Rohr Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 499 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ROHR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
499
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor
Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the
National Labor Relations Act. as amended, we hereby notify
our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza-
tion, to form labor organizations, to join or assist
Retail Clerks International Association, AFL, or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in
concerted activities for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL NOT discriminatorily apply our no-solicita-
tion rule by making antiunion speeches to our employees
during working hours on our premises, while refusing to
accord, upon reasonable request, a similar opportunity
to address our employees to the labor organization against
which such speeches are directed.
BONWIT TELLER, INC.,
Employer.
Dated ............... By ...................................................
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days after its date
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other
material.
ROHR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT, AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, C.I.O.,
Petitioner, Case No. 21-RC-2916. April 28, 1953
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 Daniel J.
Harrington, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings
' At the hearing and in its brief, international Association of Machinists , hereinafter called
the Intervenor , moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that charges filed by the Petitioner
in Cases Nos . 21-CA-1497 and 21-CB-436 against the Employer and the Intervenor , respec-
tively, were pending. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board for ruling. Be-
cause the Petitioner filed waiver of the charges , we deny the motion . Newport News Children's
Dress Company, 89 NLRB 442. The Timken- Detroit Axle Company (Ohio Axle & Gear
Division), 102 NLRB 509 , and The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 101 NLRB 1118.
relied on by the intervenor in support of its motion, are not in point.
500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Herzog- and Members
Styles and Peterson].
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. The Employer and the Intervenor assert , and the Petitioner
denies, that a current contract between the Employer and the
Intervenor covering employees at the Employer's plant in
Riverside, California, is a bar to an immediate election among
these employees.
The contract referred to above provides, in part, as follows:
The Company recognizes and accepts the Union as the
exclusive collective bargaining agency for the purpose of
representing all production, inspection and maintenance
employees of the Company, . . . for such time as the
National Labor Relations Board shall certify the Union as
such exclusive bargaining agency. In the event the Union
shall be decertified by the National Labor Relations Board
prior to the expiration of this Agreement, this Agreement
shall become forthwith null and void.
Because it is evident from the contract provision quoted above
that the Employer's recognition of the Intervenor as the ex-
clusive collective -bargaining representative of employees at the
Riverside plant was made contingent on certification of the
Intervenor as such representative, and because that contingency
has not occurred, the contract must be held to be no bar to
this proceeding.'
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the re-
presentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner 'seeks a unit of production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Riverside plant. The Employer
contends that the appropriate unit for Riverside plant employees
should also include employees at its Chula Vista, California,
plant. The Intervenor's position on this issue is not entirely
clear. The parties further disagree as to the unit placement of
certain categories, discussed below.
At its Chula Vista and Riverside plants, the Employer is
engaged as a subcontractor in the manufacture of aircraft
parts and accessories for the United States Air Force.
The Chula Vista plant has been in operation for several
years. On September 13, 1941, following a Board Decision,
Direction of Election, and Order in Cases Nos. R-2601 and
ZCf. American News Company, Inc., 102 NLRB 196, and Hiden Warehouse and Forwarding
Company, 80 NLRB 1587. Although Member Peterson dissented in the American News case,
he regards himself as bound by the decision of the majority therein.
ROHR AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 501
R-2602, the Board certified the Intervenor as the exclusive
bargaining representative of production and maintenance em-
ployees atthis plant.3 Thereafter, the Employer and the Interve-
nor entered into collective -bargaining contracts covering these
employees. About July 14, 1952, the Employer opened its
Riverside plant, and on August 14, 1952, as the result of
previous negotiations , the Employer and the Intervenor entered
into a collective-bargaining contract covering production,
maintenance , and inspection employees at this plant effective
until November 15, 1953.
At the time of the hearing, held on February 13, 1953, the
Employer, in most cases , sent detailed parts from its Chula
Vista plant to its Riverside plant, where they were "fabricated
or assembled," and then returned to the former plant for in-
corporation into the Employer's finished products. These
were then shipped to the Employer's customer. However,
some of the accessories processed at Riverside were shipped
directly to the customer. The Employer had 1,000" production
and maintenance employees, and expected ultimately to have
2,500 such employees on the payroll of its Riverside plant.' Of
these 1,000 employees, the Employer had permanently trans-
ferred 90 from its Chula Vista plant, and 376 new employees
had received , or were receiving, job training at that plant.
The Employer had also temporarily transferred, or "loaned,"
an undisclosed number of employees from the Chula Vista
plant to the Riverside plant. At the Chula Vista plant, the
Employer determines policy, and has 1 director of personnel
and 1 accounting department for both plants.
Although certain of these factors militate in favor of a 2-plant
unit, they are not so compelling as to require our holding that
only a 2-plant unit is appropriate. These are several other
factors present in this case which warrant a finding that a
unit limited to employees at the Riverside plant is appro-
priate for bargaining purposes. The 2 plants are about 105
miles apart. The Employer and the Intervenor have bargained
for Riverside plant employees as a separate unit. Employees
at this plant work under the separate overall supervision of
the factory manager and the separate immediate supervision
of department heads and other supervisors. The Riverside plant
has its own personnel manager and personnel office and a
separate payroll. It hires virtually all its employees in the
Riverside area. Under all these circumstances, we are per-
suaded that a unit confined to employees at the Employer's
Riverside, California, plant is appropriate.°
Disputed Categories
Expediters or dispatchers and tool-crib attendants: The
Petitioner would include, and the Employer and the Intervenor
SRohr Aircraft Corporation, 34 NLRB 266, and 35 NLRB 424.
4The figures given herein are approximate.
5 There were 3,000 employees at the Chula Vista plant.
6 See Telechron , Inc., 90 NLRB 931.
283230 0 - 54 - 33
502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would exclude, expediters or dispatchers. The Petitioner would
include, and the Employer would exclude, tool-crib attendants.
The Intervenor takes no definite position as totheir unit place-
ment.
Expediters or dispatchers (excluded from the current con-
tract between the Employer and the Intervenor) and tool-crib
attendants perform the customary duties of their usual and
respective work classifications. Expediters or dispatchers
spend about 60 percent of their working time at desks in
production areas and the remainder wherever their duties
require them to go. Tool-crib attendants spend virtually all
their working time in production or maintenance areas. In
accordance with the Board's policy, we include expediters or
dispatchers and tool-crib attendants with other plant clerical
employees in the production and maintenance unit.?
Leadmen: The Employer and the Intervenor would include
leadmen as production workers. The Petitioner would exclude
them as supervisors. Leadmen direct employees in their work
duties and make personnel recommendations concerning them
to supervisors. The records, however, does not clearly dis-
close that these recommendations carry effective weight. We
therefore find that leadmen are not supervisors as defined in
Section 2 (11) of the Act and include them in the unit. e
Timekeepers: The Petitioner would include, and the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor would exclude, these employees.
Timekeepers (excluded from the current contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor) perform the customary duties
of their classification. They spend by far the greater part of
their time in the Employer's office building performing general
office functions and the remainder in production areas. We ex-
clude timekeepers as office clerical employees.'
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following
employees of the Employer at its plant in Riverside, California,
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 expediters
or dispatchers, tool-crib attendants, other plant clerical em-
ployees, and leadmen, but excluding timekeepers, other office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. At the time of the hearing, 40 to 50 employees on the
payroll of the Riverside plant were training at the Chula Vista
plant for "two or more weeks" for jobs at the former plant.
Their training assignment , if not already completed, is in the
nature of a temporary detail. We therefore find that these em-
ployees have a sufficient interest in the selection of a bargain-
ing representative for Riverside plant employees to entitle
them to vote in the election hereinafter directed."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
T D. M. Steward Manufacturing Company, 102 NLRB 461.
8Riverside Mills. 85 NLRB 969.
9 Wisconsin Motor Corporation , 100 NLRB 975.
10 Cf. Johnson City Foundry & Machine Works, Inc., 75 NLRB 475.