Northrop Aircraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1717 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 1717
In view of the foregoing, we find that the August 18, 1956, contract,
and its September 6, 1956, supplement; between the Employer and the
Intervenor, bar a present determination of representatives. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Northrop Aircraft, Inc. and International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Northrop Aircraft, Inc. and National Union , United Welders of
America, Independent, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-4555 and
21-RC-4580. May 22,1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Karl W. Filter, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins]. I
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged at its plant in Anaheim, California,
in the design, manufacture, and sale of guided missiles, aircraft and
parts, range finders, precision fire control, and ground support equip-
ment. The Petitioner in Case No. 21-RC-4580, herein called Welders,
seeks to represent a unit of the Employer's welders in this plant. The
Employer takes no position as to the appropriateness of a separate unit
of welders.' There is no history of bargaining at this plant.
1 The Petitioner in Case No 21-RC--4555, herein called UAW, originally sought to
represent a plantwide unit of the Employer 's production and maintenance employees.
After the hearing , the UAW filed a telegraphic request for permission to withdraw its
petition . The Employer has no objection to the withdrawal provided it is granted with
prejudice to the filing of a new petition within 6 months . The Welders also has no
objection to the withdrawal . In these circumstances , we shall grant the UAW's request
to withdraw its petition in Case No. 21-RC-4555 with prejudice.
117 NLRB No. 222.
1718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Welders contends that the Employer's welders are an identifiable
craft group appropriate for separate representation . In support of its
contention, the Welders relies on the record in the Hughes Aircraft
case 2 in which the craft status of welders in the aircraft and related
industries was litigated. The UAW contends that a separate unit of
welders at this plant is inappropriate because (1) under the Clayton
& Lambert case ,3 welding is not a craft within the definition set forth
in the American Potash case 4 and (2) a similar request for such a unit
of the welders involved herein was denied by the Board in Northrop
Aircraft, Inc., 110 NLRB 1349.
In the Hughes case, supra, the Board considered the history, craft
skills, and traditional representation of welders, and found welding
to be a separate and distinct craft, overruling the Clayton & Lambert
case and cases following it. Since we have found that welding con-
stitutes a craft there remains for consideration the question as to
whether the welders at this plant are craftsmen entitled to separate
representation.
As the record in the earlier Northrop case, supra, did not establish
exactly what were the duties of the welders at this plant or the extent
of their skills, the Board there could not find that the requirements for
craft status had been met. However, in the instant case, this issue was
fully litigated. The present record discloses that there are five welders
in the plant. One, classified as maintenance welder A, performs all the
welding required in the maintenance, repair, and construction of ma-
chinery, equipment, and buildings and welds high-pressure lines and
boilers where extreme care and skill must be exercised to prevent leaks
and cracks. The remaining four welders are classified as welders-
tooling A and they perform the welding needed in the tooling of dies,
fixtures, and jigs. All welders work from blueprints, sketches, or
instructions, and make their own layouts. All are required to be
highly skilled in both electric are and gas welding because imper-
fections of the weld may result in failure of the equipment, dies, etc.
It is the policy of the Employer not to hire any welder who has not
had at least 3 years' previous experience, preferably in aircraft.
Further, all welders performing work under Air Force contracts are
required to be certified by the Air Force as to their efficiency and
ability, and such certified welders were found to be craftsmen in the
Hughes case, supra. At present, one of the welders is certified. As
all welders here involved are engaged in the same industry as those
considered in the Hughes case, supra, and as they exercise similar and
2 Hughes Aircraft Company, 117 NLRB 98, issued subsequent to the hearing in the
instant case . At the hearing, the welders moved that the Board take judicial notice of
the Hughes case record so that it would not be necessary to reintroduce that entire record
in this proceeding . The motion was granted without objection.
Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Company, Ordnance Division , 111 NLRB 540.
* American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418.
WYT'aEVILLE KNITTING MILLS, INC. 1719
related duties and skills, we find, under all the circumstances, that
the Employer's welders constitute a separate appropriate craft unit.
Accordingly, we find that all welders, helpers, assistants, appren-
tices, and leadmen at the Employer's Anaheim, California, plant,
excluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the UAW's request to withdraw its peti-
tion in Case No. 21-RC-4555, be, and it hereby is, granted with
prejudice to its filing a new petition for a period of 6 months from the
date of this Order, unless good cause is shown why the Board should
entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of such period.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Wytheville Knitting Mills, Inc . and American Federation of
Hosiery Workers, AFL-CIO . Case No. 5-CA-1109d. May 23,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 20, 1957, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.' The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief in support thereof, and the
entire record in this case, and adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addition:
We specifically affirm the Trial Examiner's rejection of the Respondent 's offers of proof
for the, reasons stated by the Trial Examiner, and also for the reason that it is apparent
that the evidence relied upon by the Respondent, even if received, would not have altered
our determination of the appropriateness of the bargaining unit at the plant in question,
which was wholly within the framework of established Board unit policy.
117 NLRB No. 228.