Howard Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 386 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of HOWARD AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT 108
Case No. R--5502.-Decided July 16, 1943
Stearns d McBride, by Mr. L. M. McBride, of Chicago, Ill., for
the Company. i
Mr. Lee J. Fitzpatrick, of Aurora, Ill., for the I. A. M.
Meyers & Meyers, by Mr. Ben Meyers, of Chicago, Ill., for the
U. A. W.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, District 108, herein called the I. A. M.,1 alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Howard Aircraft Corporation, St. Charles, Illinois, here-
in called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert Drake,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Chicago, Illinois, on May
29 and Jane 3, 1943. The Company, the I. A. M., and United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the U. A. W., appeared, participated, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity
to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
1 The Board , having taken notice of the withdrawal of the I. A. M. from the American
Federation of Labor, has herein dropped all reference to the A. F. of L. from the title of
the I . A M., although such reference appears in the record of the case.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 77.
386
4
HOWARD AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
387
Howard Aircraft Corporation, an Illinois corporation, has its gen-
eral offices in Chicago, Illinois, and operates a plant in Chicago, and
one in St. Charles, Illinois,2 at both of which it is engaged in the manu-
facture and sale of aircraft and aircraft parts. During the year 1942
substantial tonnages of materials, representing more than one-fourth
the Company's total purchases of materials, were shipped to the plants
from points outside the State of Illinois. During the same period
substantial tonnages of, finished products, representing more than one-
fourth the Company's total output, were shipped from the plants to
points outside the State of Illinois. The Company admits that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District 108, is a labor or-
ganization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 14, 1943, the I. A. M. requested the Company to recognize
it as the collective bargaining representative of employees in the Com-
pany's St. Charles plant. The Company refused the request on the
grounds that it had no evidence of the I. A. M.'s majority claim, and it
considered a unit confined to the St. Charles plant to be inappropriate.
A statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing indicates
that the I. A. M. represents a substantial number of employees in each
of the two units hereinafter found to be appropriate 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.
2 Hereinafter , whenever the St. Charles plant is mentioned , reference is had to the
plant located 31/a to 4 miles east of St . Charles, and not to a small welding plant located
in St. Charles.
3Referrinq to the production and maintenance unit, the Trial Examtiner stated that the
I. A M submitted to him 240 authorization cards, all bearing apparently genuine original
signatures , and that 150 of the cards bore names of persons whose names appeared on
the Company 's pay roll for May 23 , 1943, which listed 416 employees , in the unit hereinafter
found to be appropriate . 'Referring to the guard unit, the Trial Examiner stated that the
I A. M. submitted to him 25 cards , and that 23 of the cards bore names of persons whose
names appeared on the afore-mentioned pay roll which listed 51 guards at the St. Charles
plant.
540612-44-vol. 51-26
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The principal unit issue presented in this proceeding is whether the
employees of the Company's plants should be combined in a multiple
plant unit or should be split into two or more plant-wide units. The
Company contends that its two principal plants and all its subsidiary
plants should compose a single multiple plant unit. The I. A. M. and
the U. A. W. both oppose such a single unit, the former petitioning for
a unit of employees of the St. Charles plant and its so-called "satellite"
plants, and the latter requesting the Board not to include the Chicago
plant in any unit at this time.'
The I. A. M. and the Company agree that the production and main-
tenance unit should comprise all production and maintenance em-
ployees, including gang leaders and janitors, but excluding guards
sworn into the auxiliary military police, foremen, supervisors, pilots,
and office and clerical employees. The sole dispute on inclusion of
specified categories of employees in this unit concerns inspectors whom
the I. A. M. would include and the Company would exclude.
The Company's Chicago plant is located approximately 331/2 miles
from its St. Charles plant. Within a radius of 14 miles of the latter
plant are a number of small plants or shops, housed in garages and
other small buildings, which presently are, or in the near future will
be, engaged in producing parts or performing other functions in aid
of the manufacturing processes at the St. Charles plant.'
There is support in the record for the Company's contention that
the production and maintenance employees of all its plants constitute
a single appropriate unit. Thus, the manufacturing processes of the
two principal plants and the "satellite" plants are highly integrated.
Managerial control over the entire series of operations is rapidly being
centered, at the St. Charles plant, as are the accounting and other
service departments. Finally, there have been transfers of employees
from Chicago to St. Charles, although the number is unspecified.
On the other hand, there are several factors which support the
I. A. M.'s contention that the Chicago plant employees should not be
included in the appropriate unit. Thus, the jurisdiction of the
petitioning I. A. M. local is roughly confined to the area in which the
St. Charles plant and its "satellites" are located; it does not extend to
Chicago. The I. A. M. has made no effort to organize the Chicago
* In 1942, the U. A. W. filed a petition for an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives of employees of the Company ' s Chicago plant. This petition was subsequently
withdrawn . In the instant proceeding , the U. A. W. entered an appearance merely to state
its position . It is not presently seeking certification.
6Reference is had to the following facilities of the Company : a welding plant at the
Judd garage in St. Charles ; a welding plant in North Aurora ; a welding plant, a sheet-
metal plant, and an upholstery plant in E;gin ; two storage and touch-up garages in west
Chicago ; a storage and touch-up garage in Glen Ellyn ; and a shop at Geneva.
HOWARD AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 389
plant.- Instead, the record indicates that organization there has been
carried on by a rival union, the U. A. W. The Company has no history
of collective bargaining relations on a company-wide basis . The two
labor organizations appearing in this proceeding have been organizing
the employees upon the basis of separate plant-wide units, and there
is no labor organization contending for a larger unit. Finally, the
distance between the two principal plants must be considered. We are
persuaded by these latter factors that the appropriate unit should not
include the employees of the Chicago plant.
The Company employs a number of inspectors.6 It is their function
to examine incoming materials to ascertain whether they meet with
specifications, and to examine the work of production employees at all
stages of production. The Company contends that its inspectors
perform a managerial function, and therefore, are not properly a part
of a production and maintenance unit. In previous Decisions we have
included non-supervisory inspectors in production and maintenance
units.7 None of the Company's inspectors has power to hire or dis-
charge except the chief inspectors, and all are hourly paid. We find,
therefore, that the inspectors, excluding the chief inspectors, should
be included in the production and maintenance unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany's St. Charles, Illinois, plant and its "satellite" plants, including
gang leaders, janitors, and inspectors, but excluding guards sworn
into the auxiliary military-police, pilots, office and clerical employees,
foremen, and any other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The I. A. M. further petitions for a separate unit of guards.8 The
Company agrees with the I. A. M. that guards sworn into the auxil-
iary military police comprise an appropriate unit. Since the only
dispute as to the guard unit relates to the multiple plant unit issue
which we have resolved above, we find that all guards sworn into the
auxiliary military police at the Company's St. Charles, Illinois, plant
and its "satellite" plants, excluding supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
8In addition , the Army and Navy have inspectors . Such inspectors are not intended
to be included in the discussion on inspectors.
'Matter of The Lehon Company, 34 N L R. B. 313; and Matter of Nineteen Hundred
Corporation, 32 N. L. R. B. 327 , and cases cited therein.
8 The I . A. M.'s petition was amended at the bearing to seek a separate unit of guards.
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of elections by secret ballot. The
Company indicated at the hearing that the peak employment at its
St. Charles plant would probably not be reached until January 1944.
It indicated further, however, that the pay roll would be expanded
150 percent within 60 days of the hearing. At such a rate of increase,
over half the total anticipated number of employees will have been
hired by July 29, 1943. We shall direct, therefore, that those eligible
to vote shall be the employees in the appropriate units who were em-
ployed during the first full pay-roll period in August 1943, subject to
the limitations and additions set forth in our Direction of Elections.
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 Relations
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 Howard Aircraft
Corporation, St. Charles, Illinois, elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than forty,-five (45) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth 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 the units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the first full pay-roll period in August 1943, in-
cluding those employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and in-
cluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who pre-
sent themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by District 108, International As-
sociation of Machinists, 9 for the purposes of collective bargaining.
° The I . A. M. expressed a preference at the hearing that its name appear on the ballot
as set forth in the Direction of Elections.