McDonnell Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 899 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS of AMERICA, AFL , LOCAL 600, PETITIONER
Case No. 14-RC-1171.-Decided December 22, 1950
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 Milton O. Talent, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial. error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 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 Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's truck drivers,
excluding office and clerical employees, truckers interdepartment, fire
truck drivers, power operators, fork lift operators, drivers of jeeps
and station Wagons for interdepartment communication and delivery,
watchmen, guards, all other employees, and supervisors.2
The Intervenor, which has since 1941 been the recognized bargain-
ing representative for the Employer's production and maintenance
employees,' agrees that the unit sought by the Petitioner is appro-
priate. The Employer, however, opposes the unit principally upon
1 International Association of Machinists , District 9 , hereinafter called the Intervenor,
was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
2 The unit request appears as amended at the hearing.
8The Employer 's electricians and powerhouse employees have, since 1948, been bar-
gained for in separate units by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
No. 1, AFL, and International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers and Maintenance Men,
Local 6 , AFL, respectively . These unions did not intervene in this proceeding.
92 NLRB No. 150.
899
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the following grounds : (1) That the integration of its operations pre-
cludes the severance of the truck drivers from the production and
maintenance unit; (2) that a unit resulting from such severance
would multiply the possibility of collective bargaining difficulties, and
thereby impair the national defense; and (3) that the truck drivers
are not a homogeneous identifiable group apart from the Employer's
interdepartment truckers.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of jet aircraft and
aircraft parts for the United States Government. It builds both.con-,
ventional and experimental aircraft.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention that its operations
are so integrated that a separate unit of truck drivers is inappropriate.
We have already found appropriate separate bargaining units of elec-
tricians and the powerhouse employees at this plant .4 Moreover, we
have often held that integration in the aircraft industry is not suf -,
cient to offset the special community of interests among smaller than
plant-wide units, despite a history of bargaining on a plant-wide
basis.5
We also find no merit in the Employer's contention that an addi-
tional unit resulting from the severance of the truck drivers would
multiply the possibility of collective bargaining difficulties and thereby
impair the national defense. The Board has considered and found
it necessary to reject this same argument in a recent ease, also involv-
ing an aircraft manufacturer performing services under a contract
for the United States Government 6
The Employer further contends that the truck driver's unit is inap-
propriate in that it excludes interdepartment truckers. We do not
agree. The truck drivers spend most of their time outside the plant
performing the usual duties associated with their classification. They
have their own separate immediate supervision, and are under a dif-
ferent wage scale from other employees. The interdepartment truck-
ers are under different supervision and spend all their working time
inside the plant operating equipment designed for interdepartment
deliveries. They do not interchange with the truck drivers. The
record warrants the conclusion that the truck drivers constitute a
clearly identifiable and homogeneous group of employees. We have
frequently held that truck drivers of the type here considered may con-
4 See McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 79 NLRB 1054.
4 See NEPA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, 88 NLRB 99; Boeing
Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368 ; General Electric Company, 86 NLRB 327 ; Lockheed
Aircraft Corporation, 77 NLRB 507 ; Hughes Aircraft Company, 81 NLRB 867.
"NEPA Division of Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, supra.
McDONNELL AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 901
stitute a separate unit notwithstanding their prior inclusion in a larger
unit.?
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case we find that truck
drivers may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in
the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for'the Petitioner
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sep-
arate appropriate unit.
We shall direct that an election be held among all truck drivers at
the Employer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, but excluding office and cleri-
cal employees, truckers interdepartment, fire truck drivers, power
operators, fork lift operators, drivers of Jeeps and station wagons for
interdepartment communication and delivery, watchmen, guards, all
other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 See Swift & Company, 91 NLRB No. 142; National Works; General Chemical Division,
Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation , 91 NLRB No. 181; The Schaible Company, 88
NLRB 733; Armour and Company, 86 NLRB 539 ; Standard Oil Company
NLRB 1381. See also General Electric Company, supra.
( Indiana), 81