision; and that there is frequent inter-
change of employees in all salaried positions, including shifts from a
technical to a clerical job, and vice versa. Although an AFL rep-
resentative stated that the interdependence of the two categories in
their work is no greater than is normally the case, the AFL did not
challenge the other testimony of the Company's witness and intro-
duced no evidence to refute it. The Company points to its experience
at its Louisville plant where, it asserts, the interchange and promotion
of employees was impeded by the separate seniority systems of two
units (clerical employees, and certain technicians) at that plant; the
Company foresees, moreover, difficulties inherent in reconversion and
the consequent lay-offs under a two-unit system for these employees.
When these factors are considered, together with the circumstance
that there are single units for clerical and technical employees in other
plants of- the Company'13 we conclude that the technical employees
may appropriately be included in a unit with clerical workers if such
unit is desired by the employees involved. We have, on the other
hand, frequently had occasion to recognize the inherent differences in
interests, background, and function between clerical workers and tech-
nical workers ; 14 these differences exist in the plant under-consideration
here. We are likewise of the opinion, therefore, that the technical em-
ployees may appropriately be represented in a bargaining unit apart
from the clerical employees, if that is their preference. Accordingly,
we shall afford the technical employees in our Direction of Elections
herein- the opportunity of expressing their desires as to unit by voting
as a separate group.
Subject to the contention of the CIO that under the circumstances
of this case there is no valid distinction between clerical and technical
13 At the Kenmore, Buffalo, and Research Laboratory plants of the Airplane Division,
and at one plant of the Propeller Division
14 Matter of Boston Edison Company, 51 N. L R. B 118; Matter of Spicer Manufactur-
ing Corporation, 55 N. L R. B. 1491 ; See also Matter of Aluminum Company of America,
The Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company, 61 N. L. R B 1066; Matter of Packard Motor
Car Company, 60 N. L. R. B 324; Matter of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 60
N L. R. B' 124, Matter of Curtiss-Wright Corporation (Airplane Division, Louisville,
Kentucky), 52 N L. R B. 805, Matter of The Black & Decker Electric Company, 47
N. L. R B. 726.
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 213
employees, there is no disagreement as to the categories of employees
which should be included in a technical unit,15 except for the categories
discussed hereinafter by the code numbers which designate their posi-
tions. The Company and the CIO 16 would exclude the following from
a technical unit, while the AFL seeks their inclusion :
C'-70: This code number designates the position of a field representa-
tive who would travel to the plants of customers, in order to aid in the.
better use of the Company's products, to report performance and
difficulties encountered, and to recommend alterations and improve-
ments by the preparation of detailed descriptions of the present prod-
uct and future changes. Since the Company at present employs no
employees in this category we shall not determine at this time the
inclusion or exclusion of such workers.
E-23, E-.t4, and E-35: These code numbers describe three positions
which call for the sane activities and duties, but which require a pro-
gressively lower degree of proficiency. The Company contends that
these employees should be excluded by any unit determination made.
herein on the ground that they are confidential employees. These em-
ployees estimate the cost of producing parts, assemblies, and changes
therein; estimate the costs involved in subcontracting; and estimate
the value of scrap and reworkings. In the course of their work it is
necessary for them to know the profits which the Company may ex-
pect from its production transactions, the man-hours required to pro-
duce each article, and the cost of the labor involved therein. Since
the record does not reveal, however, that these employees either have
access to individual personnel records or are involved directly in the
determination of wages which the Company will pay, they do not
come within our definition of confidential employees,17 and we shall
include then in the voting group of technical employees.
S-60 and SLC1: The positions which bear these code numbers are
titled "Subcontract Quality Representative `A,' Field," and "Sub-
contract Quality Representative `B,' Field," respectively. These
employees of the Company perform their duties at the plants of sub-
contractors. There they assist and advise in the disposal of the sub-
contractors parts, report production activities to the Columbus plant,
and receive from that plant complaints and changes in the subcon-
15 Appendix A lists the code numbers of the positions which the AFL stated at the hear-
ing are those of the employees it seeks to represent and which the Company agreed are
technical positions It appears from the record, however, that the Company adds, alters,
or abolishes one code number on an average of every 2 weeks. Since 3 months has elapsed
since the hearing, it is apparent that this code number list cannot be relied on to deter-
mine eligibilty of all employees to vote in the technical group The Board expects the
parties hereto to alter that list insofar as is necessary to allow all technical employees
otherwise eligible, and no others , to cast their ballots in that voting grout).
1° While the CIO did not state its agreement to these exclusions in the record , a Company
witness stated on the record, without objection, that the unit sought by the CIO excludes
the same employees.
37 Cf. Matter of Creamery Package Manufacturing Company, 34 N. L. R. B. 108..
214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tractors' production, which these employees relay to the subcontrac-
tors. Each of these employees is hired at the place where a subcon-
tractor's plant is located, and his term of employment is normally the
period which the subcontractor uses to complete his contract with the
Company. Rarely if ever does one of these employees visit the Co-
lumbus plant. Their hours and conditions of employment are of
course determined by the subcontractor's plant. We are of the opin-
ion that the interests of these employees and the other'technical em-
ployees in conditions of employment are widely divergent, and that
these employees may not appropriately be included in whatever unit
determination is hereinafter made. We shall therefore exclude them.
X-40 and X-31: These employees investigate accepted changes in
production in order to determine the cost of the change, the increased
efficiency, and the savings possible. Likewise they investigate all
proposed changes of a complex nature, to determine practicability
and to compare with existing methods. As a result of such investiga-
tion these employees report the suggestions to a labor-management
committee to which they, recommend rewards for the employees sub-
mitting the suggestions. Thus these employees are directly influen-
tial in the remuneration of other technical employees and come
within our usual definition of confidential employees. We shall
therefore exclude them from whatever unit or units are hereinafter
determined to be appropriate, as confidential employees.
We make no final determination at this time of the appropriate
unit. In accordance with our foregoing conclusions, we shall direct
that separate elections by secret ballot be held among the employees
in the following voting groups who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tions herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction, upon the results of which elections will depend, in part,
our determination as to the appropriate unit. There shall be ex-
cluded from both' of these groups, in addition to those specifically
named, all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, and all confidential
employees.1' The voting groups will be :
Group 1. All office and clerical employees of the Company em-
ployed at the Columbus plant, to determine whether or not they
wish to be represented by the CIO for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
Group . All technical employees of the Company employed at
the Columbus plant, including group leaders, and those employees
is with the exception of those cmplo3 ees whose code numbers are E-23, E-24, and E-35,
the supervisory and confidential classifications include those listed in the consent election
agreement ; see footnote 5, supra
CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION 215
whose code numbers are E-23, E-24, and E-35, but excluding those
whose code numbers are C-70, S-60, S-61, X-30, and X-31, to deter-
mine whether they wish to be represented by the CIO or by the AFL
or by neither of these labor organizations for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining.119
If a majority of the employees in each voting group select the CIO,
they will thereby be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a single appropriate unit; selection of different representatives, how-
ever, will be taken to indicate a desire to constitute separate appro-
priate units.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represen-
tatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Curtiss -Wright
Corporation, Columbus, Ohio, separate elections by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty ( 30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations , among the
following groups of employees of the Company , who were employed'
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including. employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off,
and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, and all confidential
employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action :
1. All office and clerical employees of the Company employed at the
Columbus Plant, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by United Office and Professional Workers of America, CIO,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
"'The record does not expressly disclose whether or not the Engineers desires to appear
on the ballot for Group 2. It appears , however, that the Engineers has no intention of
representing any but "professional" employees We shall therefore omit the Engineers
from the ballot.
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. All technical employees of the Company employed at the Colum-
bus Plant, including group leaders, and those employees whose code
numbers are E-23, E-24, and E-35, but excluding those whose code
numbers are C-70, 5-60, S-61, X-30, and X-31, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by United Office and Professional Workers
of America, CIO, or by International Federation of Technical Engi-
neers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, A. F. of L., for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.
APPENDIX A
A-11 E-19 L-4 P-18 S-11 T-27
A-12 E-20 L-13 P-19 S-23 T-28
A-13, E-21 L-15 P-20 S-24 T-29
A-17 E-22 L-16 P-26 S-33 T-30
A-44 E-30 L-19 P-27 S-31 T-31
C-3 E-31 L-20 P-28 S-54 T-32
0-44 E-32 M-2 P-30 S-55 T-34
C-56 E-37 M-13 P-31 S-56 T-38
C-62 E-38 M-14 P-33 S-59 T-44
C-63 E-39 M-15 P-34 S-66 T-45
C-66 E-40 M-16 P-39 S-68 T-46
C-84 F-3 M-17 P-40 S-81 T-47
C-85 F-18 M-18 P-43
-
S-84 T-50
D-1 H-4 M-19 P-44 S-88 W-2
D-2 H-5 M-20 P-46 T-1 W-3
D-10 I--1 M-21 P-47 T-3 W-5
E-6 1-3 M-23 P-48 T-13 X-22
E-7 I-4 M-24 P-49 T-14 X-23
E`8 1-5 M-25 P-50 T-18 X-60
E-9 1-14 M-26 P-61 T-20 X-61
E-10 1-15 M-27 R-1 T-21 Z-1
E-11 1-16 P-14 R-8 T-23
E-12 L-1 P-15 R-9 T-24
E-15 L-2 P-16 R-10 T-25
E-17 L-3 P-17 S-10 T-26
[See, infra, 63 N. L. R. B. 919, for Supplemental Decision and Sec-
ond Amendment to Direction of Elections.]