Aeronca, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 4, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 326 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Aeronca, Inc. and District Lodge 13 of the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-RC-
10769
November 4, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On January 23, 1975, the Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he directed
an election in the Petitioner's requested unit of office
clerical and technical employees, rejecting the Em-
ployer's contentions that certain classifications
should be excluded on the grounds that they are
supervisory, managerial, professional, or confiden-
tial. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's decision on the grounds, inter alia, that in
resolving various unit placement issues he made
erroneous findings as to substantial factual issues
and departed from officially reported precedent.
The National Labor Relations Board, by telegraph-
ic order dated March 5, 1975, granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending decision on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review
and makes the following findings:
The Employer, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture of component parts for various
types of aircraft at its facilities located at Middle-
town, Ohio, where it employs approximately 80
employees in the unit found appropriate. There is no
history of collective bargaining affecting any of the
employees involved in this proceeding.
The parties agreed that a unit of all office clerical
and technical employees employed by the Employer
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. We granted review of the Regional Director's
determinations with regard to the managerial, super-
visory, confidential, and/or professional status of the
following categories of employees:
i In view of this finding we do not reach the issues raised as to his status
221 NLRB No. 69
Senior Systems Analyst
The Employer disputes the' Regional Director's
finding that the senior systems analyst is not a
professional, managerial, and/or confidential em-
ployee.
Pitzer, the sole employee in this classification,
works in the systems and programming department
under the supervision of the director of information
services. He earns approximately $1,500 per month
and shares a secretary with his supervisor. Pitzer has
had some college education. More significantly, he
has also taken all of the courses offered by IBM and
has extensive on-the-job training in computerization.
The courses he has taken cover virtually every aspect
of data processing systems and programming. He
holds a professional certificate in the Association for
Systems Managers which requires 2 years of college
and 5 years in the data processing field to qualify for
membership. In his work Pitzer exercises full discre-
tion in the design of computer systems for the
solution of complicated problems. As he is engaged
in work predominantly intellectual and varied in
character involving the exercise of discretion and
judgment and requiring knowledge of an advanced
type, we conclude that he is a professional employee
as defined in the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude
the senior systems analyst from the agreed unit.'
Accountants
The Regional Director rejected the Employer's
contentions that its budget accountants-senior, cost
accountant-senior, general accountant-senior, and
cost analyst are professional and/or managerial
employees.
As found by the Regional Director, Senior Budget
Accountants Pearce and Schafer and Senior Cost
Accountant Dowling work in the accounting office
under the manager of cost accounting. Senior
General Accountant Wimmers works in the same
office and is directly responsible to the manager of
general accounting. All four of these accountants
have at least a degree in accounting. As noted by the
Regional Director, they are not certified public
accountants (CPA's) and do not prepare the Employ-
er's income tax returns. The budget accountants
perform budget and audit functions, prepare profit-
and-loss statements, and make projections of cash
flow. The cost accountant prepares analytical data
which define the cost of parts and products manufac-
tured by the Employer; he makes cost computations
and provides cost data and information to other
departments; he also works with the budget accoun-
tants in the preparation of the various budgets. The
as a managerial and/or confidential employee.
AEKONCA, INC.
general accountant is responsible for maintaining the
Employer's books and ledgers and makes all ac-
counting entries which reflect its financial standing
at the end of each accounting period; he also audits
travel expenses incurred by employees. All four of
these disputed accountants apply established ac-
counting principles in the performance of their
duties. There is no indication in the record that in the
performance of their accounting responsibilities they
have frequent access to outside accounting firms.
We conclude that these accountants exercise a
degree of independent judgment in carrying out their
accounting responsibilities which warrants a finding
that they are -professional employees within the
meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. Contrary to the
Regional Director's suggestion, their status as profes-
sional employees turns not on whether they are
CPA's or prepare tax returns, but rather on the
degree of judgment required of them in their work in
applying their knowledge of accounting principles
acquired through prolonged course of study at
specialized schools of accounting. We are satisfied on
the record before us that the accountants here
involved meet the latter test.2 For this reason, they
are excluded from the unit.3
The record supports the Regional Director's
findings as to Cost Analyst Bell. He works in the
general office area'and reports to the manager of cost
control. Although' the Employer requires a college
degree for the position, the degree need not be in any
particular specialization. Bell prepares shop budgets
and projects tool and labor costs utilizing data and
information furnished by production control and
other sources. The budgets he prepares are utilized
by manufacturing and the cost department in
projecting labor costs; and his cost projections are
relied on by estimators in formulating their estimates
of total costs of jobs on which the Employer plans to
bid. We affirm the Regional Director's conclusion
that Bell is neither a professional nor a managerial
employee and that he is included in the unit.
Planners
The Regional Director included project planners
and planners as technical employees, finding no
merit in the Employer's contentions they should be
excluded as managerial and/or supervisory employ-
ees. There are at present six project planners and
three planners. All have basically the same duties but
the planners are less experienced and perform fewer
functions than the project planners.
2 See CF & I Steel Corporation, 196 NLRB 470 (1972). Cases cited by the
Regional Director as support for his contrary conclusion are, in our opinion,
factually distinguishable.
3 We need not, and do not, therefore, decide whether or not they are
327
After the Employer receives an order it is the
responsibility of the project planners to establish the
manufacturing plans. They do this on the basis of the
engineering drawings and specifications and, of
course, their familiarity with the Employer's manu-
facturing procedures. Generally speaking, after a
project planner writes up his manufacturing se-
quence, his work is not reviewed by anyone.
However, if there are problems in the execution of
the plan on the manufacturing floor itself, any
controversy that might arise has to be solved by
conceded managerial personnel. Such would be the
case, for instance, if a line or assembly supervisor
refused to produce a part in accord with the plan
prepared by a project planner. The project planner
makes him aware of the potential hazards of his not
following the plan. If the project planner does not get
acceptable results, he will normally report the matter
to the supervisor of all the line supervisors. Occasion-
ally, divergent views are resolved by appeal to the
vice president of manufacturing.
Also, as part of their duties, project planners
constantly monitor the different sequences they have
assigned. In the day-to-day operations there are
always engineering changes, project changes, and
manufacturing changes in which the project planners
are involved. There are also daily cost production
meetings. Project planners also attend meetings at
which decisions regarding different projects are
taken. It is not clear from the record who the
participants in the meetings are or who makes the
day-to-day minor decisions with respect to a project,
but, as stated above, conflicts are resolved by the vice
president of manufacturing.
Many make-or-buy decisions are initiated by the
project planning department. The recommendations
of the planners are based on their knowledge of the
Employer's existing manufacturing capabilities.
However, the chairman of the make-or-buy commit-
tee makes the final decision as to these matters.
There are no formal higher educational require-
ments for the positions of project planner and
planner. Although the individuals involved have
acquired a great deal of knowledge of manufacturing
techniques as a result of their experience, they have
not undergone training at the college or university
level.
Clearly, any directions they give are channeled
through line' or assembly supervisors. And in our
view, the judgments they make in the formulation of
manufacturing plans or make-or-buy recommenda-
tions do not involve exercise 'of the degree of
managerial employees.
Member Fanning would include these accountants in the unit. See
General Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB 851, fn. 29 (1974).
328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discretion on behalf of the Employer which would
support a finding of managerial status. Accordingly,
we affirm the Regional Director's determinations
that they are neither supervisory nor managerial
employees, and we include them in the unit.4'
Estimators
The Regional Director rejected the Employer's
contentions that the estimators are confidential,
managerial, and/or supervisory employees. Estima-
tors prepare projections of the cost of performing
contracts on which the Employer intends to bid,
including the expected profit. The Employer utilizes
these estimates in quoting prices to potential custom-
ers. Estimators have periodic, contact with the
director of industrial relations in order to compare
notes on anticipated wage increases which will affect
the cost of Employer's products. When the estima-
tors go to the director of industrial relations to get his
best projection of the labor rate in future years, the
estimator is given the figure that the Company
expects to negotiate with a union, including the
projected cost-of-living allowance and the labor rate
for an appropriate period of time. Estimators also
assist in negotiating new contracts or add-on con-
tracts with customers. The estimator participates as 'a
member of a contracts team which also includes
personnel form contracts, finance, and the director of
pricing and estimating. The person assigned from the
contracts department heads the team, and the team
has authority to close a contract between Employer
and the customer.
As the estimators are instrumental in setting prices
and assist in negotiating contracts with customers,
we find them to be managerial employees .5 We shall
therefore exclude them from the unit.
Engineers
The Regional Director found Project Tool Liasion
Engineers McNamee and Morris, Project Tool
Engineer Martin, and Plant Layout Engineer Wright
to be technical employees, rejecting the Employer's
contentions that they are professional, managerial,
and/or supervisory employees.
The disputed tool engineers are assigned to major
projects and must work closely with project planners
in determining what type of tools will be needed to
produce a particular line. They also help determine
whether the necessary tooling to finish a product can
4 See Flintkote Company, 217 NLRB No. 85 (1975), where project
engineers, who made capital expenditure studies and recommended
decisions based on return on investment determinations, were found not to
be managerial because they did not formulate or effectuate management
policies and because their recommendations had to be approved by
management officials. See also Lockheed-Cal forma Company, a Division of
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 217 NLRB No. 93 (1975).
be manufactured by the Employer or must be
purchased from the outside. When a tool engineer
feels that a defective tool can create a problem on the
production line he sends it back to the toolroom
where a toolmaker, under his supervision, will make
the corrections to the tool. Tool engineers often
supervise more than one toolmaker. In carrying out
their corrections tool engineers review tool drawings
with a toolmaker and explain what-corrections have
to be made, and even how to make them in some
instances. Toolmakers give tool engineers daily
reports on the progress of the corrections. In case the
correction has to be accomplished swiftly the tool
engineer can assign overtime. Toolmakers are as-
signed to tool engineers for varying periods of time
and there have been cases where a toolmaker has
been assigned to a tool engineer for approximately 5
months.
In addition to directing the work of toolmakers the
tool engineer has authority to make effective recom-
mendations to the regular supervisor of the toolmak-
er. Tool engineers make recommendations as to
which men they would like to have work on certain
projects and as to which men should be reassigned
from one project to another because of faulty
performance.
The plant layout engineer is involved primarily in
plant rearrangements ranging from minor to com-
plex. The industrial engineering department initiates
the changes and the . plant layout engineer is
responsible for working out the details. The plant
layout engineer is given a project and certain
parameters to work within and it is up to him to
come up with an effective plan.
This engineer schedules the work of the people who
are physically implementing his plans. He provides
them with direction and guidance. He sets up a time
schedule so that the personnel involved know what to
expect at any given time, and tells the, different crafts
where to go, how to go about doing a certain piece of
work, and when to go to work; He stays with the
workmen on a given project to see that it is carried
out satisfactorily. In directing employees, the plant
layout engineer has to use independent judgment as
to what might or might not work at a particular time.
Contrary to the Regional Director, we conclude
that the tool engineers have authority in the interest
of the Employer to effectively recommend the
transfer and assignment of employees and that they
and the plant layout engineer responsibly direct
5 See General Dynamics Corporation, Convair Aerospace Division, San
Diego Operations, 213 NLRB 851 (1974). In view of this finding , we need
not, and do not , reach the issues raised as to whether or not they are
confidential or supervisory employees.
Member Fanning would include these estimators in the unit . See General
Dynamics Corp., supra at In. 31
AERONCA, INC.
employees in their work. Accordingly, we find these
engineers to be supervisors as defined in the Act and
we shall exclude them from the unit.6
Quality Control Engineer and Method
Planners
The Regional Director found no merit in the
Employer's contentions that Quality Control Engi-
neer Wise is a professional and/or managerial
employee and that Quality Control Method Planner-
Senior Miller and Quality Control Method Planner
Cobb are professional, managerial, and/or superviso-
ry employees; and he included them in the unit as
technical employees.
At the time a job is estimated by the Employer, the
quality control engineer represents quality control in
estimating the method of inspection anticipated on
new programs, the type of equipment necessary, and
the amount of time quality control procedures will
take. After the Employer receives a contract, Quality
Control Engineer Wise works with all departments in
implementing inspection procedures. He analyzes
various components and determines the quality
needed for proper functioning. He works with
customer representatives - located at the plant to
assure that quality control meets with their approval.
Wise has only 2 years of college and has gained
experience mainly on the job. He also has experience
in sheetmetal, brazing, and tooling. As a special
project, he is involved in research and development
aspects of brazing.
Quality control method planners interpret specifi-
cations to determine quality criteria the Employer
should establish to achieve satisfactory contract
performance and at what point in the manufacturing
process the various inspections should take place.
They work closely with supervisors in the tooling
department and other production areas to see that
quality control inspections are carried out. They also
work with representatives of customers located at the
plant, and they define quality requirements for parts
manufactured for the Employer by outside firms.
They do not have any college training and their skills
have been primarily developed by on-the-job experi-
ence . Both have an inspection background and are
familiar with the various quality control procedures.
After a project planner lays out an operation and a
production flow sequence, the quality control meth-
6 We therefore need not, and do not, resolve the issues raised regarding
their status as managerial and/or professional employees
7 We are satisfied that the case of General Dynamics, supra, insofar as the
classification of the senior quality assurance specialists there involved was
found managerial, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. There, unlike the
instant case, the disputed employees, in conjunction with their quality
control responsibilities , made managerial decisions as to levels of manpower
required for a project.
Chairman Murphy would find these quality assurance engineers and
329
od planner superimposes on that plan inspection
points. It is, however, a production supervisor who
supervises production employees to ensure that the
work is performed in accordance with the plan. The
quality control method planners do not have any
employees reporting to them.
On the basis of our review of the record, we affirm
the Regional Director's findings as to the above
quality control personnel.? Accordingly, they are
included in the unit.
Industrial Nurse
The Regional Director included Industrial Nurse
Clifton in the unit, rejecting the Employer's conten-
tions that she is a professional, managerial, and/or
confidential employee and that her interests conflict
with those of unit employees.
Industrial Nurse Clifton administers first aid,
dispenses nonprescription medication, and can grant
employees medical excuses to leave work in case of
illness. She is neither a registered nurse nor a licensed
practical nurse. The only training she has received in
the medical area is a number of Red Cross courses.
She does not make diagnoses or perform other than
routine medical services. Clifton also maintains
medical records of employees; handles the paper-
work involved in the processing of 'workmen's
compensation claims; administers the Employer's
medical insurance program; and maintains records
required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act.
In the performance of her duties she is responsible to
the personnel manager. Where in her opinion an
employee is malingering or a claim filed by an
employee is not valid she so advises the appropriate
persons.
Upon the foregoing and the entire record, we
affirm the Regional Director's above findings with
respect to Clifton. Clearly, she is not a professional
employee, and her relationship to the personnel
manager is not such as to warrant her exclusion from
the unit as a confidential employee.8 Nor does she
exercise the degree of discretion on behalf of the
Employer in processing various employee claims to
support a finding that she is either managerial or
otherwise so closely allied with the Employer's
management as to require her exclusion from the
unit.9
method planners to have more of a community of interest with those who
formulate, deternune, and implement the Employer's policies than with
other unit employees and would accordingly exclude them as managerial.
See United States Postal Service, 210 NLRB 477, fn. 4, second par. (1974)
where similar classifications of employees were excluded by the Board on
that ground.
8 See Ladish Co, 178 NLRB 90 (1969).
9 See Swift & Company, 129 NLRB 1391, 1393 (1961).
330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Other Alleged Confidential Employees
The Regional Director found; contrary to the
Employer,, that the following employees are not
confidential employees : Wilson , secretary to the vice
president of engineering; Bailey, secretary to the
director of contracts; the secretary to, the director of
information services (office management clerk); 10 Hess,
PBX operator; and Sample, communications andmail
clerk.
As the record evidence is, in our opinion , insuffi-
cient to enable us to determine the issues raised as to
the confidential employee status of secretaries
Wilson and Bailey, we shall make no disposition of
their unit placement at this time and permit them to
vote in the election subject to challenge . We likewise
make no ruling on the position of secretary. to the
director of information services , inasmuch as it was
vacant on the hearing date . However, should it be
filled at the time of the election , the incumbent shall
be allowed to vote under challenge.
PBX Operator Hess and Communications and
Mail Clerk Sample interchange duties. The duties of
the PBX operator involve the placing of long
distance and conference calls for management
personnel in the course of which labor relations
matters may be discussed ; and the operation of the
telex and TWX for the transmission of financial data
and reports, sensitive information concerning cus-
tomer bids and bidding procedures , purchasing and
sales matters, financial status reports, and. various
labor relations matters. The communications and
mail clerk also receives and sorts mail, and she makes
certain' that persons receiving classified materials
have security clearances. She and the personnel
manager are the only persons authorized to maintain
classified materials files. The Employer states that in
the event either of the communications employees is
included in the unit and it were to bargain with the
unit , the personnel manager would assign to some-
one outside the unit the duties of - transmitting
sensitive information. Such duties of filing and
transmitting classified information do not render an
employee confidential under our definition of the
term.1' We therefore affirm the Regional Director's
findings as to Hess and Sample, and we include them
in the unit.
Consistent with the foregoing, the description of
the appropriate unit is modified as follows:
All office clerical and technical employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its facilities located at
Middletown, Ohio, including the programmer-
operator, the senior' tabulator-machine operator,
the numerical control (NC) programmer, the cost
analyst, project planners, planners, the quality
control method planner-senior, the quality con-
trol method planner, the quality control engineer,
the loftsmen, the industrial nurse, the PBX
operator, and the communications and mail clerk,
but excluding all production and maintenance
employees, the estimator, and all other manageri-
al employees, the marketing coor"dinator^, the
industrial relations senior clerk typist, and all
other confidential employees,- the senior systems
analyst, senior budget accountants, the senior
cost accountant, the senior general accountant
and all other professional employees, guards,
project tool liaison engineers, project tool engi-
neers, the plant lay-out engineer, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Accordingly, the 'case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that
immediately preceding the date of issuance of this
decision. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publica-
tion.]
10 At the time of the hearing this position was vacant . 11 The B F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722 (1956).