McDonnell Douglas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1973

207 N.L.R.B. 684 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McDonnell Aircraft Company, a Division of McDon-
nell Douglas Corporation and International Associ-
ation of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO. Case 14-RC-7254
December 1, 1973
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Neil E.
McDarby. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of
the Regional Director for Region 14, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby' affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
brief filed herein, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of air crew
members in the following job classifications: project
pilot-experimental, senior project test pilot, test pilot-
experimental, test pilot-engineering, test pilot-prod-
uction, business transport pilot, and systems opera-
tor-experimental, excluding supervisors. The Em-
ployer contends that the unit is inappropriate for the
reason, inter alia, that the individuals sought to be
represented are either supervisors or managerial
employees.
McDonnell Aircraft Company is a division of
McDonnell Douglas Corporation and is engaged
primarily in the design, development, and manufac-
ture of military fighter aircraft and in conducting
engineering research projects related thereto.
The following are the job descriptions of the
classifications Petitioner seeks to represent:
A test pilot-production flight tests newly assembled
production aircraft for final company approval prior
to release to the customer. He has command of all
crew and noncrew members while they are aboard
the aircraft. Crewmen may consist of another pilot or
a systems operator. Noncrewmen may be comprised
of design or test engineers, photographers or other
technicians required for the particular flight. These
test pilots also act as chase, target, and ferry pilots. A
chase pilot is in command of an aircraft which
"chases" an experimental aircraft to observe and
assist its flight test. The chase crew may consist of an
engineering observer or a photographer, or another
pilot or a systems operator. A target pilot is in
command of an aircraft which serves as a coopera-
tive adversary for another aircraft to evaluate its fire
control systems. His crew might consist of a systems
operator, an engineering observer, or a photographer.
A ferry pilot moves an aircraft from one location to
another as, for example, delivery to a customer. The
ferry pilot has as his crew either a systems operator
or another pilot acting as a systems operator.
A test pilot-engineering performs the duties of a
production test pilot, but in addition performs flight
tests to evaluate subsystem performance, not to
exceed previously established performance limits.
A test pilot-experimental has the functions of
production and engineering test pilots described
above, but in addition he pilots initial flights of new
types of research models of aircraft. These flights are
more hazardous because they test the capabilities of
the aircraft beyond any previously tested level.
A project pilot-experimental has the duties of
production, engineering, and experimental test pilots.
In addition, he is assigned to work with flight test
engineers on a specific project or part of a project to
develop a flight test program.
The senior project test pilot performs the same
duties as those of the test pilots described above. He
also acts in place of the chief test pilot, and the chief
experimental test pilot, admittedly supervisory posi-
tions, when the chiefs are assigned to work away
from the St. Louis facility.
A business transport pilot flies the Employer's
transport aircraft in carrying passengers on company
or corporate business or cargo to support test
operations. The transport pilot flies with a crew
which usually consists of a copilot, a navigator, and a
flight engineer.
Pilots are in command of their aircraft and of the
207 NLRB No. 91
MCDONNELL AIRCRAFT CO. 685
crews and other personnel who may be operating or
checking on subsystems. In the Lockheed-California 1
case decision, issued this day, we concluded that
pilots similar to those involved in this proceeding
responsibily direct crewmembers and other plane
personnel and are therefore statutory supervisors and
excluded from the coverage of the Act. For the same
reason, we find that the various pilots whom
Petitioner seeks to represent in this case are supervi-
sors? Accordingly, they may not be included in any
bargaining unit which the Board may find appropri-
ate.
The systems operator-experimental is a nonpilot air
crew member who flight tests and operates the
aircraft's avionic systems, such as fire control,
navigation, bombing, reconnaissance, radar, and
navigation equipment. He spends about half his time
in preflight preparation, flight testing, and postflight
briefing. Part of his time is spent in collateral
engineering assignments. For example, he may spend
time working with engineers "on the development
and/or set up" of systems which he tests. He may
also participate with the avionics engineering team in
preparing specifications and reviewing final specifi-
cations for comments and recommended changes. At
times he may visit the plant of a subcontractor to
work with' engineering personnel in evaluating the
early development of avionic hardware by a subcon-
tractor. He may also be called upon to brief
custo,ners as to the operation of avionic equipment.
The four systems operators whom Petitioner seeks
to represent have all received navigation and radar
observer's training in the military services. Only one
of them is an engineer. They receive a weekly salary
plus flight pay. They are separately supervised and
are assigned to a specific area of the Employer's
organizational framework for purposes of hiring,
training, payroll, personnel administration, and cost
accounting.
The systems operators do not direct the work of
other employees. The Employer does not contend
that they are supervisors. However, it does assert that
they are managerial employees and so should be
excluded from any bargaining unit. We do not agree
that the systems operators are managerial employees.
The systems operators have not "participated in the
formulation, determination, or effectuation of policy
with respect to employee relations matters. "3 It is quite
clear, and the Employer does not contend otherwise,
that the systems operators are not involved with the
labor relations of other employees. Moreover, even
in the nonlabor field the systems operators cannot be
said to participate in the "formulation, determination
or effectuation of policy." Their concern is with the
technical problems of avionic systems, and not with
policy matters.
The Employer also contends that the Petitioner's
proposed unit is not appropriate, in whole or in part,
because it is not a distinct and homogeneous group.
At this point we are concerned only with whether a
separate unit of systems operators is appropriate,
inasmuch as we have found that the pilots are
supervisors and must be excluded from any unit. We
reject the Employer's contention and find that a unit
of systems operators is appropriate.
The systems operators, although technical employ-
ees, have interests different from those of other
technical personnel arising from their duties and
training as flying personnel. They constitute a
distinct group under separate supervision. There is
no history of bargaining for them and no union is
seeking to represent them as part of a broader
technical unit. Under these circumstances, we find
that the systems operators may constitute a separate
appropriate bargaining unit .4
Accordingly, we find that the' following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All systems operators-experimental at the Em-
ployer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant, excluding all
other employees, pilots, , office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and 'Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
1 207 NLRB No. 92. and on this ground are also to be excluded.
2 In view of the finding that pilots are supervisors and therefore to be 3 North Arkansas Electric Cooperative, Inc., 185 NLRB 550, enforcement
excluded from any bargaining unit, we find it unnecessary to consider the denied 446 F.2d 602 (C A. 8).
Employer's alternative contention that the pilots are managerial employees 4 Cf. Federal Electric Corporation, 157 NLRB 1130.