The Airparts Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 1341 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of VICTOR SILBER, WALTER SILBER, AND HOWARD DE S.
HODSON, DOING BUSINESS AS THE AIRPARTS COMPANY and UNITED
ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1225,
C. 1. 0.
Case No. 2-R-5107.-Decided December 30, 1944
Kurzman and Frank, by Mr. Isidore Minkin, of New York City,
for Airparts.
Protter and Bagley, by Mr. Julius E. Bagley, and Messrs. Jack
Rand and Abraham Tashlitsky, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Mr. Paul
Neopon, of Bronx, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Sidney Grossman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, Local 1225, C. I. 0., herein called
the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Victor Silber, Walter
Silber, and Howard de S. Hodson, copartners, doing business as The
Airparts Company, New York City, herein called either the Com-
pany or Airparts,l the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Leon Novak, Trial Ex-
aminer. - Said hearing was held at New York City on November
24, 1944. Airparts, the Union, and Victor Silber, Walter Silber, and
Catherine Silber, copartners, doing business as Special Machine Tool
Engineering Works, hereinafter called Special, appeared and partici-
pated. All parties 2 were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
1 At the hearing , the name of Airparts was amended as designated above.
2 The shop committee which functioned informally as the representative of the employees
of Airparts prior to the organization of the Union herein, was served with Notice of
Hearing, but did not appear.
. 59 N. L. R. B., No. 245.
1341
i
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:,
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Victor Silber, Walter Silber, and Howard de S. Hodson, copart-
ners, doing business as The Airparts Company, are engaged in the
business of manufacturing miscellaneous parts for airplanes an,d
helicopters in New York City. Airparts was organized for the pur-
pose of acting as the exclusive subcontractor for Special which is also
engaged in the business of manufacturing aircraft parts for prime
contractors as part of the war effort. Its work consists entirely of
labor performed upon materials furnished by Special. During the
year 1943, raw materials purchased by Special aggregated in excess
of $25,000, of which approximately 50 percent was delivered to Air-
parts; approximately 90 percent of all the raw materials purchased by
Special was secured from sources outside the State of New York.
During the same period, the value of all finished products manu-
factured by both companies was in excess of $25,000, of which ap-
proximately 80 percent was shipped to points outside the State of
New York.
Both Airparts and Special, jointly and severally, admit that they
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National-Labor
Relations Act.
ir. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
1225, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of Airparts.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 3, 1944, the Union addressed a letter to Airparts, stating
therein that it represents a majority of Airparts' employees and re-
questing that a conference be held. Airparts refused to grant recogni-
tion until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit. -
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter, found appropriate .-3
i
8 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 29 membership cards, 25 of
which bore dates in September 1944, and 4 In October 1944, in an alleged appropriate unit
consisting of 36 employees `
.
THE AIRPARTS COMPANY 1343
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Airparts, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit confined to the employees of Airparts. Air-
parts and Special contend that the employees of the two companies
together constitute an appropriate unit. The parties are in general
agreement that' the unit should be comprised of all employees, in-
cluding the shipping clerk, but excluding office and clerical employees
and all supervisory employees.
Special was created in 1914, as a corporate enterprise, and, as a
result of a reorganization in November 1941, at which time it con-
ducted its business at a different address, the present partnership was
formed. Airparts was organized in May 1941, for the purpose of pro-
ducing aircraft parts which Special did not have the productive ca-
pacity to manufacture. It leased a loft from Special at its present
address. Its business was financed with the assistance of Howard de
S. Hodson, who became one of the partners, but who has no financial
interest in Special. Thereafter in June 1944, Special leased a loft
directly under the space occupied by Airparts, and removed its busi-
ness thereto.
As previously indicated, both companies are engaged in the pro-
duction of aircraft parts. The record discloses that all orders for
such parts are secured by Special from prime contractors and that
it subcontracts a substantial portion of the work to Airparts at a
flat rate and provides the raw material therefor. A substantial
portion of the production of both companies is interrelated in the
sense that each may perform one or more operations on the same
part. Although each company employs its own office personnel, these
employees perform clerical duties for both companies, are responsi-
ble to a supervisor in the employ of Special, and work in an office
located "in the premises occupied by Special. A central shipping
department located at another address, the employees of which are
on Special's pay roll, services both companies. A substantial portion
of the machinery used by Airparts is leased to it by Special and each
enjoys the use of jigs, fixtures, and perishable tools owned by the other,
without remuneration. The general operation and the personnel
policies of both companies are centrally administered.
While the' interrelated character of the operation and management
of the two companies, and the proximity of their locations, lend
some weight to the contention that the unit proposed by the com-
panies is an appropriate one, other factors, noted below, compel a
618683-45-vol 59-86
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contrary conclusion. Thus, the independent character of Airparts,
inherent in its partnership composition and in its relationship with
Special as a subcontractor, the absence of a history of collective bar-
gaining upon the basis of a single unit notwithstanding the contem-
poraneous operation of the companies for over 3 years during which
time informal shop committees functioned independently in each plant,
and other factors disclosing a segregation of activities, are per-
suasive of the appropriateness of a separate unit for Airparts' em-
ployees. The record reveals that each company operates under a
different shift, engages its own inspection and supervisory personnel,
and maintains separate pay rolls. Each functions under separately
established wage schedules which contain numerous wage differentials
for job classifications common to both. Each maintains its own finan-
cial and accounting record, secures its own insurance, including work=
men's compensation, and has a separate bank account. A single bonus
system is employed, but each company predicates bonus computa-
tions upon its own operations and pay roll. - Interchange of em-
ployees is infrequent, and no established policy of seniority exists.
In view of the foregoing considerations, we are of the opinion that
the employees of Airparts constitute a separate appropriate unit
apart from the employees of Special for the purposes of collective
bargaining.4
Production-control clerk. The Union regards this employee as
part of the clerical personnel and, therefore, would exclude him.
Airparts urges his inclusion as a production employee who shares
in the shop bonus together with other production employees. The
record discloses that the production-control clerk maintains progress
records of production in the plant and is responsible, in the per-
formance of his duties, to the plant superintendent. He works in an
office in the premises occupied by Airparts while the office and clerical
employees, as indicated above, work elsewhere under separate super-
vision. Since his work is intimately associated with production, we
shall include the production-control clerk in the unit.
We find that all employees of Airparts, New York City, including
the shipping clerks and the production-control clerk, but excluding
office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
s Matter of Bethlehem -Alameda Shipyard, Inc., 53 N. L. R. B. 999.
5 The shipping clerk John F. Glaser.
- THE AIRPARTS COMPANY 1345
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act; and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it
is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represen-
tatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Victor Silber,
Walter Silber, and Howard de S. Hodson, doing business as The
Airparts Company, New York City, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules-and Regulations among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during the
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces-of the
United States, who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 1225, C. I. O.,6 for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
O The request of the Union to appear upon the ballot as designated above is hereby
granted.