Temco Aircraft Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 29, 1958121 N.L.R.B. 1085 (N.L.R.B. 1958) Copy Citation TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1085 Temco Aircraft Corporation and International Union , United Automobile, Aircraft , and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-AFL-CIO), Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC- 2303. September 29, 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 John C. Crawford, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Bean, Jenkins, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : l 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, Office Employees Interna- tional Union, AFL-CIO,a are labor organizations claiming to repre- sent 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 appropriate' unit : The Employer, which is engaged in the manufacture, maintenance, and overhaul of aircraft, operates 3 plants in the Dallas, Texas, area: (1) the Grand Prairie plant, located at the city limits in southwest Dallas; (2) the Garland plant, located in northwest Dallas, a few hundred yards from the Dallas City limits at Garland, Texas, some 30 miles from Grand Prairie; and (3) the Greenville plant, which is some 35 to 40 miles from Garland. The Petitioner, which represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees, is here seeking a unit of office, clerical, and technical employees limited to the Grand Prairie plant 3 The Intervenor agrees with the unit request of the Petitioner. The Employer contends that the petition should be dis- 1 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 'Although the Office Employees International Union intervened and participated in the hearing, it has, subsequent to the hearing, requested the Board for permission to with- draw from this proceeding . This request is hereby granted 3 About a year ago , the Petitioner petitioned for a similar unit limited to the Grand Prairie plant, and the Board directed an election in such unit . ( 117 NLRB 800.) The Petitioner lost the election . The Employer did not raise the issue of the scope of the unit at that time, and that question was therefore not considered by the Board. 121 NLRB No. 145. 1086 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD missed on the ground that the only appropriate unit is a two-plant unit- including the Grand Prairie and Garland plants situated in Dallas County .4 Should the Board find that only a two-plant unit is ap- propriate, Petitioner requests as its alternative position : (a) a separate unit of clerical employees; (b) a separate unit of technical employees; and (c) if the Board so rules, a separate unit of salaried employees. Finally, the Petitioner wishes to be on the ballot for any election which the Board may direct 5 The Grand Prairie plant, which has a machine shop, is primarily a tooling operation making tools for that plant and also for the Gar- land plant. It also makes small parts that are not joined with other parts and also does subassembly and assembly work for the Garland plant. As previously stated, the Garland plant is located some 30 miles from Grand Prairie and is at the opposite end of the city of Dallas. It is primarily an assembling operation and has no machine shop. Toward the end of 1957 and early in 1958, the Employer com- pleted the construction of two buildings at the Garland plant site, known as the Administration Building and the Engineering Building, -respectively, which are connected by a foyer. Engineering personnel formerly at Grand Prairie were moved to the Engineering Building, which also houses the plant protection employees. Several depart- ments from Grand Prairie were moved into the Administration Build- ing. Other clerical and technical employees who were at Garland, continued to occupy parts of the Garland plant proper. On or about April 1, 1957, subsequent to the hearing in the prior case, supra, the Employer took steps to effect a reorganization of its administrative structure changing from a single-plant concept to one integrating the Grand Prairie and Garland plants into a Dallas County operation. Thus, a number of administrative departments were moved permanently to Garland, as indicated above. Some job classifications are at Grand Prairie only, some at Garland only, and still others exist at both plants. Although there may be a few em- ployees who work in one plant and report to supervision in the other, it appears that in the main, each department has its own immediate supervisor in the particular plant, with ultimate responsibility for both plants resting at the highest official echelons of the corporation. A shuttle bus operates between the two plants. Personnel and industrial relations appear to be centrally formulated. On the other hand, there is no history of collective bargaining for these clerical-technical employees. No labor organization seeks a unit of broader scope covering the two plants. The plants are geograph- * As no party sought to include the office, clerical , and technical employees at the Greenville plant, the record is scant concerning such employees at that plant. s As we are granting the primary unit request of the Petitioner , there is no necessity for considering the Petitioner's alternative positions. TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1087 ically separated by some 30 miles and are located in different com- munities. To reach one plant from the other, it is necessary to drive through the city of Dallas, which has a population of some 500,000 inhabitants, and the evidence shows that it takes at least 1 hour by automobile to make the trip. Each plant performs an essentially dif- ferent function, and has its own general superintendent, the Grand Prairie plant having two general superintendents, one in charge of special projects and the other being responsible for the bulk of manu- facturing operations. A number of departments and job classifica- tions at one plant have no counterpart in the other. There is no sub- stantial day to day interchange, and the transfers from Grand Prairie to Garland appear to be permanent. Seniority is plantwide. Al- though personnel policies are uniform at both plants, each plant is assigned its own labor relations officer. Grievances are processed initially at the department level by an employee's immediate super- visor. The clerical-technical employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are located in an area adjacent to that, of production workers at the Grand Prairie plant, who are currently represented by the Petitioner. - The pattern of bargaining for the production and maintenance workers represented by the Petitioner has been on a single plant basis.' Although a master agreement is presently in effect covering the production and maintenance employees of all three plants, several provisions specifically relate to a single plant. Rates of pay, job classifications, and rights of promotion apply equally to all three plants. However, each plant has its own local union, maintains its own officers and operates its own grievance committee. The Employer urges in its brief that because the Petitioner has de- fined the ,Grand Prairie plant as including personnel located at cer- tain off-site buildings at or near the plant, the Petitioner is virtually requesting a multiplant unit. We find no merit in this contention. The exact location of these facilities, either at Grand Prairie at the edge of Dallas or in the city of Dallas proper, is not made clear in the record. They are the Ferguson Building at Grand Prairie, and the Sadie Hawkins Building, the Brook Hallow Warehouse, the Peeler Street Building,' the Bengal Street Warehouse and the Glen- field Warehouse. There is no evidence in the record to support the Employer's contention that these facilities are operated as individual plants. They appear to be essentially service buildings used in con- , Petitioner was certified for the Grand Prairie plant in 1946, and for the Garland plant in 1951, and was recognized for the production and maintenance employees at the Greenville plant in the same year. 7 The record is not clear as to the function and activities of the Peeler Street building, except that some manufacturing may be done there and that it is•the location of a. control station. 1088 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nection with the Grand Prairie plant, for storing terminated mate- rials, receiving materials, and for miscellaneous warehouse purposes. The production and maintenance employees at these facilities are in- cluded in the same unit with the Grand Prairie employees. Under these circumstances, particularly the absence of bargaining history for the employees involved herein, the geographical separa- tion of the plants, the lack of substantial interchange,' the pattern of bargaining for the production and maintenance employees,' and the fact that no other labor organization seeks a broader unit, we find, that, notwithstanding the degree of integration between the two plants, a unit of clerical-technical workers at the Grand Prairie plant and its off-site facilities at Grand Prairie and in the city of Dallas is appropriate.10 Furthermore, a single plant unit is generally appro- priate for collective bargaining purposes, unless such plant unit has been so effectively merged with another as to destroy its identity." The record does not support a finding that such consolidation has occurred. The Board has held that administrative changes, such as are here involved, without changes in actual operations are not suffi- cient to destroy the appropriateness of the single plant unit.12 More- over, assuming arguendo, that the unit sought by the Petitioner is a multiplant unit, because of the inclusion of the off-site buildings all the foregoing reasons stated above, with the exception of the reference to the presumptive appropriateness of a single plant unit, would militate against finding a two-plant Grand Prairie-Garland unit appropriate. The Composition of the Unit The Petitioner would include all clerical-technical employees at the Grand Prairie plant, excluding all persons covered by a collective- bargaining agreement and other usual exclusions. The Employer agrees with the composition of the unit, except that it would exclude salaried personnel 13 on the ground that the latter are either profes- sional managerial or confidential 14 and because they receive a number 8K D Shaver, 119 NLRB 939. e American Engineering Co, 112 NLRB 14. 1o Wm R. Whittaker Co. Ltd, 117 NLRB 339; Hearfott Company, Inc., 112 NLRB 979; Harvey Lumber & Supply Co., 118 NLRB 737; K. D. Shaver, supra u Beaumont Forging Company , 110 NLRB 2200, where the Board held that a plant being one of the unit types listed in the statute is presumptively appropriate , and other things being equal , should prevail over other types. 12 Waldensian Hosiery Mills , Inc, 85 NLRB 758. 13 In the earlier case, supra (117 NLRB 800), involving the same unit , the parties agreed to exclude the salaried workers. That issue was therefore not considered by the Board. 8Although the Employer indicated that some of the salaried employees perform super- visory duties , the Employer's brief clearly states that only the disputed nonsupervisory salaried classifications were in issue. TEMCO AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1089 of economic benefits shared by all salaried persons, but which are not granted to hourly employees.15 We find, as indicated below, that the salaried employees are not managerial, professional, or confidential."e Moreover, it is well-established Board policy that mere differences in method of payment and of remuneration is no basis for excluding em- ployees from an appropriate unit." As there is no evidence in the record that the salaried personnel perform different duties and func- tions from those performed by the hourly workers in the classifications sought to be represented, we perceive no basis for finding that salaried workers do not have such a community of interest with the hourly paid employees as to warrant the exclusion of the former from the requested unit."' The Disputed Classifications Of the Employers 138 salaried nonsupervisory classifications, the Petitioner agreed to exclude 110 from the unit. Of the remaining 28 disputed classifications, the record shows that 11 are located at Grand Prairie. As we are limiting the requested unit to the Grand Prairie plant, we shall not consider the unit placement of the classifications located only at Garland.19 The record also shows that there were no employees in certain classifications at the time of the hearing at either plant. We therefore do not find it necessary to consider the -unit placement of these classifications 20 Buyer A : This man purchases materials for the Company and is often required to pledge the company's credit. We find that Buyer A is managerial, and exclude him from the unit. In the prior case, supra, Buyer B, a classification of lesser importance, was found to be managerial. Field service representative : The Petitioner and Employer would exclude this man, while the Intervenor would include him. This man's duties are to make contracts and commitments for the Employer with outside contractors. We find that he exercises managerial func- tions, and exclude him from the unit. 15 Salaried workers are paid on a fixed monthly basis as opposed to the hourly paid basis of the hourly employees ; salaried workers do not punch timeclocks, are paid whether absent or late, are promoted on merit, receive a larger insurance policy, and are entitled to a bonus , all of which benefits are not given to hourly employees. 16 See decision in 117 NLRB 800, supra, where we held that many of the classifications, particularly in the lower levels of such classifications , were not professional , managerial, or confidential. 17 Brown Instruments Division, etc., 115 NLRB 344, 346; A. 0. Smith Corporation, 102 NLRB 1116; Armour and Company, 119 NLRB 122. is See also Eastern Sugar Associates, 119 NLRB 493. 19 Auditor B ; claims negotiator A ; contract liaison man A ; data processing analyst ; development liaison engineer ; electronics technician A ; engineer planner ; facilities survey man A ; technical artist. m Auditor A ; engineer sales A and B ; engineering drawings checker ; factory special assignments man ; flight control tower operator ; linesman senior ; standard analyst A. 487926-59-vol. 121-70 1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Estimator "A" and senior estimator: The Employer contends these men are confidential employees. There is little detailed evidence in the record as to their duties, except that they-make estimates as to the cost of a particular contract job. According to the job descriptions introduced as an exhibit, the qualifications for both jobs are substan- tially the same, except that the senior estimator is normally required to have more education, training and experience. In the prior hear- ing, supra, we found that estimators were not confidential employees within the meaning the Board attaches to this term. We find nothing in the present record to warrant a finding to the contrary. Project scheduler, master scheduler, and production change analyst "A": The project scheduler is employed in planning and production control. No formal education is required. His duties are to prepare schedules for new or existing models and to prepare progress reports on such schedules. The master scheduler prepares schedules of pro- duction, engineering, tooling, etc. The production change analyst "A," according to the Employer's brief, does virtually the same work as the master scheduler, except that the former makes schedules for engineering changes rather than for the whole aircraft. We find' that all these classifications are technical, and include them in the unit. Project liaison man "A": This man is also employed in planning and production control. The job classification does not call for any specific formal education. His duties are to investigate and check schedules for production of assigned models. We find this man is a technical employee and include him in the unit. Electronic technician "B": Electronic technicians "A," "B," and "C" work together under the same supervision. "B" and "C" do a lower level of work such as wiring, building assemblies, etc., and may be promoted to "A" and "B" classifications respectively. We find nothing in the record to warrant a finding that "B" is a professional, and we shall include him in the unit. Linesman: There is no evidence in the record concerning the quali- fications for this job, except that the linesman's duties are related to those of the linesman senior, who directs the making of templates and tooling layouts. The Employer conceded that he could not be called a professional. We find that the linesman is a technical employee and include him in the unit. Department assistant "A": This man is described as a legman for the superintendent and other top executives, for whom he makes reports and investigations. There is no evidence that he has mana- gerial status. Department assistant "B" was not considered mana- gerial in the prior decision, supra. We shall include him in the unit. CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORPORATION 1091 We find that, with the exception of those employees specifically excluded from the appropriate unit, above, and those as to whom no unit determination is made, all employees in disputed classifications referred to above should be included in the appropriate unit. There- fore, we conclude that the following employees of the Employer at its Grand Prairie, Texas, 21 plant, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. All office and plant clerical and technical employees, including estimator "A," senior estimator, the project scheduler, the master scheduler, the production change analyst "A," the project liaison man "A," electronic technician "B," the linesman, and the department Assistant "A" but excluding buyer "A," the field service representa- tive, all production and maintenance employees, all employees cov- ered by existing collective-bargaining contracts, professional em- ployees, confidential employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ' Grand Prairie plant includes the Sadie Hawkins Building , the Brook Hallow Ware- 'hiouse, the Peeler Street Building , the Bengal . Street Warehouse, the Glenfield Street Warehouse, and the Ferguson Building. Cities Service Refining Corporation and Lake Charles Metal Trades Council , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC-1812. September 29, 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 Loren P. Jones, hearing of- ficer. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 121 NLRB No. 144. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation