Bell Aerospace Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bell Aerosystems Company, a division of Bell Aerospace Cor-
poration and American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, ' Petitioner . Case No. 3-RC-2435. April 19, 1961
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 W. Irving, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this cage to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. Locals 501 and 516 contend that certain of the technicians herein
sought are performing duties identical with those in the units which
they presently represent under contract, and that their contracts are
therefore a bar to an election in any unit including these disputed em-
ployees.' In an earlier case,4 Local 501 sought to include these same
technicians in a unit of production and maintenance employees. The
Board, in excluding the technicians from the unit, found that, al-
though there were a few employees represented by Local 501 who were
called technicians, the work performed by the latter employees dif-
fered materially from the work of the technicians excluded from the
production and maintenance unit. The record herein supports the
same finding and shows further that none of the employees repre-
The Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the he-iring.
The Electrical Workers Research Association , Inc, herein called the Association,
intervened on the basis of a showing of interest . The Petitioner alleged that the Asso-
ciation is not a labor organization . As the record shows that the Association was formed
for the purpose of negotiating with the Employer regarding wages , hours, and other con-
ditions of employment , we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. See Mark J. Gerry, Inc , d/b/a Dove Manufacturing Company, 128 NLRB 778.
The International Union of United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , AFL-CIO, and its Locals 501, 516 , and 1286 sought to intervene in
this proceeding We grant intervention to the International , herein called UAW, in
view of its showing of interest , and accord it a place on the ballot . Local 1286 disclaimed
interest at the hearing . As the contracts of Locals 501 and 516 do not cover employees
in the appropriate unit ( see discussion in paragraph 3, below ) and as these locals made
no showing of interest among such employees , we shall not accord them a place on the
ballot, but grant them intervention solely with respect to their contract contention. See
Calorator Manufacturing Corp ., 129 NLRB 704.
8 Although the position was stated at the hearing that the contracts are not urged as a
bar, the brief filed by UAW contends the contracts are a bar. As we find the contention
without merit , our consideration of the question raised for the first time in the brief will
not prejudice any of the parties.
* See Bell Aircraft Corporation , 98 NLRB 1277 . The Employer , Bell Aerosystems
Company, is also known and referred to as Bell Aircraft Corporation.
131 NLRB No. 26.
BELL AEROSYSTEMS COMPANY, ETC. 131
sented by Locals 501 and 516 possess the skills necessary to perform
the work of the technicians sought in this case. As we find that the
contracts of Locals 501 and 516 do not cover the technicians here
involved, we hold that the contracts do not constitute a bar.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of the 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 Petitioner seeks to represent all the technicians employed by
the Employer in its avionics and rocket divisions. It was agreed by
all parties that technicians could form an appropriate unit.
In the earlier case, supra, the Board specifically found that the same
technicians as involved herein were technical employees under the
Act, and excluded them from the production and maintenance unit.
It was clearly evidenced at the hearing, and the parties agree, that
the work of the technicians is substantially the same now as it was at
the time of the 1952 decision. The evidence shows, in fact, that the
work of the technicians has become more complex. We accordingly
reach the same finding as the Board did before, i.e., that the tech-
nicians sought are technical employees.
The Employer and the Association take the position that the tech-
nicians in the two divisions should be set up as separate units, while
the Petitioner and the UAW take the position that the technicians
of the two divisions should be included in one unit.
The Employer's operations are divided basically into two divisions,
avionics and rockets. All of the technicians in question work in labora-
tories attached to the two divisions. The rockets division is located at
Modelton and Wheatfield, New York, while the avionics division is
located at North Tonawanda and Wheatfield, New York. The work
of the avionics division is primarily concerned with electronics, while
the work of the rockets division is basically chemical and mechanical.
The two divisions are functionally separate, and the work and immedi-
ate end products differ. However, both are engaged in research and
development. There has been very little interchange of employees
between the two divisions, for the skills involved are substantially
different. On the other hand, the payroll, accounting, plant protec-
tion, personnel, and labor relations departments of the Employer
uniformly service both divisions. The hours, hourly rates, fringe
benefits, and other general working conditions are the same for
technicians in both divisions. Apart from these considerations, there
is the crucial factor that all existing bargaining units s cover the
entire Niagara Frontier operations of the Employer, which embraces
5 The production and maintenance unit is represented under contract by Local 501.
There are nine other separate contracts covering, for example , lithographers ( Local 1286),
timekeepers , fire captains , and guards (Local 516).
132 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
both the avionics and rockets divisions. There is no basis, therefore,
for establishing the separate bargaining units for the technicians, as
contended by the Employer and the Association.' We find that a
single unit of all the technicians is appropriate, consistent with the
scope of the existing units.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
Niagara Frontier facilities (Erie and Niagara counties in the State
of New York) constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical employees in the avionics and rockets divisions of the
Employer, but excluding all other employees, office clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors' as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6It is well established that the Board will find inappropriate a technical unit which
does not comprise all the Employer's technical employees. See Westinghouse Air Brake
Company, Union Switch f Signal Division, 119 NLRB 1391 ; The Monarch Machine Tool
Co., 98 NLRB 1243.
7 Subsequent to the filing of the petition 24 technicians received promotions as a re-
sult of an organizational change by the Employer. The Employer's witnesses testified
that these 24 individuals effectively recommend the hiring and discharge, and responsibly
direct the work of, the employees under their supervision. As there is no evidence to the
contrary, we shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors.
Stein-Way Clothing Company, Inc. and United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-4528. April 19, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On January 10, 1961, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner except as modified below 2
1 Member Rodgers would not rely on the Trial Examiner's inference that because of the
small size of its plant the Respondent knew or suspected that Agnes Garland was engaging
in union activity.
2 The Respondent has excepted, inter alia, to the Trial Examiner's recommended remedy
awarding reinstatement and backpay to Agnes Garland. The record reveals that a few
,131 NLRB No. 27.