Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 551 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of LocKihEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
ENGIE EERS AND ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION Or SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA,
AIRCRAFT CHAPTER, PETITIONER
Case No. 21-R-3192.=Decided February 12, 1947
Messrs. Emil Steck, Jr., and Robert H. Conan, both of Burbank,
Calif., for the Employer.
Kate, Gallagher cc Margolis, by Mr. Ben Margolis, of Los Angeles,
Calif., for the Petitioner.
Mr. E. R. White, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at Los Angeles, California, between July 30 and August 9, 1946, before
James A. Cobey, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed. The motion to dismiss, filed by International Association of
Machinists, Aeronautical District Lodge No. 727, herein called the
Intervenor, and the objection of the Employer to proceeding with an
investigation of the merits of the amended petition, are denied and
overruled for reasons hereinafter stated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, a California corporation, has its
principal office and place of business at Burbank, California, where
it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of airplanes and airplane
parts. The Employer owns and operates numerous plants within the
State of California, and has offices in various other sections of the
United States. During the period from July 1, 1945 to July 1, 1946,
the Employer purchased for use in its plants within the State of Cali-
fornia, raw material exceeding $40,000,000 in value, of which more
72 N. L. R. B, No. 105. 551
1
552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than 50 percent was shipped to the California plants of the Employer
from points outside the State of California. During the same period,
the Employer's sales of products manufactured within the State of
California exceeded $100,000,000 in value, of which sales more than
50 percent represented products shipped from the Employer's Cali-
fornia plants to points outside the State of California.
The Employer does not deny and we find that it is engaged in com•
coerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.,
International Asscciation of Machinists, Aeronautical District
Lodge No. 727, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
ill. TI1E QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain employees of the Employer until
the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate iillit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner contends that the unit of engineering employees, pre-
viously established by the Board 2 and which it currently represents,
be enlarged to include the following additional classifications : Tool
Designer, Technical Illustrator, Commercial Artist, Production Proc-
essor, Estimator, Production Change Analyst, Materials Engineer,
Industrial Engineer, Cost Engineer, Manufacturing Planner and
Manufacturing Designer. The Petitioner further contends that should
any of these classifications be converted into differently named but
corresponding classifications,? such classifications should be added to
the Petitioner's present unit. Both the Employer and the Intervenor
oppose any enlargement of the Petitioner's present unit and contend
that the classifications sought by the Petitioner in the present pro-
1 The Petitioner is the same organization as that referred to by the name of Engineers
and Architects Association of Southern California , Burbank Chapter , in a previous decision
involving employees of the Employer . See Matter of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 58
N L. R. B 1188; 59 N. L. R. B. 274.
2 See footnote 1, supra
3 The record discloses that the Employer has recently completed negotiations with the
Intervenor for the redescription and reevaluation of all technical and office classifications
represented by the Inteivenor , including certain of these involved in the present proceeding.
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 553
ceeding cannot appropriately be made a part of such unit. The
classifications in issue will be considered in the order hereinabove
referred to.
Tool Designer: This classification, which exists in the several grades
of A, B, and C, is hourly paid in all grades and is presently repre-
sented by the Intervenor under an exclusive bargaining agreement
with the Employer covering substantially all hourly paid employees
other than certain engineering employees included in the unit now
represented by the Petitioner.4 The function of employees in the
classification of tool designer is to design routine tooling and changes
therein. As a necessary preliminary thereto, the individual tool de-
signer is furnished with a tool design order prepared by a tool planner,
an hourly paid employee now represented by the Intervenor. Upon
the completion of the design, the drawing of the tool designer is blue-
printed and sent to a tool liaison man who, like the tool planner herein
above mentioned, is hourly paid and within the present bargaining
unit of the Intervenor. Although tool designers may work under the
technical direction of a tool engineer ,5 a classification now represented
by the Petitioner, the individual tool designer works primarily with
the tool planner, with whom he invariably confers before drafting his
design. The work of tool designers is performed almost completely
in the production planning department, as distinguished from the
engineering department. With respect to the qualifications of tool
designers, it appears that engineering training other than such as may
be obtained from shop experience is not required by employees in this
classification for the adequate performance of their duties.6
The Petitioner contends that the technical nature of the work per-
formed by tool designers requires that they be included in the engi-
neering unit for which the Petitioner has been certified as bargaining
representative. While the Board has, on occasion, included both engi-
neering and other technical employees in the same bargaining unitj
the unit now represented by the Petitioner is essentially enginering
in characters Employees in the classification of tool designer, con-
sidered in the light of the foregoing description of their functions in
the Employer's organization, are not, in our opinion, engineering em-
* The present unit of the Petitioner includes both salaried and hourly paid engineering
employees The hourly paid classification represented by the Intervenor includes certain
of the classifications sought by the Petitioner herein
' The tool engineer is consulted by the tool designer on questions relating to engineering
6 The statement to the contrary in Employer ' s Exhibit 3, to the effect that college engi-
neering training is required for employees in the classification of tool designer is not, in
our opinion , controlling in view of the fact that the exhibit in question is a standard job
description , applicable generally to tool designers throughout the aircraft industry of
Southern California and only loosely applicable to employees of the Employer
See Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 69 N L R B. 860.
a The employees included in the Board's certification to the Petitioner are specifically
referred to therein as "engineering employees."
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of the type now included within the engineering unit repre-
sented by the Petitioner. Moreover, although the work of tool de-
signing is necessarily of a technical nature, it does not appear that
the tool designers herein concerned are primarily associated with
engineering employees or have an opportunity for obtaining technical
knowledge not usually available to ordinary production einployees.s
Under the circumstances and in view of the fact that tool designers
have been included in the unit of hourly paid employees which the
Intervenor currently represents, we find that tool designers may not
properly be included within the present unit of engineering
employees 10
Technical Illustrator: Employees in this classification, including
both A and B grades, are hourly paid and are therefore represented
by the Intervenor in common with other hourly paid employees. The
employees presently within the classification of technical illustrator
are divided between the Engineering and Manufacturing Divisions.
Those in Engineering illustrate customers' operational manuals, while
those in Manufacturing are for the most part engaged in the drawing
of tools, parts, and assemblies for use as a guide by production em-
ployees. Although some technical knowledge is required, no en-
gineering training or experience is necessary for the performance of
the duties of technical illustrator. Since it appears that technical
illustrators are neither engineering employees, as such, nor largely con-
fined in their duties to the Engineering Division, we find that they
have but few interests in common with employees in the engineering
unit. In the absence of such community of interest and in view of the
fact that technical illustrators have been included in the unit of hourly
paid employees now represented by the Intervenor, we find that tech-
nical illustrators may not properly be included within the present unit
of engineering employees.
Commercial Artist: This classification has two grades, A and B,
covering salaried and hourly paid employees, respectively. Of the
grades referred to, only A, an unrepresented classification, is presently
employed by the Employer." The function of commercial artists is
similar to that of technical illustrators hereinabove considered. Com-
mercial artists are, however, not only on a higher level than technical
illustrators, but also are employed almost exclusively in the Engi-
neering Division where they are engaged in making lay-outs and per-
forming the more complicated assignments in connection with the
6 The record discloses that employees in numerous hourly paid classifications now repre-
sented by the Intervenor have mathematical and technical knowledge similar to that
claimed for tool designers in the present instance
10 Cf. Matter of Chrysler Corporation, 57 N L R B. 754
31 The hourly paid grade of B is within the scope of the Intervenors unit but does not
include any employees under the present distribution of employees in the Employer's
organization
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 555
manuals prepared in that division. While it appears that commercial
artists are not engineering employees, as such, we are of the opinion
that the close and intimate association which exists between practically
all of the commercial artists and the employees in the Engineering
Division indicates a close community of interest with the engineering
employees. This fact, together with the technical nature of their work
and the fact that there is no history of their having been represented
in another bargaining unit, warrants the inclusion of commercial
artists within the present unit of engineering employees. Since, how-
ever, commercial artists were not considered in the earlier Board
proceeding which resulted in the establishment of the existing unit of
engineering employees, we shall afford commercial artists an oppor-
tunity to determine through an election whether or not they desire to
be represented as part of such unit.
Production Processor: Employees in this classification are of two
grades, A and B. Of these, grade A is salaried and is unrepresented
by any labor organization. Grade B, however, is hourly paid and is
represented by the Intervenor. The function of production processor
is primarily concerned with planning the production of a particular
part. Such planning involves tool planning, lay-out and operational
sequences, and un general the expediting of production. At the present
time, almost all of the production processors in both grades are located
in the production planning departments. Production processors spend
approximately half of their working time in association with tool
planners, who perform work which in many respects is no different
from that of production processors and who, as hourly paid employees,
are represented by the Intervenor. The record reveals that, aside from
such knowledge of engineering as may be obtained from practical
experience, engineering training and experience is not required for
the work of production processor as it is presently performed in the
plant of the Employer. Since it appears that production processors
are not essentially engineering employees nor technical employees
whose duties are largely confined to the Engineering Division, we find
that production processors do not have sufficient interests in common
with engineering employees to warrant their inclusion within the
established engineering unit.
Estimator: This classification has three grades, A, B, and C, of
which only A and B covering salaried and hourly paid employees, re-
spectively, are in use.12 Estimators are primarily cost experts whose
function is to estimate the cost of tools, the component parts of aircraft
and the completed aircraft, together with the cost of plant equipment
As in the case of previously considered classifications having both salaried and houily
Paid emplo y ees, those in the salaried gioup are unrepresented , while those on an hourly
paid basis are i epi eseuted by the Intervenor
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and certain maintenance operations. Estimators are not confined to
the Engineering Division, but are located in various departments, in-
cluding sales and finance. The work of estimating does not require
engineering background or experience, but rather a practical experi-
ence and knowledge of the processes and operations involved in pro-
ducing the particular articles concerned. The Board, in its original
decision affecting the unit of engineering employees now represented
by the Petitioner,13 excluded from such unit employees in the classifi-
cation of estimator upon the ground that they perform administrative
functions not directly concerned with engineering activities. Inas-
much as the present record indicates that the duties of estimators have
not changed since the decision hereinabove referred to, we find no
reason for departing therefrom. Accordingly, we reject the Peti-
tioner's contention that estimators should be included within the
present unit of engineering employees.
Production Change Analyst: This classification, which is salaried
and unrepresented by any labor organization, has the function of
determining the most feasible time for incorporating design changes
in aircraft on which the Employer is presently engaged in production.
In the previous decision hereinabove referred to, the Board, upon full
consideration of the duties of production change analysts, excluded
such employees from the unit of engineering employees upon the
ground that they are primarily concerned with management functions
for the performance of which engineering training is not required.
Since it appears that the duties of production change analysts have not
changed since our earlier decision affecting the unit represented by the
Petitioner, we shall adhere to our finding therein, and accordingly
find inappropriate the Petitioner's request for the inclusion of pro-
duction change analysts within the present unit of engineering
employees.
Materials Engineer: This classification, which is salaried and un-
represented by any labor organization, is primarily concerned with the
procurement of materials and the expediting of such materials from
sources outside the Employer's organization.14 In its previous deci-
sion hereinabove referred to, the Board excluded from the unit of
engineering employees, employees in the classification of materials
engineer as primarily concerned with business functions not directly
related to those of engineering employees. Upon the basis of the
present record, we see no reason to depart from such decision. Ac-
cordingly, we find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that employ-
13 See footnote 1, supra
"The appearance of the word "Engineer" in the title of this classification is due to his-
torical reasons only and does not indicate that the employees therein perform duties of an
engineering nature
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 557
ees in the classification of materials engineer should be included within
the present unit of engineering employees.
Industrial Engineer: Employees in this classification are salaried
and unrepresented by any labor organization. In its previous deci-
sion, the Board excluded from the unit of engineering employees the
classification of industrial engineer upon the grouii that the only
employee in this classification was primarily concerned with efficiency
recommendations in the handling of personnel requirements. While
it appears that the employees presently carried in this classification are
not now principally engaged in personnel functions requiring their
exclusion as management employees,15 the record discloses that indus-
trial engineers are primarily concerned with the business function of
determining how the Employer can operate its business at lower cost
with more efficiency in all aspects of its operations. Since it appears
that the duties of industrial engineer are largely those of an adminis-
trative and business nature, we find that such employees have insuffi-
cient interests in common with engineering employees to warrant in-
cluding them within the established engineering unit. Accordingly,
we shall deny the Petitioner's request for the inclusion of industrial
engineers within the present engineering unit.
Cost `-Engineer, Manufacturing Planner and Manufacturing De-
signer: These classifications do not presently exist in the Employer's
organization, and we shall therefore make no provision for their
inclusion or exclusion.
As indicated above, we shall afford employees in the classification
of Commercial Artist the opportunity to determine through an elec-
tion whether or not they desire to be represented as part of the present
unit of engineering employees. Accordingly, we shall direct ali elec-
tion among employees in the following voting group : All employees
of the Employer within the classification of Commercial Artist, ex-
cluding supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action.
The Intervenor requests in its brief that it be permitted a place
on the ballot in any election involving certain of the salaried classi-
fications, including commercial artists, sought to be represented by
the Petitioner in this proceeding. The Intervenor bases its request
upon the fact that such classifications perform types of work similar
to those performed by employees in certain hourly paid classifications
represented by the Intervenor, and also upon the fact that these
salaried classifications constitute a logical line of promotion for em-
15 See Matter of Ford Motor Company , 66 N. L. R. B. 1317 . The personnel functions
of industiial engineers are still retained by such employees as part of their over-all duties
and uesponsibulities
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in certain hourly paid positions. The Intervenor does not,
however, claim to have bargained with the Employer for any em-
ployees in salaried classifications and has submitted no specific evi-
dence of representation with respect to employees in such groups.
Under the circumstances, Ave are of the opinion that the Intervenor
does not have sufficient interest in the election hereinafter directed to
warrant according the Intervenor a place on the ballot." Accord-
ingly, the Intervenor's request is hereby denied.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Lockheed Aircraft Corpora-
tion, Burbank, 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 Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit voting
group set forth 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 Al or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and in-
cluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
ployees 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 Engineers
and Architects Association of Southern California, Aircraft Chapter,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
11 The Intervenor admitted at the hearing that it had no interest in certain of the salaried
classifications , including the Commercial Artists involled in the present election