Bell Aerospace Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 16, 1964

150 N.L.R.B. 493 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

BELL AEROSPACE CO., A DIV. OF BELL AEROSPACE CORP . 493
Bell Aerospace Company, a Division of Bell Aerospace Corpora-
tion and American Federation of Technical Engineers, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 3-RC-2435. December 16, 196.
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
Since April 5, 1962, the Petitioner has been the certified representa-
tive in a unit of all technicians of the Employer at its plants located in
Erie and Niagara Counties, New York, excluding all other employees,
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors, as defined in the Act. On December 4, 1963, the Petitioner
filed a motion for clarification of the certification, seeking to include
all Union members 1 who are temporarily transferred, from time to
time, to areas outside Erie and Niagara Counties. The Employer
opposed the motion. On April 29 and May 1, 1964, by direction of
the Board, a hearing was held in Region 3 in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the issues
raised by the Petitioner's motion and the Employer's opposition
thereto. Following the hearing, the parties submitted briefs in sup-
port of their respective positions.
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds:
The Employer has a total complement of approximately 350 tech-
nicians in Erie and Niagara Counties. From time to time it assigns
undisclosed numbers of technicians to field duty at military and re-
search installations throughout the United States, abroad, and on
United States Navy vessels at sea for periods which generally appear
to be of 2 to 4 weeks in duration, but which may extend from a day
to a year. When assigned to the field, technicians are usually, 'al-
though not invariably, reclassified in a "technical representative"
grade,3 which pays an average of 30 cents an hour more than the
"technician" grades. At the time of the hearing, some 40 employees
who may have previously worked in Erie and Niagara Counties as
"technicians," were on assignment in the field. Of these, about 38
were classified as "technical representatives," including 24 salaried
and 14 hourly paid employees, while only 1 or 2 had retained a "tech-
nician" classification -4
1 The current contract between the Employer and the Petitioner contains a union-shop
clause.
'Pursuant .to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these proceedings to a
three-member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
a The term "technical representative" includes the specific classifications of representa-
tive, technical , class III, and representative, service, engineering , class II.
* The record does not clearly reflect how many of the 40 were on "temporary" duty and
what number had received a "permanent" assignment.
150 NLRB No. 43.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While on field assignment, the employees in question do the same
type of mechanical work they did in Erie and Niagara Counties. Thus,
Bell employee Ernest Kreutinger testified that while classified as a
"technician" working in Erie and Niagara Counties he built, serviced,
and maintained a rocket belt, and trained Bell employees in the use
of the belt. In the field, while still classified as a "technician," Kreu-
tinger did "basically" the same work. Another Bell employee, Ray-
mond Wachowiak, explained that at the Wheatfield, New York, plant,
he was classified as a rocket technician and did test cell work, includ-
ing the testing of rocket engines and components. When temporarily
transferred to a California installation, Wachowiak was placed in a
"technical representative" classification. His work in California
consisted of assembling and servicing a target drone, which involved
mechanical skills similar to those Wachowiak had exercised in Erie
and Niagara Counties. In the field, technicians and technical repre-
sentatives may work with employees of one of the Employer's cus-
tomers. At some sites, however, technical work is performed exclu-
sively for the Employer. In such instances technicians and technical
representatives do not come in contact with customers' employees.
Although technical representatives and technicians may work with-
out supervision on occasion, more frequently their work is directed
by engineers who in 'turn receive instructions directly from the
Employer's home office.
The current contract between the Employer and the Union pro-
vides that "technicians" on the field assignments outside Erie and
Niagara Counties shall continue to accumulate seniority, and on
their return shall be reassigned in their area, seniority permitting,
but that the seniority of "technicians" in the field shall cease to
accumulate when they leave the "technician" classifications.5
In this proceeding, the Petitioner contends, in effect, that the cer-
tification of April 5, 1960, should be construed as including within
the appropriate unit all technicians on temporary assignment to field
c The Employer contends that in the negotiation of the current contract the Petitioner
acquiesced in the Employer ' s interpretation of the certification as excluding all "tech-
nicians" and " technical representatives" assigned to work outside of Erie and Niagara
Counties . Specifically, the Employer relies on paragraph 61(c) of the collective agree-
ment which provides that "No employee shall be compelled to accept a transfer to a posi-
tion not covered by the Bargaining Unit." It argues that the Petitioner had attempted
to get explicit coverage for technicians and technical representatives on field assignment
and had failed ; 61(c) was a comprise . The Petitioner argues that throughout the
contiact negotiations it insisted upon the inclusion of the disputed categories of employees
and never abandoned that position . An examination of the background evidence relating
to the execution of the current contract shows that the contract provision adverted to
above was agreed to only for the purpose of averting a strike, after an impasse had been
reached in the contract negotiations and mediators had been summoned. As is evident,
the contract provision relating to the accumulation of seniority for technicians in the field
is no less inconsistent with the Employer 's present unit position than 61 ( c) is with the
Petitioner 's unit contentions. In these circumstances , we do not view the execution of the
current collective agreement as militating against the respective unit positions advanced
in this proceeding.
BELL AEROSPACE CO., A DIV. OF BELL AEROSPACE CORP. 495
locations, whether or not they were reclassified in a "technical repre-
sentative" grade while on such assignments. The Employer, on the
other hand, would have the certification construed as confining the
unit only to those technicians who are physcially located at its opera-
tions in Erie and Niagara Counties, excluding those employees
classified in either "technician" or "technical representative" grades
who are on temporary as well as permanent field assignments. Al-
though the record does not show that the unit inclusion or exclusion
of the disputed employees was specifically considered prior to the
election,6 there can be little doubt, at least with respect to those who
retain their "technician" classifications while on temporary field
assignment, that they are appropriately part of the unit. The rec-
ord shows that "technicians" in the field do essentially the same
work as technicians at the Erie and Niagara installations, and con-
tinue to be attached for payroll and other purposes to such installa-
tions. The record also indicates that many of the technicians have
spent substantial periods of time in Erie and Niagara Counties, and
generally have been assigned to the field only for periods of short
duration.
In view of the above, we believe that those employees who retain
their "technician" classifications while on temporary field assign-
ment have a close community of interest with other unit employees,
not appreciably disrupted by their temporary absence from the Erie
and Niagara operations. Furthermore, it would be incongruous to
require the Petitioner to bargain for, and to administer its contract
on behalf of, the technicians while they are in Erie and Niagara
Counties, but at the same time to allow for the temporary suspen-
sion of such obligations as to those technicians who may be away
for short periods of time. Such a state of affairs would be hardly
conducive to stable labor relations or to effective representation of
the interests of technicians on temporary field assignments. We find,
therefore, that "technicians" in the appropriate unit who are tem-
porarily assigned to the field are covered by the existing certification
while on such field assignments.
In determining the status of "technicians" who are reclassified as
"technical representatives" while performing field duties, we find
no substantial basis in this record for distinguishing them from the
"technicians" on temporary field assignment who are not so reclassi-
fied. A mere difference in job title can have no controlling effect
on the unit placement of the technical representatives if, as is the
situation herein, their employment interests and working conditions
remain essentially the same as other unit employees. In urging that
6 Some technicians on temporary field assignment were included in the eligibility list
submitted by the Employer, and voted without challenge in the election The Employer
now claims this was due to an inadvertent error.
775-692-65-vol, 150--33
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the "technical representatives" are dissimilar from the "technicians,"
the Employer appears to rely primarily on the fact that some of the
"technical representatives" work closely with the Employer's cus-
tomers. But the record shows that even then the "technical repre-
sentatives" continue to perform mechanical work, and such inciden-
tal contact as some "technical representatives" have with customers
does not, in our view, diminish their primary function as technicians
engaged in such mechanical work. Moreover, at some field sites there
are no customers, and technical representatives do work exclusively
for the Employer. In sum, there appears to be little fundamental
difference between the work of "technical representatives" and that
of technicians working in the field who, we have found, are covered
by the certification. We conclude, therefore, that employees in "tech-
nical representative" classifications are covered by the certification
while on temporary field assignment.
Both the Petitioner and the Employer would exclude "technicians"
and "technical representatives" who are permanently assigned to the
field. Accordingly, we shall grant the Petitioner's motion for clari-
fication and include in the unit all of the Employer's employees
working in "technician" or "technical representative" classifications
at the Employer's plants in Erie and Niagara Counties, in the State
of New York, who are temporarily assigned to field duty outside
those counties, but we shall exclude all employees in "technician" or
"technical representative" classifications who are permanently trans-
ferred outside those counties.'
[The Board clarified the certification by specifying that the em-
ployees in "technician" or "technical representative" classifications
at the Employer's plants in Erie and Niagara Counties, New York,
who are temporarily assigned to field duty outside those counties
are included in the aforesaid unit.]
7 See J. I. Case Company, 105 NLRB 638, 640.
Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices
of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada , AFL-CIO and Pipe Linings, Inc. and Laborers
District Council of the Metropolitan Area of Philadelphia and
Vicinity, Local 57, International Hod Carriers Building and
Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case No.
4-CD-115. December 16, 1964
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, following
a charge filed by Pipe Linings, Inc., herein called the Company,
150 NLRB No. 48.