Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
UNION 11, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R-4028
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
March 28, 1950
This case was originally initiated by a petition filed by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 11,1 seeking
to sever from an existing plant-wide unit 2 all maintenance electri-
cians A and B at the Employer 's Van Nuys and Burbank , California,
plants, including maintenance electrician leadmen and apprentices,
but excluding maintenance helpers and supervisors.
In the original Decision and Direction of Election in this case,' the
Board found that a unit of maintenance electricans A and B and
their apprentices at the Employer 's Van Nuys and Burbank, Cali-
fornia, plants , excluding maintenance helpers, maintenance electri-
cian leadlnen;4 and other supervisors , might constitute an appro-
priate unit . A self-determination election was directed among the
employees in the foregoing unit. In the election held on June .12,
1948, the Tally of Ballots showed that 67 ballots were cast , of which
33 were for the Petitioner , 26 for IAM, and 1 for neither organiza-
tion, and 7 were challenged by the Employer.
On August 17, 1948, in a Supplemental Decision and Certification
of Representatives,' the Board , sustaining two of the challenges,
found that the remaining challenges were not sufficient to affect the
result of the election , and certified the Petitioner for the mainte-
nance electricians ' unit. As already stated, this unit did not include
the maintenance electrician leadmen.
Hereinafter called the Petitioner.
x This unit was covered at the time by a contract between the Employer and International
Association of Machinists , Aeronautical Industrial Lodge No. 727, hereinafter called IAM.
3 77 NLRB 507.
4 In excluding the leadmen as supervisors , the Board relied on the evidence in the record
then before it, which indicated that the leadmen had certain supervisory functions.
178 NLRB 1064.
89 NLRB No. 29.
1
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
. On motion of the Petitioner, the record was later reopened to con-
sider further the question of the supervisory status of the mainte-
nance electrician leadmen, and a hearing was held on this question.
On the basis of new evidence introduced at this hearing, and upon the
entire record of the case, the Board in a Decision and Order of No-
vember 14, 1949, determined that these leadmen were not super-
visors.6
On December 22, 1949, the Petitioner filed a petition for clarification
of the foregoing Decision and Order. This petition requests, in effect,
that the Board resolve the question, now in dispute among the parties,
as to whether the leadmen, not being supervisors, are to be deemed to
be included in the unit of maintenance electricians represented by the
Petitioner, or are to be deemed to remain part of the residual plant-
wide unit represented by the IAM.
Opposing this petition, TAM objects to the inclusion of the leadmen
in the maintenance electricians' unit on the ground that if the leadmen
had been permitted to vote in the original election, their vote would
have changed the outcome of the election.' IAM contends further
that, as the leadmen are now covered by its contract with the Employer,
they will lose substantial benefits accruing to them under such con-
tract if they are now excluded from the IAM unit and added to the
maintenance electricians' unit.
In view of the considerable lapse of time since the election and
certification in this case, and under all the circumstances of the case,8
we find that the question of the inclusion of the leadmen in the mainte-
nance electricians' unit can best be resolved by the Board upon a new
petition for certification of representatives. An election pursuant to
such a petition will give the leadmen, together with the other employees
now in the maintenance electricians' unit, an opportunity to express
their preference as to their bargaining representative. We shall, ac-
cordingly, dismiss the instant petition for clarification of the Decision
and Order of November 14, 1949, without prejudice to the right of any
party to file an appropriate petition for certification.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for clarification of the De-
cision and Order of November 14, 1949, in this case be, and it hereby is,
dismissed, without prejudice.
6 87 NLRB 40.
7 At the latest hearing of August 2, 1949, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the
Employer at that time had in his employ six maintenance electrician leadmen.
8 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].