North American Aviation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1685 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. 1685
collectively through representatives of their own choosing , and to engage in
other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection , and to refrain from any or all such activities.
WE WILL, upon request , bargain collectively with Aircraft and Engine Main-
tenance and Overhaul, Building and Construction , Processing , Distribution and
Allied Industries Employees , Local 290, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , as the exclusive
representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below, con-
cerning rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other terms and condi-
tions of employment , and if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed
agreement . The bargaining unit is:
All truckdrivers employed by us at our Fort Lauderdale , Florida, plant,,
excluding all other employees including batchers , dispatchers , utility men,
mechanics , office clerical employees , watchmen , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
WE WILL make whole all of our Fort Lauderdale plant truckdrivers for
their loss of earnings suffered as a result of our unilateral change in their
wages and working conditions.
WE WILL reimburse all of our Fort Lauderdale plant truckdrivers and
Charles Farris for the dues and other moneys which we deducted from their
wages for remittance to Local 666, Concrete Products and Material Yard
Workers, International Hod Carriers , Building and Common Laborers Union
of America, AFL-CIO.
RINKER MATERIALS CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain - posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions , they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, 706
Federal Office Building, 500 Zack Street , Tampa, Florida 33602, Telephone 228-
7711, Extension 257. '
North American Aviation , Inc. and International Union , United
`'Automobile , Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (UAW). Case 15-RC-3345. February, 15,
1967,
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election,
an election by secret, ballot was conducted by the Regional Director
for Region 15 on December 15, 1965, among employees in the stipu,
lted unit. After the election, the parties were furnished a tally of
ballots which showed that of approximately 192 eligible voters, 178
ballots were cast, of. which 63 were for the Petitioner, 113 were
against the Petitioner, and 2 were void. Thereafter, Petitioner filed
objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accord-
ance with National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on February 9,
1966, issued and served upon 'the parties his Report on Objections in
which he found that the acts described in Petitioner's objection 1
constitute substantial interference warranting the setting aside of,
162 NLRB No. 159.
1686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the election and the direction of a second election. The Employer
filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's findings and
recommendations.
On March 18, 1966, the Board issued an Order directing a hearing
for the purpose of resolving the issues raised by Petitioner's objection
1, the Regional Director's Report, and the Employer's exceptions
thereto. A hearing was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on May 9, 10,
and 11, 1966, before a duly designated Hearing Officer. On June 20,
1966, the Hearing Officer issued and served upon the parties his
Report on Objections and Recommendations to the Board in which
be recommended that the Petitioner's objection 1 be sustained and
that a new election be directed. The Employer filed timely exceptions
to the Hearing Officer's Report. The rulings of the Hearing Officer
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fan-
ning, Brown, and Zagoria].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees, as stipulated by the parties, constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act :
All production, maintenance and operating employees of the
Employer at the NASA Hancock County, Mississippi, and Mich-
oud, Louisiana, facilities, excluding professional employees, tech-
nical employees, office employees, plant clerical employees, pro-
duction control employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. Petitioner's objection 1 alleges Employer interference with the
election occasioned by announcement of a wage increase 5 days before
the election. The Regional Director's investigation and the Hearing
Officer's Report revealed that, at the activation of the facility in ques-
tion, the Employer was allowed, after negotiations with NASA, to
include as a reimbursable item, a field allowance of 55 cents an hour
to offset certain economic disadvantages deriving from location.
Under the Employer's contract, field pay was to terminate on Janu-
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. 1687
ary 2, 1966. On June 3, 1965, the Employer, in an internal letter, noti-
fied all employees of the automatic termination date of the field bonus
and advised that in the interim NASA and the Department of
Defense would attempt to resolve the field pay problem on a basis
applicable to all Government contractors. In late July 1965, Peti-
tioner initiated an organizational drive and based its campaign
almost exclusively upon the,issue of field pay: During the campaign,
Petitioner's 'representative informed, the employees that -they defi-
nitely would lose their field pay at the end of the year and that field
pay was a bargainable matter which had been incorporated into con-
tracts between Petitioner and the Employer at other installations.
The Employer contacted NASA on September 20 regarding its
position on field pay and was advised by NASA on November 5 that
discussions were continuing but that there had been no final resolution
of the matter. On October 28, Petitioner wrote the Employer claiming
to represent a majority of its employees and on November 2 it filed
its petition for an election. On November 5, the Employer expressed
concern to NASA about its inability to neutralize Petitioner's cam-
paigning because of its, lack of knowledge of NASA's intentions
regarding field pay. During August, September, and October, various
supervisors were questioned on numerous occasions by employees who
wanted to know what decision, if any, had been reached with respect
to field pay. On each occasion, the supervisors replied to the effect
that the matter had not been settled but was still under consideration.
Soon after November 15, 1965, the Employer's director of wage and
salary administration. conducted a wage survey at the facility in ques-
tion and recommended that field additives to the base pay be' elimi-
nated and a field classification structure substituted in'their place.
On December 2, 1965; at a.meeting of top management officials of
NASA, the Department of Defense, and the Company in Downey,
California, called by NASA to assess progress on the Saturn and
Apollo space programs, a management official raised the problem of
field pay and was directed by the presiding officer to arrange a meet-
ing as soon as possible in order to revise the wage structure. The sug-
gested meeting, which took place on the following afternoon, resulted
in NASA's tentative approval of the wage adjustment proposed by
the Employer's wage administrator and a direction that NASA be
advised of the final implementation of the new wage scale.
A letter on the subject of "Wage Adjustment" addressed to all
employees was drafted in the Employer's California office on Decem-
ber 7 and sent to the Mississippi test facility involved herein with the
instructions that it should not be released without further notice. The
Employer's California office then telephoned NASA officials in Wash-
ington on December 10, .read the letter to them, secured NASA
approval, and notified the local plant that it could, release ,the letter.
1688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The letter was released on the same day, December 10. The wage
adjustment, effective upon the expiration of field pay on January 2,
1966, affected a large majority of employees within the unit. In the
election held on December 15 the Petitioner lost by a vote of 113 to 63.
The Hearing Officer concluded that announcement of the wage
adjustment was designed to influence the employees' vote and recom-
mended that Petitioner's objection be sustained and a new election
directed. In so doing, he relied chiefly upon the fact that the Employer
had advanced no persuasive reason why the announcement of
the wage adjustment could not have been withheld until after the elec-
tion. We do not agree. Sanction of the wage adjustment was not a
matter within the determination or discretion of the Employer but
lay wholly within the control of a governmental agency and was
effected only after it had been authorized and approved by Govern-
ment representatives. Plainly, therefore, the approval for the wage
adjustment cannot itself be deemed objectionable herein. With respect
to the timing of the announcement thereof, we cannot say that the
Employer was required to eschew announcement of the decision of
a Government agency because a representation election was in the
offing, particularly where, in the election campaign, the Union
stressed the issue of field pay and told the employees that they would
definitely lose it. We shall overrule Petitioner's objection and certify
the results of the election.
[The Board certified that a majority of the valid votes was not
cast for International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO (UAW), and
that said labor organization is not the exclusive bargaining represent-
ative of the employees in the unit found appropriate.]
Rinker Materials Corporation , Employer and Building & Con-
struction Material, Alcoholic & Carbonated Beverages, Proc-
essing & Distribution Drivers and Employees , Local 290,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner . Case 12-RC-
1221. February 15, 1967
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 22, 1966, Petitioner submitted to the Regional Director
for Region 12, a petition to amend its certification by replacing its
name with the name of its alleged successor, Teamsters Local Union
No. 769, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America. The Regional Director, having
162 NLRB No. 156.