Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 29, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 591 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 591
CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, FORT
WORTH DIVISION and AERONAUTICAIJ INDUSTRIAL DIS-
TRICT LODGE 776, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, AFL , Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-1432.
April 29, 1954
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 Sulton J. Boyd,
hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are h e r e b y
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3 . A question affecting commerce exists c o n c e r n i n g
the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act
for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of all registered
nurses employed by the Employer at its medical section of
the personnel department of its Fort Worth Division. At the
hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that , prior to filing the instant petition , the Petitioner
expressly disclaimed interest in representing these employees,
and therefore no question concerning representation exists.
The record discloses that on October 29, 1951 , the Petitioner
was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees herein involved . On or about January 22 , 1954, an
employee of the Company filed a decertification petition . Shortly
thereafter , on January 25, 1954 , and prior to a hearing, the
Petitioner filed with the Regional Office a disclaimer of interest.
On January 26, 1954 , the Regional Director approved the with-
drawal, without prejudice , of the decertification petition . Subse-
quently, on February 10, 1954 , the Petitioner filed the instant
petition.
In accord with recent Board policy regarding disclaimers of
interest in representation cases, we find no merit to the
Employer ' s contention . The rule, as recently adopted by the
Board, holds that where the union involved in a decertifi-
cation petition files a timely disclaimer of interest prior to the
execution of an election agreement , either consent or stipulated,
or prior to the opening of the hearing , the Regional Director
may dismiss the petition without prejudice on the basis of the
disclaimer.
As the Petitioner's disclaimer of interest in the decertifica-
tion proceeding was filed prior to the opening of the hearing
108 NLRB No. 95.
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therein , the Regional Director could properly dismiss or permit
the withdrawal of the decertification petition without prejudice.
In view thereof , we find no merit in the Employer's contention
that the Petitioner ' s disclaimer in the prior decertification
case precludes the existence of a question concerning repre-
sentation . Accordingly , the Employer ' s motion to dismiss on
the issue of a question concerning representation is hereby
denied.
The Employer , as further basis for its motion to dismiss,
contends that the unit sought is inappropriate on the grounds
that : ( 1) A unit comprised of registered nurses is not appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining ; ( 2) nurses are
confidential employees who have access to and prepare confi-
dential health records involving other employees of the
Employer ; ( 3) collective bargaining for registered nurses is
contrary to and incompatible with the code of ethics of the
nursing profession and in conflict with the public interest;
and (4) the statutes of the State of Texas prohibit the repre-
sentation of nurses by labor organizations which contain strike
provisions in their constitution and bylaws.
We find no merit to these contentions . The Board has con-
sistently recognized that nurses constitute a well-defined pro-
fessional group whose training , skill, and duties differ from
those of other employees , and that a unit confined to nurses
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. i
Furthermore , as the confidential information possessed by
nurses pertain to matters relating to the health of individuals
rather than to the field of labor relations , we find no merit to
the confidential - employee contention .t The Board has previously
found without merit the contention that the code of ethics
followed by the nursing profession precludes nurses from being
represented for purposes of collective bargaining by labor
organizations.?As to the ' Employer's fourth contention, it is
well established that State law is not determinative of rights
and obligations under the Act, except where the Act itself
expressly provides otherwise . 4 Accordingly , we reject the
Employer ' s contention as to the proposed unit and deny the
Employer's motion to dismiss based upon the alleged inappro-
priateness of such unit.
4. We find that all registered nurses employed by the
Employer in its medical section of the personnel department
at its Fort Worth , Texas, Division , who are classified as
industrial nurses, excluding all other employees , doctors,
'Continental Steel Corporation , 61 NLRB 97 at 99; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corpora-
tion, 56 NLRB 1785 ; see also, Standard Oil Company (Indiana ), 80 NLRB 1022 at 1025, and
cases cited therein.
t American Locomotive Company, Alco Products Division , 92 NLRB 115 at 117.
3 See Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation , 59 NLRB 1276 at 1277-1279.
4International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local 294, AFL, 87 NLRB 972 at 975 , footnote 5; see also , Hill v. Florida, 325
U. S. 538.
A. P. CONTROLS CORPORATION 593
head nurses, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. s
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
S We hereby grant the Petitioner's motion, referred to the Board by the hearing officer,
to amend its petition in order that the unit appear as stipulated to by the parties at the hearing.
A. P. CONTROLS CORPORATION and TOOL AND DIE MAKERS
LODGE NO. 78, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, AFL,' Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3577. April 29,
1954
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 Joseph Cohen,
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 this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. 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.
4. The appropriate unit.
The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of toolroom and model-
shop employees from an existing production and maintenance
unit at the Employer's plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on the
ground that the employees in the requested unit are craftsmen.
Alternatively, the Petitioner urges that severanceseverance of these
employees should be granted because they form a functionally
distinct and separate departmental group . The Intervenor,
Amalgamated Local 806, International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, AFL, and the Employer oppose the
severance of the requested unit for the reasons that (1) only a
production and maintenance group is appropriate in view of the
extended history of bargaining on a broader basis between the
Intervenor and the. Employer, (2) the unit involved lacks the
characteristics of a true craft , and (3 ) a high degree of inte-
gration exists in the plant which militates against any depart-
mental severance.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of heating and
refrigeration control equipment at its Milwaukee plant. In 1942,
the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representative of
108 NLRB No. 92.
339676 0 - 55 - 39