United Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMay 26, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 79 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LODGE 743, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERI- CAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. R-048.9.-Decided May i', 1941 Jurisdiction : airplane manufacturing industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of queslio,i: dispute as to appropriate unit; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em- ployees at one of two divisions of the Company, including group leaders and minor supervisory employees devoting a major part of their time to actual production, but excluding executives, engineers, technicians in the experimental department, guards, salaried employees, main office clerical help, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees devoting a major part, of their time to supervising as distinguished from actual production. Mr. Walfrid G. Luundborg, of Hartford, Conn., for the Company. Mr. Harold Straucli, of Hartford, Conn., and Mr. David Kaplan, of Washington, D. C., for the Union. Mr. Sidney L. Davis, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 21, 1941, International Association of Machinists, Lodge 743, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a petition, and on April 7, 1941, an amended petition, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of United Aircraft Corpora- tion,' East Hartford, Connecticut, herein . called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 12, 1941, the National Labor Rela- ' Designated in the formal papers and at tines referred to at the hearing as United Aircraft Corporation, Hamilton Standard Propellers Division. The record shows, however, that the correct name of the Company is as set forth above. 32 N. L . R. B., No. 13. 79 So DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investi- gation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to pro- vide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. - On April 14, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on April 21 and 22, 1941, at Hartford, Connecticut, before Edward Schneider, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company and the Union were represented by counsel, and all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, the Union moved to amend its amended petition with respect to its claim concerning the appropriate unit. No objection was,raised by, the Company and the Trial Examiner granted the motion. - During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made various rulings on other motions and on objections to the admis- sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Thereafter the Union and the Company submitted briefs which have been considered by the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY United Aircraft Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal office and plant at East Hartford, Connecticut, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of airplanes, airplane engines, propel- lers, and the parts thereof. Propellers are manufactured in its Hamilton Standard Propellers Division, herein called the Hamilton division, at East Hartford and Pawcatuck, Connecticut. Engines are manufactured in its Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, herein called the Pratt & Whitney division, at East Hartford, Connecticut. Airplanes are manufactured in its Vought-Sikorsky Aircraft Divi- sion at Stratford, Connecticut. This proceeding concerns only employees of the Company at its plant at East Hartford, Connecticut. During 1940, sales of the Company were, in excess of $100,000,000, and present contracts in excess of $400,000,000,' it is anticipated, will be completed in 1942. The greater percentage of the Company's raw materials, accessories, and equipment used in production are shipped to it from points outside the State of Connecticut, and likewise the UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 81, greater, percentage of its finished' products are delivered to points outside the. State of Connecticut. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED ' , International 'Association of Machinists, Lodge 743, is â€¢ a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit- ting to membership employees of the Company in its Hamilton divi- sion at East Hartford, Connecticut. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION In March 1941, the Union requested the Company to recognize it as the 'exclusive representative of the employees in the Hamilton division, for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company refused the Union's request for recognition on the ground that employ- ees in the Hamilton division did not by themselves constitute an appropriate 'unit. There was introduced ' in evidence ' a report pre- pared by the Regional Director showing that the Union represented a substantial number of employees in the unit found below to be appropriate.2 We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV:' THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION' UPON COMMERCE We, find that the question concerning representation which, has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT' The Union contends that the production and, maintenance employees of the Company at its Hamilton division at East Hartford, Connecti- cut, including group leaders and minor supervisory employees devoting a major 'part of their time to actual production, but excluding execu- tives;. engineers, technicians in the ' experimental department, guards, salaried employees, main office clerical help, foremen, assistant fore- men, and all other supervisory employees devoting a major part of their 2 The Regional Director reported that 1,153 , of the 3 , 304 employees on the Company's pay roll of production and maintenance employees in the Hamilton division as of April 16, 1941, had signed either applications for membership in the Union or cards authorizing the Union to act as their collective bargaining representative. 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD time to supervising as distinguished from actual production , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company, while agreeing with the Union as to the job classifications within the proposed unit, opposes the Union 's claim that the appro- priate unit should be limited to employees of the Hamilton division at East Hartford .3 The Company contends that all such employees in both the Hamilton and Pratt & Whitney divisions at East Hartford constitute the appropriate unit. Prior to 1935 , the Hamilton and Pratt & Whitney divisions manufac- tured propellers and engines under common supervision in the same building. In 1936, the Company built an addition to the Pratt & Whitney building and the Hamilton division was housed in this addi- tion. In 1939, the Hamilton division moved into a building separated from the Pratt & Whitney building by a freight track line. Since then various additions have been built to both divisions. Since 1936, the Hamilton and Pratt & Whitney divisions have been operating as separate entities in the following respects: (1) each divi- sion purchases its own raw materials; ( 2) each division has a separate sales force ; ( 3) the propellers and engines manufactured by the re- spective divisions are not used exclusively with each other, but may be and are used with engines and propellers manufactured by other com- panies; ( 4) each division has its own employment supervisor who is responsible to the Company's director of personnel and each division maintains a separate personnel pay roll ; ( 5) an employee desiring to transfer from one division to another is treated as a new applicant for employment in such other division; (6) employees of each division wear different identification badges and the employees of one division may not enter the other without special permission ; and (7 ) prodilc- t ion employees in the Pratt & Whitney division receive a special bonus based on productivity which payments are proportionately greater than the wage-salary payment received by employees in the I-lamilton division . However, there is a functional coherence between the Ham- ilton and Pratt & Whitney divisions in that (1) minimum wage scales are the same for similar job classifications in both divisions ; ( 2) gen- eral wage increases to employees in both divisions are made at the same time and in the same amounts; (3) the equipment in both divi- sions consists of standard machines involving the same fundamental principles or mechanisms ; ( 4) although the transfer of an employee between the two divisions may require a de novo application, when such transfer is effected the employee does not lose his seniority or other rights derived from his work at his former division; and (5) 3 The employees of the Hamilton division at Pawcatuck are not involved in this proceeding. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 83 identical notices pertaining to hours, wages, and working conditions are posted in both divisions. In 1934, the Industrial Aircraft Workers of America, herein called t he I. A., W., attempted to organize the employees in both the Hamilton and Pratt & Whitney divisions. On May 16, 1934, the Company and the New England Regional Labor Board, on the one hand, and the I. A. W. and the Regional Board on the other hand, entered into a memorandum agreement settling a strike then in progress. The agreement expressly provided that it was not between the Company and the I. A. W. Thereafter, until early in 1936, the I. A. W. at- tempted to bargain with the Company in behalf of the employees in both divisions. Its efforts in this respect do not appear to have been successful and in 1936 the I. A. W. disappeared from the scene. The record does not disclose whether or not the I. A. W. was dissolved. As noted above, until 1936 Hamilton employees worked in the same building with Pratt & Whitney employees, and until 1935 the Hamilton employees were on the Pratt & Whitney pay roll. From, 1936 to 1940 there was no union activity among the employees of the Company. In 1940, the Union organized the employees in the Hamilton division. Neither the Union, however, nor any other labor organization since 1936 has attempted to organize the employees of the Pratt & Whitney division. We are of the opinion that the organization of the Company's business is such that either a unit of employees of both the Hamilton and Pratt & Whitney divisions or one limited to employees of the Hamilton division at East Hartford could be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. As noted above, the existing self- organization among the Company's employees at East Hartford, Connecticut, has not extended beyond the limits of the unit proposed by the Union, nor is any organization here seeking to represent em- ployees of the Company other than the employees of the Hamilton division at East Hartford. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the unit sought by the Union herein is appropriate. To find otherwise would deprive the employees of the Hamilton di- vision of the benefits of collective bargaining until the employees in the Pratt & Whitney division had organized. Our determination here as to the appropriate unit, however, is no bar to a later revision in accordance with changes in the status of self-organization of the Company's employees.4 4Matter of Butler Motors , Inc. and International Associatton of Machinists, Auto Me- chanics Local 701, A. F of L, 28 N. L. R. B 1254; Matted of Crescent Dress Company and Cutters Local 11, I L G W. U, A F of L., 29 N. L R B 351; Matter of Leo Lichtenstein , Byron Lichtenstein and Libbse Lichtenstein, a partnership , doing business as Harltich Manufacturing Company and International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union of North America , A. F. of L., 31 N. L R. B 223. 448692-42-vol. 32-7 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the, production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Hamilton Standard Propellers Division at East Hart- ford, Connecticut, including group leaders and minor supervisory employees devoting a major part of their time to actual production, but excluding 'executives , ' engineers , technicians in the experimental department , guards, salaried employees, main office clerical help, fore- men, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees devoting a major part of their time to supervising as distinguished from actual production , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining , and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES.' We find that the question concerning representation which has'arisen can best be ' re'solved by the holding of an election by secret ballot. We shall use as the date for determining the eligibility of employees to vote the pay-roll period next preceding the date 'of -the Direction of Election , subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in the Direction. Upon the basis 'of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONcLUsIONS'OF LAW 1. A question affecting,commerce . has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees at the Hamilton Standard Propellers Division of United Aircraft Corporation, East Hartford Connecticut, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. , ... 2. The production and maintenance employees of the Company at its Hamilton Standard Propellers Division at East Hartford, Con; necticut, including group leaders and minor supervisory employees devoting a major part ,of,their time to actual production, but exclud- ing executives, engineers , technicians in the experimental department, guards, salaried employees , main office clerical help, foremen , assist- ant foremen , and all other supervisory, employees devoting a major part of their time to supervising as distinguished from actual produc- tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 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 Act, UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 85 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with United Aircraft Corporation, East Hartford, Connecticut, 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 Director for the First Re- gion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regula- tions, among the production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany at its Hamilton Standard Propellers Division at East Hartford, Connecticut, who were employed during the pay-roll period next pre- ceding the date of this Direction, including group leaders and minor supervisory employees devoting a major part of their time to actual production, and employees who did not work during such payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but ex- cludinb employees who have since quit or been discharged for c.iuse, and also excluding executives, engineers, technicians in the experi- mental department, guards, salaried employees, main office' clerical help, foremen, assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees devoting a.major,part of their time to supervising as distinguished from actual production, to determine whether or not they, desire to be represented, by International Association of Machinists, Lodge 743, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining.