Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 819 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

I
In the Matter of DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. (EL SEGUNDO
DIVISION ) and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS ' AERO-
NAUTICAL DISTRICT LODGE 22, AFL - ^
In the Matter of DOUGLA's AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION7 UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA- (UAW-CIO) '
Cases Nos . R-,5188, R-5189, respectively .-Decided May 1 '7, 1943
Mr. Harry TV . Elliott, of Los Angeles ; Calif., for the Company.
Mr. David Sokol, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the I. A. M.
Messrs. Charles J. Katz, Leo Gallagher, and Milton Tyre, of Los
Angeles, Calif., for the C. I. O.
Messrs. James M. Carter and Paul Hookey, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the Welders.
Mr. Joseph Lewis, of Los Angeles , Calif. , for Douglas Employees'
Association.
Mr. Arthur Leff, of counsel to' the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION' OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly, filed by International Association of Ma-
chinists, Aeronautical District Lodge 22, AFL, herein called the I.,
A. M., and by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO), herein
called the C. I. 0., respectively, alleging that questions affecting com-
merce' had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., herein called the Company,' at El
Segundo, California, and at Vernon, California, the National Labor-
Relations Board consolidated, the cases and provided for an appro-
1 The petition of the I. A. M. In Case No. R-5188 incorrectly designated the name of
the Company as Douglas Aircraft Corp. The caption of this case is hereby amended so
as to set forth the correct name of the Company.
49 N. L. R. B., No. 118.
819
531647-43-vol. 49-53
820 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
priate hearing upon due notice before Maurice J. Nicoson, Trial Ex-
aminer. The hearing was held in Los Angeles, California, on April
12, 13, and 14, 1943. The Company, the I. A. M., the C. I. 0., the
National Union, United Aircraft Welders of America, herein called '
the Welders, and Douglas Employees' Association 2 appeared, par-
ticipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
apd cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on,
the issues. At the close of the hearing the C. I. 0. moved to dismiss
the I. A. M. petition in Case No. R-5188 on the ground that the
I. A. M. failed to make a substantial showing of representation, and
decision thereon was reserved for the Board. For reasons appearing
below, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Company and the C. I. 0. filed briefs which have been con-
sidered by the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture of aircraft and aircraft parts and has
its principal place of business at Santa Monica, California. It oper-
ates a number of plants in the State of California. The principal
raw materials used by it are aluminum alloys, magnesium alloys, steel,
and steel alloys. During a typical year its purchases of such ma-
terials amounted to approximately $70,000,000, and approximately
95 percent of such materials were purchased from sources outside the
State of California. During a similar period, the Company sold air-
craft and parts in a volume in excess of $180,000,000, nearly all of
which was sold for delivery outside the State of California. , The,
Company is engaged entirely in the war program.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within, the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, Aeronautical District
Lodge 22, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
'After intervening in both proceedings, Douglas Employees' Association made an oral
request on the record to withdraw its motions for intervention, which request was granted
by the Trial Examiner. '
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC . 821
eration of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America (UAW-CIO) is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting, to
membership employees, of the Company.
National Union, United Aircraft Welders of America, is an un-
affiliated labor organization,, admitting to membership certain em-,
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
It was stipulated that,.prior to the hearing, the I. A. M. requested
the Company to recognize it-as the exclusive bargaining agent for
employees of the Company at the latter's El Segundo division, and
the C. I. O. requested the Company to recognize it as the exclusive
bargaining agent for employees of the Company at the latter's Ver-
non location, and that in each instance the Company refused to accord
such recognition until the labor organization making such request
was certified by the Board. -
A statement of a Board agent, introduced in evidence at the hearing,
indicates that the I. A. M. and the C. I. 0., respectively, represent a
substantial number of employees in the units hereinafter found
appropriate.3
We find that questions affecting commerce have 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.
a The statement sets forth that the I . A. M. presented authorization cards, 65 percent
of which appeared to be signed by persons whose names appeared on the Company's El
Segundo plant pay roll of February 24, 1943, and constituted 26 percent of the names on
such pay roll It also sets forth that a spot check of the cards dated during March 1943,
which were not found on the above pay roll , showed that approximately 30 percent of
such cards bore signatures of persons whose names appeared on a more current pay roll
of the Company. It further shows that the C. I. O. submitted authorization cards which
appeared to be signed by employees on the said El Segundo pay roll of February 24, 1943,
and which constituted 3 percent of the persons on said pay roll. As to the Company's
Vernon plant , the statement shows that both the C . I. 0. and the I. A. M. 'submitted
authorization cards which , appeared to be signed by persons whose names appeared on the
Vernon plant pay roll of February 24, 1943, that the cards submitted by the C. I. 0. con-
stituted 36 percent of the names on said pay roll, and that the cards submitted by the,
I. A. M constituted less than 1 percent of such pay -roll names.
The C. I. 0. moved to dismiss the I. A. M. petition • in the El Segundo case ( Case No.
R-5188 ) upon the ground that, the I. A. M. 's 26 percent showing as indicated on the
said statement was not substantial In finding that the I. A. M. has made 'a substantial
showing, we have .taken into consideration the fact that the record in this case reveals
an abnormally high labor turn -over of employees at the El Segundo plant , as well as the
result of the spot check of the March 1943 authorization cards. The said motion of the
C. I. 0. is hereby denied.
822 DECISIONS OF 14ATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
A. The unit issues
In Case No. R-5188, the I. A. M., in its petition, requested a unit
limited to the El Segundo division of the Company and composed of
all maintenance and production employees excluding oxyacetylene,
oxyhydrogen, and electric arc welders, employed to do fushion welding
as gas torch -cutters, and helpers and apprentice welders, technical
•employees, guards, supervisory employees haying the right to hire and
discharge, and executives. The appropriateness of the El Segundo
plant as a separate unit is not challenged by any of the parties. Issue
has however been joined by the C. I. 0. concerning the inclusion and
exclusion of certain employee categories, which will be discussed below.
In Case No. R,-5189, the C. I. 0., in its petition, requested a unit
limited to the Vernon plant. of the Company composed of all hourly
paid production and maintenance employees, excluding executive,
administrative,,professional, and clerical employees, and supervisory
employees above, the classification of leadmen.- The Company and the
I. A. M. take the position that the Vernon.plant is part of the Com-
pany's Santa Monica plant, and- cannot appropriately be set apart
from the latter as a separate unit, a, position which, if ,found correct,
would require the dismissal of the C. I. 0. petition. Similar issues are.
present in this case as in Case No. R-5188 concerning the inclusion and
exclusion of certain employee categories.
B. The Vernon location as an appropriate unit
In 1941 the Company operated three separate aircraft manufactur-
ing plants in southern California. Its principal office and manufac-
turing plant was, and still is, located at Santa-Monica; it had another
plant at -El Segundo ; and a third at Long Beach. In a prior Board
proceeding, upon petition of the Welders, we found separate plant
units to be appropriate for welders at Santa Monica and El' Segundo,
respectively.' As already, noted, there is no dispute in the instant
proceedings as- to the appropriateness of the El Segundo plant as. a
seperate plant unit, and the parties apparently are also agreed that
the Long Beach plant, which is not involved in,these proceedings,
might also be regarded as a separate--unit.
During the latter part of 1941 and the early part of 1942, a number
of, departments atthe Company's Santa Monica plant, the Company's
home office division, were taken out of that plant and placed at other
4 Matter of The Douglas Aircraft Co ., Inc.. El Segundo Division and United Aircraft
Welders of America ( Independent ), 16 N. L. R. B. 93.
DOUGLAS A.PRCR.AFT COMPANY, INC. - 823
locations in and around southern California. Among them were the
accounting department, the material and purchasing department, the
final testing and equipment location, the master tooling department,
and a number of lesser departments. The Company states that the
relocations were made so that the Company's operations would not be
wholly impaired in the event of enemy shelling or bombing of its
Santa Monica plant. All of these new locations, but one, were leased;
the exception was the Vernon location which was purchased in fee.
The Company declined at the hearing- to state definitely whether the
Vernon location is of a temporary or permanent character. Vernon is
located about 15 miles from Santa Monica, and is about 8 miles from
El.Segundo. The El Segundo plant, which the parties are agreed
should constitute a separate unit, is closer than Vernon to the Com-
pany's Santa Monica plant.
The Company's master tooling department was transferred to
Vernon. At the time of the transfer, employees were transferred from
Santa Monica to Vernon, but the record shows that employees were
likewise transferred to Vernon from other plants of the Company.
The operations at Vernon are limited to master tooling.
The Company argues that its Vernon location, although referred to
on its records as "Plant K", is not in fact a plant in itself,•but is merely
a subdivision of its Santa Monica plant, because; unlike its El Segundo'
or Long Beach plants, it is not a, complete aircraft fabricating and
assembly plant. Whether 'the Vernon location possesses all the attri-
butes of .a complete plant or falls within the definition of that term is
not the issue here. Even if it be considered a subdivision of the Santa
Monica plant , this could not affect its character as a bargaining unit,
if otherwise appropriate.5 The question as to whether Vernon, ,,alone,
or Vernon joined with•Santa Monica,.is at this time better calculated
to effectuate the policies of the Act must be decided upon a considera-
tion of all 'the relevant circumstances, including, among -others, such
factors as the functional and organizational cohesiveness .of the unit,
and the,similarity in the work and interests of the employees therein.
The evidence shows that there is no greater functional interdepend-
ence between the Vernon plant and the Santa Monica plant than there
is between the Vernon plant and -the Company's El .Segundo, Long
Beach, or other plants which none of the parties contend should be
grouped with Santa Monica in a single unit. At its Vernon plant, the
Company construts master tools desigred for use not only at the
Santa Monica plant, but at its El Segundo, Long Beach, Tulsa, and
Oklahoma City plants as well. The master tools, built at Vernon,
are also sent from Vernon to various subcontractors of the Company.
See. Section 9 (b), National Labor Relations Act.
824 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
The,tools which bear the Vernon legend, "K", upon completion of their
use, are returned to Vernon for storage or forwarding to some other
plant. The master tooling done at Vernon is separate and distinct`
from the production tooling done at other plants. There is evidence
indicating that greater skill is required for master tooling at Vernon
than for production tooling at other plants. It does not appear that
master tooling is performed at any other plant or location of the
Company.
' The organization of the Vernon plant, while related administratively
to the home division of the Company, is, to some extent, self-contained.
Vernon has' a; superintendent-in-charge who has general superyision
of its employees. A separate employment office is maintained at-Ver-
non, and two representatives of the' Company's personnel division
are permanently stationed there. Employee grievances are' handled
locally. Int, the scheme of the Company's recreational program, Vernon
is apparentlyrecognized by the Company 'as having its separate place;
there is evidence' in' the record showing that Vernon' is 'represented
as'.a, separate unit in competitive 'sports with other Company plants.
Although Company departments, such' as its, personnel and material
purchasing departments,,,have their headquarters at San Monica where
their records are kept;' these departments are represented' at Vernon
by so-called"out post" representatives who are permanently stationed
at Vernon and'conduct the immediate local functions of their depart-
ments from that, point. Personnel and Tabor relations' matters are
supervised from Santa'Monica where the 'heads of such departments
are' stationed, but the evidence shows that 'this is equally true' in' the
case of El Segundo which all parties concede` constitutes 'a iseparate
appropriate unit.'Pay checks to Vernon employees, are. issued at Santa
Monica lout -so also are pay checks' issued' to El Segundo' employees.
Badges worn by Vernon employees are distinguishable in background
color from those worn at Santa Monica, and will not admit a Vernon
employee into' the Santa Monica plant. . ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •
There is no eviderice•'of any' marked interchange of employees 'be-
twedn) Vernon and Santa Monica. ' Vernon employees' on' occasions
are sent dut on special temporary assignment's to other plants. On such
occasions; Vernon employees' continue on the' Vernon pay roll; and
their time is telephoned in to a timekeeper at Vernon. •If they remain
at their` temporary' location for more than 2 weeks, then for con-,
venience to the'Company, they are transferred to the' temporary loca-
tion pay roll. 'However, when. the particular job is' completed, they
return 'to Vernon and resume then' place on that pay roll.,
In view of the specialized character of the work performed at Ver=
non, its geographical separation from Santa Monica, the fact that
the Vernon plant is-to some extent self-contained and bears no closer
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 825
relationship to the Santa Monica plant than to other plants in the
Company's. system either in point of functional interdependence or
community of interest, and upon the entire record of this case, we are-
of the opinion, and find, that a separate unit is appropriate for the
Vernon plant.
C. Categories of employees in plant units
At -the hearing the parties were in agreement that production and
maintenance employees should be included in the units and that execu-
tive, professional, administrative, and clerical employees, and super-
visory employees above the rank of leadmen A should be excluded
therefrom. Some question arose, however, as to the inclusion or exclu-
sion of employees in the categories discussed below.
Plant clerks: The I. A. M. requested at the hearing that clerical
employees who were engaged, in the plant proper, as distinguished
from. the Company's "front office" clerical employees, be included in
the unit as falling within the category of production employees. The
following classes of employees were referred to as illustrative of this
group : stock clerks, storeroom clerks, inspection department clerks,
order clerks, production control clerks, rate • clerks, and receiving
clerks. In general, plant clerks were defined as those who work in
the plant and who assist, manually or otherwise, the active flow of
parts or materials. The evidence, indicates that plant, clerks do not
come into, direct contact with office clerical employees,, and that
their work is closely related to that of production employees. The
C. I. 0. adduced no evidence which would indicate such inclusion to
be improper. The Company took no position in this regard. Because
of their 'close relationship to production employees, we are of the
opinion, and find, that plant clerks should be included.
'Technical and engineering department employees: The' I. A: M.
would exclude, whereas the C. I. 0. would include, employees in the
Company's engineering department and other ' technical employees
who'do not participate directly in production; work, but are concerned'
principally with designing, drafting, research, planning, and produc-
tion control. In addition to engineers, this 'group is composed of
employees such as draftsmen, stress analysts,, designers, metallurgists,
chemists, statisticians, industrial engineers,' and production planning
and control personnel. The employees in this group, for the' most
part, have had college or technical school training or its equivalent.
They are generally paid on a monthly basis., They only occasionally
come in contact with production and maintenance employees, In El '
Segundo they are housed in a building separated from the main 'plant.
They are regarded by management as more closely aligned to man-
agement than to the production and maintenance operations.
826 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'B'OARD
Although they indirectly contribute to the production activities of `
the plants, their interests and their relations to the employer are dis-
similar from that of production employees, and' we shall, therefore,
exclude them from the unit.
Welders: The I. A. M. in its petition in the El Segundo case asks
that welders-be excluded. The position of the C. I. 0., as indicated
by its petition in• the Vernon case, is that welders should be included.
The Welders intervened in both proceedings and contended that they
should be excluded from the appropriate units. In 1939 the Board
found separate welders' units to be appropriate 'in the Santa -Monica
'and El Segundo plants of the Company, and following elections, the
Welders was certified in both such units e The Welders has had col-
lective -bargaining agreements with the Company, for said plants,
since 1939. On January 9, 1942, the Welders and the 'Company
entered into three. separate but identical contracts, covering the Com-
pany's Santa Monica, El Segundo, and Long Beach plants, respec-
tively. These contracts are for a term of at least 2 years. Although
the Vernon plant,is not expressly referred to in these contracts, both
the Company and the Welders acknowledged at the hearing -that they
considered the terms of the Santa Monica contract as being applica-
ble to welders at Vernon. It appears that they have dealt with each
other on this'basis ever since the Vernon plant was' established. 'Since
the welders here constitute a clearly defined group that has been
treated, as a separate unit 'in each plant -for a considerable time, and
are presently represented pursuant to contract, we,are of the opinion;
and find, that welders should be excluded from the units.
' CONbLIISION
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Company's El Segundo division and Vernon plant, respectively,
including,plant clerks,,but, excluding oxyacetylene, oxyhydrogen, ,and
electric ,arc welders employed to do - fusion' welding as :gas torch cut-
ters,,and ;helpers and apprentice welders, executives, administrative,
professional, -office clerical, -technical and engineering department
employees, guards, and supervisory employees above the classification
of leadman A, constitute ,two units appropriate for the purpose of
collective,bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
',Matter of The Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc. and United Aircraft Welders of America, 16
N. L R B , 93, 17 N. L. R. B. 984.
DIOUGLAS A.PRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 827
the employees in each of the two appropriate units who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the
Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions
,set forth in the Direction.
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 Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Douglas Aircraft
Company, Inc., El Segundo, California, and Vernon, California, sepa-,
rate 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
Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the employees in each of the two units
found appropriate in Section IV, above, 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 iricl'ud'=
ing employees- in the' armed' forces of the United States' who present
themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those empl'oyees•*l o
have since quit or been discharged for cause, to,determine whether
they desire to be represented by International Association of Machin-
ists; Aeronautical- District Lodge 22, AFL, or by International Union,
United' Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW-CIO)', for the purposes of collective ,bargaining,
or by neither. S •
Mr. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration- of the
above Decision and Direction of Election. •