Hughes Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 867 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY , EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL UNION 11,
A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
III the Matter Of HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL
DISTRICT #720, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 21-RC-366 and 21-RC-J41, respectively. Decided Febru-
ary 21, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELEC71'1ON S
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a hearing in these consolidated
cases 1 was held in Los Angeles, California, on September 13, 14, 15,,
and 16, 1948, before George H. O'Brien, hearing officer. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
Hughes Too] Company, a Delaware corporation licensed to do busi-
ness in the State of California, conducts its business within the State
of California under the name of Hughes Aircraft Company. Hughes
Aircraft Company, the Employer herein, manufactures and services
airplanes for the United States Government and other customers. and
also manufactures armament and other ordnance and material for
the United States Government and other customers. It operates plants
' Cases Nos 21-RC-366 and 21-RC-441 were consolidated by order of the Regional
Director on August 24, 1948
2 At the hearing, the hearing officer refused to admit in evidence testimony offered by
the Employer to prove that on June 30 , 1948, at a conference among the representatives
of the parties and a Field Examiner of the Board, the IBEW requested that its petition be
withdrawn , and the Field Examiner stated that he would allow the petition to be with-
diawn and that he would confirm such action by letter. It appears that the IBEW's
request for withdrawal of its petition was not confirmed . Moreover , on July 13 1948,
prior to the execution of the collective bargaining agreement dated July 14, 1948, which
the Employer urged as a bar to this proceeding , the Regional Director received a letter
from the IBEW, a copy of which letter also was received by the Employer on the same
day, advising that the IBEW wished its petition to remain before the Board for hearing
and decision . In view of the foregoing facts and the further fact that. for the reasons
stated herein, the said collective bargaining agreement cannot be a bar to these proceedings,
we find that the bearing officer ' s ruling was not prejudicial error.
81 N. L. R. B., No 133. 867
829595-50-vol 81-56
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Culver City and Long Beach, California. During the year 1947,
the Employer purchased raw materials and supplies exceeding $500,000
in value, of which more than 50 percent was obtained from sources
outside the State of California.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.3
2. The organizations involved :
The Petitioner, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union 11, herein referred to as IBEW, is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The Petitioner, In-
ternational Association of Machinists, Aeronautical Industrial District
#720, herein referred to as the IAM, is an unaffiliated labor or-
ganization.4
The Intervenor, Wood and Plastic Aircraft Workers, Local Union
1553, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
herein referred to as Local 1553, is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor. The Intervenor, United Farm
Equipment and Metal Workers of America, herein referred to as FEW,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organization.5
All the above named labor organizations claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer at its Culver City and Long Beach, Cali-
fornia, plants.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer and Local 1553 moved to dismiss the petition of the
IAM on the ground that a collective bargaining agreement executed
by them on July 14, 1948, the same day the IAM filed its petition,
constitutes a bar to this proceeding e This contention would be valid,
8 The motion of Local 1553 to dismiss these proceedings on the ground that the Board
does not have jurisdiction is hereby denied.
4 At the hearing , the hearing officer granted a motion by each of the Petitioners to inter-
vene in the proceeding instituted by the other.
5 The Employer contends that the constitution of the FEW prevents it from operating
as a bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer . We find no merit in this
contention . Willingness of a labor organization to represent the employees in question and
the employees ' designation of such labor organization are the controlling considerations
under the Act. Matter of Ozark Dam Constructors , 77 N L R B. 1136.
The Employer and Local 1553 moved to dismiss the petition of the IBEW on the ground
that it failed to show compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, and to dismiss
the intervention of the FEW for the same reason , and for the further reason that the FEW
allegedly had made no showing of interest in these proceedings . However , evidence of
compliance and interest are matters for administrative determination and may not be liti-
gated at the hearing . Since we are satisfied that the IBEW and the FEW are presently
in compliance with the Act and that the FEW has made a sufficient showing of interest in
these proceedings , the motions are hereby denied.
6At the opening of the hearing , the Employer moved to dismiss the petition of the IBEW
for the same reason , but it has apparently abandoned such motion . However, a considera-
tion of the separate motion with respect to the IBEW is unnecessary in any case , because
the contract cannot bar proceedings based on the petition of the IBEW for the same
reasons that we find herein that it does not constitute a bar against the petition of the IAM.
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 869
as the petition of the IAM was not timely filed with respect to the
agreement of July 14, 1948, between the Employer and Local 1553,7
if the agreement otherwise satisfied Board requirements for the appli-
cation of the contract bar doctrine. However, the agreement contains
an infirmity which prevents it from being an effective bar to a repre-
sentation proceeding. Such infirmity is found in Section IV A of
the contract, which provides that all employees in the bargaining
units covered by the contract who are members of Local 1553 on the
date the contract is signed shall continue to be members in good stand-
ing for a period of 90 days.' Local 1553 was not certified by the
Board, pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act, as being authorized
to make an agreement requiring membership in it as a condition of
employment. We have held that a collective bargaining agreement
requiring union members, as a condition of their employment, to main-
tain their membership in a labor organization which has not been
certified by the Board pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1), will not bar a
representation proceeding.° While in the instant case, unlike the cases
previously considered by the Board, the maintenance of membership
provision is not operative for the duration of the contract but for a
period of 90 days only, we shall, nevertheless, apply the same rule.
To hold otherwise would be to sanction agreements designed to cir-
cumvent both the spirit and the express language of the statute; ac-
cordingly, the motions of the Employer and Local 1553 to dismiss the
petition of the IAM are hereby denied.
The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition of the IAM on
the ground that the Union failed to show in its petition and to prove
at the hearing that, before filing its petition, it had made a demand
upon the Employer for recognition, and the Employer had failed to
recognize the Petitioner as the bargaining representative of its em-
ployees. However, in view of the fact that a question concerning
representation was shown to exist at the hearing, we shall, consistent
with our policy as announced in Matter of Advance Pattern Com-
pany,10 deny the motion and consider this case on its merits.
7 Matter of The Cai borundum Company, 78 N. L R. B. 91 ; Matter of Mississippi Lime
Company of Missouri, 71 N L R. B. 472, 474.
8 Although Section IV A of the contract does not expressly state that the maintenance
of membership requirement for present union members is a condition of their employment,
nevertheless , application of the usual principles of construction to the agreement in ques-
tion leads to the conclusion that union members must retain their membership as therein
provided as a condition of their continued employment
e Matter of C. Hager and Sons Hinge Manufacturing Company, 80 N L. R. B. 163;
Matter of General Electric Company , 80 N. L . R. B 169 ; Matter of Laurel Textiles, Inc.,
80 N L R B 262
10 SON L R B 29
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units:
The IBEW desires to sever from the existing bargaining unit,
a unit of maintenance and construction electricians. The IAM seeks
to represent a unit of production and maintenance employees, exclud-
ing the loft and the factory clerical employees, at the Employer's
Culver City and Long Beach, California. plants." The FEW seeks to
represent the employees in the same unit covered by the current con-
tract between the Employer and Local 1553 which. in addition to the
production and maintenance employees, includes the loft and the fac-
tory clerical employees. The Employer and Local 1553 contend that
the latter unit is the only appropriate unit.
There are six employees plus a leadman in the unit of maintenance
electricians requested by the IBEW. These employees are engaged
in a apprenticeable trade.'2 Although the Employer has no ap-
prentice training program, it requires maintenance electricians "A"'
to have had at least 4 years electrical experience and maintenance elec-
tricians "B" to have had at least 2 years electrical experience. Main-
tenance electricians "C" are beginners and require no previous ex-
perience. The normal advancement for maintenance electricians at
the Employer's plants is from "C" to "B" to "A."
The job classifications covering the categories of maintenance elec-
tricians "A" and "B" indicate that a high degree of training and skill
is required in order to perform the duties of the jobs.13 While it is
true that some of the work performed by these employees, such as
changing bulbs, is routine in character, it is clear that a very substan-
tial portion of their work requires the exercise of a high degree of skill
and training which is traditionally associated with the electrical
craft." These employees constitute a skilled'craft group such as the
i' The Employer's principal plant is located in Culver Citi. California It al,o apeiate3
a plant at Long Beach. California where tests of a flying boat which was biult at the
Culver City plant, are being conducted. The operations at the Long Beach plant appear
to be an extension of the operations of the Culver Crtt plant and not an independent
activity There is an interchange of employees between the two plants. and the employees
are under the same supervision. Under these euciunstances and in the absence of any
issue with respect to the scope of the production and maintenance unit we find that the
employees of both plants have a substantial community of interest and should be included
in any production and maintenance unit found appropriate herein
'" A code of apprenticeship standards for the maintenance electricians' trade ha, been
established for Los Angeles County
=' Job classifications and job descriptions for such classifications were adopted fir the
Employer from uniform job descriptions established for the area by the Southern California
Aircraft Industry The Employer has used continuously since 1940 or 1941 the job
description standards issued by the Southern California An craft Industry as a guide in its
wa_e administrative program
"The Employer argues that the maintenance electricians do not constitute an appro-
priate unit because they perform some non-electrical work such as making duplicate
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 871
Board has, on numerous occasions , established in separate units for
the purpose of collective bargaining.15
The Employer further contends that the maintenance electricians
herein constitute only a segment of a skilled craft and that their
duties are so integrated with those of the production workers that
they cannot properly constitute a separate bargaining unit. How-
ever, the maintenance electricians are included as a distinct group in
the plants' maintenance departments and enjoy separate seniority
within their group. The principal duties of the maintenance electri-
cians at the Employer's plants are the repair of electrical equipment
and the installation of new electrical circuits and equipment. The
bulk of the machinery at the Employer's plants is powered by elec-
tricity. The maintenance electricians repair the electrical parts of
such equipment whenever breakdowns occur. However, they do not
Lave any regular or repetitious duties with respect to such equip-
ment. The duties of the maintenance electricians are separate and
independent from the duties of the production employees. In gen-
eral, there is no interchange of jobs or duties between maintenance
electricians and other maintenance or production employees. Al-
though the Employer manufactures electrical equipment, employees
engaged in such manufacture do not make repairs an any of the plant
electrical equipment. Substantially all electrical repairs in the plant
are made by the maintenance electricians. There is insufficient evi-
dence to support the Employer's contention that the production elec-
tricians have the same skills as have the maintenance electricians; nor
is there sufficient evidence to show that the unit sought by the IBEW
repesents only a segment of the employees doing electrical work of
the same nature.11 Since it also appears that the maintenance elec-
tricians are not assigned to any segment of the production process,
they cannot be said to constitute an integral part thereof.17 From the
record as a whole, it appears that the maintenance electricians are a
skilled, homogeneous, and functionally distinct craft group, and may
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. However, we shall not make any unit determination at this time
pending an election among the employees in this group.
keys and repairing time clocks However, the proportion of time devoted to such work is
relatively small and is insufficient to alter the craft character of their principal emplov-
merit as maintenance electricians
"Matter of Celanese Corporation or tnterrca, 80 N L R B 61 , Matter of Westinghouse
L'lect, ie Corporation, 80 N L R B 121 , Matter of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 70
N. L R. B 1054.
16 The Employer ' s evidence in this respect was limited to testimony that production
electricians use the same type of specialized electrical equipment as do the maintenance
electricians and that the leadman in the electrical production department is a highly
,killed electrician with more than 5 years of electrical experience.
11 Matter of International Harvester Company , 80 N L R B 225 : Matter of Mergenthaler
Linotype Company, 80 N L R B 132
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There remains for determination the composition of the residual
group of production and maintenance employees. The record reveals
an extensive history of collective bargaining at the Employer's plants
involved in this proceeding. On January 5, 1944, following certifica-
tion by the Board,"" the Employer and Local 1553 entered into a con-
tract covering a unit of production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Culver City plant. Subsequently, and as the result of
separate consent elections, Local 1553 was certified also as the bar-
gaining representative for the loft employees and the factory clerical
employees at the Employer's Culver City plant.19 Thereafter, on
July 13, 1945, the Employer and Local 1553 entered into a single
collective bargaining agreement covering all three groups of em-
ployees. Since that date, the Employer has bargained with Local
1553 for these three groups of employees, and has entered into a series
of successive contracts covering such employees. In view of the his-
tory of continuous collective bargaining on the basis of the more
inclusive unit since July 13, 1945, and the absence of any persuasive
evidence indicating that such unit is inappropriate, we find that the
production and maintenance employees, including loft and factory
clerical employees, at the Employer's Culver City and Long Beach
plants may be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall be guided in part by the desires of the employees as expressed
in the elections hereinafter directed. We shall direct that the ques-
tions concerning representation shall be resolved by separate elections
by secret ballot among employees at the Culver City and Long Beach,
California, plants of the Employer within the voting groups described
below :
1. All maintenance and construction electricians, including helpers,
designated as Electricians "A," 20 "B," and ``C," 21 but excluding
supervisors 22 as defined in the Act;
2. All remaining production and maintenance employees, including
all employees classified as loftsmen A, B, and C, loftsmen beginners,
38 See Matter of Hughes Aircraft Company , 52 N. L . R. B. 715.
19 Case No. 21-R-2329 ; Case No. 21-R-2476.
20 Included also in this category is Barney Jagosz, who, although transferred to the
flight and service department , still performs the work of a maintenance electrician "A."
21 Although the maintenance electrician "C" Is less skilled than the other electricians,
since he works with the other electricians , does not interchange jobs or duties with em-
ployees in other departments, is eligible for advancement to maintenance electrician "B,"
and has a community of interest with the other maintenance electricians , we shall include
him in the unit.
22 Excluded as a supervisor is the leadman, P. Lau, whom the record discloses assigns
and directs the work of the maintenance electricians and other employees , and has the
authority effectively to recommend the lay-off and promotion of such employees.
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 873
and all clerical employees employed in the plants, including depart-
ment clerks, file clerks, general clerks, material control clerks, material
release men, messengers, motor transport dispatchers, production con-
trol dispatchers, schedulers, shop follow-up men, stenographers, stock
clerks, timekeepers, and typists, but excluding office employees,
guards, confidential employees, welders and their helpers, pattern
makers, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 23
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the voting groups described in paragraph numbered 4, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the elections and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement to determine :
(1) Whether the employees in voting group 1 desire to be repre-
sented, for the purposes of collective bargaining, by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 11, A. F. of L; by
International Association of Machinists, Aeronautical Industrial Dis-
trict #720; by United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of Amer-
ica, C. I. 0.; by Aircraft Industry Workers Local 1553; United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., or
none;
(2) Whether the employees in voting group 2 desire to be repre-
sented, for the purposes of collective bargaining, by International
Association of Machinists, Aeronautical Industrial District #720; by
United Farm Equipment and Metal Workers of America, C. I. 0.;
by Aircraft Industry Workers Local 1553, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., or none.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
" Any party which does not desire to participate in the elections herein , upon its prompt
request to and approval thereof by the Regional Director , may have its name removed from
the ballot.