Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 577 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED Vul;n?E Anicu svr Corror,ATiox, For
WORTH DIVISION a97d INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACIIINISTS,,
DISTRICT LODGE No. 776
Case No. 16-R-800.-Decided Marcia 18, 19.114
Me.s.srs. Raymond E. Buck and J. M. Ilus.,ler, of Fort Worth, Tex.,
for the Company.
Mr. C. M. il19dholland, of Dallas, Tex., 319% L. M. J?ayavn, and Mr.
J. D. Smith, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Intei•nat iomil Association of Machinists,
District Lodge No. 776, A. F. of L., herein called the Union, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Folt
North Division, Fort Worth, Texas, herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board pi ovided for in appropriate hearing
upon clue notice before Gustaf B. Erickson, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on January 31, 1944. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
to introduce evidence bearing, upon the issues, and to file briefs with
the Board. At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the
petition asserting that the employees whom the Union seeks to repre-
sent are supervisory in status and do not constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon this
motion for the Board. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, we
hereby deny the Company's motion. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
55 N L R B, No 104.
578129-44-vol. 55--38 577
578 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
operates a plant at Fort Worth, Texas, known as the Fort Worth
Division, at which it is engaged,' in the manufacture of airplanes. An-
nually, the Fort Worth Division uses raw materials, the principal
one being aluminum, valued in excess of $500,000, over 50 percent of
which is shipped to the plant from points outside the State of Texas.
The Fort Worth Division annually produces airplanes valued in
excess of $1,000,000, substantially all of which are transported to
points outside the State of Texas. The Company admits and we find
that at its Fort Worth Division it is engaged in commerce, within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 776
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about January 3, 1944, the Union requested the Company to
recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees within an alleged appropriate bargaining unit. The Com-
plny refused to accord the Union such recognition on the ground
that the alleged unit was inappropriate.
A statement prepared by a Field Examiner of the Board, intro-
duced into evidence at the healing, indicates that the Union represents
a substantial number of employees within the unit hereinafter found
to be appropriate.,'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all inspectors employed in the Company's
Fort Worth Division plant, excluding the chief inspector, super-
' The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 470 authorization cards and
that the Company 's pay roll of January 14, 1944, contains the names of 1,031 persons
within the alleged appropriate unit.
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 579
visors, and assistant supervisors , constitute an appropriate bargaining
unit. The Company , on the other hand, denies the appropriateness,
of such a unit , contending that the inspectors are supervisory em-
ployees and that in its decision in a prior representation case 2 the
Board so found by determining that "their interests are identified
with management." The comprehensive record in the instant case is
replete with evidence concerning the duties and functions of the
inspectors and after careful consideration we conclude that these
employees do not fall within our customary definition of super-
visory employees and, despite our previous finding to the contrary,
we conclude further that they are not otherwise allied with
management.
The Company 's inspection division is under the supervision of a
chief inspector . Immediately below the chief inspector in authority
are the supervisors and underneath them, in turn , their assistants.
Each supervisor and his assistants are in charge of approximately
25 inspectors . There are over 1,000 inspectors employed in the various
production and maintenance departments in the plant . The inspectors
punch lime clocks in ,the same clock house used by the production
and maintenance employees, and wear red vests so that they can be
distinguished from other employees working in the plant . Inspectcrs
are assigned to the various production and maintenance departments
in the plant . Their function is to examine the work produced by the
production and maintenance employees and to approve or reject it
in accordance with certain required standards . As a general rule,
inspectors receive their appointments because of their educational
background and prior practical experience , or because of special
training they have received in the plant . In the performance of their
duties, they must be able to read blueprints , know enough mathe-
matics to make certain necessary calculations , and be familiar with
the qualities of ferrous and non-ferrous metals. Each inspector is
provided with a special stamp, a periscopic mirror, and a kit of
tools all of which he uses in his work . Each time an inspector rejects
a piece of work he attaches a red tag to it and makes out a written
report which he hands to his supervisor . If he accepts a piece of work,
he imprints his stamp of acceptance upon it. The acceptance or
2 Matter of Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Division, 47 N L R B 30.
In the cited case, the Union, as the petitioner, sought to establish an appropriate bargain-
ing unit comprised of all hourly rated production and maintenance employees in the Com-
pany's Fort Worth Division plant, including, among others, inspectors. Upon the basis
of the record before it, the Board excluded the inspectors from the appropriate unit, saying,
in part :
Although they [idspectorsl do not have the authority to hire or discharge, these
employees are engaged in the supervision of the quality of the work performed by pro-
duction and maintenance employees. . . . We shall exclude inspectors from the
appropriate unit, since their interests are identified with management.
580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rejection of work by an inspector is subject to, the approval of his
immediate supervisor who spot checks all his work and has the au-
thority to reverse his findings. In some departments inspectors are
entrusted with certain military information related to the war effort
which they must swear not to reveal. They have no authority to
hire, discharge, discipline, or alter the status of employment of the
employees whose work they inspect, nor can they effectively recom-
mend such action.
While it is true that the inspectors have the authority to reject
work produced by a production or a maintenance employee, their
rejection is based upon previously formulated specifications with
which each mechanical part produced must conform before it becomes
an integral part of a finished airplane. Moreover, as noted above, their
inspection work itself is spot checked by supervisors who may reverse
their findings. Thus, the inspectors' supervision with respect to the
quality of work produced by the production and maintenance em-
ployees in the plant is restricted by the required observance of specifica-
tions which they have no part in formulating and by the more effective
authority vested in their supervisors. In any case, their authority to
accept or reject work is insufficient to raise their stature to that of
supervisory employees. Inasmuch as it is evident that these inspectors
are skilled employees possessing considerable technical knowledge and
that their interests in matters of collective bargaining are somewhat
different from those of the production and maintenance employees
in the plant, their inclusion in a production and maintenance unit is
open to some question., Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that they
are not supervisory employees and that their interests are not allied
with those of management.
We find that all inspectors employed in the Fort Worth Division
plant of the Company, excluding the chief inspector, supervisors, and
assistant supervisors, and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to lire, 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.
v. THE I)ETERIIIN ATION OF REPRESENT AI IVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate Iniit who were employed during the
3 As above mentioned, the inspectors employed at the Fort Worth Division plant were
excluded from the production and maintenance unit found by the Board to be appropriate
in the prior representation case.
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAPT CORPORATION 581
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election 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, it is hereby
DiRECTnD that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated
Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Fort Worth Division, Fort Worth,
Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as pos-
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc-
tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth 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 employees in
the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the ply-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, 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 International Association of
Machinists, District Lodge No. 776, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining.