Hughes Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 98 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hughes Aircraft Company (Tucson Operations ) and National
Union, United Welders of America , Independent, Petitioner.
Case No. 21-RC-4133. January 24,1957
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 Norman H. Greer, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning 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 Petitioner seeks to sever a craft unit of welders, their helpers,
apprentices, and leadmen from an existing production and mainte-
nance unit at the Employer's Tucson, Arizona, air guided missile
plant, represented by the Intervenor. The Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that severance should be denied because (1) welding
is not a craft, (2) the Petitioner is not the traditional bargaining
representative of welders within the American Potash case 2 and (3)
assuming welding is a craft, the welders involved herein are not
craftsmen. For the reasons stated hereinafter, we find no merit in the
contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor.
With respect to the issue of welding as a craft, the Board has
frequently considered the status of welders and has consistently found
them to be an identifiable craft group appropriate for separate bar-
gaining.3 However, in the Clayton cC Lambert case,' the Board con-
cluded, on the basis of the record then before it, that welding was
1 Lodge 933 , International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, herein called the In-
tervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its current contract with the Em-
ployer covering its production and maintenance employees.
9 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
8 See e. g. Standard Register Company, 106 NLRB 351 ; The General Tire and Rubber
Company, 106 NLRB 246 ; The Kroger Co., 103 NLRB 218; National Aniline Division,
Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation , 102 NLRB 129 ; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corpo-
ration, 101 NLRB 1336 ; Ethyl Corporation, 101 NLRB 435 ; National Container Corpo-
ration of Wisconsin, 97 NLRB 1009; Hughes Gun Company, 97 NLRB 913; Tin Process-
ing Corporation, 96 NLRB 300 . Also, see cases cited in footnote 6, infra, in which the
present Petitioner is involved.
4 Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Company, Ordnance Division , 111 NLRB 540, in
which Member Murdock did not participate and Member Rodgers concurred separately only
on the facts of that case and expressly rejected any contention or inference that welding
is not a recognized craft, and that a qualified welder does not possess craft skills. Also,
see Rayonier, Inc., 111 NLRB 1090, where the Board ( Member Rodgers dissenting) subse-
quently extended this rule to a nonseverance welders case.
117 NLRB No. 26.
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 99
no longer to be considered a separate and distinct craft appropriate
for severance under the American Potash doctrine. In arriving at
its determination, the Board referred to the development of welding
unaccompanied by a successful rise of a welding union and relied
thereon as an indication that welders do not have the distinctive and
traditionally recognized interests of true craft employees; and it also
adverted to the fact that the American Federation of Labor in 1941
considered welding as a process and not a trade because it was not
an apprenticeable occupation, and because workers with only 60
days' experience were being converted into welders.
However, the Petitioner urges reconsideration of the Clayton &
Lambert ruling, and contends that (1) it is a successful welding union
that has represented welders since 1936, (2) welding as presently per-
formed in the aircraft industry with the current advanced methods
and techniques is a skilled and craft trade, and (3) the 60-day welders
referred to in the 1941 AFL convention report learned only the bare
fundamentals of routine welding.5 In this connection, the Petitioner
notes that it was not a party to the Clayton fi Lambert case and that the
record therein was not as fully developed as the record herein. We find
merit in the Petitioner's position.
The present record shows that the Petitioner was organized by,
welders in 1936 for the specific purpose of representing them, and that
since then it has represented welders in the many aircraft plants in the
southern California area. It was first certified by the Board as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of a unit of welders in 1939 6 and
since then it has continued to participate before the Board in many
representation cases involving welders,' and to represent welders ex-
clusively in separate units.$ The Petitioner has also demonstrated a
constant, active interest in welders by its membership during 1941-43
on a War Labor Board committee which established a series of stand-
ards, job descriptions, and wage rates for welders in the aircraft in-
dustry. Further, we are of the opinion that the failure of the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor to establish a separate welders union appears
to have been more the result of an internal dispute over jurisdiction
s The Petitioner also contended that the traditional union test Is arbitrary and unjust.
In view of our determination herenn we find it unnecessary to consider this contention.
See IAbbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company, 115 NLRB 1452, 1457.
s North American Aviation, Inc., 13 NLRB 1134,
Board directed elections : North American Aviation, Inc., supra ; Ryan Aeronautical
Co., 15 NLRB 812 ; 17 NLRB 231. See also North American Aviation Inc., 29 NLRB 148,
in which welders represented by the Petitioner were excluded from the production and
maintenance unit ; and North American Aviation Inc., 112 NLRB 1377, wherein the Board
found that the Petitioner herein was the bargaining agent of the welders involved.
Board-conducted consent, elections : Douglas Aircraft Company, Cases Nos. R-1427;
21-R"802; 21-RC-3814; Vega Airplane Co., Case No. R-2535; Vultee Aircraft, Inc.,
Case No. P-1897 ; Harvill Aircraft Die Casting Corporation, Case No. R-2135 ; Hughes
Aircraft Co., Case No. R-5832.
s The one exception to this exclusive representation of welders is the Challenge Manu-
facturing Co., where welders are included in the production and maintenance unit repre-
sented by the Petitioner.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rather than a reflection of a considered judgment that the welders'
skills do not warrant the establishment of a separate union.° In these
circumstances we believed that the Petitioner's existence for 20 years
and its participation as bargaining representative of welders during
that period indicate that welders have the traditional and distinct in-
terests of true craft employees.
In addition, the record shows that the aircraft industry, which in-
cludes the manufacture of air guided missiles, utilizes extremely light
metals and metal alloys whose weight, strength, and joining together
are critical and indispensable factors in the construction of modern
military aircraft and air guided missiles. To keep pace with improved
metals, designs, and structures of aircraft and missiles, new and ad-
vanced welding techniques have been developed in all three basic types
of welding, gas arc, electric are, and heliarc. The skill required of
welders to produce acceptable welds has correspondingly increased to
the point where present welding techniques permit the joining of
metals and metal alloys which were previously thought to be nonweld-
able or were little used. Under present practices, the welder must re'
duce to a molten state the edges of the metals or metal alloys to be
joined and cause them to flow into each other to achieve a fusion with-
out the use of any filler and without weakening the welded material.
The fusions thus achieved are subjected to rigid minute inspection
by X-ray devices. Any defect detected would render the weld un-
acceptable and the finished work would therefore be rejected. In
addition, in the production of related jigs and tooling devices, welders
use welding techniques requiring refinement tolerances seldom less
than one-thousandth of an inch. Finally, to maintain welding
at its highest peak of efficiency, the military has established a means
and method of determining and supervising the qualifications and
proficiencies of welders engaged in production work for the military.
Thus such welders periodically must take and pass certain prescribed
tests of their welding skills and abilities. As a result, no welding
operator is permitted to perform any production welding in connec-
tion with military aircraft or air guided missiles until his efficiency
has thus been fully established and certified by the military authori-
ties. It is obvious that such welders require much more extensive
training, experience, and skill in the use of the 3 kinds of welding
than the AFL's 60-day welders of prior to 1941 who performed a sim-
ple welding operation on heavy bulk plate used in ship construction and
who presumably were not proficient in all basic types of welding.
Furthermore, while there may not be a formal apprenticeship pro-
gram for many welders, the record shows, as indicated infra, that
welders with 3 to 5 years' experience are sought in the aircraft industry
and welders have a formal program of merit advances while working
9 See Rayonier, Inc , supra, footnote 4
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 101
on the job. In addition , the United States Government itself required
2 years' experience before it would qualify a welder.10 As was stated
in American Potash, the Board would recognize , in lieu of an appren-
ticeship , an equivalent experience where it is clearly demonstrated to
exist . Under all the circumstances , we find that welding as such is
a separate and distinct craft within the meaning of the definition set
forth in American Potash. Further , as the Petitioner has traditionally
devoted itself to serve the special interests of welders and has his-
torically represented them in separate units, we find that the Petitioner
qualifies as a traditional welding union under the test enunciated in
the American Potash case."
There remains for consideration the question as to whether the
welders involved herein constitute a craft group . There are 13 welders
in the Employer 's plant. Nine of them, classified as production
welders, work exclusively on production work, and the remaining four,
classified as maintenance welders, perform maintenance work only.
The Employer 's job descriptions for welders are equally applicable
to both production and maintenance welders. It advertises for
welders with 3 to 5 years ' welding experience and pays them close to
top wages . At the time they are hired , welders are classified as either
welders A or welders B, depending upon their skill and experience.
Welders A are trained in the use of all three basic types of welding
and perform the more difficult welding operations in the plant.
Welders B do not possess this advanced skill and their work generally
does not encompass heliarc welding . While there is no formal appren-
ticeship program in the plant, there is a formal program of merit
advances whereby a welder, in 16-week intervals and depending upon
his skill and ability , may progress to the next higher pay level until
he reaches the top pay of his classification . Welders B receiving top
pay of their classification are then considered for promotion to welder
A when a vacancy occurs.
The Employer 's production welders devote c II their time to produc-
tion welding . They work from blueprints , engineer 's orders, sketches,
and planning sheets, and lay out their own work. In addition, they
must be certified , by passing tests under standards established by the
Air Force authorities , for any and all types of production welding
which they may be called upon to perform . These tests are subdivided
according to the type of welding and material used, and incorporate
all the new and advanced welding techniques developed in recent
years to keep pace with improved materials and designs of air guided
missiles. A separate certification issues for each type of production
10 Civil Service announcements of February 1, 195G, of open competitive examinations
for welders at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, provide that welder applicants must have at least
2 years of welding training or experience which may include apprenticeship training.
11 To the extent that it is inconsistent with our finding herein, the decisions in Clayton
& Lambert, supra, and cases following it, are overruled.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
welding and each certificate must be renewed, through reexamination,
every 6 months in conformity with Air Force specifications. Failure
to renew certifications results in either discharge or transfer of the
welder to other work. Production welders are sometimes certified in
as many as seven different types of welding at the same time. These
welders are required to wear a separate badge for each of the various
qualifications for which they are certified, and each production welder
has a personalized stamp which he places on all his finished work to
identify his work. In view of the foregoing, we find that the produc-
tion welders are a craft group of employees who may constitute a
separate appropriate unit.
In addition to the production welders, there are four maintenance
welders who have substantially the same job descriptions, classifica-
tions, skills, and rates of pay as the production welders. They are not
required to be certified by the military authorities, but are tested by
the Employer. Although they work with other crafts throughout the
plant, they spend 50 percent of their time on maintenance welding.
In these circumstances, we find that the maintenance welders are
craftsmen and shall include them in the same craft group with the
production welders.12
There are seven silver solderers in the plant whom the Employer and
the Intervenor would exclude, but whom the Petitioner would include
in the welders unit only if the Board so finds. They are classified as
silver solderers A and silver solderers B, and perform production work
at close tolerances on various metals. Although their work is delicate
and requires extreme care in the manipulation of heat, silver soldering
is a skill separate and apart from welding. Further, silver solderers
are not in the line of progression to become welders. In these circum-
stances , we shall exclude them from the welders group.
In view of the foregoing and on the basis of the entire record herein,
we find that all the Employer's welders, both production and main-
tenance, are a distinct craft group who may constitute an appropriate
unit if they so desire and who may be represented by the Petitioner, a
union that traditionally represents welders. We shall not, however,
make a final unit determination at this time, but shall direct that the
question concerning representation which exists be resolved by an
election by secret ballot among the employees in the following voting
group:
All production and maintenance welders, their helpers, apprentices,
and leadmen 13 at the Employer's plant in Tucson, Arizona, excluding
' In International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Division ), 96 NLRB 295, 297, the
Board decided that welders who work with other crafts are to be included in craft units
of the particular crafts to which they are regularly assigned . To the extent that the
International Paper case , and other cases thereafter , are inconsistent with the finding
herein , they hereby are overruled.
18 The parties stipulated at the hearing that welder leadmen are not supervisors within
the meaning of the Act and are to be included in the unit.
HUGHES AIRCRAFT COMPANY 103 '
silver solderers, office clerical employees, guards, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti-
tute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to
the Petitioner for the employees in the voting group above, which the
Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority do not
vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the
existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a certification of
results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN, dissenting :
T' dissent from the majority's administrative determination to
reverse the entire line of cases following the lead decision in Clayton d
Lambert, in which the Board unequivocally announced its firm policy
no longer to grant severance elections to welders as a class. No doubt
the facts in this case are sufficient to show that these welders are
skilled enough craftsmen to justify a separate bargaining unit for
them. No less so, however, were the facts in the Clayton & Lambert
case. It is because there is no difference of substance between the two
cases that I object to what emerges, in my opinion, as an about-face
redetermination needlessly disruptive of established relationships.
Contrary to the suggestion appearing in the majority opinion, the
administrative ruling set out in Clayton & Lambert was not confined
to the actual situation presented there. The welding process in its
entirety was excluded from the craft severance principle enunciated
in American Potash.14 Any doubt on this score was completely dissi-
pated by the summary fashion in which, in subsequent cases, the
administrative determination was mechanically applied in denying
separate representation to welders without even considering the
evidentiary facts offered in support of their requests.15 Thus, the
rule has been applied to all welders regardless of training or skill,
including those dealt with in short-form Board decisions not pub-
lished in our bound volumes, and the many others who refrained from
filing petitions for representation elections because of what they had
the right to believe was the finality of our rule.
14 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
See Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Co., 111 NLRB 540, at page 544: ". . , we find
that welding as such is not a separate and distinct craft within the meaning of the defi-
nition as set forth in American Potash."
25International Harvester Company, 114 NLRB 709 ; Southern Paperboard Corp., 112
NLRB 302; Rayonier, Inc., 111 NLRB 1090.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
That the craft severance "problem is one of administration" was
expressly recognized by the Board in what has for 3 years stood as
the cardinal pronouncement on the subj ect.16 The heart criterion of
that decision was that the Board proposed "to exercise great care in
making certain that in the administration of this rule only groups
exercising genuine craft skills will be embraced within the ambit of
the rule, and that the requirements will not be relaxed over a period
of time." [Emphasis supplied.] The majority's decision here is a
complete reversal of one of the more important implementations of
that rule. Such action, without substantive reason, raises an aura
of uncertainty about the American Potash decision itself. When sub-
stantive reasons appear, be they of law, fact, or policy, I-have joined in
reversing earlier decisions of this Board, and will do so again. I
think it administratively inadvisable, however, to do so in the absence
of persuasive, material factors. Precedents, if they are to have value
as guides for conduct, should not lightly be reversed unless changing
conditions have destroyed the reasons underlying them. I do not
find such change present in the instant case. Therefore, I would dis-
miss the petition in this case.
10 See American Potash S Chemical Corp., supra, at 1423.
Vernon Calhoun Packing Company, Inc. and Local 103, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-1937. January 25,1957
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 J. Howard Stark, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Texas corporation engaged in the meat pack-
ing business at Palestine, Texas. The record indicates that most of
the Employer's sales appear to be of an intrastate character. However,
during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1956, the Employer sold
hides valued at $78,572.74 to H. Elkan & Co., an Illinois corporation,
which concern paid for and accepted delivery of its purchase at the
Employer's premises. The Employer also sold additional hides and
other byproducts valued in excess of $45,000 to 2 Texas concerns: The
record further indicates that H. Elkan & Co. shipped out of the State
of Texas all of the hides which it purchased and that the other 2
purchasers were concerns each of which annually shipped goods valued
in excess of $50,000 outside the State of Texas.
117 NLRB No. 27.