Royal Jet Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1558 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL . LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
Other than pointing up the timing of the changeover aid the fact that it could,
have been made in August 1954 the General Counsel did not adduce evidence 19 to
prove that the Respondent 's motive for the change was to defeat the organizational
activities of its employees , and not business and economic as Respondent contended.
The suspicion , if any , created by the timing 19 is not proof and a finding of violation
of the Act cannot be based on suspicion alone . See Valencia Service Co ., supra.
Upon the entire record , I am convinced and find that Respondent did not close
its plant-protection department on December 31, subcontract the work thereof, and
terminate the employment of all its plant-protection employees for the reasons
alleged in the complaint.
I have found above that Respondent violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by
Franson 's interrogation of Gurjack and Williams . However, in view of the _
isolated character of this conduct I find that it would not effectuate the policies of the
Act to issue a remedial order based on such conduct alone . See Bob Morgan Motor
Company , Inc., 106 NLRB 334. It is therefore recommended that the complaint
herein be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case , I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The R. C. Mahon Company , Detroit, Michigan , is engaged in and at all times
material has been engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. International *Union, United Plant Guard Workers of America and its Amal-
Local 114 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. The Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 ( a) (1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Is The General Counsel proved that prior to the reduction in force on December 3, as
heretofore found , Respondent questioned employees Gurjack and Williams about the
union membership cards.
191n view of Respondent's expansive operations , the delay in making its decision with
regard to the plant-protection department does not impress me as much as it did the
General Counsel. The Respondent always had adequate plant-guard protection pre-
sumably its primary concern and there did not appear any Imperative need for an immedi-
ate decision in August when the offer from McInerney was received.
Royal Jet Incorporated and United Aircraft Workers, Petitioner
Royal Jet Incorporated and National Union, United Welders of
America , Independent , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-4809 and
21-RC--4866. October 7, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Floyd C. Brewer and Paul
E. Weil, hearing . officers. The hearing officers ' 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 [Members Rodgers, 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.
118 NLRB No. 214.
ROYAL JET INCORPORATED 1559
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 Employer is engaged in the production of parts for military
aircraft. For a number of years in the past it has recognized the
Intervenor as the bargaining representative of its production and
maintenance employees and entered into bargaining agreements with
the Intervenor covering such employees.
In Case No. 21-RC-4809, the Aircraft Workers seeks a plantwide
production and maintenance unit. The parties all stipulate as to the
appropriateness of such a unit.
In Case No. 21-RC-4865 the Welders Union seeks to sever on a
craft basis a unit of welders. The other parties contend, inter alia,
that the welders are not craftsmen and that the proposed unit is, there-
fore, not appropriate. The Employer employs some 17 welders who
operate automatic, semiautomatic, and hand welding machines.
These welders work not only with ferrous metals and alloys but with
aluminum. which requires the application of advanced welding tech-
niques to obtain a satisfactory weld. They must also be able to join
properly sheets of metal of different thicknesses. Even their machine
operations require more than ordinary skill in submerged are and
heliarc work. Moreover, these welders are required to be certified by
the Air Force and failure to obtain or to retain such certification
results in loss of employment as a welder. The Board has previously
found similarly certified welders in the aircraft industry to be crafts-
men? In view of the foregoing, we find that the welders whom the
Welders Union seeks are craftsmen and they may, as the Welders
Union is a traditional representative of the welders craft,3 constitute
a separate appropriate craft unit.
However, we will make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall direct that separate elections be held in the following voting
groups at the Employer's, Alhambra, California, plants :
(a) All employees who spend 50 percent or more of their time
on welding including leadmen but excluding helpers, spot welders,
all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act 4
1 Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 170, AFL-CIO,
intervened at the hearing on the basis of its contract with the Employer covering certain
employees in the requested units. The Intervenor did not raise its contract as a bar to
the petitions.
The Intervenor refused to stipulate that the United Aircraft Workers is a labor organi-
zation. The record shows that the Aircraft Workers was recently organized to represent
the employees of the Employer for purposes of collective bargaining. It has a constitu-
tion and duly elected officers and a membership composed of employees of the Employer.
Accordingly, we find that the Aircraft Workers is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act.
2 Hughes Aircraft Company, 117 NLRB 98; Northrop Aircraft, Inc., 117 NLRB 1717.
8 Hughes Aircraft Company, supra.
4 None of the parties object to the composition of the Welders Union proposed unit
aside from the overall objection that welders are not craftsmen . The Welders Union also
1560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) All production and maintenance employees including inspec-
tors, shipping and receiving clerks, stock handlers, and truckdrivers,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, em-
ployees included in group (a) above, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select the
Welders Union, that group will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate bargaining unit, which the Board, under
those circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is
hereby instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such
union for such unit. In that event, if a majority of employees in
voting group (b) select the Aircraft Workers or the Intervenor,
then the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the winning union for a unit of such employees,
which the Board under the circumstances finds to be appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting group (a) do
not vote for the Welders Union, such group will be appropriately
included in the same unit with the employees in voting group (b) and
their votes will be pooled with those in that voting group.-' If a
majority of employees in the pooled group select either the Aircraft
Workers or the Intervenor, the Regional Director is instructed to
issue a certification of representatives to the winning union for such
unit, which under such circumstances the Board finds to be appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
sought to include specifically apprentices and trainees. The record shows, however, that
the Employer employs no such employees. As for the spot welders, the record shows
that they work on fully automatic equipment which they cannot regulate, that their
work is not skilled, and that they are not certified.
5 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes
for the welders Union shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against a
union seeking the production and maintenance employees ; all other votes are to be
accorded their face value, whether for representation by a union or for no union.
St. Regis Paper Company and Stationary Engineers Local #86,
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 1-RC-49418. October 7, 1957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the
Board on July 29, 1957,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
„118 NLRB No. 216.