Hawthorne School of Aeronautics

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1059 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

HAWTHORNE SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS 1059
HAWTHORNE SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS and TRANSPORT
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
10-RC-2234. May 19, 1953
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 John C. Carey,
Jr., hearing officer. 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, Murdock, and
Styles] .
In view of the agreement of the parties, we hereby incorpo-
rate into the record of this proceeding the transcript in a
representation case involving the same parties and substan-
tially the same employees as are herein concerned, in which
the Board certified ap appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is a South Carolina corporation engaged in
the operation of a flying school in Moultrie, Georgia, under a
cost-plus -fixed -fee contract with the United States Air Force
to train pilots. During the past year the Employer received
from the Air Force material and equipment valued at more
than $750,000 for use in its operation. During the same period
the total purchases of the Employer were approximately
$216,000, of which approximately $11,220 originated from
outside of the State of Georgia.
On the basis of these facts, we find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. In view
of the Employer's close relationship to the national defense
effort we further find it will effectuate the purposes of the Act
to exercise jurisdiction in this case.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all
employees of the Employer at Spence Field, Moultrie, Georgia,
including stock record clerks, inspectors, specialists in the
areo repair, engine change, and schedule maintenance depart-
ments, and fire and crash department employees; but excluding
guards, office clerical employees, professional employees,
pilots, pilot instructors, instructors in the academic depart-
ment, the warehouse and stock records foremen, the ground
instructors in the aircraft maintenance department, assistant
foremen in the areo repair, engine change, and schedule
' Hawthorne School of Aeronautics , 98 NLRB 1098.
' Harvey Stoller d/b/a Richland Laundry and Dry Cleaners , 93 NLRB 680.
104 NLRB No. 150.
1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance departments, the flight chiefs and flight leaders,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The parties agree
generally as to the appropriateness of the unit but disagree,
as indicated below, with respect to the inclusion or exclusion
of certain classifications.
Flight leaders: The Petitioner contends that all flight
leaders are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and must
be excluded from the unit. The Employer disagrees . There are
4 such individuals. Each is hourly paid and has under him 4
mechanics who perform mechanical duties on a total of 42
airplanes parked on the Employer's flight line. At the hearing
in the current proceeding a former employee of the Employer,
who had been employed as a mechanic on the flight line from
August 1951 to February 1953, testified that the flight leaders
spent most of their time directing the work of the mechanics
under them and had on various occasions transferred such
employees from one job to another among the 42 airplanes
assigned to them for service. This witness also testified that
on one occasion his flight leader refused to recommend him
for a raise when requested, and that on another occasion a
different flight leader signed, on his behalf, a written recom-
mendation for a raise when requested and that such raise was
granted shortly thereafter.
The Employer argues that the work performed by the flight-
line mechanics, being routine in nature, requires no respon-
sible direction by the flight leaders and that handbooks of
duties which are distributed among the mechanics serve as
adequate guides for them to follow in the performance of their
work. The record suggests , however, that these handbooks are
not distributed to all mechanics. The uncontradicted testimony
of the former employee mechanic reveals that he had never
received such a handbook and that he had always followed his
flight leader ' s instructions.
The Employer, without denying that the flight leaders have
the authority to make written recommendations for wage in-
creases on behalf of the mechanics working under them,
argues that such increases are granted automatically after
the lapse of a specific amount of time from the date of employ-
ment. No evidence was offered , however, indicating that these
increases would be granted without the flight leader ' s recom-
mendation.
Upon the facts set forth above we find that the flight leaders
responsibly direct the mechanics assigned to them and also
possess the authority to effectively recommend changes in
their status. Accordingly , we find that the flight leaders are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude
them from the unit.
Flight chiefs : The Employer employs 3 flight chiefs, each
of whom is responsible for the work performed on 3 blocks of
aircraft (42 airplanes in each block ) parked on the flight line
for repair . They have under them the flight leaders and the
mechanics employed in those blocks . The record shows that
these flight chiefs spend all of their time directing the work
of the employees under them, doing no manual labor them-
HAWTHORNE SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS 1061
selves. The record further indicates that they have the au-
thority to transfer employees from one block to another,
recommend pay raises for the employees under them, and
grant time off on request. There is also evidence in the record
showing that at least on one occasion a flight chief recom-
mended the discharge of a mechanic under him and that without
further independent investigation by the flight chief's superiors
the mechanic was discharged. For these reasons we are of the
opinion that the flight chiefs are supervisors within the meaning
of the Act and we shall exclude them.
Crew chiefs in the fire and crash department: The Employer
would exclude and the Petitioner include these individuals. The
record reveals that each crew chief directs three employees
in extinguishing fires and rescuing occupants of crashed
planes. The crew chiefs are responsible for on-the-spot
decisions concerning the safety of persons and property in-
volved in plane crashes. They are stationed at both the main
and auxiliary fields. Their immediate superior, the crash
chief, has his office at the main field. During their emergency
duties they are the only responsible individuals present to
direct the work of the crew members. They have the authority
to recommend the discharge and discipline of employees work-
ing under them, although such recommendations are subject to
an investigation by the crash chief. They also have the authority
to grant employees time off if the crash chief is not available.
On the basis of these facts we find that the crew chiefs
responsibly direct the members of their crews and are there-
fore supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly,
we shall exclude them.
Clericals: Two typists are employed in the maintenance in-
spection section. The Employer contends that they should be
included in the unit, as their interests, are similar to those of
the maintenance employees . The Petitioner contends that they
should be excluded as office clerical employees.
They work in the operations building , which houses the offices
of the directors of flight training and ground and field mainte-
nance , weather office , flight safety office , flight planning office,
aircraft inspection and status departments , and other related
offices. Other clericals in these departments were excluded
by the consent of the parties . The typists concerned do clerical
work only; their only contact with maintenance employees
occurs when inspectors of the various departments bring
maintenance reports to them. Upon these facts we find that the
typists employed in the maintenance inspection are office
clerical employees and therefore exclude them from the unit.3
Ground instructor and assistant ground instructor: These
employees are. employed ithe aircraft maintenance and supply
3Gastaua Wavb Cam any, 91 NLRB M.
283236 0 - 54 -68
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
department. The Employer believes that they should be in the
unit, and the Petitioner contends that they should be excluded
because their interests in employment substantially differ from
those of the maintenance employees.
Ground instructors are required to have CAA instructors'
ratings and spend all of their time conducting classes for the
maintenance employees. Employees are assigned to these
classes by their individual foreman in groups ranging in size
from 3 to 15. The instructors give tests on the subjects
covered in their lectures, and report the grades on these tests
to the foreman of the individual employee. The foremen give
consideration to these reports in rating the competence of new
men who have little or no experience in the field, but disregard
them with respect to older employees who have demonstrated
their competence in maintenance work.
In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that the ground
instructor and the assistant ground instructor have interests in
employment which are substantially different from the em-
ployees in the unit sought by the Petitioner, and we shall,
therefore, exclude them from the unit.4
Assistant foremen in areo repair, engine change, and schedule
maintenance epartments: The Petitioner requests reconsider-
ation in t is proceeding of the board's finding in Case No.
10-RC-1680 that the assistant foremen in the areo repair,
engine change, and schedule maintenance departments are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Petitioner
presented no new evidence relating to these individuals at the
hearing in this case. For the reasons stated in the prior Board
decision we find that these employees are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and therefore shall include them
in the unit.
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees of the
Employer at Spence Field, Moultrie, Georgia, including stock
record clerks, inspectors, specialists and assistant foremen
in the areo department, engine change and schedule mainte-
nance departments, and fire and crash department employees,
but excluding guards, office clerical employees, professional
employees, pilots, pilot instructors, instructors in the academic
department, crew chiefs in the fire and crash department, the
warehouse and stock records foremen, the ground instructors
in the aircraft maintenance department, the flight chiefs and
flight leaders, and all supervisors as defined inthe Act.
(Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4Grinnell Brothers, 88 NLRB 397; Hawthorne School of Aeronautics, 98 NLRB 1098
(Board's finding concerning pilot instructors and the instructors in academic training
department).