Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 594 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR
Floyd Salas
Samuel Sapolsky
G. Hugh Sapp
Abraham Serota
William Silverman
Benjamin Aaronson
Frederic Alton
Joseph Babineau
Walter Bailey
Roosevelt Bates
Samuel Bates
Allen Begnaud
Willie Brooks
Chester Carter
Robert Childress
James Cole
Clarence Cooley
Carl Crandall
Arlen Davis
Francisco De La Torre
Eliseo Estrada
Wardell Felstet
James Flanagan
Adrier Frazier
Lucia Gallegos
Max Gallegos
Victor Guerrero
Jon Gunn
Wilbert Hardy
Harold Henley
William Heske
Richard Hesketh
RELATIONS BOARD
John P. Torres
Amelia Valles
Rudy M. Vidal
Willie Wilson
Frank Ybarra
Appendix B
Eugene Jackson
Melvin Jackson
Freddie Jenkins
Thomas Kelly
Lucretia Kennedy
Henry Kent
Henry Klein
Normand La Carra
Mary Little
Walter Lyon
Bernardo Macias
Tony Mangan
Porter Marshall, Jr.
James Mason
Richard Montford
Ray Moore
Albert Nix
Edward Perkins
Lorin Reynolds
Edward Richard
Walter Stewart
Lawrence Tait
Eugene Traverse
Carl Ward
Elisha Wyatt
Carl Young
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION GEORGIA DIVISION 1 and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 613, AFL,2
PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-906. February 10, 1955
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 Gilbert Cohen, hearing officer.
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 At the hearing, Local 613 was substituted for the International as the petitioning
party.
111 NLRB No. 94.
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 595
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
- Upon the entire record in this case, the Board funds :
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 the representa-
tion 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 unit :
The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing production and main-
tenance unit at the Employer's Marietta, Georgia, plant, all employees
classified as maintenance electricians, electronic maintenance men, line-
men and motor rewinders, contending that the employees in these clas-
sifications constitute a distinct homogeneous craft group. The Em-
ployer and the I. A. M. contend that this unit is inappropriate and
move that the petition be dismissed. The motion to dismiss is denied
for the following reasons.
The Marietta plant is primarily engaged in the production of the
B-47 airplane. It has a work force of approximately 14,850 employees.
The 93 employees the Petitioner seeks to represent are assigned to the
maintenance division which has a complement of 506 employees. Most
of the 93 employees in question are considered to be within an electrical
maintenance department. However, a substantial number are assigned
to maintenance crews on the flight line and the graveyard shift where
their work is performed under supervisors who also supervise em-
ployees performing other work. None of the 93 employees ever en-
gages in production work and their duties are confined to electrical
matters.
No contention is made that severance should be granted on a depart-
mental basis. Accordingly, it is only necessary to determine whether
or not these employees comprise a traditional craft group performing
distinctive and typical craft tasks which may be severed from an exist-
ing production and maintenance unit in compliance with the Board
policy set forth in the American Potash case.4 This may best be ac-
complished by an individual consideration of each of the four classi-
fications which together comprise the unit requested.
Motor Rewinders
Motor rewinders are classified as either "A" or "B." However, at
the present time all four employees designated as motor rewinders are
8 The International Association of Machinists , AFL, District Lodge No. 33, hereinafter
referred to as the I. A. M., intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest.
4 American Potash f Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
344056-55-vol . 111-39
596 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL , LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the "A" classification . None of the motor rewinders is a licensed
electrician , and none has served an apprenticeship . The function of
these employees is the rewinding and repairing of motors , and when-
ever _ possible this task is performed in a screened off area which has
been designated the motor rewinding shop.
Linemen
The seven employees who are classified as linemen have been placed
in a regular line crew by the Employer. They are concerned primarily
with work outside the main buildings. 'They have a truck which car-
ries their equipment, and it is their job to take care of the overhead
and underground wires that distribute electrical current to the vari-
ous buildings which comprise the Employer's plant. It is also their
job to service and maintain the substations. In performing this duty
they check, clean, and replace installers, check cables entering and
leaving the substations, check switch boxes, transformers, insulating
equipment, net work protectors, and protective devices, and clean re-
sistors. None of the linemen is a licensed electrician , and none has
completed an apprenticeship. However, their skills are those normally
acquired by an electrician.
Maintenance Electricians
There are 74 maintenance electricians "A" and 2 maintenance elec-
tricians "B" presently employed at the plant. They install new wir-
ing and electrical devices, repair electrical circuits and wiring on the
equipment, and maintain and repair the various lighting systems. On
the flight line maintenance electricians maintain electrical motors
which operate doors, air-conditioning, and machine tools. One of the
maintenance electricians is licensed and three maintenance electricians
completed an apprenticeship prior to their being hired. The Em-
•ployer does not have an apprenticeship program but rather relies upon
on-the-job training to equip the maintenance electricians to handle
.their electrical duties. Although some maintenance electricians with-
out prior electrical experience have been hired, the Employer tries to
find, and usually hires, only those with some experience in the electri-
.cal field. After hiring, an employee is placed in the "B" classifica-
tion where he remains until he has acquired sufficient knowledge to
handle the more complicated tasks which the "A" maintenance electri-
cian is called upon to handle. As part of his training, the "B" main-
tenance electrician is first placed on such simple jobs as lamp replace-
ment, and then is progressively given more complicated jobs. There
in some classroom work; and in order that maintenance electricians
may become familiar with the various electrical jobs in the plant, they
LOCKHEED `AIRCRAFT-CORPORATION'"" 597
-are moved -from one job to another after-they have become- mainte,
nance electricians "A."-
Electronics Maintenance Men
The work of the six electronics maintenance men is confined, so far
as is possible, to the controls and complex control circuits of the plant's
electronic equipment, public address system, and radio. Usually the
background of these employees is in radio engineering or industrial
electronics: However, if a maintenance electrician displays aptitude,
he may be assigned to work as an electronics maintenance man. In a
normal instance the electronics maintenance men possess the same
basic background, so far as knowledge and information are concerned;
as- that possessed by the maintenance electricians. In order to keep
abreast of the highly complex electrically controlled equipment that
the Employer is continually acquiring, the electronics maintenance
men attend training classes at the plant and also at the factory where
the equipment is produced.
In August 1952, the Board directed that an election be held at the
Employer's Marietta plant among all maintenance electricians "A,"
"B," and "C" to determine whether or not they desired to constitute a
separate appropriate bargaining unit.5 At that time, 93 "A," 25 "B,"
and 2 "C" maintenance electricians were employed. All these electri-
cians worked out of an electrical maintenance shop, and advancement
from "C" classification to "B" and then to "A" depended on the ability
of the individual and how quickly he was able to learn. An "A"
electrician usually had from 7 to 8 years' electrical experience. Job
descriptions for the maintenance electricians then employed show
that their work ran from lamp replacement to installation and main-
tenance of the plant's electrical equipment. There were no employees
classified as motor rewinders or linemen; rather, the job descriptions
for the maintenance electricians contained these duties. Further, the
"A" maintenance electricians were to help separately classified elec-
tronics maintenance men as required. The record in the 1952 case does
not indicate the duties of the electronics maintenance men then em-
ployed, their status not being an issue in the proceeding.
It is apparent from the above facts that the motor rewinders, line-
men, maintenance electricians, and electronics maintenance men con=
stitute a true craft group such as the Board has, on numerous occasions,
established in separate units for the purpose of collective bargaining
in the aircraft industry.' The employees in each of these classifica-
tions either exercise the variety of craft skills that are expected of a
craftsman or are presently learning these skills through on-the-job
6 Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Georgia Division, 100 NLRB No. 147 (not reported in
printed volume of Board Decisions and Orders).
6 North American Aviatwn Inc., 108 NLRB 863 and cases cited therein.
598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
training. The fact that the Employer does not maintain an apprentice
program is counterbalanced by the extensive on-the-job training which
the Employer affords the employees.- The success of this'program is
demonstrated by the fact that men are developed who can install,
operate, and maintain the highly complicated electrical equipment that
is to be found in an aircraft factory. Further, the success of the on-
the-job training program is attested to by the Employer's estimation.
that 12 employees among the group of motor rewinders, linemen, main-
tenance electricians, and electronic maintenance men could qualify as
licensed electricians.
The fact that the Employer has, since 1952, designated some of the
maintenance electricians as motor rewinders and linemen cannot alone
be determinative and serve as the basis for excluding these employees
from the craft group. Further, the fact that the electronics mainte-
nance men possess some skills normally not possessed by electricians
cannot serve as the basis for their exclusion. They have and use the
normal skills of an electrician, work with the electricians, and are
selected from the maintenance electrician classification.
As the employees in the classification of motor rewinder, lineman,
maintenance electrician, and electronics maintenance man constitute a
distinct group of craft employees who meet the test for severance of a
craft unit recently enunciated by us in the American Potash case,'
and as the Petitioner is affiliated with an international union which
has historically represented separate units of electricians in industrial
plants, including aircraft manufacturing plants, the Board finds that
all motor rewinders, linemen, maintenance electricians, electronics
maintenance men, and their leadmen 8 employed at the Employer's
Marietta, Georgia, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, may, if they so desire, constitute a
separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
If a majority of such employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate
unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for that unit which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a
majority vote for the I. A. M., the Board finds the existing plantwide
unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certifica-
tion of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 American Potash ct Chemical Corporation, supra.
8 The parties agree and we find that the leadmen are not supervisors . The record re-
flects that 80 percent of their time is devoted to regular work and the remainder to instruct-
ing employees under them. They do not have the authority to fire, hire, or discipline,
neither can they effectively recommend such actions. ,