Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 220 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
PACKAGE AND GENERAL UTILITY DRIVERS, LOCAL 396, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
& HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 01-R-3,1,32.-Decided April 8,1947
O'Melveny cfi Myers, by Mr. Homer I. Mitchell, of Los Angeles,
Calif., for the Employer.
Mr. Charles O. Cross, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner.
Mr. E. R. White, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. A. Summer Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Los An-
geles, California, on November 15, 1946, before Charles M. Ryan,
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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, a California corporation, has its
principal office and place of business at Burbank, California, where it
is engaged in the manufacture and sale of aircraft and aircraft parts.
The Employer maintains factories and warehouses within the State of
California and has offices in various other sections of the United States.
During -the period from April 1, 1945, to April 1, 1946, the Employer
purchased for use in -its plants within the State of California, raw ma-
terials exceeding $50,000,000 in value, of which more than 50 percent
was shipped to the California plants of the Employer from points out-
side the State of California. During the same period, the Employer's
sales of products manufactured within the State of California ex-
ceeded $100,000,000 in value, of which more than 50 percent repre-
sented products shipped from the Employer's California plants to
points outside the State of California.
73 N L. R. B, No 38.
220
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 221
We' find thiit the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
International Association of Machinists , Aeronautical Industrial
District Lodge 727, herein called the Intervenor , is a labor organiza-
tion , claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of certain employees of the Em-
ployer upon the ground that these employees were represented by the
Intervenor under a collective bargaining agreement with the Em-
ployer.,
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. T11 E APPROPRIATE TJNIT THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of truck drivers and helpers,2 employed
by the Employer and operating licensed trucks outside the plant, ex-
cluding supervisory employees. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the proposed unit of truck drivers is inappropriate in
view of the Employer's history of collective bargaining upon an Em-
ployer-wide basis. °
The group claimed by the Petitioner consists of 48 employees in
truck-driver classifications divided between several departments, but
all holders of chauffeurs' licenses and operating motor trucking equip-
ment licensed for use upon public highways.3 While it appears that
some contact with other employees is inevitable, truck drivers as a
group are generally in closer association with one another than with
other production and maintenance employees such as power drivers
and chauffeurs, from whom they are clearly distinguishable .4 We have
' There is no contention that the agreement is a bar to the present proceeding.
The Employer does not employ any truck driver helpers at the present time
The majority of the truck drivers in this group are engaged in hauling materials be-
tween plants of the Employer, rather than between the prenuses of the Employer and those
of third parties Such drivels, however, occasionally use public highways in hauling from
one plant to another
4 Power diivers are distinguishable from truck drivers in that the former are carried in
a distinct pay-roll classification, have a substantially lower wage scale than that of truck
drivers, and do not operate equipment which is licensed for use on public highways Simi-
larly, chauffeurs aie distinguishable in that, unlike truck drivers, they operate busses and
station wagons as distinguished from actual trucking equipment See Matter of Dodge
Chicago Plant , Dii,ision of Chrysler Corporation, 55 N. L R. B. 634
222 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
frequently held that truck drivers with duties similar to those per-
formed by the truck drivers involved herein, constitute a group hav-
ing craft characteristics which may form a separate appropriate units
It is significant to note that many craft units have been established
in the aircraft manufacturing industry.6 Craft bargaining exists,
therefore, in a considerable portion of the industry and there is no
indication that such units do not function successfully to promote
harmonious labor relations.
It is true that the Employer and the Intervenor have maintained
contractual relations since 1937 through a series of Employer-wide
agreements which, at least since 1940, have included a specific wage
scale for truck drivers. This bargaining history, however, was based
upon the consent of the parties and not upon any Board determination
as to the appropriate unit and therefore is not necessarily controlling
in passing on the propriety of a craft unit.7 The Petitioner did not
attempt to organize the Employer's truck drivers until 1943, and since
no other labor organization clauned to represent truck drivers sepa-
rately before that time, no consideration was given to the establishment
of a separate unit for truck drivers when the Employer and the Inter-
venor initiated their series of Employer-wide agreements. Moreover,
the truck drivers herein concerned have had no opportunity in a Board
election to express their own desires as to separate representation or
representation as part of a larger group.
In view of the craft character of the employees sought by the Peti-
tioner, the prevalence of craft units in the industry, and the lack of
opportunity on the part of these employees to demonstrate in a Board
election whether or not they desire separate representation, we are of
,the opinion that they should now be given that opportunity.'
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among the licensed truck
drivers of the Employer operating licensed trucks which are used
wholly or partly in over-the-highway hauling, excluding supervisors
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action.
We shall make no determination of the appropriate unit at this
time. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the
See Matter of Wilson & Co , Inc . 71 N. L R B 991 , and cases cited therein
See Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Louisville Division, 59 N. L.
R B. 677 ; Matter of Luseombe Airplane Corporation, 69 N. L. R B 479 In addition
thereto, the record indicates that the Petitioner has bargaining agreements with a number
of other aircraft manufacturing concerns, covering units substantially similar to that
sought in the present proceeding.
I See Matter of Remington Rand , Inc, Propeller Division, 62 N. L. R. B . 1419 ; Matter
of Food Machinery Corporation, 72 N L R B 483
8 See Matter of Food Machinery Corporation, supra , Matter of The American Fork & Hoe
Company, 72 N. L R. B 1025 , and cases cited therein . See also Matter of Wilson &
Co., Inc , in . 5, supra
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 223
election. If the employees in the voting group select the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate
bargaining unit; if they choose the Intervenor, they will be taken to
have indicated a desire to remain part of the existing production and
maintenance unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 9
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Lockheed Aircraft Corpora-
tion, Burbank, California, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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
Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group
described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, 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 election, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by Package and General Utility Drivers,
Local 396, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen & Helpers of America, AFL, or by Aeronautical Industrial
District Lodge 727, International Association of Machinists, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
° Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot
739926-47-vol 73-16