Boeing Aircraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 287 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, SEATTLE SUPERVISORS LODGE
1750, PETITIONER
Case No. 19-R-1863.-Decided August 23,1946
Messrs. J. P. Coie and A. F. Logan, of Seattle, Wash., for the Em-
ployer.
Messrs. E. J. Eagan and C. L. Bentley, of Seattle, Wash.,-for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Harvey B.'Diamond, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND,
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Seattle,
Washington, on June 25 and 26, 1946, before Benjamin B. Law, Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Trial Ex-
aminer reserved ruling for the Board on motions by the Employer to
dismiss the petition herein. For reasons stated hereinafter,, the
motions are hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Boeing Aircraft Company is a Washington corporation having its
principal offices and plants in Seattle, Washington, and a plant in
Renton, Washington. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture
of aircraft, and annually purchases and ships to its plants from points
outside the State of Washington, raw materials valued in excess of
$100,000. The Employer annually produces and ships to points out-
side the State of Washington finished products valued in excess of
$100,000.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
70N.L.R.B,No.30.
287
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative-of supervisory employees of the Employer
until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
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
The Petitioner seeks a unit 1 of foremen, assistant foremen, super-
visors,2 assistant supervisors, and all other supervisory employees of
comparable status, employed in the production, maintenance and "in-
direct" departments, whose duties involve the supervision of rank and
file employees currently represented by International Association of
Machinists and Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 751. The Employer
does not oppose the unit composition as sought by the Petitioner, but
contends that the unit is inappropriate inasmuch as: (1) the personnel
involved herein are an integral part of management and therefore not
"employees" within the meaning of the Act, and (2) the International
Association of Machinists represents the, rank and file employees of
the Employer and is therefore not competent to represent the super-
visors.
The contentions of the Employer have been considered and disposed
of by the Board in similar cases wherein we held that supervisors are
"employees" within the meaning of the Act 3 and as "employees" they
are normally entitled to an unrestricted choice of collective bargaining
representative.'
We find that all foremen, assistant foremen, supervisors, and assis-
tant supervisors employed in the production, maintenance, and `.`in-
direct" departments of the Seattle and Renton plants of the Employer-
who supervise rank and file employees represented by International As-
sociation of Machinists and Aeronautical Industrial Lodge 751, includ-
There are approximately 339 employees in the appropriate unit.
2 The term "foreman " is used by the Employer to indicate a supervisory person in the
"factory direct " departments and "supervisor" to designate a person of equal status in the
"factory indirect" departments
3 Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta -Shannopen Coal Diiision , 66 N. L.
R B 386 , and the cases cited therein.
4 Matter of The Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania , et at , 66 N. Ie R B. 1152;
Matter of United Steel and Were Company, 67 N L R B 240.
BOEING AIRCRAFT COMPANY 289
ing all supervisory personnel having a status comparable to that of
foreman or assistant foreman, but excluding all other employees, con-
stitute 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Boeing Aircraft Company, Seattle
and Renton, Washington, 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 Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec-
tions 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
latiolis-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing employees 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 or not
they desire to be represented by International Association of Ma-
chinists, Seattle Supervisors Lodge 1750,5 for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
For the reason stated in my disenting opinions in the Packard
Motor 6 and Jones cC Laughlin ° cases, I am constrained to 'dissent from
the majority opinion in this case.
6 The Petitioner requested that the navies of both the International and the Lodge appear
on the ballots and that both organizations be certified jointly. We are of the opinion that
such it designation might be ambiguous and we therefore direct that the name appearing
on the ballots conform to that set forth above. (See Matter of Utah Copper Company,
57 N L R. B 308, and the cases cited therein )
°Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L. R B. 4
a Mattel of Jones cC Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, supra.