North American Aviation, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 604 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. and UNITED AuTo-
MOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICUIIFURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 887, C. I. O.
Case No. C-2198.Decided September 29, 1942
Jurisdiction : aircraft and aircraft parts and accessories manufacturing industry.
Unfair Labor Practices-
Collective Bargaining: union's majority established by prior Board certification-
refusal to bargain by: issuance of notice describing individual grievance pro-
cedure and establishment of said procedure ; right of employer to set up pro-
cedure for settlement of individual grievances held not to be implied in the
proviso to Section 9 (a) of the Act, and establishment thereof by employer,
without consultation with collective bargaining representative of its employees,
when a grievance procedure had been established by agreement between the
employer and said representative, held to constitute refusal to deal exclusively
with said representative and interference with right of employees to bargain
collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to cease and desist from unfair labor prac-
tices ; to bargain on request with the union as the exclusive representative
of its employees in the appropriate unit ; and to inform its employees in writing
that its notice setting up individual grievance procedure is null and void and
that no effect will be given to said procedure.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : the production, inspection, time-
keeping, production control, storekeeping, and maintenance employees at the
respondent's Inglewood plant, including group and working leadmen, but ex-
cluding office workers, employees of the engineering department, welders, plant
police, supervisory, officials who have the right to hire and discharge, and all
other supervisory employees including and above the rank of assistant foremen.
Mr. John Paul Jennings, for the Board.
Gibson, Dunn, c Crutcher, by Mr. J. Stuart Neary and Mr. J. H.
Peckham, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the respondent.
'Gallagher CC TVirin, by Mr. Victor Kaplan, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the Union.
Miss Grace McEldowney, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by United Automobile, Air-
craft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 887,
44 N. L R B., No. 113.
- 604
i NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. 605
C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations.Bowrd,
herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region (Los Angeles, California), issued its complaint dated
April 15, 1942, against North American Aviation, Inc.,' Inglewood,
California, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section
2 (6) and '(7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of
hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union:
With respect to the unfair labor-practices, the complaint alleged, in
substance: (1) that on or about August 12, 1941, at a time when there
existed, between the respondent and the Union, a collective bargain-
ing agreement recognizing the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the respondent's employees in a unit previously
found by the Board to be appropriate and providing a procedure
for the settlement and adjustment of disputes arising between the
respondent and such employees, the respondent distributed to all the
employees in the 'appropriate unit, without consultation with the
Union and without its knowledge, and since August 12; 1941, has given
to all, new 'employees, copies of a notice establishing unilaterally a
procedure for the adjustment of disputes or grievances arising be-
tween the respondent and its employees; (2) that the procedure thus
unilaterally established by the respondent provided that grievances
would, be handled directly with the employees involved and without
the knowledge, consent or participation of the Union; (3) that, by the
issuance of the notice and the establishment of this procedure, the
respondent has refused and is refusing to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees; and (4)
that, by the issuance of the notice and the establishment of this pro-
cedure, the respondent has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its
-employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section, 7 of
the Act. - - - -
Pursuant to.notice, a hearing was held at Los Angeles, California,
on April 27, 1942, before C. W. Whittemore, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent,
and the Union, were represented at and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing. upon the issues was afforded all
parties.`
At the opening of the hearing the respondent filed its answer, in
which it admitted having engaged in the acts alleged, but denied that
said acts constituted unfair labor practices within the meaning of the
Act. As an affirmative defense ,the answer alleged, in substance, that
606 DECISIONS OE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
under the contract between the respondent and the Union it was agreed
that any individual employee or group of employees should have the
right at any time to present grievances to the respondent. Also at the,
opening of the hearing, the respondent moved that the complaint be
dismissed forthwith, on the ground that the acts alleged in the com-
plaint could not lead or tend to lead to labor disputes burdening or
obstructing commerce or the free flow of commerce, because the con-
tract between the respondent and the Union provides that disputes
shall be arbitrated and that there shall therefore be no strikes or
lockouts during the term of the contract. The motion was denied
by the Trial Examiner. At the close' of the hearing, he reserved
ruling upon a renewal of the same motion, which he thereafter denied
in his Intermediate -Report.' During the hearing the respondent
offered to prove that only 2 grievances had been handled under the
grievance procedure outlined in its notice of August 12, 1941, and that
over 800 had been handled` under the contract procedure. It also.
offered to prove that, after the filing of the original charge by the-.
Union, and after consultation by the` respondent with the Regional
Director, a substitute notice was prepared for distribution, but that
it was not distributed because of the issuance of the complaint herein.'
Both offers of proof were rejected by the Trial Examiner.3 ^ During
the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other
motions and on the admissibility of evidence. The Board has re-
'viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close
'of the hearing, counsel for the Board, the respondent, and the Union
argued orally, on • the record, before the Trial Examiner. Briefs,
were thereafter filed with him by the respondent and the Union.
Thereafter, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate Report, dated
May 20, 1942, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He
found that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair
labor practices affecting commerce, within'the meaning of Section 8
I Since Section 10 (a) of the Act provides that the power of the Board to prevent
unfair labor practices affecting commerce "shall be exclusive and shall not be affected by
any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by
agreement, code , law, or otherwise ," it is-clear that the contract ' s arbitration provision
does not deprive the Board of jurisdiction it would otherwise have Cf. N. L. R. • B. Y.
Newark-Morning fLedger Co., 120 F ( 2d) ,26G . ( C C A. 3 )_ The no -strike , no-lock-out
provision in the contract is, of course, designed to keep disputes between the parties fiom3
interrupting the respondent's operations and thereby burdening or obstructing commerce,
but it constitutes no guarantee that such interruptions will not occur . Furthermore, a
labor organization ' s agreement not to strike cannot be regarded as precluding the Board
from proceeding under the Act to prevent unfair labor practices; the very purpose of the
Act is to remove unfair labor practices before they , result in labor disputes affecting
comnmeice.
2 The respondent admitted that the Union had not been consulted about the proposed'
substitute notice. ^ .
e.The Board accepts as true the facts which the respondent offered to prove 'Assuming
their truth , they do not affect the Board 's decision as'hereinafter set forth.
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. 607
(1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended
that the respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain-
affirma-tive' action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report were filed by the respondent on June
22, 1942. The respondent and the Union filed briefs on June 29, 1942,
and supplemental briefs on July 13, 1942; and on July 23, 1942, the
respondent filed a reply to the Union's supplemental brief.
Upon request of the parties and pursuant to notice, a hearing was
duly held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on July 14, 1942,
for the purpose of oral argument. The respondent and the Union were
represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the exceptions and briefs filed by the
parties and, insofar as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings,
conclusions, and order set forth below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
North American Aviation, Inc., is a Delaware corporation having
its principal office and place of business at Inglewood, County of Los
Angeles, California, where it owns and operates a plant for the manu-
facture of aircraft and aircraft parts and accessories. During 1941 the
respondent purchased raw materials valued at more than $17,000,000.
Of this total, raw materials valued at more than $15,300,000
were transported to the Inglewood plant from points outside the State
of California. During the same period the respondent sold aircraft
and aircraft parts and accessories-produced, by it for a sum in, excess
of $69,500,000. Of this total, products selling for more than $62,-
550,000 were transported from its Inglewood plant to States other than
California, and to foreign countries.
The respondent concedes that its operations affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America',_L-deal 887, is a lal'ororganization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees
of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit and the majority status of the Union
On January 23,•1941,,the Board issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in which it found that the respondent's, production, inspec-
608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, timekeeping, production control, storekeeping, and maintenance
employees, with certain specified inclusions and exclusions, constituted
an appropriate bargaining unit; and'on April 14, 1941, the Board
certified International Union, United Automobile Workers of Amer-
ica, Local 683, C.- I. 0., Aircraft Division, as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all such employees.4 On July 18, 1941, the respond-
ent and Local 683 entered into a collective bargaining agreement, by
the terms of which the respondent recognized Local 683 as the exclu-
sive collective bargaining representative of all employees in the ap-
propriate unit. ' Thereafter the Union, a local of the. same parent
organization, became the successor to Local 683.5 Since then, the
respondent has recognized the Union as the bargaining representative
of its employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Neither
the appropriateness of that unit nor the representative status of the
Union is contested in the present proceeding.
We therefore find, as we did in the prior representation proceed-
ing, that the production, inspection, timekeeping, production control,
storekeeping, and maintenance employees at the respondent's Ingle-
wood plant, including-group and working leadmen, but-excluding office
workers, employees of the engineering department, welders, plant
police, supervisors, officials who have the right to hire and discharge,
and all other supervisory employees including and above the rank of
assistant foremen, constitute a, unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and that said unit insures to employees of the
respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization and
,collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the policies of the Act.
We further find that, at all times since April 14, 1941, the Union has
been, and that. it now is, the exclusive representative -of all the em-
ployees 'in said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
B. The respondent's grievance procedure
Article V of the contract between the respondent and the Union
reads, in part, as follows:
Grievance Procedure
`(1) .In the event of any dispute arising'iegarding the interpreta-
tion or application of any of the terms of this agreement or any other
4Matter of North American Ai,iation, Inc, hiid International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local 683, 0 I 0 , 29 N. L. R B. 148 and 30 N L R B. 1196
Local 683 admitted to membership employees of aircraft companies other than the
respondent, as well as employees of the respondent ; membership in the Union is
restricted to employees of the respondent For the purposes, of this decision the -two
locals are'considered as a single organization and are both hereinafter referred to as the
Union. .
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC." 609
request or grievance there shall be no stoppage of- work by any em-
ployee, and all such matters shall be adjusted according to the follow-
ing procedure:
(a) Between the aggrieved employee and his foreman or with his
representative and his foreman.
(b) Between the district steward and the factory manager or his
authorized representative.
. (c) Between the plant grievance committee of the shift. and the
works manager or his authorized representative on that shift.
Other subdivisions of the same article relate to various details of
the procedure, including a provision for appeal to the general man-
ager or his authorized representative in any case not satisfactorily
"adjusted by the plant grievance committee on the shift on which
the grievance arose and the management's representative 'on' that
shift. Subdivision"' (10)," the last 'subdivision of tl e rticle, reads
as follows :
(10) No provision of this Article shall be interpreted to pre-
vent any employees or group of employees from presenting griev-
ances to the management in accordance with the _^_provisions of
Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act .P
Article VI of the contract makes provision for the arbitration of
grievances or disputes with respect to the interpretation or applica-
tion of any of the terms of the -agreement not satisfactorily settled
under the grievance procedure.
On August 12, -1941, less than a month after the signing, of the
agreement with the Union,'the respondent distributed to each of its
employees in the unit covered by the contract, and since August 12
it-has given to each new employee, a. copy, of, the agreement and
also a copy of the following notice:,
INFORMATION FOR EMPLOYEES
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
In accordance with the National Labor Relations Act and the
policy' of North' American Aviation, Inc., every employee has
the privilege of presenting his grievances directly to the
Management.
In order that this procedure maybe known to employees, the
following steps are outlined:'
6 Section 9 (a) of the Act piovides that- "Representatives designated of selected for the
purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate
for such purposes,- shall be the exclusive representatives of all the employees in such unit
for the purposes of collective baiga ining in respect to rates of pay, sages, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment : Provided, That any individual employee
or a group of employees shall have the right at any lime to present grievances to their
employer " -' '
487498-42-vol. 44-39
,.5
610 DF,CISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-1. -Employees must first, take up the matter with their Fore-
man. If a satisfactory settlement is, not reached , the employees
may request the presence - of a member of the Industrial Relations
Department who, will -help in attempting to adjust the matter.
2. If the complaint is not adjusted satisfactorily , a member
of the Industrial: Relations Department will, arrange a; hearing
with the Works Manager or his representative.
3. Should the decision of the Works Manager not be satis-
factory to the employee , he,may, if he so desires , present a written
appeal to the President of the Company .. The Industrial " Rela-
tions Department will assist ,the employee in arranging for the
presentation of his case. -
4.• Should the decision of the President not be satisfactory',
and the employee so desires ; the matter may be submitted" to
outside arbitration - in a,manner mutually acceptable to both the
employee and the Company.
The Industrial Relations Staff is available to all employees who
may desire information or assistance - with respect to their rights
or privileges under either company policy or collective bargaining.
Employees desiring to contact 'the Industrial Relations Depart-
ment may call at the following hours Monday through Friday :
First shift-At the conclusion of the shift.
--Second shift-Before'the shift starts work.
Third shift-Third shift employees shall ask their Foreman to
make arrangements for an appointment . Such matters will re--
ceive prompt attention. ,
NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, INC.,,
J. H. KINDELBERGER , President.
This notice was distributed by the respondent without consultation
with, and without the prior knowledge of, the Union , and its distribu-
tion has been continued despite the Union's protests. No similar notice
had ever been issued to its employees by the respondent prior to the
execution of its contract with the Union.
At the hearing, the respondent 's industrial relations director ad-
mitted that the procedure described in the notice had been put into
operation . He also testified that the employees had not been notified.
of any limitation on the nature or type of grievances that might be
submitted thereunder , and that "there would be no limitation ou dis-
cussing with the employee what he might want to discuss.",
C. Conclusions
The issue is whether the respondent 's unilateral establishment of a
separate procedure for the settlement of grievances presented by em-
ployees individually, when there was a grievance procedure,' already
NORTH.AMERICAN AVIATION, INC. ' ^ 61 L,
established as- a result of collective bargaining between the, respondent
and the exclusive representative of its employees, constitutes an unfair
labor practice within the meaning of the Act. '
The respondent contends that a right on, its part to set up a. pro-
cedure for the settlement of individual grievances is implied, in the
proviso to Section 9.(a) of the Act, which states that "any individual
employee or a group of employees shall have the right at any time to
present grievances to their employer." We do not agree. Except in-
sofar- as_ the proviso impliedly leaves an employer free, even after an}
exclusive representative of his employees has been duly designated, to
receive and act upon grievances individually presented by employees;
it does not purport to confer any rights on employers. It merely pre-
serves for employees the right to-present grievances individually tq
their employer, despite their designation of a collective bargaining
representative. Article V, subdivision (10), of the contract between
the respondent and the Union did no more.
There is no distinct cleavage between collective bargaining and the
settlement of grievances, whether individual or group. Grievances
and grievance procedure are normal and proper subjects of collective
bargaining., Indeed, if that were not so, the, proviso to Section 9 (a),
of the Act would not have been necessary. The respondent, itself, has.
recognized that it' 'is so, by negotiating with the Union regarding a
grievance procedure and by providing in its contract with the Union,
for, such'a procedure. The respondent thereby obligated itself to fol-
low the procedure thus established. By the same token, the contract,.
including its provisions for a grievance procedure, is binding` upon all
the respondent's employees in the appropriate unit, since the Union in
negotiating and entering into the contract was, under the Act, repre-
senting all of them. This does not, of course, restrict,their right to
present grievances individually, in accordance with the proviso to
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
In short, the establishment of a grievance procedure is a matter .of
collective,bar' "ining and, when a grievance procedure has been estab-
lished by agreement between the employer and the collective .bargain=
ing representative, it is binding on both the employer-and all employees
in the appropriate unit. Consequently, the respondent's establishment
' See Matter of Cities Service Oil Company and National Maiitime Union of Ameitea,
C I 0, 25 N L R. B. 36, 44; enf 'g in part, N L. R B. V. Cities Service Oil Co., 122 F-
(2d) 149 (C. C. A 2),'in which we held that, "since grie\ances concern 'conditions of work'
within the meaning of Section 9 ( a) of the Act, they are proper subjects for collective
bargaining " See also Matter of Mooresville Cotton Mills and Local No . 12?1, United Textile
TVoi keis of America, 2 N L R B 952, enf'g as mod , 110 F. (2d) 179 , (C. C A 4)
Matter of Wallace Manufacturing Company, Inc and Local No 2237, Unitiid Textile TVorkcis
of America, 2 N L R B 1081, enf'g, 95 F (2d) 818 (C C A 4) ; Matter of Corn Products '
Refining Company and United Cannery, Agi icultural , Packing,oad Allied Workers of Amer ma
Local 169, 22 N L ill B 824 ; Matter of The New York Times Company, a Coiporatiori
and Newspaper Guild of New York, 26 N L . R B 1094.
612. DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD
of another grievance procedure, without consultationwith the bargain-
ing representative of its employees, constitutes both a refusal to deal
exclusively with that representative and an interference- with, the right
of the employees to bargain collectively through representatives 'of
their own choosing.
Moreover, a collective contract is not complete as originally negoti-
ated, nor is the process of collective bargaining complete upon the exe-
cution of a contract. After a -contract has 'been negotiated and
executed, it is continuously modified and,sup'plelnented by interpreta=
tion"s and precedents made-by employer and employees'from day to day
in the course of their operations under the contract. This interpreta=
tionrof the contract, no less than its negotiation, constitutes an integral
part of the collective bargaining process.8
Disputes regarding the meaning or application of • a collective con-
tract ordinarily arise as grievances, and are therefore settled through
the grievance procedure. But, whether grievances are presented to
the employer and are handled by the collective bargaining representa-
tive-or by individual employees or groups of, employees, they must' be
settled in accordance with the previsions and interpretation of the con-
tract between' the employer and the exclusive bargaining representative
by which the terms of employment of all the employees are established.9
- Similarly, while employees have the right under Section 9 (a) of
the Act to present grievances individually, such grievances must be
disposed of 'in accordance with the contract provisions and all the
precedents and interpretations" established by the method nmtually
agreed on by the employer and the exclusive representative of his
employees. Any other disposition of grievances would constitute and
encourage'ihdividual bargaining, pursuant to which, in settling an
individual grievance, an employer might vary a substantive provision
of his agreement with the exclusive bargaining representative. Such
individual bargaining would undermine the entire process of collective
s The written contract is a geneial constitution upon which a body of industrial law
is, 'built The rules and iegulations first set forth in the 'contract are elaborated and
changed from day to day in the settlement of grievances and the inteipietation of the
contract Giadually they evolve into a body of industrial common law, developed in a
democratic manner" ' Clinton ' S ' Golden and Harold J Ruttenberg , The Dynamics of Indus-
trial Demon acy, p. 4
°"Collectise bargaining is the process whereby representatives of a union meet with an
employei or representatives of an employers' association to fix the terms of employment
for a certain period of time But it includes more than the cication of an agreement . . .
It involves also the enforccnri -nt and interpretation of the agreement throughout the'
months of its duration " Cairoll R Daugherty, Labor Problems zn American Industry,
1938 ( Revised Edition ), p 450 See also N L P. B v. , Sands Mfg , Co , 306 U S 332, in-
which the Supreme Court said : "The legislatile history of the Act goes far to indicate
that the purpose of the statute was to compel employers to, bargain collectively with their
employees to the end, that employment contracts binding on both parties should be made.
But we asstime that the Act imposes, upon the employer the further obligation to meet
and bargain with his employees ' representatives respecting, proposed changes of an existing,
contract and also to discuss with them , tbe true interpretation if there is , any doubt as to,
its meaning."
NORTH " AMERICAN AVIATION, - INC:' 613
bargaining, contrary to the basic- policy of the. Act to encourage "I'the
practice and procedure of,collective bargaining." .
In the present case, the respondent's employees, prior to the issuance
of the notice of, August 12, 1941, had not only selected a collective
bargaining representative, but through that representative had agreed
on .a procedure for settling grievances, specifically including disputes
arising "regarding the interpretation or application of any of the
terms",of the agreement. By its notice, however; the respondent es-
tablished a second procedure, which in its operation would necessarily
involve interpretation of the contract by the employer dealing with
individual employees or by an arbitrator agreed on by, the employer
and the employee involved. This procedure was referred to as the
"company policy," thus implicitly expressing the respondent's prefer-,
ence for it and inviting the employees to use it rather than the contract
procedure. 'Moreover, as part of the procedure, the respondent desig-
nated its industrial relations department to assist employees in pre-
senting grievances acid in effect made that department their representa-
tive, although the Act makes no provision for representation except
by the exclusive representative. By the above conduct, the respondent
clearly refused to deal exclusively with the Union and interfered with
the rights of its employees to 'self-organization and to bargain collec-
tively through representatives of their own choosing.
We find that the respondent, by the issuance of the notice of August
12, 1941, and by the establishment of the grievance procedure described
therein, refused and is refusing to bargain collectively with the Uiniori
as the exclusive representative of its employees in an-appropriate unit.
We further find that the respondent, by the'is"suance of said notice and
the establishment of 'said procedure, interfered with, restrained, and
coerced, and is interfering with, restraining, aiid coercing its, employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section '7 of the Act.
'IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set -forth in Section III,' above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section'-I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce. •
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist therefrom and
to take certain affirmative 'action which we find will- effectuate the
policies of the Act.
614 DECISIONS.''OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.We .have found that the respondent, by the issuance of the: notice
,of August 12, 1941, and-by-the establishment of 'the grievance pro-
cedure described 'therein, has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union., We shall therefore order the respondent to inform its em-
ployees that the notice of August 12, 1941, is null and void and that
the respond'ent*"will-give no effect,to the grievance- procedure thereby
established: We .'shall also .ordei..the respondent, upon -request,'to
bargain collectively 'with the Union as the exclusive representative of
its employees within the appropriate unit.
Upon the basis ,of the foregoing findings'of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the, Board makes the, following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work-
,ers of America, Local 887, C.•I. 0., is a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2.(5) of the Act.
2: The production, inspection, timekeeping, production control,
storekeeping, and ,maintenance employees at the respondent's Ingle-
vvood.plant, including group and working leadmen, but excluding office
workers, employees of the engineering department, welders, plant
police, supervisors, officials, who have the right to hire and discharge,
and all other supervisory employees including and above the rank of
assistant foremen,. constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Automobile,'Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Work-
,ers of, America,. Local 887, C. I. 0., or its predecessor, International
Union, United_ Automobile Workers of America, Local 683, C. I. • O.,
Aircraft Division, was on August 12, 1941, and at 'all times thereafter
has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit
for. the'purposes'of collective bargaining, within'the meaning•of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on August 12, 1941, and at all times thereafter, to
bargain collectively with United Automobile, Aircraft and. Agricul-
tural Implement ,Workers of America, Local 887, C.• I. O.,' as ,the ex-
,elusive representative' f its employees in the appropriate unit, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices;
within • the meaning of Section, 8 (5) of the. Act:, • : .
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The, aforesaid. unfair labor practices,are unfair labor practices
a ffecting,commerce,'within the,meaning•of Section 2 (6) and.,(7) of
the Act.
NORTH AMERICAN. AVIATION, -INC.' 615
ORDER , . _
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and , conclusiuns of
law,, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders= that the re-
spondent , North American Aviation, Inc., Inglewood, California, and
its officers , agents , successors , and assigns , shall:
;y4. Cease and desist from:.
(a) Refusing to bargain , collectively with United Automobile;
Aircraft and- Agricultural Implement Workers , of America, Local
887, C. I. O., as the exclusive representative of all production , inspec-
tion, timekeeping , production control, storekeeping , and maintenance
employees at the respondent 's Inglewood plant, including group and
working leadmen, but excluding office workers, employees of the engi-
neering department , welders, plant police, supervisors , officials who
have the right to hire and discharge , and all other supervisory em-
ployees including and above the rank of assistant foremen;
(b) Distributing to its employees copies of its notice of August
12, 1941 , above described , or of any similar notice, and from giving
effect to the-grievance procedure thereby established ;
(c) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering
with, restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing.
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a),- Upon request, bargain collectively with United Automobile,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local
887, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all production, inspec-
tion, timekeeping , production control , storekeeping , and maintenance
employees at the respondent 's Inglewood plant, including group and
working leadmen, but excluding office workers , employees of the engi-
neering department , welders, plant police, supervisors, officials who
have the right to hire and discharge , and all other ' supervisory em-
ployees including and above the rank of assistant foremen, in respect
to rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions
of employment;
(b) Inform in writing each of its employees who has been given
a copy of the notice of August 12, 1941, that said notice is null
and void and that the respondent will give no effect to the grievance
procedure described therein;
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its Ingle-
wood plant, and maintain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecu-
tive days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating :
(1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from which
it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1- (a), (b), and (c)
of this Order; and (2) that the respondent will take the. affirmative
action set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of this Order;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region
in writing, within ten' (10) days from the'date of this Order, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.