Wright Aeronautical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 868 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
UAW-CIO AMALGAMATED LOCAL 669, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-R-7090.-Decided February 20, 1947
Spence, Hotchkiss, Parker, and Duryee, of New York City, by Mr.
Andre Maximov, for the Employer.
Witt & Cammer, of New York City, by Mr. Harold I. Cammer, for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Frank Truatt, of Clifton, N. J., for the Guards Union.
Brenner, Butler cfi McVeigh, of New York City, by Mr. John I.
Corrigan; and Miss Helen F. Harper and Mr. Edward G. Wilms, of
Paterson, N. J., for the Association.
Mr. Benjamin B. Lipton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
York City, on November 27, 1946, before Bertram Diamond, 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 National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Wright Aeronautical Corporation is a New York corporation
engaged in the manufacture of aircraft engines. Its main office and
plant are located at Woodridge, New Jersey. During the year ending
October 31, 1946, the Employer purchased more than $1,000,000 worth
of raw materials, 75 percent of which was obtained outside the State
of New Jersey. During the same period the Employer sold more than
$1,000,000 worth of aircraft engines, 90 percent of which was shipped
outside the State.
72 N. L. R. B., No. 145
868
WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 869
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congrees of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
Special Police Guards Union, Local 23318, herein called the Guards
Union, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Engineers and Salaried Employees Association, herein called the
Association, is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Employer's guards on the ground that
these employees are presently covered by a contract with the Guards
Union. This contract was executed on December 10, 1945, and provided
for automatic annual renewal unless notice of desire to terminate, mod-
ify, amend, or cancel any of its terms be given by either party at least
30 days prior to the December 10 expiration date of each successive
year. Inasmuch as the petition herein was filed on September 23, 1946,
more than 30 days before the operative date of the automatic renewal
clause, we find that the contract is not a bar to this proceeding?
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
At the hearing date, the Employer had five plants located in the
Paterson-Woodridge area.2 After the close of the hearing the parties
filed a stipulation 3 stating that Plants 3 and 4 have since been sold and
the employees therein laid off; the stipulation also stated that a con-
templated transfer and sale of Plants 1 and 2 had not been effected due
to the purchaser's default, with the result that "there is little likelihood
that title to these plants [Nos. 1 and 2] will pass within the two or
three months" after January 22, 1947.
' See Matter of Michigan Producer 's Dairy Company , 68 N. L R B. 6, and cases cited
therein.
s
These are designated as Plants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.
'
which we make a part of the record herein.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the Petitioner and the intervening unions originally re-
quested a bargaining unit composed of the guards employed at the Em-
ployer's afore-mentioned five plants, the change of circumstances re-
sulting from the sale of Plants 3 and 4 would preclude the inclusion of
these plants in the unit in this case. The Employer originally opposed
the inclusion of the guards at Plants 1 and 2 in the unit for the reason
that a contract of sale of these properties had already been executed,
with performance expected on or about January 15, 1947. In view
of the default in the performance of this contract, the eventual sale and
transfer of Plants 1 and 2 is wholly a matter of speculation. We do not
believe that the guards located there should be denied representation
merely upon the basis of such fortuity. Accordingly, we will follow the
contract unit, except as to Plants 3 and 4, and shall include in the unit
the guards employed at Plants 1, 2, and 7.
The Petitioner and the Association separately represent other cate-
gories of the Employers' employees not here involved, and the Em-
ployer and the Guards Union contend that these labor organizations
may not also represent a unit of guards performing monitorial func-
tions.4 In accordance with established policy, we find no merit in
this contention .5
We find that all guards employed by the Employer at Plants 1, 2,
and 7 in the Paterson-Woodridge area, including special investiga-
tors,6 but excluding chiefs, lieutenants, captains, and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, 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.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Wright Aeronautical Corpora-
tion, Woodridge, New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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 Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
4 The Employer's guards are responsible, among other duties, for the enforcement of
plant rules prohibiting gambling, smoking, loitering, etc.
5 See Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company, 71 N L. R. B. 11 ; Matter of Cameron
Manufacturing Corporation, 72 N. L. R. B. 203; Matter of Hy grade Food Products
Company, 69 N. L. R. B. 235; Matter of Cudahy Packing Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 150.
6 Specifically agreed to by parties at hearing.
WRIGHT AERONAUTICAL CORPORATION 871
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including em-
ployees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by Amalgamated Local 669, United
Automobile Workers of America, CIO, or by Special Police Guards
Union, Local 23188, AFL, or by Engineers and Salaried Employees
Association (Independent), for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by none.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Company case,' which I find equally applicable here, I would
dismiss the present petition.
'71 N. L. R. B. 11.