Temco Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contractors but are employees within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of
the Act .2
The Employer has requested that if the Board establishes a unit of
sales representatives it should include the manufacturer's representa-
tives in Seattle and in Puerto Rico in the unit. It does not contend that
the manufacturer's representatives in Denmark or the Belgian Congo
should be included. The facts recited above indicate that the manufac-
turer's representatives occupy a position which varies considerably
from that of the sales and industrial representatives. Only one of them
is an individual, the others being business companies or associations.
They carry other lines of merchandise in addition to that of the Em-
ployer. They maintain their own offices. They do not report on their
activities to the Employer in the frequent, detailed manner that the
sales and industrial representatives do. The Employer does not make
tax deductions from their commission. We conclude that the relation-
ship between the Employer and the manufacturer's representatives is
more like that of an independent contractor than is the relationship be-
tween the Employer and the sales and industrial representatives.
Without deciding whether the manufacturer's representatives are in-
dependent contractors or employees, however, we find that their rela-
tionship with the Employer, the conditions under which they operate,
and their interests differ to such an extent from those of the sales and
industrial representatives that they should not be included in a unit
with these employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the
appropriate unit.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All sales representatives (outside salesmen) and the industrial repre-
sentative of Sweet-Orr and Co., Inc., wherever located, excluding all
other employees, manufacturer's representatives, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 See N. L. R. B. v Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company, 167 F. 2d 983 (C. A. 7),
cert denied 335 II S. 845; Golden State Agency, Inc, 101 NLRB 1775.
Temco Aircraft Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-1932.
March 26,1957
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 John F. Funke, hearing
117 NLRB No. 119.
TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 801
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 Murdock and Rodgers].
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 within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and Employer agree that a unit of all hourly paid
office and technical employees is appropriate. However, the parties
are in dispute as to employees in approximately 44 classifications 1
whom the Employer would include and the Petitioner would exclude,
either because there are employees with similar job titles in higher pay
grades who are agreed exclusions; because they are professional, man-
agerial, or confidential employees; supervisors or guards; not clerical
or technical employees; or for a combination of two or more of these
reasons.
A number of the disputed classifications of employees have job titles
similar to those of salaried employees in higher classifications whom
the parties agree to exclude from the unit. The Petitioner contends
that these disputed employees should also be excluded because they
have a community of interests with, and their promotional opportuni-
ties lie in, the excluded categories. However, while the record is not
entirely satisfactory in this regard, it appears that the parties have
agreed to exclude most if not all of the salaried employees in these
classifications as professional or managerial employees, or on a similar
basis. Thus, it is apparent that, unless the disputed employees should
also be excluded for similar reasons, the fact that they have similar job
titles is not sufficient to warrant their exclusion from the unit of
clerical and technical employees, as the Board will not establish a unit
of only a segment of the clerical and technical employees in the plant.
Moreover, while the employees in the disputed classifications may have
'In its brief , the Employer concedes that certain other classifications disputed at the
hearing should be excluded from the unit as contended by the Petitioner Accordingly,
flight test analyst A, flight test analyst 13, groundskeeper-recreation park , industrial
noise A, industrial muse 11, public relations repoitei , and stress analyst C will be
excluded from the unit Also , although the parties were in dispute as to employees
classified as fireman A and fireman 13, it appears that there were no employees in these
classifications at the time of the hearing, as fire protection work was being contracted
out, and there was no indication that firemen would be employed in the immediate futm e.
Accordingly , we find it unnecessary to decide the unit placement of the two fireman
classifications
4 23 7 54-5 7-vol 117-52
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
some hope of promotion to the higher salaried classifications, it appears
that such promotions would be contingent at the least upon satisfaction
of higher standards of qualification for the salaried classifications,
most of which require additional education, in the case of higher pro-
fessional classifications, or would entail greater responsibility and
authority in the case of other classifications. Accordingly, we find
in agreement with the Employer that the disputed classifications
should not be excluded for the above reasons and turn to the other
reasons advanced by the Petitioner in support of its contentions.2
Alleged professional employees
The research analyst A performs scientific research and original
process and product development engineering and research with guid-
ance on only the more difficult elements of assigned projects. He
works in one or several specialized branches of physics, chemistry, or
recognized fields of engineering. He designs equipment and devises
methods to obtain experimental data, setting up and conducting tests
related to research projects or directing others in such activity. Re-
search analyst A requires 4 years of specialized college training and 1
year of practice in related research or the full equivalent thereof. It
is thus apparent that employees in this classification come within the
definition of professional employees in Section 2 (12) of the Act.
They will therefore be excluded from the unit.
Research analyst B and production change analyst B are each re-
quired to have completed 4 years of college training in engineering
or in a scientific field. While it appears that employees in these class-
ifications do not perform work such as would make them professional
employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) .(a), these employees
perform work related to that of higher classified professional em-
ployees 3 and have completed the courses of study essential to qualify
for the higher classification. The record, however, is silent as to
whether or not these employees are working to qualify as professional
employees. Accordingly, we cannot determine on the record before
us whether these employees are professional within the meaning of
Section 2 (12) (b), and will permit them to vote subject to challenge.
If these employees are working to qualify as professional employees,
they will be excluded from the unit. Otherwise they will be included.
Aerodynamicist C also requires 4 years of college training in an
engineering or scientific field. However, the work of employees in
this classification, which consists of making assigned aerodynamic
calculations usually by application of standard methods, does not ap-
pear to meet the qualifications of professional work as specified in See-
2 See Brooklyn Borough Gas Company , 110 NLRB 18
a The record clearly established that employees in higher grades of these classifications
are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) (a).
TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 803
tion 2 (12) (a) ; and it further appears that employees in this classi-
fication do not meet the requirements of Section 2 (12) (b), as they
are not required to have completed the specialized instruction in aero-
nautical engineering which is required for the higher classified job of
engineer-aerodynamics. Accordingly, we find that employees in this
classification are technical employees and include them in the unit.
Other employees alleged to be professional include : construction
engineer C, contract liaison man B, electronics technician C, engineer-
ing draftsman A, engineering draftsman B, engineering draftsman C,
engineering drawings checker B, enginering liaison man B, engineer-
ing liaison man C, engineering technician, estimator B, estimator C,
flight control tower operator B, hours control engineer C, laboratory
technician A, laboratory technician B, methods analyst B, methods
analyst C, process analyst B, process analyst C, production methods
engineer C, research analyst C, secretary, special courses instructor B,
special courses instructor C, standard analyst B, standards analyst C,
weight analyst A, and weight analyst B. The record establishes that
none of these employees are required to have a sufficient degree of
"knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning cus-
tomarily acquired by prolonged course of specialized study in an insti-
tution of higher learning" to satisfy Section 2 (12). Accordingly, we
find that none of the employees in these classifications are professional
,employees.4
Alleged Managerial Employees
Buyer B purchases requisitioned items of established price and
-quality or assigned items within a specialized class of materials, placing
orders at most economical prices consistent with quality, quantity,
delivery date, special services required, Government regulations, and
past performance of the vendor.- He also handles adjustments and
claims and authorizes and arranges for the return of rejected material
to vendors. As it appears that employees in this classification are able
responsibly to pledge the Employer's credit, we find that they are
managerial and will exclude them from the unit.'
Claims negotiator B notifies vendors of canceled or reduced pur-
chase orders and assists in settlement of claims. He contacts vendors
to insure the receipt of release of claims, makes investigations, writes
-reviews of claims, and negotiates minor claims working closely with
-claims negotiator A or supervision. In view of the close supervision
of their negotiation of claims, we find that employees in this classifica-
tion are not managerial employees.6
4 The petitioner also contended that buyer B, safety inspector A, and safety inspector B
-are professional employees . In view of our findings below that these classifications should
be excluded for other reasons, we find it unnecessary to decide whether they are
,professional.
5 Peninsular Metal Products Corporation , 116 NLRB 452 ( Penrod).
6 Peninsular Metal Products Corporation , supra (Eggleston).
804 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Surplus material salesman B makes and records sales of surplus and
salvage materials to employees and the general public. He also assists
surplus material salesmen A in preparing inventories, price ranges,
and classifications of materials, operates scale and weighing devices,
and determines the most economical preparation, accumulation, and
shipment of materials. As it does not ,appear that employees in this
classification have any independent authority to establish prices of
materials sold, we find that they are not managerial employees.
Contract liaison man B, departmental assistant B, engineering
draftsman A, engineering liaison man B, engineering planner B, en-
gineering technician, hours control engineer C, methods analyst B,
standards analyst B, and standards analyst C all perform clerical or
technical duties.' Although their various duties include coordination
of information, of functions of related groups, and of work performed
with that of other departments, scheduling, expediting, and planning
functions, upon which the Petitioner relies in support of its contention
that they are managerial, we perceive nothing in their duties which
would confer managerial status upon them and find that they are not
managerial employees."
Alleged Supervisors
Secretary and stenographer-secretary, in addition to secretarial and
stenographic duties, assign work to other typists and stenographers.
Stenographer-secretary also guides and instructs other clerks and
stenographers. Surplus material salesman B, whose duties are set
forth above, directs the work of material sorters to facilitate proper
handling and turnover of materials. Weight analyst A directs weigh-
ing and weight-control work on current production or experimental
airplanes. However, there is no evidence in the record as to these
classifications that such direction requires the use of independent
judgment or is more than routine. As there is no other evidence that
employees in these classifications have supervisory authority, we find
that they are not supervisors.
With respect to departmental assistant' B, engineering draftsman
A and B, engineering drawings checker B, and engineering technician,
the Petitioner contends that employees in these classifications are super-
visors because they variously coordinate functions of related groups,
coordinate work With that of other groups, check work of other em-
-The Petitioner also contended that safety inspector A and safety inspector B are
managerial classifications however , in view of the fact that we exclude them below for
other reasons, we find it unnecessary to decide whether they are managerial
8 Engineering planner B also may make recommendations regarding transfer of per-
sonnel to meet project requirements in connection with his overall function of preparing
engineering job breakdowns , schedules, and reports Standards analyst B prepares de-
tailed technical data for use in development of standards for production design and
manufacture, in the course of which lie may iecommend standards to be used We find
that neither of these employees is managerial by virtue of his authority to make such
recommendations
TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 805
ployees, advise them of errors, and request corrections of work. How-
ever, insofar as these employees coordinate functions or work, there
is no evidence that such duties involve responsible direction of any
other employees or the exercise of any other supervisory authority.
Moreover, insofar as they check and request correction of work of other
employees, their functions are similar to those of inspectors whom the
Board regularly finds to be nonsupervisory.9 Accordingly, we find
that none of the employees in these classifications are supervisors.
Engineering planner B prepares engineering job breakdowns,
schedules, and reports from furnished material. In the course of this
duty, he may make recommendations regarding transfer of personnel
to meet project requirements. However, it does not appear that he
makes effective recommendations or that his recommendations deal
with individual employees. Accordingly, we find that he is not a
supervisor.
Special courses instructor B and special courses instructor C conduct
standardized courses of instruction for company employees. Al-
though they advise employees in the selection of courses and give and
grade examinations, there is no evidence that the grades given by them
have any effect upon the earnings or status of other employees, that
they otherwise have authority to make effective recommendations con-
cerning the status of other employees, or that they have any other
supervisory authority. Likewise there is no evidence that flight
control tower operator B or weight analyst A have any supervisory
authority. Accordingly, we find that these employees are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act.
Alleged Confidential Employees
Employees classified as secretary take and transcribe dictation and
perform secretarial duties in an assigned department. Those classi-
fied as stenographer-secretary perform a combination of clerical,
stenographic, and secretarial duties on specific permanent assignment
to the head of a department or to an executive employee of equivalent
rank in the organization.
The parties agreed at the outset of the hearing herein to exclude
confidential secretaries, identifying those thereby to be excluded as
secretaries to company officers, department heads, and the director of
industrial relations. As it is not clear from the record whether there
are additional confidential secretaries and secretary-stenographers in
the plant and as we would in any event exclude secretaries and
stenographer-secretaries "who assist or act in a confidential capacity to
persons who formulate, determine and effectuate management policies
9 See Martin Aircraft Tool Company, 115 NLRB 324, 325 (Given) , Bausch & Lomb
Optical Company , 92 NLRB 139.
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the field of labor relations," 10 all such secretaries and stenographer-
secretaries, if any, will also be excluded from the unit as confidential
employees. However, we find that the remaining secretaries and
stenographer-secretaries are not confidential employees.
Estimator B and estimator C prepare cost estimates covering design,
tooling, machinery and equipment installations, materials, and labor
for airplane parts and assemblies. It is clear from the record that
employees in these classifications are not confidential employees within
the meaning the Board attaches to that term."
Other Disputed Classifications
The Employer would include employees classified as cook A and
cook B, while the Petitioner would exclude these employees on the
ground that they are neither clerical nor technical employees. The
cooks are employed in the executive dining room located in the indus-
trial relations department. Cook A requires 2 years of diversified
hotel and restaurant cooking experience, while cook B requires 6
months' experience as a short order cook. Although the executive
dining room is located in an office area, these employees clearly lack
sufficient interests in common with the other employees in the unit to
be included in it. Accordingly, we exclude them.
The Employer would also include flight control tower operator B
and safety inspector A and safety inspector B in the unit, while the
Petitioner would exclude them as guards.12 Flight control tower
operator B assists in the direction and control of air and ground
traffic, including pedestrian and vehicular cross-runway traffic, and in
the enforcement of air traffic rules of the C. A. A. pertinent to planes
on the ground and in the air. However, it does not appear that em-
ployees in this classification "enforce against employees and other
persons rules to protect property of the employer or to protect the
safety of persons on the employer's premises," 13 in the usual sense in
which the Board interprets this phrase.14 We, therefore, find that
they are not guards and will include them in the unit as technical
employees.15
Safety inspector A determines accident causes and suggests remedial
measures for unsafe working conditions. His duties include investiga-
tion of all accidents and injuries in the plant to determine cause, check-
ing of various job conditions, development and study of new types of
io The B F Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724.
The B F. Goodrich Company, supra.
12 The Petitioner's contentions that the flight control operator B is also professional
and supervisory , and that the safety inspector A and B are managerial have been disposed'
of in discussion above.
13 Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
u See McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 109 NLRB 967.
's Member Rodgers would exclude the employees in this classification for the reason that
he considers them to be guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act.
TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 807
safety equipment, compilation of safety reports, study of medical re-
ports to obtain information relative to accident recurrence, and exami-
nation of new and in-use machinery and equipment. Employees in
this classification are required to have 2 years' general shop experience
and 1 year of experience in methods analysis and/or safety inspection.
Safety inspector B's job summary indicates that he issues and enforces
the use of devices and equipment. The work performed by employees
in this classification includes checking job conditions, issuance and
maintenance of safety devices, instruction of employees in the proper
use of safety equipment and practices, reporting findings, conclusions,
and recommendations regarding safety equipment and practice, and
reporting safety statistics. Employees in this classification are re-
quired to have only 1 year's general shop experience. Without decid-
ing whether employees in those classifications are guards , we find that
their interests and duties are sufficiently unlike those of the clerical and
technical employees in the unit to warrant their exclusion from the
unit.16
Electronics technician C's duties consist entirely of studying elec-
tronic concepts and systems, becoming familiar with test equipment
and maintenance procedures, and developing skills and techniques as-
sociated-with electronics work. While the only qualifications for this
job are a high school education, a satisfactory grade on screening tests,
and approval by department supervision, it is apparent that the func-
tion of employees in this classification is to acquire technical knowledge
and competence. Accordingly, we find that employees in this classifica-
tion are technical employees and will include them in the unit.
We find that, with the, exception of those employees specifically ex-
cluded from the appropriate unit above and those as to whom no unit
determination is made, all employees in disputed classifications should
be included in the appropriate unit. Therefore we conclude that the
following employees of the Employer at its Grand Prairie, Texas,
plant, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All hourly paid office and technical employees, including aero-
dynamicist C, claims negotiator B, construction engineer C, contract
liaison man B, departmental assistant B, electronics technician C, en-
gineering draftsman A, engineering draftsman B, engineering drafts-
man C, engineering drawings checker B, engineering liaison man B,
engineering liaison man C, engineering planner B, engineering tech-
nician, estimator B, estimator C, flight control tower operator B, hours
control engineer C, laboratory technician A, laboratory technician B,
methods analyst B, methods analyst C, process analyst B, process
analyst C, production methods engineer C, research analyst C, secre-
tary (nonconfidential), special courses instructor B, special courses
19 Cf. Heintz Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 1521 , 1523-1524.
808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instructor C, standards analyst B, standards analyst C, stenographer-
secretary (nonconfidential), surplus material salesman B , weight
analyst A, and weight analyst B, but excluding all production and
maintenance employees, all employees covered by existing collective-
bargaining contracts, professional employees, buyer B, cook A, cook B,
flight test analyst A, flight test analyst B, groundskeeper-recreation
park, industrial nurse A, industrial nurse B, public relations reporter,
research analyst A, safety inspector A, safety inspector B, secretary
(confidential ), stenographer -secretary (confidential), stress analyst
C, and secretaries , stenographers , clerks, typists, and receptionist em-
ployed in the offices of the director of industrial relations , guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Nash -Finch Company and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 795, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 17-RC-22923. March 26, 1957
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS
OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed by the parties on April 25, 1956, an election by secret ballot
was conducted in the stipulated unit on May 8, 1956, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth
Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were fur-
nished with a tally of ballots which shows that of 16 votes cast, 6
votes were for the Petitioner and 10 votes against. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of
the election. On October 16, 1956, following an investigation, the
Regional Director issued his report on objections, in which he found
no merit in the Petitioner's objections and recommended that they
be overruled, and that a certification of results of election be issued
showing that the Petitioner had not been designated as bargaining
representative by a majority of the employees. Thereafter, the Peti-
tioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report, in
which it reasserted its previously filed objections to the election.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Peti-
tioner's exceptions, and the entire record in this case and finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
117 NLRB No. 116.