The Ryan Aeronautical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 25, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 356 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE RYAN AERON \L"TICAL Co., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R-4092.-Decided February 25, 194
•Ajr. James 1'17. Bunnell, of San Diego, Calif., for the Employer.
Mr. F. R. White, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Fred 0krand, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at San
Diego, California, on November 13, 1047, before George H. O'Brien,
hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE 13n7SIN SS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
The Ryan Aeronautical Co. is a California corporation engaged in
the manufacture of aircraft, aircraft exhaust systems, caskets, and
stainless steel products. The plant of the Employer involved in this
case is located at San Diego, California.
During the year prior to August 26, 1947, the Employer purchased
supplies worth in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 50 percent
was shipped from points outside the State. During the same period
the value of the Employer's output exceeded $1,000,000, of which more
than 25 percent was shipped to points outside the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-man pan9l consisting of the undersigned Board Members [Houston, Reynolds, and
Gray]
76 N. L. R. B , No. 49.
356
THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
3.37
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America and its Local 506, herein collectively
called the Intervenor, are labor organizations affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. TilE QUI,:STLON CONCI?RNING REPRESEN'T'ATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Intervenor was certified on October 21, 1940, as exclusive bar-
gaining representative for the employees whom the Petitioner now
seeks to represent.2
The Employer and the Intervenor executed a collective bargaining
contract on February 26, 1946, to continue in force until February
18, 1947, and from year to year thereafter unless notice of a desire to
modify or terminate should be given not more than 60 days, nor less
than 45 days, prior to February 18 of any year. Provision was further
made that if such a notice is given, negotiations should be opened on
proposed changes in the contract but that, unless terminated by either
party on 30 days' notice, the contract should remain in force until
agreement was reached. Prior to February 18, 1947, the Intervenor
gave timely notice of a desire to amend the contract and negotiations
on the proposed changes continued until about August 13, 1947. In
the meantime, on July 22, 1947, the Intervenor gave 30 days' notice
of a desire to terminate the contract. However, this notice was re-
scinded on August 21, and it is the position of the Intervenor that
the old contract is, therefore, still in effect and is a bar to the present
proceeding.
Even if we accept the Intervenor's contention that the provisions of
the contract executed on February 26, 1946, including the automatic
renewal clause, are still in effect, inasmuch as the instant petition was
filed on August 15, 1947, prior to the operative date of that clause, we
2 27 N L It B 14. This certification did not, however, include the employees in the
Customeis' Service Department, referred to below, inasmuch as that department was not
then in existence Theie were, moreover, specifically excluded from this certification
certain employees who were represented by United Aircraft Welders of America, Ind. See
fn 4, vnfin.
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are compelled to find that the contract is not a bar to a determination
of representatives.3
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. THE APPROPRIATE U'N'IT
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's San Diego plant, including air-
craft mechanics, but excluding the inspector in the Customers' Service
Department, office workers, employees in the engineering depart-
ment, all foremen, subforemen, all other supervisors, guards, and
those employees who are represented by United Aircraft Wielders,
Ind.4 The Employer and Intervenor have no objection to a unit so
constituted, except that the Intervenor would not exclude from the
unit the inspector in the Customers' Service Department and the
Employer, on the other hand, would exclude both the inspector and
the aircraft mechanics, all of whom work in that department.
The Customers' Service Department is a comparatively new opei -
ation of the Employer, having been established on September 1, 1947.
It is housed in a building which is 500 yards distant from the main
factory building, where the employees in the existing unit perform
their work. The employees in the Customers' Service Department
are hired by the same individuals who recruit production workers
generally, and they are subject to the same personnel procedures. and
are carried on the same pay rolls as the rest of the workers in the
plant. The disputed categories are, as already noted, the aircraft
mechanics and the inspector in this department.
The aircraft mechanics: Unlike the "field and service" mechanics
employed in the main factory buildings, the aircraft mechanics are
required to be licensed by the Civil Aeronautics Administration.'
The field and service mechanics work on aircraft in the process of
completion. The aircraft mechanics install special equipment de-
sired by a customer after the airplane has been completed and is
ready for delivery. They also service and repair airplanes brought
in by customers, whether or not the planes were manufactured by
3 Matter of Dreicrps Limited. U S .4 , Inc , 74 N L R. B 3.-
4 In inlaIter of Ifryan Aeronautical Co, 17 N L R B 231, the Boaid certified United _1ii-
craft welders of America, Ind , as the bargaining agent for all employees at the Emplo3ei s
San i,.iego plant who spent moie than 50 percent of then Working time in oxv-acetylene
ox7-h3diogen, and electric ate melding, in gas-torch cutting. and in work as neldct s
helpers
6 nowevel, some of the field and service mechanics have the same licenses as the aircraft
inc hailics
THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO. 359
the Employer. While the field and service mechanics may have
sufficient technical skill to qualify for a job as aircraft mechanic, they
would not be transferred to such a job unless, in addition, they had
the requisite C. A. A. license and sufficient poise and personality to
meet customers.
The inspector: The inspector examines the work of the aircraft
mechanics. The record is barren of any evidence as to what happens
if the inspection discloses faulty work as whether the inspectors
findings might affect the earnings of thu aircraft mechanics. So far
as the record discloses, the inspector is not a supervisor. Like the air-
craft mechanics, lie is subject to the same personnel procedures, and
is on the same pay roll, as the rest of the employees in the plant.
There is no evidence that his duties are essentially different from
those of inspectors in the main factory building who, it would appear,"
are presently included in the unit.'
Ordinarily we would include in a production and maintenance unit
employees whose working conditions are, as here, similar to those of
the other production and maintenance employees." However, inas-
much as the aircraft mechanics and inspector were not included in
the past bargaining contract, we shall order a self-determination
election 9 so that they may indicate whether or not they desire to be
included in the plant-wide bargaining unit sought here.
We shall, therefore, make no finding concerning the appropriate
unit for employees of the Employer pending the outcome of the elec-
tions. We shall direct that separate elections be conducted among em-
ployees in the voting groups described below, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Di-
rection of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set
forth in the Direction :
1. All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's San
Diego plant, excluding those described in paragraph 2, below, and, also,
excluding all office workers, employees in the engineering department,
foremen, subforemen, all other supervisors, all guards, and those em-
ployees who spend more than 50 percent of their working time in oxy-
°The pi oduction and maintenance unit certified on October 21, 1940, contains no express
exclusion of inspectors, and there is no evidence in the instant case or in the prior case
that they have been excluded
' A point of distinction stressed by the Enrplover Ni as that this inspector is sated by the
Civil Aeronautics Adnnnistiation as a Designated Aircraft Maintenance Inspector with
authority to make annual inspections on behalf of that agency with the same effect as its
own inspectors It does not appear, however, that this fact precludes a community of
interest between the inspector and the other employees.
'Matter of Piper Ao craft Corporation, 73 N L R B 427 (inspectors) , and Matter of
Dl Campo Rice Milling Conipanil, 73 \ L R B. 927 (mechanics).
8Mattct of Sorq Paper Conipani/, 74 N L R B. 5, and 11attcs of Gunnison Homes, Inc
72 N L R. B 940.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
acetylene , oxy-hydrogen and electric are welding, in gas-torch cutting
and in work as welder's helpers ; and
2. All aircraft mechanics and the inspector in the Customers' Serv-
ice Department at the Employer's San Diego plant.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with The Ryan Aeronautical Co., San
Diego, California, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date of
this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the T\venty-first Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the separate voting groups described
in Section ITT, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by International Associa-
tion of Machinists or by United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural
Implement Workers of America. Local 506, C. I. 0., for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.