Northrop Aircraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1349 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 1349
that promotions are made only within the ranks of each group ; that
working conditions and assignments for the two groups are different ;
that each group has different uniforms and only the guards are armed;
and, that initial employment prerequisites for the groups are not the
same (in hiring firemen, the Employer looks for fire fighting experi-
ence and specialized training, whereas in hiring guards, the Employer
looks for knowledge of certain principles of police authority and of
criminal law involving personal liberties). In these circumstances,
we would find that the employees sought by the Petitioner constitute
an appropriate unit entitled to separate representation because they
are an identifiable, homogeneous, and functionally distinct group, with
a community of interest apart from those of the firemen. For similar
reasons, we would exclude the dispatchers from the unit.
In view of the foregoing, we dissent from the dismissal of the peti-
tion in this case and would direct an election in the unit of guards re-
quested by the Petitioner.
NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO-
MOBILE , AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 21-IBC-3624.
December 10,1954
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 Leo Fischer, hearing officer.
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 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
'employees 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 essentially a production and maintenance unit,
with the usual exclusions, at the Employer's Anaheim, California,
plant. The Employer contends that only a unit including its various
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the unit sought is inappropriate . For the reasons set forth in section
numbered 4, infra, the motion is denied.
E National Union, United Aircraft Welders of America, Ind., was permitted to intervene
at the hearing on the basis of its asserted current contractual interest.
110 NLRB No. 218.
1e3r5O DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plants and airfields in California and Florida is appropriate, because
of the integration of its operations. The Intervenor contends that its
current contract with the Employer is a bar to any election among the
welders at Anaheim at this time; alternatively, if its contract-bar con-
tention is rejected, the Intervenor seeks an election among the welders.
In a previous decision 3 the Board held that a unit limited to the
Anaheim facility was appropriate. At that time, however, the scope
of the unit was not in issue, and that decision does not of itself settle
the issue here raised. Nor, for the same reason, are we controlled by
whether or not there have been changes in the Employer's operations
since the prior case. However, as the Employer asserts that it is be-
cause of changes in the operation of Anaheim since that case that its
position has changed, we shall consider to what extent those changes
have affected Anaheim's work.
The Employer is presently engaged in the manufacture and testing
of various products, including F-89 aircraft and XB-62 guided mis-
siles. It operates 10 plants and airfields, with the main plant at Haw-
thorne, California, which is some 35 miles from Anaheim. Most man-
ufacture and, apparently, all final assembly of the above products are
at Hawthorne. It also appears that at this time about half the work
at Anaheim is connected with the F-89 and XB-62. At the time of the
prior hearing Anaheim was engaged in the fabrication of different
products, under Army Ordnance contracts which have been or are
being completed.
Ultimate control of the Employer's operations is at the Hawthorne
facility, where top management has its headquarters and where broad
policies in fields such as engineering, administration, and labor rela-
tions are established. However, while there is evidence of this type
of centralized direction, it also appears that Anaheim does have
considerable autonomy.
Thus the director of labor relations at Anaheim has what appears
on this record to be a considerable degree of freedom. Similarly, it
appears that Anaheim does its own recruiting and that most of its
supervisory personnel have been drawn from its own ranks. An or-
ganization chart submitted by the Employer indicates that Anaheim
is the only one of the Employer's facilities carried as a separate
division. The Employer publishes a newspaper for its employees en-
titled "Northrop News," but Anaheim publishes its own paper, known
as the Northrop-Anaheim News. It is the only one of the Employer's
facilities to do this. In the June 9, 1954, issue of this newspaper 4
which is published and edited by the Employer, reference is made to
the recent hire by Anaheim of 102 additional employees, and the
article then states that this additional employment reflects the efforts
S Case No. 21-RC-2931, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
4 Introduced in evidence by the Petitioner.
NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 1351
of Anaheim to get more business to offset the decline in other con-
tracts. Such a statement clearly implies a substantial degree of
autonomy in Anaheim operations. Similarly, payment for Anaheim
contracts is made to a special account. There is no bargaining history
on an employerwide basis.
The Employer, explaining why it now supports only a unit of all
its facilities, while in the prior case it did not oppose a unit limited
to Anaheim, relies on the alleged changes in operations at Anaheim.
However, the only change that has occurred is a change in what is
made at Anaheim, and that change does not appear to require dif-
ferent skills on the part of the employees there, or to have been accom-
panied by any significant or substantial change in organization or
function. As there is no claim of an overriding integration before
the Anaheim changes, we can only conclude that there is no such
integration now.
In these circumstances, including the physical separation of the
plants, the degree of autonomy at Anaheim, the absence of any per-
suasive evidence of integration and of any substantial or significant
bargaining history, and the failure of any labor organization to seek
representation on a broader basis, we do not believe that the Em-
ployer has established that only a multiplant unit would be appro-
priate, and we find that a unit confined to Anaheim is appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
We turn therefore to a consideration of the remaining issues. These
concern (1) the placement of numerous classifications of employees
which the Petitioner contends are office clerical and therefore to be
excluded, and which the Employer contends are plant clerical and
therefore to be included, and (2) disposition of the four welders at
Anaheim. We consider these seriatim below.
With respect to the disputed clerical classifications, the record indi-
cates that they are almost all categories which spend a considerable
part of their time in and around the production area and are pri-
marily concerned with the paperwork that must of necessity accom-
pany large-scale production. We believe that on this record it is
established that the interests of these categories are for the most part
more closely connected with those of the employees in the unit than
with those of office clerical employees who are excluded. Accordingly,
we find that the following categories are plant clerical, and we shall
include them in the unit: Timekeepers, timekeeper trainee, shop
follow-up man, production control dispatcher, chief clerk,' produc-
tion release clerk, material disposition man, department clerks,,
schedulers, file clerk, and messengers. On the other hand, it appears
s General Shoe Corporation, 109 NLRB 618. See also Harris Langenberg Hat Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 216 F . 2d 146 (C. A. 8).
0 The title appears to be a misnomer . This individual has no supervisory authority.
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that production planners, manufacturing control analysts, the special
expediter, and the traffic rate clerk are more closely allied to office
clerical employees and we shall exclude them.
With respect to the welders, as noted above, the Intervenor's con-
tention is twofold : That there is a contract bar, and that if not, a sepa-
rate election in the welders' group should be held. The Intervenor
was certified for a unit of welders in 1942, at which time, so far as
appears, only the Hawthorne plant was in existence. It contends that
its successive contracts covering welders have been extended to all
new plants. However, it is clear on the record that before this pro-
ceeding there was never any contention that the Intervenor repre-
sented the Anaheim welders, those welders were never told that the
Intervenor did represent them, nor did it do so in fact. Moreover,
in prior cases the Employer indicated that Anaheim had been treated
separately from its other plants. In the circumstances we find that
the Intervenor's contract was never extended to Anaheim. Accord-
ingly, we find that the Intervenor's contract is no bar.
We theref ore turn to the question of whether, as the Intervenor
alternatively requests, an election should be directed in the welders'
group. There are 4 welders at Anaheim, 1 in maintenance and 3 in
tooling, supervised by the foremen of those departments, to which
they are regularly assigned. Exactly what their duties are, or the
extent of their skill, is not established on this record.
The Petitioner, opposing the Intervenor's contention, argues that it
has not been shown that the welders meet the criteria for craft sev-
erance in American Potash.' However, although this is a case where
there is no prior bargaining history, we have held that even under such
circumstances, the American Potash standards and requirements as
to craft skills should apply 8 On this record we cannot find that the
requirements for craft status have been met, and these welders have no
characteristics which would warrant the direction of a self -determina-
tion election for them. We shall therefore include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at its Anaheim, California, plant constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including timekeepers,
the timekeeper trainee, shop follow-up men, production control dis-
patchers, the chief clerk, production release clerks, material disposi-
tion men, department clerks, schedulers, file clerks, and messengers,
but excluding production planners, manufacturing control analysts,
the special expediter, traffic rate clerks, other office clerical employees,
7 American Potash & Chemacal Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418
8 Reynolds Metals Company, 108 NLRB 821.
PUGH AND BARR, INC. 1353
guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS RODGERS and BEESON took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
PUGH AND BARR , INC. and BENJAMIN S. BRAMER. Cam No. 6-CA-
243. December 13,1954
Supplemental Decision and Determination
On January 23, 1953, in a supplemental proceeding to determine the
amount of back pay due Benjamin S. Bramer from the Respondent,'
the Board issued a Decision and Determination finding the amount
to be $5,381.401 Upon the Board's motion to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to enter a supplemental decree to
make definite the amount of back pay due, the court remanded the case
to the Board.' The court stated that "the awarding of so large a sum
as back pay without the finding of special circumstances justifying it
cannot be sustained." 4 The court also stated that the "Board seems
to have reached the conclusion that it did on the basis that Bramer,
having registered with the state unemployment agency, was not bound
to make any further showing of diligence. We do not think that this
is sufficient."
In accordance with the court's decree, the Board ordered a further
hearing and the issue of what Bramer could have earned "if he had
used due diligence to secure employment" was fully litigated. On
June 22, 1954, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his Inter-
mediate Report, finding upon the entire record that Bramer had made
a reasonable effort to secure employment, and recommending that the
same amount of back pay be found due, except for a deduction of an
additional $81.75 which Bramer had earned in the 2-year period but
had inadvertently failed to report with his other interim earnings.5
The Trial Examiner further found that the circumstances outlined in
his Intermediate Report constituted "special circumstances" justify-
ing the large sum of $5,299.65 as back pay. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief..
' See N. L. R. B. v . Pugh and Barr, Inc., 194 F. 2d 217 (C. A. 4), enforcing the Board's
Order that Bramer be reinstated with back pay.
2 Pugh and Barr, Inc., 102 NLRB 562.
3 N. L. R. B. v. Pugh and Barr, Inc ., 207 F. 2d 409 ( C. A. 4).
6 The court noted that during 2 years of the time involved , Bramer had earned only
$249.20.
6 This $81.75 , added to the $ 249.20 in net earnings , plus the amount of $68.00 which was
offset by expenses , make total earnings of $398 .95 during the 2-year period.
110 NLRB No. 207.