Grand Central Airport Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 3, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1094 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED, AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO)
PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R-3-351.-Decided September 3, 1946
Latham & Watkins, by Mr. Paul R. Watkins , of Los Angeles , Calif.,
for the Employer.
Mr. Scelecttor Gage, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Robert J. Freehling, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Los
Angeles, California, on June 14, 1946, before James A. Cobey, Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Grand Central Airport Company, a California corporation, is
engaged in operating an airport, in overhauling, repairing and recon-
verting airplanes and airplane engines, and in training personnel
for work in the aircraft industry, at its Glendale, California, airport.
The Employer is not a common carrier by air. During the 12
months preceding the hearing, the Employer used materials valued
in excess of $400,000, of which more than 60 percent represented
shipments from sources outside the State of California. During the
same period, the Employer sold materials and services valued in
excess of $3,500,000, of which approximately 1 percent represented
shipments to customers outside the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
Ing of the atrona.
70 N. L. R. B., No. 91.
1094
GRAND CENTRAL AIRPORT COMPANY ' 1095
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1
The Petitioner 2 is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer. ,
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of 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 of all production and maintenance
employees of the Employer, including the storekeeper and stock clerks
of the airplane division, and the gas dispensers, but excluding project
planners, timekeepers, plant-protection employees, firemen, leadmen
and all other supervisory employees.3 The Employer takes the pri-
mary position that the appropriate unit should generally include all
its nonsupervisory employees; in the alternative, it would limit the
unit to its production employees, including therein the project planners
and leadmen, and excluding therefrom the storekeeper and stock clerks
of the airplane division, and the gas dispensers.
Scope O 'f unit:
The Employer's operations are conducted at its Glendale, California,
airport, where its physical facilities consist of an airfield, with build-
ings and hangars on one side and additional buildings on the opposite
side thereof. Organizationally, its operations are divided into various
divisions including the' airplane, engine overhaul, transient service,
field maintenance, operations control, normal overhead, and pur-
chasing and stores divisions, and the Cal-Aero Technical Institute.
These components function as follows : The Cal-Aero Technical In-
'On July 23, 1946, subsequent to the hearing in the instant case, the International
Association of Machinists , hereinafter called the IAM, for itself and in behalf of District
Lodge Number 727, filed a motion to intervene in this proceeding and to be placed on the
ballot in any election directed herein. Thereafter, on July 30, 1946, the Board ordered the
parties to show cause in writing , filed with the Board on or before August 12, 1946, why
this motion should not be granted . By letter dated August 7, 1946, the Petitioner inter-
posed objections to the proposed action. Inasmuch as it appears that the IAM did not
have any representation interest in the employees in issue at the time of the hearing, we
shall, for the reasons stated in Matter of The United Boat Service Corporation, 55 N. L.
R. B. 671 , deny the IAM's motion . See also Matter of Swift and Company, 68 N. L. R. B.
440.
z The name of the Petitioner appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
The unit appears above as amended at the hearing
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stitute, which is located in buildings on both sides of the airfield, is a
vocational school engaged in training students for skilled jobs in the
aircraft industry; the airplane, engine overhaul and transient service
divisions, which are situated in a group of the hangars, perform the
repairing, overhauling and reconverting of airplanes and airplane en-
gines; the field maintenance division4 is charged with the maintenance
of the entire airport, including all facilities located therein; and the
operations control, normal overhead and purchasing and stores di-
visions are concerned pirncipally with the Employer's administrative
and clerical duties. It is generally apparent from the foregoing, and
from the entire record, that the individuals employed in the airplane,
engine overhaul, transient service and field maintenance divisions
comprise the Employer's production and maintenance employees, and
that, except for occasional technical assistance rendered by instruc-
tors of the Cal-Aero Technical Institute, no interchange of employees
ordinarily occurs between the production and maintenance divisions
and the remainder of the Employer's operations.
Accordingly, inasmuch as the Petitioner has organized the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees and the foregoing
facts establish the appropriateness of a unit of such employees, we shall
reject the Employer's contentions as to the scope of the unit.'
We come now to a discussion of the disputed categories.
Storekeeper:
The Employer employs one storekeeper who is charged with the
safekeeping of customers' property after its removal, from airplanes
being serviced. He is assigned to a hangar of the airplane division
and is supervised in his work by the'superintendent of that division.
He is apparently subject to the same conditions of employment as the
other production and maintenance employees. It is therefore clear
that the interests of the storekeeper are closely akin to those of the
production and maintenance employees and, accordingly, we shall
include him in the unit.
Stock clerks:
The parties are also in dispute as to 2 stock clerks who, unlike the
30 to 35 stock clerks in the purchasing and stores division functioning
generally as office clericals, are assigned'to the airplane division and
work under the supervision of the superintendent of the latter division.
Their duties include the safekeeping and issuing of equipment used in
the overhaul and reconversion of airplanes and their storeroom,is
4 This division appears to include such employees as janitors , general utility workers,
laborers , gardeners , maintenance mechanics , maintenance carpenters , maintenance painters
and truck drivers.
See Matter of Armour and Company , d/b/a Armour Creameries , 63 N L . R. B 1214;
and Matter of Seripto Manufaeturmg Company, 65 N. L. R. B 222.
GRAND CENTRAL, AIRPORT COMPANY 1097
located in a hangar of the airplane division. It is apparent that the
stock clerks of the airplane division are in close contact with the pro-
duction and maintenance employees and that their work closely re-
sembles that of factory clericals. Under well established principles of
the Board, such employees are included in units of production and
maintenance employees in the absence of agreement of the parties to
exclude them.6 Consequently, we shall include the stock clerks of the
airplane division in the unit.
Gas dispensers:
The six gas dispensers employed by the Employer are part of the
transient service division and are engaged in filling the gas tanks of
aircraft on the Employer's airfield. Inasmuch as the gas dispensers
form an integral part of the transient service division, which is ad-
mittedly a production division, we are of the opinion that their inter-
ests are closely identifiable with those of the production and
maintenance employees. We shall, therefore, include them in the unit.
Project planners:
The Employer employs three project planners who plan and co-
ordinate the flow of parts through the various repair and overhaul
departments. Although they work in one of the hangars of the air-
plane division, they are supervised by the head of the operations con-
trol division and are considered by the Employer to be part,of the
operations control division. Inasmuch as the project planners appear
to serve in a capacity similar to that of efficiency experts, and on the
entire record in the case, we are of the opinion that their interests are
substantially different from those of the production and maintenance
employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude the project planners from
the unit.'
Leadmen:
The Employer's 30 leadmen are employed in the airplane, engine
overhaul, and transient service divisions where each is assigned to
oversee the work of from 2 to 10 employees. Although each leadman
spends a substantial portion of his time performing the same type
of work as his subordinates, he is also responsible for the latter's in-
struction, the quantity and quality of their output, and the safety in
the performance of their duties. In addition, he receives a higher
rate of pay than that of his subordinates. The leadmen do not appear
to have authority to hire, promote, or discharge, but they are required
to submit periodic ratings of their subordinates, and these reports
6 Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N. L . R B 531 ; Matter of Cities
Service Oil Company , 60 N. L. R . B 988 , and Matter of Rockford Screw Products Co , 62
N. L. R. B 1430.
' Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc , 60 N L. R. B 876.
7098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL .LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are relied upon and form the basis of action taken by persons having
such authority. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that
the leadmen are supervisory employees within the Board's customary
definition of that term and, accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees 8 of the
Employer at its Glendale, California, airport, including the store-
-keeper and stock clerks of the airplane division, and the gas dispensers,
but excluding project planners, timekeepers, plant-protection em-
ployees,-firemen, leadmen, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, 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,
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Grand Central Airport Com-
pany, Glendale, California, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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 Twenty-first Region, acting- in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations-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, 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 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 Union,
United- Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW-CIO), -for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part ii the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
8 We hereby adopt the agreement of the parties at the hearing to include in the estab-
lished unit as production employees the inspectors and engine parts inspectors.