Pan American World Airways, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 493 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. 493
otherwise valid collective agreement" impaired the collective-bar-
gaining process. By taking advantage of the old rule, claimants
without representation strength were able to "play the role of dog-in-
the-manger, and indefinitely to frustrate collective bargaining." To
obviate these undesirable effects, the Board adopted what is now
known as the General Electric X-Ray rule, namely, that "where a
petition is filed more than 10 days after the assertion of a bare claim
of representation, and no extenuating circumstances appear, an agree-
ment, otherwise valid, which is executed in the interval should be
held to constitute a bar." However, unless it is accompanied by the
requisite showing of interest, or this showing is furnished within the
limited time prescribed by the Board's Statements of Procedure,' the
petition is nothing more than another "naked claim of representa-
tion." To give effect to such a petition merely because it was filed
within 10 days of the first unsupported claim would defeat the salu-
tary purpose of the General Electric X-Ray rule.
In the present case, the Petitioner did not furnish the requisite 30
percent showing-of-interest in the unit claimed to be appropriate
until more than 10 days after the filing of the petition, and more than
20 days after it had made the claim of representation. We find that,
in these circumstances, the petition filed on July 5 cannot operate so
as to prevent the contracts of June 29 and June 30 from being bars.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4 Section 101.16, supra.
Pan American World Airways, Inc. Guided Missiles Range Divi-
sion and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Pan American World Airways, Inc. Guided Missiles Range Divi-
sion and International Union, United Plant Guard Workers of
America, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-3208 and 10-RC-3275.
February 17,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before John C. Carey, hearing of-
ficer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, consolidated for purposes of
decision, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the. ,meaning of
the Act.
115 NLRB No. 76.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations ',involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following reasons :
The Employer is engaged in the operation of an airline as a common
carrier. The units requested herein are limited to employees employed
only at the Employer's Guided Missiles Range Division located at
Cape Canaveral (Patrick Air Force Base), Florida. The Missiles Di-
vision was established pursuant to a contract with the United States
Air Force for the sole purpose of operating and maintaining a launch-
ing paint and test range for guided missiles. The facilities, which are
furnished by the United States Air Force and maintained by the Em-
ployer, include carpenter, vehicle, and metal works shops, hangars,
roads, drainage and ditching operations, water, sewage and air-condi-
tioning, fire, safety, and security. The Employer is also responsible
for warning and safety provisions for the range area, including ter-
ritory outside continental United States. Though no commercial air-
planes are flown at the base, the job classifications are, in the main,
similar to those in the airline division of the Employer. There is little
interchange of employees. The Missiles Division is a separate ad-
ministrative unit as is required by the Air Force, and has its own
auditing, budget, and industrial relations departments. However, all
departments are subject to top policy control of the Employer. The
task of gathering the technical data for the missiles operations and for
the recovery of missiles is subcontracted to the Radio Corporation of
America and others.
The Machinists seeks a unit of all employees of the Employer located
at the base, with the usual exclusions, while the Guard Workers seeks
a unit of the guards employed there. At the hearing, the Transport
Workers contended that this Board has no jurisdiction on the ground
that the employees sought herein are covered by its existing contract
with the Employer embracing similar classifications in the airline
operation,' and that the missiles operation was clearly subject to the
Railway Labor Act and the National Mediation Board. The Petition-
ers contended that this Board has jurisdiction for the reason that the
missiles operation is not an airline function and is entirely separate
and distinct from the airline operations. The Employer would leave
the matter to the Board.
'The Transport Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on
the basis of its current contractual interest.
,2 The Transport Workers has represented the mechanics and ground service personnel
of the , Employer for a number of years pursuant to certifications of the National Mediation
Board -under the provisions of the Railway Labor Act. The last contract was in effect
June 8 , 1954, to September 1, 1955 , with provisions for automatic renewal
BELMONT SMELTING & REFINING WORKS, INC. 495
In Northwest Airlines, Inc.,3 we had before us the question whether
a bomber modification project, conducted by the carrier employer, was
so closely integrated with the employer's airline operations as to pre-
clude us from taking jurisdiction of the employees on the bomber
project. We held upon the facts in that case that the relation of the
bomber project to the regular carrier activities was not so remote,
tenuous, and negligible as to establish that the project is a separate
and distinct enterprise and that the employer, as to that project, was
an employer within the meaning of our Act. We also found in view of
the provisions of Section 2 (2) of our Act, excluding any person from
our jurisdiction who is subject to the Railway Labor Act, "it should be
clear that the National Mediation Board, the agency primarily vested
with jurisdiction by the terms of the Railway Labor Act, has declined
to assume jurisdiction over the operations here involved." In the
present case, we are administratively advised by the National Media-
tion Board, under date of January 30, 1956, that, after studying the
record herein, that board is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction over
the employees involved in this proceeding. We, therefore, affirm our
opinion in Northwest Airlines, Inc., that unless the National Media-
tion Board definitely declines to assume jurisdiction over such disputed
airline employees, this Board will not assert jurisdiction. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
8 47 NLRB 498.
Belmont Smelting & Refining Works , Inc., Petitioner and Local
365, international Union , United Automobile , Aircraft and Ag-
ricultural Implement Workers of America , AFL-CIO' and
Edward Kramer . Case No. T-RM-716. February 17,1956
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 Meyer G. Reines, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. Edward Kramer, an employee of the Employer, and the labor
organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer.2
The AFL and CIO having merged since the hearing in this case , we are amending the
Unions' affiliation.
2 The UAW and Kramer were named in the petition , filed herein on June 24 , 1955, as
"parties or organizations which have claimed recognition as representatives" or as
115 NLRB No. 73.