St. Louis Car Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 24, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 836 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ST . Louis AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, DIVISION OF THE 'ST. Louis CAR COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL AssocLATioN OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT No. 9 Case No. R4842.-Decided September 24, 1943 Messrs. E. B. Meissner, J. C. LeBlond, John A. Sullivan and J. Augustine, all of St. Louis, Mo., for the Aircraft Company. Mr. Nelson Briner, of St. Louis, Mo., for the I. A. M. Messrs. Victor B. Harris and Joseph Dernoncourt, both of St. Louis, Mo., for the C. I. 0.- Messrs. Latham Kaplan and Thomas Conway, both of St. Louis, Mo., for the Welders. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by International Association of Machin- ists, District No. 9, AFL,1 herein called the I. A. M., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa- tion of employees of St. Louis Aircraft Corporation, Division of the St. Louis Car Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein called the Aircraft Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Charles K. Hack- ler, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on August 17, 1943: The Aircraft Company, the I. -A. M., United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the C. I. 0., and United Brotherhood of Welders, Cutters and Helpers of America, Local No. 15, herein called'the Welders, appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial 'The petition herein was filed May 17 , 1943. We take judicial notice of the fact that since that date the International Association of Machinists disaffiliated itself from the American Federation of Labor . The record is hereby corrected accordingly. 52 N. L . R. B., No. 145. 836 ST. LOUIS AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 837 error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an oppor- tunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case-the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY St. Louis Aircraft Corporation, a Missouri corporation with its -principal office and place of business located in St. Louis, Missouri, is a wholly owned subsidiary of St. Louis Car Company, herein called the Car Company. The latter is also a Missouri corporation with its principal office and place of business located on the same general site as the Company. The Aircraft Company is engaged in the manu- facture and sale of trainer airplanes under a contract with the United States Army Air Corps' In the course and conduct of its business, the Aircraft Company, in the 6 months prior to the hearing, used raw materials valued in excess of $300,00, of which approximately 75 per- cent was received from points outside the State of Missouri. During the same period the Aircraft Company manufactured finished prod- ucts in excess of $700,000, of which about 95 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Missouri. We find that the Aircraft Com- pany is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, is an un- affiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the Company. United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem- bership through its Local 1055, employees of the Company. United Brotherhood of Welders, Cutters and Helpers of America, Local No. 15, is an unaffiliated labor organization admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION By letter dated March 3, 1943, the I. A. M. requested recognition from the Aircraft Company as the bargaining representative of its employees; this recognition was refused by the latter on the ground that it was currently operating under a contract with the C. I. O. Said contract, dated October 21, 1942, provides, in substance, that it 2 The Car Company manufactures amphibious tanks and other material used in the national war effort. 838 'DECISIONS OF NMPrONAL LABOR RELATIO NS BOARD shall remain in effect until September 30, 1943, and thereafter, until a new agreement is executed between the contracting parties. The petition herein was filed by the I. A. M. on May 17, 1943. We are of the opinion that the notice of the I. A. M. claim was timely, and find that the afore-mentioned contract does not constitute a bar to the instant proceeding.3 A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the I. A. M. represents a substantial num- ber of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate .4 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concern- ing the representation of employees of the Aircraft Company with- in the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The I. A. M. contends that the appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance employees of the Aircraft Company, including leadmen, final inspectors, stock chasers, stockroom at- tendants, and porters, but excluding office and clerical employees, su- pervisory employees, tool designers, engineers, timekeepers, produc- tion planning workers, guards and watchmen, and all employees having authority to -hire and discharge. The Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0. contend that the appropriate unit should consist of the production and maintenance employees at both the Aircraft Company and the Car Company; they also disagree with the I. A. M. in that they would exclude, in addition to' the exclusions sought by the I. A. M., stock chasers, stockroom attendants, final inspectors, and porters.5 The Welders seek to represent a unit consisting of all welders employed by the Aircraft Company, including leadmen, but excluding the general welding foreman and automatic spot welding machine operators. 8 Cf. Matter of Pacific Lumber Inspection Bureau, 7 N . L R. B. 529, 532. 4 The Regional Director reported that the I A. M. submitted 240 designations , of which 143 bore apparently genuine original signatures of persons appearing upon the Aircraft Company's pay roll of May 21, 1943 ; said pay roll contained names of 478 persons in the appropriate unit. We are of the opinion that this showing of representation is substantial, particularly since the record discloses that the Aircraft Company and the C. I 0. have been operating under an oral union shop agreement . See Matter of Chicago Molded Products Corporation, 49 N. L. R. B. 756 ; Matter of Oregon Plywood Company, 33 N. L. R. B. 1234; Matter of Service Wood Heel Co., 41 N L R. B. 45. He further reported that the Welders submitted 30 designations of which 27 bore ap- parently genuine original signatures of persons appearing upon the above -mentioned pay roll. Said pay roll contained the names of 62 persons in the unit which the Welders contends is appropriate . He further noted that 17 designations of the I. A. M ., bearing apparently genuine original signatures of persons appearing upon the aforementioned pay roll of the Aircraft Company , contained the names of persons in the unit sought by the Welders. The C. I. 0. relies upon its current contract with the Aircraft Company, dated October 21, 1942, for the establishment of its interests. 6 These exclusions are substantially the same as those contained in the current contract between the Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0. ST. LOUIS AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 839 The Car Company, which was organized in 1887, is normally en- gaged in the production of streetcars, railroad passenger coaches, and Diesel railroad engines, but is presently engaged in the produc- tion of war material under prime contracts with various divisions of the United States Government. During the first World War the Car Company organized the Aircraft Company herein for the pur- pose of building army aircraft. After the termination of the con- flict, the Aircraft Company was engaged, fora period of 4 or 5 years, in the building of commercial aircraft. Thereafter, the Air- craft Company Staff dwindled to a group of 40 or 50 employees, who were engaged in making spare parts for commercial aviation and in experimentation. The corporate identity of the Aircraft Company, however, never disappeared. In 1940, the Aircraft Company began manufacturing products under subcontracts to Curtiss-Wright Air- craft Corporation, and, in 1941, secured a contract for the production of primary training planes for the U. S. Army Air Corps. At the time this contract was secured, the Aircraft Company still employed approximately 40 to 50 employees; however, by November 1941 it had so expanded its operations that it then employed about 200 work- ers, a number which has since increased to approximately 500 em- ployees at the time of the hearing herein. In 1937, the Car Company recognized the C. I. O. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its production and maintenance em- ployees in an industrial unit, and executed contracts with it in 1937, 1938 , 1939, and 1940. The employees of the Aircraft Company were considered by both contracting parties as coming within the'purview of these contracts, and the C. I. O. bargained and presented griev- ances for these employees under the terms of these contracts. How- ever, on November 5, 1941, the C. I. O. entered into separate but almost identical contracts with both the Car Company and the Air- craft Company covering the production and maintenance employees of each. Each contract was executed by a separate negotiating com- mittee of the C. I. O. On October 21, 1942, the Aircraft Company executed its second contract with the C. I. O.,s which, by its terms expires September 30, 1943. The 1941 contract between the Car Company and the C. I. O. remained in effect under a continua- tion clause until January 16, 1943, when a new agreement was ex- ecuted between these parties, which, by its terms, also expires Septem- ber 30, 1943. Although neither of the contracts makes any provision for union security, both companies and the C. I. O. have operated e This contract was executed on behalf of the C. I. 0 ., by "United Steelworkers of America, Aircraft Workers Dwision of Local 1055" (emphasis supplied ). The contracts between the Car Company and the C. I. 0. were executed by "United Steelworkers of America, Local 1055 " 840 mOISSONS OF NATIONAL LABOR, R'ELArrONSi BOARD since 1941 under oral union shop agreements which are presently being enforced. As indicated hereinbefore, both the Aircraft Company and the C. I. O. contend that the production and maintenance employees of both companies constitute the appropriate unit; this contention is based upon the following arguments: (1) the same local of the C.I.O. presently represents these employees; (2) the functional relation- ship ,between the companies is such that the Aircraft Company is operated merely as a department of the Car Company, and (3) the history of bargaining relations of the companies indicates the feasi- bility of a single unit. The record discloses that both companies occupy the same general site,7 although not all of the activities of the Car Company are con- ducted thereon; 8 certain parts used by the Aircraft Company in its finished product are manufactured by the Car Company; 0 both com- panies have the same general office, bookkeeping set-up, plant-protec- tion corps, employment office, and powerhouse; temporary transfers of employees between the two companies occur daily, and in the early period of its present work the majority of the Aircraft Company's employees were originally employees transferred from the Car Com- pany. On the other hand, the record indicates that, because of the diverse nature of the products manufactured by each company, the skills of the employees necessarily differ; 10 each company maintains its own supervisory hierarchy; the employees of each company wear different colored badges, and are paid on 'a different wage. scale; 11 the seniority of employees of each company, being upon a depart- mental basis, is not carried over from one company to the other in the event of transfer; separate toolrooms, welding departments, paint shops, and woodworking departments are maintained by each; and the C. I. O. has instituted a separate steward set-up in each company. The C. 1. 0. has bargained for the employees of each company sepa- rately, has signed separate contracts with each company, and con- tinues to conduct grievances on behalf of the employees of each com- pany on different days. It is worthy of note that although the present contracts between the C. I. O. and the companies expire at the same * The operations of both companies are conducted, in the main, on a 60-acre tract con- taining several buildings, three of which are used primarily by the Aircraft Company. 8 The Car Company operates another plant not contained on this tract, whose products are confidential and whose employees are in no way related to this proceeding. Sheet metal work, engine cowls, trailing edges, and the swazing of tubes, are either manufactured or performed by Car Company employees for use by the Aircraft Company. 10 For example, Aircraft Company welders could not perform work on Car Company products because of the different type of welding necessary. Also, the riveting performed in the manufacture of the Car Company products is different from that' performed in the manufacture of the products of the Aircraft Company. 11 Aircraft Company employees, are hourly paid, whereas Car Company employees are usually paid on a piece work basis. i ST,. LOUIS AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 841 time, they were executed three months apart. We are of the opinion and find that under present conditions the employees of each company are sufficiently identifiable groups as to constitute separate units. In view of the absence of any question concerning representation among the employees of the Car Company, we shall concern ourselves herein only with the employees of the Aircraft Company. As noted above, the Welders seeks a unit confined to those persons employed in the welding department of the Aircraft Company. How- ever, the past bargaining history of the Aircraft Company, as in- dicated by the contracts between it and the C. I. 0., has been upon an industrial basis. In view of this, and in keeping with our well- established policy,12 we are of the opinion and find that a unit con- fined to employees in the welding department of the Aircraft Com- pany such as sought by the Welders is inappropriate.13 There remains for discussion certain categories of employees that are in dispute. Both the Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0. would exclude from the unit, in conformance with their existing contracts, all employees of the Aircraft Company engaged as stock chasers, stock- room attendants, porters, and final inspectors, whereas the I. A. M. would include such employees. Stock chasers: The Aircraft Company employs six persons in this classification whose duties consist of furnishing work orders to the foreman, keeping department inventory sheets, investigating lost or missing parts, and performing liaison work between the foremen and the engineering department. They are part of the production control department and work out of special control booths which are located throughout the plant. The major portion of their time is spent on duties primarily clerical in nature. These employees are excluded from the unit for which the C. I. 0. is the present bargaining repre- sentative. In view of their duties, as well as their exclusion from the industrial unit covered by the contract between the Aircraft Com- pany and the C. I. 0., we are of the opinion that the interests of these employees are not sufficiently akin to those of the production and main- tenance employees so as to warrant their inclusion within a unit of such employees. We shall therefore exclude them. Stockroom, attendants: The Aircraft Company employs four per- sons in this classification, two of whom are located in the,raw stores "See Matter of American Can Company, 13 N. L. R. B. 1252; Matter of Milton Bradley Co., 15 N. L. R. B . 938; Matter of Roberts & Manders Stove Co., 16 N . L. R. B. 943; Matter of Todd-Johnson Dry Docks , Inc., 18 N. L. R. B. 973; Matter of White Motor Co., 23 N. L. R. B. 924; Matter of Ampco Metal, Inc., 28 N. L. R. B. 1227; Matter of Phoenix Mfg. Co, 44 N. L . R B. 1388. The Welders introduced no evidence which would bring this proceeding within any of the exceptions to the above principle . Cf. Matter of Lakey Foundry & Machinery Co., 34 N. L. R. B. 677 ; Matter of Bendix Aviation Corp., 39 N. L. R. B. 81; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 42 N. L . R. B. 772; Matter of Tampa Florida Brewery, Inc., 42 N. L. It. B. 642. 11 Matter of American Car & Foundry Company , 51 N. L . R. B. 1416. 842 DECISION'S OF NNAffIONAL LABOR RIELATION'S BOARD department and two in the finished stores department. Their duties consist primarily of keeping records of materials in their respective storerooms and of the materials and parts issued to employees, and, on occasion, delivering small parts and materials on requisition. They are assisted in their duties by laborers known as labor dispatchers, but exercise no substantial supervisory powers over them. As indi- cated above, part of their work is manual in character. Although these employees were excluded from the purview of the current con- tract between the Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0., we are of the opinion that the nature of their duties indicates a sufficiently close functional relationship between them and the production and mainte- nance employees as to warrant their inclusion within the unit. We shall therefore include them.14 Porters: These employees perform the duties usually assigned to this classification. They tend washrooms, supply towels, and perform general cleaning work. Although they were excluded from the unit for which the C. I. 0. is the present bargaining representative, no valid reason for such exclusion appears in the record. In view of their daily contact with the production and maintenance employees and in the absence of any valid reason for their exclusion, we shall include them within the unit 15 Final Inspectors and Major Component Inspectors : In addition to ordinary inspectors, whose inclusion is not disputed,16 the Aircraft Company employs 12 persons generically termed final inspectors. These employees are divided into two categories known as ( a) final inspectors and (b,) major component inspectors. Both the Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0. would exclude final inspectors from the unit, whereas the I. A. M. would include them; the record is indefinite with respect to the position of the Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0. on major component inspectors. The evidence discloses that the four final inspectors act as instructors to new inspectors; they receive 25 cents per hour more than the major component inspectors; and they possess the authority to make the usual supervisory recommenda- tions. The eight major component inspectors are engaged in the in- spection of fuselages, center sections, panels, and various surfaces. They receive more pay than the ordinary inspector, and may have as many as six or seven inspectors under their supervision. They are con- 14 Matter o f Gardner-Denver Co, 44 N. L. R. B. 1192; Matter of Pierson Machinery Co., 43 N L R. B. 1169. 15 Matter of Monark Battery Co , 35 N. L. R. B. 24; Matter of Mack International Motor Truck Corporation, 31 N. L. R. B. 424. 1e Although inspectors were excluded from the unit covered by the contracts between the Aircraft Company and the C. I. 0., the contracting parties tacitly included ordinary inspectors performing non-supervisory work within the unit, and the C. I. 0. is presently recognized as the bargaining representative of these employees . In view of the absence of supervisory functions, we shall include them within the unit. See Matter of Republic Aviation Corp., 51 N. L. R. B. 1287; Matter of United Aircraft Production, Inc., 41 N. L. R. B. 501. ST. LOUIS AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 843 sidered by the Aircraft Company as group leaders , corresponding to leadmen , (hereinafter discussed ) and have the power to make rec- ommendations affecting the status of the inspectors whom they super- vise. Final inspectors were excluded from the unit currently repre- sented by the C. I. 0., but there is no indication whether or not major component inspectors were also excluded . We are of the opinion that in possessing the power to recommend with respect to the persons under their supervision , major component inspectors , as well as final inspectors, fall within our definition of supervisory employees. We shall therefore exclude both classifications from the unit. Leadmen: All parties would include leadmen within the unit. The record discloses that these employees were included within the purview of the contract between the Aircraft Company and the C. I. O. They supervise the operations of a group consisting of from 4 to 10 em- ployees, and they have the power, although it is seldom exercised, to make recommendations affecting the status of the employees whom they supervise. This is particularly true in the case of the night lead- man who may be in charge of an even larger group than above indi- cated, and practically all of whose time is spent in supervision. We shall exclude leadmen from the unit. Accordingly , we find that all production and maintenance em- ployees of the Aircraft Company, including ordinary inspectors, stockroom attendants , and porters , but excluding office and clerical employees , tool designers , engineers , timekeepers , stock chasers, pro- duction planning workers, watchmen , guards, salaried employees, final inspectors, major component inspectors , and supervisory em- ployees (including leadmen) with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, 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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of A he 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 Relations 844 DECASIO'NS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIEECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with St. Louis Aircraft Corporation, Division of the St. Louis Car Company, St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted 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 Di- rector for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec- tions 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were em- ployed 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, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, or by United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN Miuis took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.