Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 920 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It having been found that Respondent discriminated in regard to the hire and tenure
of employment of Ann Otts by discharging her on August 9, 1963, I will recom-
mend that Respondent reinstate her to her former or substantially equivalent em-
ployment, and make her whole for any loss of pay which she may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against her by payment to her of a sum of money equal
to that which she would have earned as wages from the date of the discrimination
against her to the date of her reinstatement, less her net earnings during such period,
in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB
289, with interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, in accordance with Isis Plumbing
& Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716.
The Union has filed a brief herein dealing almost exclusively with a request that
a more "onerous" order be issued against Respondent here because of the prior un-
fair labor practice complaints issued against this Respondent in Cases Nos. 26-CA-
1164 and 26-CA-1454 of which I was asked to take administrative notice. I do
not feel that the facts of this case warrant more than the broad cease-and-desist order
usual in such cases.-
Because of the type of the unfair labor practices engaged in by Respondent, I
sense an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general, and hence I
deem it necessary to order that Respondent cease and desist from in any manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
3. By discharging Ann Otts on August 9, 1963, thereby discriminating in regard
to her hire and tenure of employment and discouraging union and concerted activities
among its employees, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8.(a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
4. By permitting the display of an antiunion poster threatening the economic wel-
fare and working conditions of, its employees and by otherwise interfering with,
restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. _
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication.]
-Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc. and United Automobile, Air-
craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW-
CIO), Petitioner . Cases Nos. 21-RC-553 and 21-RC-599. June
29, 19614 .
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 10, 1944, the Petitioner was certified as the repre-
sentative of a unit of hourly paid production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Long Beach, California, plant (Case No.
21-R-2025).' On October 18, 1948, following a consent election con-
ducted by the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region in a
voting unit confined to employees classified as general and special
tool investigators and designers "A," such employees were added to
the certified production and maintenance unit (Case No. 21-RC-553).
1 54 NLRB 67.
147 NLRB No. 91.
DOUGLAS,AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 921
On November 18, 1948, following a consent election conducted by the
same Regional Director in a voting unit confined to employees classi-
fied as production processors "B," those employees were added to the
certified production and maintenance unit (Case No. 21-RC-599).2
By motion filed October 29, 1962, and supplementary motions filed
January 29 and February 18, 1963, Petitioner alleged that, in 1960
and early 1963, the Employer reassigned all, or substantially all, the
work functions and job duties of four represented job classifications
to other job classifications, as described more fully hereinafter. By
its motions, Petitioner seeks to include in the unit the job classifica-
tions to which such assignments have allegedly been made. On
November 18, 1962, February 11 and 25, 1963, the Employer filed
answers in opposition to Petitioner's motions, generally denying the
accuracy of the Petitioner's basic allegations. It moved to deny the
motion largely on grounds that: (1) the jobs which Petitioner seeks
to include in the unit are outside the scope of Petitioner's certifica-
tion and involve work that has historically been done by unrepre-
sented classes of employees who cannot be added to the unit without
a self-determination election; and (2) the Union's motion raised work
assignment disputes which cannot appropriately be resolved in this
proceeding.
Pursuant to an order of the Board, a hearing was held on various
days in April, May, and July 1963, before Hearing Officer Clifford
Hardy. Both parties participated in the hearing. Subsequently, each
of the parties filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedoin, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Office made at
the hearing and finds they are free from prejudicial error.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the, posthearing briefs
of the parties, the Board finds as follows:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
At its Long Beach operations, the Employer is engaged in manu-
facturing and assembling the component parts of aircraft for which it
has obtained contract orders. It presently employs a total comple-
ment of approximately 10,000 individuals, about 6,700 of whom are
represented by Petitioner in its certified unit of hourly paid produc-
tion and maintenance employees.
As noted above, the Board certified the Petitioner for this unit in
1944. Since that date, the Petitioner and the Employer have had a
continuous bargaining relationship. In their 20 years of bargaining,
2 Neither Case No. 21-RC'-553 nor 21-RC-599 is published in NLRB volumes.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the parties have developed precise definitions of the classifications
falling within the unit. The most recent description of the composi-
tion of the unit is set forth in a 3-year contract dated July 1, 1962.
This contract defines by job title and job code number the job classi-
fications within the unit.
The job classifications here in issue were all in existence at the time
the 1962 contract was executed . As explained by the Employer, some
of the unit classifications were "depopulated"-in one instance before,
and in others since the contract's date-while the "population" of cer-
tain nonunit classifications was increased . But it does not appear that
any of the unit classifications have been eliminated from the job struc-
ture as it existed when the contract was executed. There is, however,
evidence that, as a result of the Employer revisions in its work proce-
dures and its administrative organization , certain changes have taken
place affecting some of the classifications mentioned in the clarification
motion. Because of the nature and extent of the changes, Petitioner
argues jobs carrying titles identifying historically unrepresented
classes of employees are now in fact "unit" jobs.
The classifications in issue and the facts pertaining thereto, as well
as the positions of the parties as to each , are as follows :
Tool Designers A
Petitioner claims that , as a result of the Employer 's 1962 changes
in the job content and working conditions of tool designers A, a pre-
viously unrepresented classification of employees , they are now indis-
tinguishable from the unit represented general and special tool in-
vestigators and designers A.' It further claims that, in any event, the
changes in the jobs of tool designers A would justify a finding that
those employees are an accretion to the unit.
The G and S designer classification was newly added in 1948 to the
Employer's job structure, whereas the tool designer A classification, as
well as other technical tool designer classifications , had long existed
prior thereto . It appears that the G and S designer job was created,
in part, to relieve employees then engaged as tool designers and as
planners of certain work responsibilities concerning the investiga-
tion and processing of shop requests for tooling work. Shortly after
the Employer added the G and S designer classification , the parties
entered into a consent-election agreement providing for, and ulti-
mately leading to, the addition of this classification to the certified unit.
This consent agreement expressly specified that all tool designers
would remain excluded from the unit. -
The record indicates that the above-described employees in both
designer classifications were continuously employed between 1948 and
3 Hereinafter called G and S designers.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 923
1962, and that the Employer made no changes in the working condi-
tions of either during this period which have any bearing on this case.
During this entire period, tool designers A, a higher paid group, were
responsible for processing the tooling orders of professional engineers
and had no additional duties other than those involved in technical
-tool designing. Their assignment included the most difficult and com-
plex of the Employer's specially designed tooling work. As the pro-
fessional engineers who directed them worked largely in the context
of customer contracts calling for manufacture of specially engineered
aircraft systems (military or commercial), the tooling orders they
processed were referred to in plant parlance as "contract" tool orders.
G and S designers, on the other hand, were responsible for processing
tooling orders or requests of shop or production personnel, not em-
ployed in professional capacities. Unlike tool designers A, their
duties were not confined to technical tool design work, but included
the investigation of the tool requests of shop personnel, and the plan-
ning of the necessary tooling involved in such requests in line with
production schedules. As the tooling orders which G and S designers
thus processed normally involved general production tools of a port-
able or perishable nature other than those engineered by the Employer
for purposes of a particular contract, they were frequently referred
to in plant parlance as "noncontract tool" orders 4
Until sometime before July 1962, the two groups of employees were
organizationally assigned to different departments; -they were sep-
arately supervised; and had different work stations. While their tool
design assignments may have been interchangeable, it does not appear
that the employees had in fact ever been interchanged. The G and
S designers were in perishable tool design, department 611, in a divi-
sion headed by the manager of tooling; tool designers A were in tool
design, department C-652, in a division headed by the chief project
engineer.
Sometime before July 1962, the Employer transferred all tool design
functions to a general supervisor of tool design and placed the latter
under the chain-of command of the chief project engineer, who now
headed a newly created major plant division. It redistributed to other
classifications of employees in the unit so much of the job duties of G
and S designers as involved the investigation and tool planning or tool
liasion functions they had theretofore performed, and thereby made
4 The Employer has always acquired some of its general production tools by purchase
from tool manufacturers specializing in this kind of work, and had assigned to G and S
designers the work involved in adapting or redesigning such tools to fit its particular needs.
Until 1958, the Employer usually charged the costs of general tools and of any work in-
volved in designing or redesigning the same to meet its needs, to its capital accounts In
1958 it installed new accounting procedures under which it can determine what part of
its costs for general tool work is fairly chargeable to a particular contract manufacturing
project, and thus allocate the same to the particular contract account involved Since
installation of these new procedures , there has been a marked decrease in the tooling
orders charged to its "capital" [or "noncontract"] accounts.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the job of G and S designers exclusively a tool-designer job.-' And,
on July 5, 1962, the Employer relocated all the G and S designers and
placed them in the same building and area where the tool designers A
were working. While their department number (611) remained un-
changed, they worked side by side with tool designers A under depart-
ment C-652's chain of command, and now received their work
assignments from the same sources. There were then seven G and S
designers and two tool designers A.
In September 1962, the Employer invited the seven G and S design-
ers to apply for reclassification as tool designers A. All of them
accepted the invitation and, on October 1, 1962, all were thus reclas-
sified. All were assigned to sections within department 652: five to
machines tool design, general and dies and two to assembly tool-
general master tools. The G and S designer jobs have not been filled
since. The tool designer A complement has been increased to 18.6
Alleging that tool designers A are now performing the "unit"
work of G and S designers, Petitioner asks the Board to declare that
all tool designers A belong in its unit. Alternatively, it asks clari-
fication of the unit to include: (1) the 7 tool designers A whom it
represented as G and S designers, or (2) the 10 tool designers A in
department 652's machines tool design, general and dies and assembly
tools-general master tools` sections, or (3) the five former G and S
designers who comprise the total complement of tool designers A in
machines tool design, general and dies.
However, unlike G and S designers, employees in the tool designer
A classification have historically been utilized exclusively for tool
designing work. The G and S designers who have been reclassified
as tool designers A will no longer be responsible for the investigation
and tool .planning or tool liaison functions they once performed,
which work has been reassigned to employees within the unit. At all
times during which G and S designers have been included in the unit,
5 The record shows that in about June 1962, G and S designers filed a series of griev-
ances complaining of the Employer's assignment of their work to planners (a unit classifi-
cation). The Employer admits reassigning the nondesign work functions of G and S de-
signers to planners and other unit classifications.
9 Employer agents testified that following the reclassification of the former G and S de-
signers, It had received an unexpected order calling for general tools which had been com-
pleted as of the date of the hearing ; that both before this order was received and after it
was completed, the Employer did not have sufficient general tool work to keep even one
employee busy full time ; and, that, due to the increasing availability of more and more
varieties of tools on the open market, it anticipated an even further reduction in its need
for general tool adaptation or design work. The Employer also produced documentary
evidence showing a reduction in "general tool" or "noncontract" tool orders. Petitioner
contends that because of the new accounting methods, the Employer's records do not
necessarily portray a wholly accurate picture of whether its general tool design work re-
quirements are less than they were before its organizational changes The fact remains,
nonetheless, that the testimony of Employer's agents as to a reduction in general tool work
having occurred before the 1962 transfers, with further reduction anticipated, is supported
by other objective facts. Some of the employees who were formerly G and S designers,
and who testified at Petitioner's request, admitted that they had noticed a substantial
reduction in work assignments and were concerned about layoff before their reclassification.
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 925
tool designers A have been excluded therefrom. The latter's work
functions are no different now than they were during the many years
they were excluded from the unit.
Blueprint Clerks
At all times since the 1944 certification, the Employer has employed
a complement of blueprint clerks A and B who are engaged in main-
taining files of the blueprints used by the Employer in its operations.
Until the changes referred to below, the Employer maintained blue-
print files in several locations in its factory or shop areas and an all-
inclusive blueprint file as part of its engineering subdivision in an
office area. Blueprint clerks assigned to the shop files were included
in the unit as plant clericals, while those assigned to the engineering
subdivision file were excluded as office clericals. The job descriptions
and the rates of pay for both unit and nonunit clerks were the same.
However, each group was separately supervised, the unit clerks being
assigned to the chain of command of the material and production
departments they serviced and other clerks being assigned to the
chain of command of the engineering subdivision.
In 1962 the Employer determined that the shop files were carrying
obsolete prints and that, in many instances, shop people were going
directly to the engineering subdivision files to obtain needed blue-
print information. It therefore decided to eliminate the shop files
and to have all of the file information requested by shop personnel,
other than those working in the. material subdivision, distributed by
a delivery service from all inclusive files maintained in the engineer-
ing subdivision. Consequently, it substantially, reduced its comple-
ment of unit clerks 7 and almost doubled the blueprint clerk comple-
ment assigned to the engineering subdivision where it centralized its
files. In so doing, it offered all the shop clerical employees affected by
these changes an opportunity to transfer to the engineering subdivi-
sion blueprint clerk jobs, and all except one did so." Their chain of
command does not encompass any bargaining unit employees. Peti-
tioner seeks a declaration by the Board that all the blueprint clerks
belong in its unit, or alternatively, "that the Blue Print Clerks trans-
ferred out of the unit by the Employer are in fact in the unit."
Product Reliability and Quality Control Groups
Here we, are asked to compare the job duties and work functions
traditionally performed by inspectors-development, who are, unit
7 Only those assigned to service the material subdivision were retained . This division
was under the manufacturing manager.
8 The one in question exercised certain rights to return to another unit position.
926 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, to certain duties presently assigned to and performed by
salaried employees classified as specialist, engineer, analyst, and rep-
resentative in the product reliability group, and as engineer and rep-
resentative in a quality control group, and to conclude that, because
the Employer has recently assigned to some or all these employees
certain quality control functions previously performed by inspectors-
development, those employees performing such work should be found
to be part of the unit.
In about 1958 the Employer revised its existing quality control
program for the purpose of satisfying governmental regulations per-
taining to the bidding for military and weapons-system contracts.
As a result, a new product reliability assurance program was adopted
and the duties and responsibilities which devolved upon the afore-
mentioned classifications in the product reliability group were defined.
Those engaged as product reliability specialists perform the high
level functions of (1) formulating and developing broad concepts of
a comprehensive product reliability program for complete complex
weapon or transport system; (2) directing the efforts of other per-
sonnel in implementing a program as established in collaboration
with company and outside personnel; and (3) monitoring the opera-
tion as necessary to assure maximum reliability in compliance with
the objectives guaranteed to customers as obtainable.
Employees engaged as product reliability engineers also perform
a high level function in (1) developing product reliability objectives
and requirements for some major part of the -complete aircraft or
weapon system either with reference to existing operations or future
proposals on customer contracts; (2) planning, organizing, formaliz-
ing, and directing this major project; and (3) monitoring, by review
or survey, an installed program to assure conformity with previously
outlined objectives.
Quality control engineers are involved in originating, developing,
coordinating, and directing comprehensive quality control programs
for major aspects of an already concurred contractual obligation to
produce an aircraft or weapons system as promised. As part of their
duties, they evaluate and interpret the results of the total quality
control program they planned and prepare a report for management
forecasting the significance of the data or conclusions reached on
future operations.
Product reliability representatives and quality control representa-
tives perform work in support of one or more of the broader manage-
ment functions delegated to professional and high level administrative
personnel responsible for comprehensive or major product -reliability
or quality control programs. They are assigned relatively broad re-
sponsibilities or duties with reference to a limited portion of a major
quality or reliability program. Their duties include the evaluation of
DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. 927-
established quality and product reliability standards; the develop-
ment and/or analysis of already developed techniques and procedures
used to assure compliance with said standards; the research and anal-
ysis of information to pinpoint problem areas, actual or potential;
and the origination of corrective or preventive action measures they
regard as necessary in the circumstances. Both groups participate
in meetings between management, vendor, subcontractor, and other
customer agents concerned with the evaluation and development of
quality control and reliability assurance. methods and techniques, and
offer advice and help in these areas.
The employees engaged as product reliability analysts perform in-
dependent investigations of data relating to product reliability fail-
ures; analyze and interpret this data through use of mathematical or
advanced statistical methods or techniques, and prepare interpretive
and. analytical reports defining the areas indicated by their survey as '
having actual or potential product reliability problems.
All these higher paid employees in- the classifications above de-
scribed perform work of a predominantly intellectual and varied type,
possessing high level educational requirements normally identifying
professional employees, or have work interests' closely allied with
other excluded categories consisting of professional and technical em-
ployees. Petitioner has never represented them as part of its unit.
As already indicated, the basis for Petitioner's present request that
they be included in the unit is that the Employer has delegated to
them certain responsibilities of unit-included inspectors-development
for controlling errors of omission detected by them in the performance
of their assigned tasks of physical inspection. Significantly, however,
the predominant part of the work and functions which these salaried
employees continue to perform has not been "unit" work.
Production Processors A
Petitioner would add production processors A to the unit on the
ground that the Employer has assigned to them all of the functions
and duties of employees it had represented as production processors
B. It further alleges that, in any event, there is now no difference
of any consequence between the job content of the two classifications
which would warrant the continued exclusion of production proces-
sors A from the unit.
The production processor B classification is hourly rated. It iden-
tifies employees assigned to various manufacturing departments to
perform certain clerical, investigative, liaison, and follow-up work
This work contributes to the solution of shop problems arising from
the application of tool design and tool planning, plant'layout, manu-
facturing planning, and work simplification methods and procedures
928 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
during certain production or manufacturing processes . The subject
employees expedite production orders in much the same manner as
would production control follow -up clerks , or liaison-production as-
sistants . They maintain extensive clerical records , charts ,, and graphs
to represent manufacturing activities and progress of work, and to
list and reflect changes in planning paper or modifications in blue-
prints , shop loading , and parts availability information . They are
required to have a practical knowledge of a scientific or technical sub-
ject such as shop loading , plant layout , or disbursement , and an under-
standing of aircraft engineering , production planning , or tool design
papers and materials . While their work has certain technical charac-
teristics and requires the exercise of initiative , it does not involve the
consistent exercise of independent judgment , and is predominantly
clerical, rather than technical , in nature.
The production processor A classification is salaried. It identifies
employees assigned to various manufacturing departments to assist in
solving industrial engineering problems involving the efficient use of
men, materials, tools, and equipment in the manufacturing processes.
Such employees conduct method studies in the high cost problem areas
to find the most efficient way of performing any operation or series of
operations . They are called upon to make operations analyses , deter-
mine time standards , analyze material handling problems , and dis-
bursement methods, and compile technical data in these areas. They
are also called upon to provide supervision with technical assistance in
incorporating-improvements in these areas . They are required to have
a basic knowledge of a scientific or complex technical subject such as
production processing, tool planning , and operation analysis , as well
as special_experience in these areas.
In obtaining the technical data necessary to evaluate and analyze the
problems involved , production processors A frequently do certain
investigative , clerical , and follow-up work similar in nature to that
which production processors B regularly performed as part of their
day-to-day job duties . Nonetheless , it is clear that production proces-
sors A are predominantly engaged in work of a technical character
which is distinguishable from the work predominantly performed by
production processors B.
While the Employer has not employed any production processors B
since 1961 , and has since increased its complement of production
processors A, there is no evidence that the work of the latter classifica-
tion has been substantially changed from what it was during the more
than 10 years preceding the institution of this proceeding . Produc-
tion processors A have remained an unrepresented classification of em-
ployees throughout the entire period of their existence.'
9 As related above, only production processors B were added to Petitioner ' s unit in 1948.
LOCAL UNION 337, UNITED ASSOCIATION (PLUMBING) 929
CONCLUSIONS
The certification which the Petitioner seeks to clarify is 20 years
old. As already indicated, many changes in the Employer's opera-
tion have taken place since its issuance. Certain of these changes are
the reason for Petitioner's requests herein. It appears that the em-
ployees whom Petitioner wants included in the unit by Board declara-
tion belong in classifications which if not in existence at the time of
the certification or deemed excluded from the unit, have never been
represented by the Petitioner as part of the certified unit. The as-
signment of additional duties or personnel to these classifications has
not altered their basic nature and characteristics.10 None is now en-
titled to inclusion in the existing unit as an accretion or by amend-
ment of the certificate. Upon the basis of these considerations, and
the entire record, we believe that Petitioner's motion for clarifica-
tion should be denied.11
[The Board denied the motion for clarification.]
10 We are not of course passing upon the impact of the contract upon the Employer's
right to make work changes such as are involved herein.
11 See Aluminum Company of America, 146 NLRB 929; General Electric Co., 144
NLRB 88.
Local Union No. 337, United Association of Journeymen and
Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the
United States and Canada, AFL-CIO [Townsend and Bottum,
Inc.] and Frank Ubbes. Case No. 7-CB-1083. June 09, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 1, 1963, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent, Local 337, had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor prac-
tice alleged in the complaint and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the at-
tached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Local 337 filed excep-
tions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Ex-
aminer's Decision, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner only to the extent consistent with
this Decision.
147 NLRB No. 95.
756-236-65-vol . 147--60