Northrop Aircraft, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 227 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

NORTHROP AIRCRAFT, INC. 227
•Northrop . Aircraft, Inc. and , Los Angeles County District Coun-
cil of Carpenters , United Brotherhood of Carpenters &
Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 21-RC-
5004. March 28, 1958
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 Paul J. Driscoll,
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 Act, the Board
has `delegated its powers in connection with this , case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer.
4. At the hearing, the Petitioner amended its unit request to
include :
All carpenters maintenance and carpenters maintenance rough and
all cabinetmakers and cabinet woodworkers employed in departments
Nos. 5161, 5162, and 5925 of the Northrop Division of Northrop Air-
craft, Inc., at its Hawthorne, California, plant including certain enu-
merated installations and excluding others. As an alternative unit,
the Petitioner would include all carpenters maintenance and car-
penters. maintenance rough and all cabinetmakers and cabinet wood-
workers employed by the Northrop Division of Northrop Aircraft,
Inc., without reference to specifically designated departments at the
same enumerated installations and with the same exclusions. The
Employer does not contest the scope of either unit or seriously contest
the appropriateness of a proposed craft unit of carpenters, but urges
that, neither unit is appropriate because Petitioner would exclude
certain classifications of -employees.
In :a. previous case,1 involving the same Employer and the same
proposed unit, the Board found that a unit of carpenters and cabinet-
makers, substantially identical with the Petitioner's proposed alter-
native unit, was appropriate. The Board held that the carpenters
and cabinetmakers employed the traditional skills of their craft and
that they constituted a homogeneous and cohesive craft group with
1 Case No. 21-RC-2972 , issued May 19 , 1953 ( not published). The Petitioner lost the
.election , and there is no history of collective bargaining.
120 NLRB No. 37.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
common interests different from those of other employees . As there
is no evidence in the present record that the duties and functions of
these workers have changed, we find, in agreement with the Peti-
tioner's alternative unit request, that such unit is appropriate.
There remains for consideration the following classifications of
employees whom the Employer would include and the Petitioner
exclude : craters and packers, crater and packing man, and saw oper-
ator. These employees work in the shipping department. Craters
and packers and the crating and packing man make crates and boxes
for shipping and they pack and load materials, parts, and tools for
shipment. The saw operator saws wood to the proper size for making
the crates. It takes from 1 to 18 months' experience to qualify for
these duties. As we find these employees do not exercise the tradi-
tional skills of the carpenter s' craft, we shall exclude them from
the unit.
The mockup and tooling builder, precision, mockup and tooling
builder; and mockup and tooling fabricator work in the woodshop
of department 5515, in the mockup area. Their main function is to
make a mockup , which is a small replica of something to be built.
There are also mockup and tool builders in department 3317, where
the plaster patternmakers and model builders are located. The
mockup and tool builders work on models, which are full size replicas
of a product to be built, and,they spend about half their time work-
ing with , and as, model builders and plaster patternmakers in train-
ing for their classification . There are also mockup and tool builders
in department 5406, which is a part of the tool fabrication depart-
ment. These men work with wood and also make some items similar
to those made by the carpenters in other woodshops. They also make
tooling items , such as jigs, fixtures , etc. The Employer 's job descrip-
tion manual states that "this occupation requires the complete lay-
out, fabrication, and assembly of full scale master mockups of
airplanes and their component parts for master tooling use, full scale
operating models and wood tooling ,s' whereas carpenters mainte-
nance "plan, layout, construct and repair buildings, additions, parti-
tions,' furniture and other wooden equipment." The job description
for a cabinetmaker is "to layout, plan operational sequence, fabricate
and assemble wooden office furniture , window frames, and special
cabinets." The Employer usually requires from 6 months ' to 5 years'
experience for a man to be placed in the mockup and tool builder
classification.
The Employer would include the mockup and tool builder people
in the proposed unit of carpenters because they work with wood and
use some of the skills and tools of the carpenters ' craft . The Peti-
tioner would exclude them because they do not exercise the traditional
carpenters' skills but have tasks more closely akin to the skills, of
NORTHROP AIRCRAFT , INC. 229
tool- and die-makers and patternmakers . They were excluded from
the last election.
We find merit in the Petitioner's position. The mockup and tool
builders , though doing some work and exercising some of the craft
of carpenters and cabinet makers , appear to be primarily toolmakers
and patternmakers. They work with leadmen of their classification.
There is no evidence of any substantial interchange between them
and the carpenters . They appear to progress through their own
classification. We find, on the basis of the record as a whole, that
they are not part of the traditional carpenters ' craft, and we
therefore exclude them from the unit.
Form block makers work in departments which are part of the
tool fabrication department . Their job is to make tools used for the
purpose of forming metals. The job description states that this
occupation requires the layout and construction of single acting
machine dies such as stretch press blocks, hydro press blocks and
hand forming blocks. Although a cabinetmaker 's background is
considered helpful in becoming a form block builder, there is no
evidence that the latter is a skilled craft, as the evidence shows it
takes from 3 months to 2 years to qualify for a senior block maker,
whereas it takes much longer to become a journeyman cabinetmaker.
We find that the form block makers do not exercise the traditional
skills of the carpenters' craft, accordingly, we exclude them from the
unit.
The Petitioner would exclude the leadmen of the carpenters and
cabinetmakers, while the Employer would include them. In the last
election of 1953, referred to above, the Petitioner contended that the
sole duty of the leadmen was to relay assignments given by the as-
sistant foreman. At the hearing in that case the parties stipulated
that the leadmen were not supervisors, accordingly, they were in-
cluded in the unit without any consideration of their status by the
Board. In the instant case, the Petitioner contends that all but one
of the former leadmen, who voted in the last election, are no longer in
the unit and that the leadmen at present exercise supervisory duties.
In support of this position, the Petitioner introduced testimony to
show that leadmen assign all jobs to the individual crew members,
that they are solely responsible for the final quality of the product
produced, they are consulted in the matters of wage increases, they
are required to and they do report any infraction of the rules to the
assistant foreman , that they have made effective recommendations for
discharge and that a leadman has interviewed a prospective employee
to determine whether he was qualified for the job. When the crew
is assigned to a job away from the customary shop , the leadman is
the only person in charge at the scene. The leadmen usually lead
some 8 men in a crew, and they are paid 20 cents an hour more than
230 DECISIONS OP NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the highest classification they lead. Although no final determination
is made by the foreman in disciplinary or wage matters without an
independent investigation, the record shows that a leadman's recom-
mendations are given serious consideration and substantial weight.
We find, therefore, on the basis of the record as a whole, that the
leadmen are supervisors and we shall exclude them from the unit?
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
,All carpenters maintenance and carpenters maintenance rough and
all cabinetmakers and cabinet woodworkers employed by the North-
rop Division of Northrop Aircraft, Inc. at the Employer's Hawthorne,
California, plant and its facilities, including the Lynwood and Mari-
posa Maple warehouses; the Edwards Air Force facility, Muroc,
California, the Northrop facility at the Los Angeles International
Airport; the Torrance, California, facility; and Palmdale, California,
facility, excluding the Anaheim, California, Division; Optical Lab-
oratory, Pasadena, California, the Radio Plane Corporation, Van
Nuys, California, and employees at all facilities located outside the
State of California, leadmen, all other employees and all supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Humble Ott 4 Refining Company, 108 NLRB 1026 , 1027 ; General Telephone Company
of Michigan, 112 NLRB 46, 50.
Mid-South Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Amalgamated
Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 15-CA-
925 and 15-CA-964. March 31, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On August 13, 1957, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., 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 certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair
labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed
with respect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
120 NLRB No. 39.