Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 40 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
UNION 11, A. F. L.1 PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 21-R-4908 and 21-RC-800.-Decided November 14, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a separate petition and motion 2 duly filed, a consolidated
hearing in these cases was held before Eugene M. Purver, 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 Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
The Petitioner and International Association of Machinists , District
Lodge 727 , hereinafter called the Intervenor , are labor organizations
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRJISENTATION
The petition in Case No. 21-RC-800 was filed on April 19, 1949.
The Intervenor urges as a bar to this petition its current contract with
the Employer. On June 16, 1947, the Employer and Intervenor en-
tered into a contract to remain in force for a period of 2 years, and
from year to year thereafter, unless notice of a desire to modify the
agreement was given not less than 15 days before June 15, 1949, or
any subsequent anniversary date. We find that the petition having
been filed before the automatic renewal date of the 1947 contract, was
I The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
2 On motion of the Petitioner , the record in Case No . 21-R-4028 was reopened in order
to consider further the alleged supervisory status of electrician maintenance leadmen, which
category was excluded from the appropriate unit in a certification issued by the Board.
78 NLRB 1064 . This reopened hearing was consolidated with the hearing in Case No.
21-RC-800.
87 NLRB No. 8.
40
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 41
timely filed, and is not barred by that contract; or by any renewal
thereof.3
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
(a) The leadmen in Case No. 21-R-4028
As indicated in footnote 2 above, the record in Case No. 21-8-4028
was reopened upon Petitioner's motion to take additional testimony
regarding the supervisory status of electrician maintenance leadmen.
In the original Decision and Direction of Election in this case the
Board stated : 4
Although the inclusion of the electrician leadmen in the unit
was opposed on other grounds, none of the parties sought their
exclusion on the ground that they are supervisors. However,
evidence was adduced at the hearing that the leadmen work with
small multi-craft groups and assign work to the members of
these groups on the basis of their special capabilities; that they
make reports to higher supervision on the performance of the
other employees in their groups, as well as on the completion of
particular tasks; and that they effectively recommend wage in-
creases and promotions for such other employees. We, accord-
ingly, find that they are supervisors and shall exclude them from
the unit.
At the present hearing, as at the original hearing, all the parties
were in agreement that the electrician maintenance leadmen are not
supervisors. However, the evidence adduced at the present hearing
confirms the previous findings, quoted above, that the leadmen work
with small 5 multi-craft groups, assign work to the members of these
groups on the basis of their special capabilities, and that the leadmen
make reports to higher management on the performance of the
members of their group. The evidence shows further that the lead-
men are hourly paid, while supervisors generally are paid on a salary
basis; that the leadmen receive 6 to 10 cents more per hour than the
journeyman electrician rate; and that they interpret to the members
of their groups the instructions that the leadmen receive from their
own supervisors in the form of shop orders and blueprints. While the
8 The Intervenor contended that under Section 8 ( d) (1) of the amended Act the petition
in'21-RC-800 was required to be filed 60 days before the termination date of the existing
contract , and that this requirement was not met . However, Section 8 (d) (1) does not
create a new 60-day "Mill B" date . Manhattan Coil Corporation, 79 NLRB 187.
4 77 NLRB 507.
5 The number in each group ranges from 2 to 28. In most cases the number is about 10.
42 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
leadmen may deviate from the blueprints in minor respects, they can-
not make any major change without consulting their supervisors.
The two witnesses who testified at the present hearing as to the duties
of leadmen,s stated further that leadmen had no power effectively to
recommend wage increases or promotions for other employees, or
otherwise to affect their status.' Leadmen do not have the same vaca-
tion or sick leave benefits as are enjoyed by supervisors generally, and
while supervisors in general wear oval badges, the leadmen wear the
same round badges as the production workers. They spend part of
their time in working with the members of their crew, using the tools
of their trade. They do not attend meetings regularly held by the
Employer for supervisors. They may request the assignment of addi-
tional men to their crews, but have no power to assign members of
their crews to other crews or departments, or to determine which of
two jobs shall be done first, or to determine the qualifications of their
subordinates.
Upon the entire record we find that the electrician maintenance
leadmen are not supervisors.
(b) The electronics electricians in Case No. 21-RC-800
The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-800 represents a unit of main-
tenance electricians. It now seeks to sever a unit of electronics
electricians, excluding supervisors above the rank of leadmen, from
the existing contract unit of production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's Burbank, California, plant." These employees have
been included in the general plant-wide writ, for which the Intervenor
has bargained since 1937. They are required to maintain the elec-
tronics equipment B in the plant, such as spot welders, the public ad-
dress system, the fire alarm system, automatic lathes, blueprint ma-
chines, scales, and radios. The duties of the electronics electricians
in this respect are distinct from those of the maintenance electricians,
who service the power and light distribution systems in the plant up
to the point where they connect with the electronics equipment through
a switch, plug or control panel. However, the electronics electricians
may do the work of maintenance electricians in an emergency and in
E Both witnesses , Ted B . Crego and T. R. Maxey , were, themselves, electrician leadmen.
7 In finding in its original decision in Case No . 21-R-4028 that leadmen effectively
recommend wage increases and promotions for other employees , the Board relied on the
testimony of Robert J. Phelan , a leadman , who had formerly been a supervisor over leadmen,
and who was called as a witness by the Petitioner. `
8 The position of the Intervenor and the Employer on this point was not directly stated
in the record . However , it is inferred that the Intervenor opposes the severance of the
electronics electricians from the broader unit covered by its contract with the Employer.
9 "Electronics equipment " was defined in the record as equipment controlled by an
electric current transmitted ordinarily through a vacuum tube or a gas, rather than through
a wire conductor.
LOCK$EED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 43
servicing electronics equipment they perform certain operations, con-
stituting about 10 percent of their work, which are also performed by
maintenance electricians in their own work, such as stripping, lugging,
cutting, tinning, and grouping wires. The work of electronics elec-
tricians requires specialized training in electronics. While a basic
knowledge of electricity is necessary for this work, it may be done by
persons who do not have the skill or training of maintenance.
electricians.b0
The electronics electricians have no separate immediate supervision,
but are under the same immediate supervision as other maintenance
crafts. A special area in the plant is reserved for their use, but about
50 percent of their time is spent in work throughout the plant; they
are subject to special hazards from live wires. They use special test-
ing and measuring devices peculiar to electronics, in addition to other
devices used by the maintenance electricians. While their job de-
scription states that they must possess such license or certificate as is
required by law, the record is not clear whether electronics electricians
are in fact required to be licensed."'
Employees doing the work of electronics electricians on a part-time
basis were classified as maintenance electricians until February 10, 1947,
when, the volume of such work having increased to such an extent as
to justify the assignment of employees thereto on a full-time basis,
the Employer established a separate classification of electronics
electricians.
However, in the southern California airframe industry generally
there is rio separate classification of electronics electrician, such work
being done by specially qualified maintenance electricians ; and no
separate units of electronics electricians have been established in the
industry in that area.
Except for the emergency occasions referred to above, there is now
no overlapping of work or interchange between maintenance and elec-
tronics electricians in the Employers' plant under consideration.
The record also discloses that there are other employees in other
departments who work on electronics equipment and whose work is
lU One of the Employer 's electronics electricians testified that he had studied electronics
for about 2 years, in addition to 3 or 4 years spent in learning the trade of electrician.
Another stated that he had studied radio for a year in school and electronics out of school
continuously during his 5 years of employment as an electronics electrician. He had
previously worked for the Employer for 4 years as a maintenance electrician. On the
other hand, there was testimony that other electronics electricians had had no prior expe-
rience as maintenance electricians, and that such experience was not necessary for
electronics work.
11 An ordinance of the city of Burbank , California , requires that maintenance electricians
be licensed. See 77 NLRB 507, 509. The record herein, does not indicate, however,
whether this ordinance applies to electronics electricians.
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
similar to that performed by the electronics electricians sought by the
Petitioner.
Without determining whether the electronics electricians constitute
a craft, we find that, in view of the fact that the unit sought by Peti-
tioner does not include all categories of persons employed by the
Respondent in the maintenance of electronics equipment, such unit,
apart from any other considerations, is too limited in scope to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the
petition in Case No. 21-RC-800.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in Case No. 21-RC-800, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed
therein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.