Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 352 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union sympathies,
membership, or activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of, or create the impression that we are
surveilling, the union activities of our employees.
WE WILL NOT withhold, or threaten to withhold, existing benefits from our
employees if they should join or support Hotel and Restaurant Employees and
Bartenders Union, Local 176, AFL-CIO.
WE WILL NOT grant wage increases or other economic benefits to our employ-
ees as an inducement to reject the above-named Union, or any other labor organi-
zation, as their collective-bargaining representative.
WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with adverse consequences, including
job loss, in the event they select the above-named Union, or any other union, as
their collective-bargaining agent.
WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the
above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection or
to refrain from any and all such activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such membership.
GAL TEX HOTEL CORPORATION, D/B/A ADMIRAL
SEMMES HOTEL AND MOTOR HOTEL,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele-
phone No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this
notice or compliance with its provisions.
Chrysler Corporation-Space Division, Michoud Operations and
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO,
Petitioner and Paul Fassnacht et al., Movants. Case No. 15-
RC-2911. August 6,1965
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe-
cuted by the Employer and Petitioner on May 29, 1964, an election by
secret ballot Was conducted on June 11, 1964, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 15, among certain
154 NLRB No. 28.
CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION, MICHOUD OPERATIONS 353
classifications of employees stipulated to constitute an appropriate
unit, but expressly excluding professional employees. At the conclu-
sion of the balloting the parties were furnished a tally of the ballots,
which showed that of approximately 90 eligible employees 80 cast valid
ballots, of which 46 were for and 33 against the Petitioner, and 1 was
challenged. As no exceptions or objections were filed by the Employer
or Petitioner, the Regional Director, on June 23, 1964, certified the
Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees
in the stipulated appropriate unit.
On August 25, 1964, nine employees (herein called Movants) filed
a motion with the National Labor Relations Board, specifically alleg-
ing that they were "professional employees" within the meaning of
Section 2(12) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by
virtue of their educational backgrounds and experience, and were
working as professional employees; that the Regional Director had
included their classifications in the certified unit along with employees
who were not professional employees; and that the Regional Direc-
tor's action was unlawful within the meaning of Section 9(b) (1) of
the Act.'
On September 4, 1964, the Petitioner filed a response to the motion,
contending inter alia that the Movants were not professional employ-
ees entitled to any of the relief requested.
On November 25, 1964, the Board, after duly considering the matter,
issued an Order entertaining the motion, and remanding the proceed-
ing to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a hearing
limited to the question of whether any employees in the stipulated unit
were professional employees.
On January 5, 6, 7, and 8, 1965, the hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Loren P. Jones. All parties, including the Movants, partici-
pated and subsequently filed briefs. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The principal question to be resolved, as indicated in our Order of
November 25, 1964, is which, if any, employees in the unit certified by
the Regional Director are professional employees within the meaning
1 Section 9 ( b) (1) prohibits the Board from establishing such a unit as appropriate
unless , unlike here , it has been clearly ascertained that a majority of the professional
employees vote for inclusion in the unit.
206-446-66-vol. 154 24
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of Section 2(12) of the Act.2 It is clear, from examination of the
statutory definition, that the resolution of this question turns on the
nature of the work engaged in by the employees involved. If the work
is predominantly intellectual and varied rather than routine or stand-
ardized, if it consistently involves discretion and judgment in its per-
formance, and if it requires an advanced type of knowledge customar-
ily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized study in an institution
of higher learning, the employees performing the work come within
the meaning of Section 2(12). It is likewise clear that the statutory
definition does not limit professional status to employees who have
received a degree from, or completed a prolonged course of specialized
study in, an institution of higher learning.3 Thus, the requisite knowl-
edge may also have been acquired through training or experience.'
Accordingly, when a group of employees are being evaluated to deter-
mine whether they are professionals, the principal test depends not so
much on the individual qualifications of each employee as on the pre-
dominant character of the work in which they are engaged.5
With these principles in mind, we turn to an examination of the
alleged professional work performed by the employees in the certified
unit. The unit is composed of employees engaged in the development
and production, under contract with the National Aeronautics and
Space Agency (NASA) of the U.S. Government, of a major com-
ponent of the Saturn rocket, known as the Saturn booster. The record
shows and the parties stipulated that most of the employees in the
unit are production and not professional employees.
The largest group of employees whose professional status is in ques-
tion are 27 engineers in the production engineering department
(department 2621), classified as manufacturing engineer A and manu-
facturing engineer B at the time of the hearing. (Manufacturing engi-
neers B were formerly classified as production engineers.) The rec-
ord shows that their duties are practically identical, and encompass the
following principal types of work :
'Section 2(12) of the Act defines the term "professional employee " to mean:
"(a) any employee engaged in work (1) predominantly intellectual and varied in
character as opposed to routine mental, manual , mechanical , or physical work; (ii)
involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance,
( iii) of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished
cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time ; ( iv) requiring knowledge
of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a
prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of
higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic educa-
tion or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental,
manual, or physical processes ; or
"(b) any employee, who (i ) has completed the courses of specialized intellectual
instruction and study described in clause ( iv) of paragraph (a), and (11) is per-
forming related work under the supervision of a professional person to qualify him-
self to become a professional employee as defined in paragraph (a) "
8 Only half of the admittedly professional senior engineers have such degrees.
* The Ryan Aeronautical Co., 132 NLRB 1160.
5 Western Electric Company , Incorporated, 126 NLRB 1346, 1348.
CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION, MICHOUD OPERATIONS 355
1. The preparation, from a generalized blueprint received from the
professional employees of the design engineering department, of a
concrete manufacturing plan, which determines the plant area, the
major tooling, the special facilities, and the testing and heat treating
procedures to be utilized, and, most important, determines the sequence
of the manufacturing operations to be performed.
2. The preparation (from the manufacturin g plan) of process
(operation) sheets detailing completely for production and mainte-
nance personnel the precise manner in which to manufacture, assemble,
or test the particular component involved.
3. Active and continuous consultation on the production floor with
assembly and manufacturing supervisors to resolve engineering prob-
lems which arise during the production process.
4. Providing detailed information to the contracting agency
(NASA) regarding the impact upon the cost and the delivery schedule
of proposed changes in the Saturn booster.
5. Determining, from the standpoint of feasibility of manufacture,
the practicability of components based upon an analysis of the blue-
prints-a design review function.
6. Evaluating vendor proposals 6 as they affect production costs,
manufacturing operations, or production schedules.
7. Performing management research.
The evidence further shows that manufacturing engineers A and
B have a clear and definite project responsibility in connection with the
manufacture, assembly, or testing of various parts of the Saturn
booster, and that, although they receive limited professional supervi-
sion, they have great latitude in performing their work. They have
also been assigned to a wide variety of projects. Thus, one manufac-
turing engineer A (Mitchell) was assigned to the installation of out-
board and inboard engines and to the removal of static test equipment
from a rocket; a manufacturing engineer B (Rachal) was assigned to
tail-unit structural problems and to a maj or modification program on
the Saturn booster.
The Employer's hiring requirements for the two classifications differ
somewhat. Manufacturing engineering B is required to have an engi-
neering degree or its equivalent and 3 to 5 years' experience in the air-
craft or missile industry, while manufacturing engineer A is required
to have an engineering degree or its equivalent and 6 to 8 years' experi-
ence in the same industry. The record shows that 9 of the 27 manufac-
turing engineers in question have degrees in electrical or mechanical
engineering, or related fields such as mathematics or industrial tech-
nology. The remaining 18 engineers have an average of 14 years of
manufacturing and assembly experience, the greater part of which has
9 The term "vendor" used herein means the supplier of parts or components. "Vendor
proposals" refer to prospective changes in these parts or components.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been in the aircraft industry. Of these 18, 9 have had an average of 2
years of institutional training in electrical, mechanical, or aeronauti-
cal engineering. One other received 4 years of college training in aca-
demic subjects, and the remaining eight individuals finished high
school. But all have had substantial training and experience, and
four of them have had from 17 to 20 years of experience, most of which
is in the aircraft industry?
The Petitioner first contends that although a third of the afore-
mentioned 27 employees have college degrees in engineering, the fail-
ure of the remaining two-thirds to hold such degrees precludes all 27
from qualifying as "professional employees" under Section 2 (12), and
that the Employer's policy of accepting an equivalent amount of engi-
neering experience and training as a substitute for the degree produces
"a failure to meet the stringent statutory education requirements of
Section 2(12)." The argument lacks merit as pointed out in recent
decisions dealing with the statutory definition of professional status.
Such a contention was recently rejected in the Ryan Aeronautical
case,8 where the union involved argued against the inclusion of various
engineers in a professional unit engaged in the manufacturing of elec-
tronic guidance systems because they lacked college degrees. The
Board, however, included the disputed engineers in the professional
unit, stating as follows :
Apparently the Petitioner's principal argument against the
inclusion of the particular engineering employees in the profes-
sional unit is that employees who are not college graduates do not
meet the definition of professional employees under the Act. The
Act requires professionals to possess "knowledge of an advanced
type." However, such knowledge need not come through academic
training alone. It is settled Board policy that it is not the "indi-
vidual qualifications of each engineer, but rather the character of
the work required of them as a group," which is determinative of
professional status. The background of the individual is, of
course, relevant and is examined for the purpose of deciding
whether the work of the group satisfies the "knowledge of an
advanced type" requirement.
The principle that "knowledge of an advanced type" may be acquired
by training and experience which is the equivalent of a college degree
has also been recognized as applicable to missile engineers by the Board
in deciding unit placement questions in representation cases. Thus, in
a Manufacturing engineers (A and B) are summarized as a single group because the
record reflects that their duties are practically identical. Their education and experience,
if considered as separate groups, would produce essentially the same ratio of higher
education and college degrees to practical experience
8 132 NLRB 1160, 1163, 1164.
CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION, MICHOUD OPERATIONS 357
Ladish Company,9 the work of the engineers required an engineering
degree, preferably in metallurgy, or the equivalent in training or
experience. The engineers there evaluated missile projects and made
recommendations as to the type of metals to be used, whether new met-
als should be developed, and the methods of manufacture, and also
oversaw the heat treatment, test procedures, and manufacturing opera-
tions in connection with such projects. The Board decided that the
engineers in question were professional employees under Section 2(12),
finding, inter alia. that the work of the missile engineers was predomi-
nantly intellectual and varied in character, and otherwise conformed
to the section's requirements. In the light of the above precedent and
on the basis of the qualifications and work of manufacturing engi-
neers A and B, we find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that they
fail individually or as a group to meet the "knowledge of an advanced
type" requirement of Section 9(b) (1).
Moreover, the present record itself refutes this argument, for it
shows that one of the Movants, who is not a graduate engineer, has been
promoted to a clearly professional position in the design engineering
department on the basis of his advanced qualifications derived from
extensive engineering experience.
Petitioner also contends in its brief that three factors clearly demon-
strate that manufacturing engineers A and B perform work that falls
short of the statutory requirements, which are limited to work that
is predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to
routine mental work. It argues that (1) the engineers are subject to
supervision in submitting recommendations to the Employer's design
engineering department; (2) they cannot make on-the-spot changes
in blueprints, but must remedy manufacturing problems by recom-
mendations submitted to the design engineering department through
their supervisors; and (3) the large number of engineering changes
proposed by NASA or vendors for the many systems and components
of the Saturn booster each month (600 to 800) negatives any contention
that the manufacturing engineers' work is other than routine. Peti-
tioner further urges that these same three factors show that the work
performed by the manufacturing engineers does not involve the fre-
quent exercise of discretion and judgment which Section 2(12)
requires.
With regard to the first factor, it is clear from the record that both
manufacturing engineers A and B do receive limited supervision of
their work from a senior engineer and a group supervisor. Thus, their
written recommendations (clarification requests) to the design engi-
neering department on manufacturing and assembly problems ordi-
narily require approval by a senior engineer or group supervisor before
0 126 NLRB 555, 558, 559.
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
transmission to that department . Similarly, the general manufactur-
ing plans and operation sheets prepared by the manufacturing engi-
neers require approval before they are released to the production floor
and other interested departments of the Employer . The record
reflects, however , that approval of their recommendations , manufac-
turing plans , and operation sheets is usually given as a matter of course
in view of the clear project responsibility of the manufacturing engi-
neers for particular systems and components of the booster. Indeed,
it is common practice for the manufacturing engineers at times to work
directly with design engineering personnel on manufacturing prob-
lems, -with no advance notification to any senior engineer or group
supervisor. In our opinion, the supervision received by the manufac-
turing engineers does not preclude them from qualifying as profes-
sional employees under Section 2(12) of the Act.
Neither do the other two factors cited by the Petitioner support the
contention that the manufacturing engineers perform only routine
work. True, the evidence indicates that such engineers cannot make
design changes on the production floor as problems arise. However,
as noted above , their recommendations with regard to the solution of
manufacturing and assembly problems customarily receive approval
from design engineers as realistic appraisals of how manufacturing
and assembly feasibility can be assured once a problem arises in con-
nection with some system or component . Petitioner 's further argu-
ment that the number of changes impacted each month "destroys a
contention that the work is not routine " also lacks merit, when the com-
plexity of the Saturn booster is contemplated and it is recalled that
many changes impacted (or considered) are actually made. However,
in the case of all such changes which are evaluated, the intellectual and
varied character of the engineers' work is clear since requisite material,
manpower, space, and tooling requirements must be estimated by the
engineer impacting a change with a high degree of accuracy, so that
the cost and scheduling effect of the proposed change may be promptly
appraised with due regard to all relevant factors and communicated
to NASA for approval. Moreover, the engineer must make this
appraisal in an imaginative manner utilizing only a general one-para-
graph or one-page description of the change proposed.
The varied and intellectual nature of the manufacturing engineers'
duties is evident from the diverse nature of the projects to which they
have been assigned and also from the particular work they have per-
formed on these projects: drafting manufacturing plans, estimating
the impact upon the booster of the various changes proposed by NASA
and contractors supplying missile components, determining the tool-
ing requirements (including the design of tools for certain assembly
procedures), solving manufacturing, assembly, and testing problems,
working on the production floor with production supervisors, and exer-
CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION , MICHOUD OPERATIONS 359
cising a design review responsibility to assure manufacturing feasibil-
ity of particular components . Fassnacht, for instance , not only had to
determine what testing equipment would assure the manufacturing
and assembly tolerances required by NASA, but also had to calibrate
or modify such equipment when necessary to assure that such toler-
ances were maintained . Other manufacturing engineers had to make
judgments concerning whether component changes would lead to
abnormal testing costs or production delays-and whether in-plant
manufacture or procurement from outside contractors of missile com-
ponents would best serve the Employer's and NASA's needs, yet still
assure maintenance of critical delivery schedules. In sum, the record
shows that the work of manufacturing engineers A and B is being per-
formed in a relatively new industry, in which the end products (mis-
siles and rockets) are of such novelty and complexity that widespread
knowledge of an advanced type is essential to those having responsi-
bilities related to formulation and guidance of the manufacturing
process.
In view of all the evidence outlined above relating to the question
of the professional status of the 27 employees who are classified as
manufacturing engineers A and B, we find that they meet the statu-
tory requirements of Section 2(12) for professional employees and
were qualified as such at the time of the election.
The evidence shows that none of the remaining employees in the
stipulated unit are professionals . A question was raised as to some of
the 14 associate manufacturing engineers also employed in the Employ-
er's production engineering department. The record shows and the
parties stipulated, however, that six of these employees, who were for-
merly classified as technical assistant (production) engineers, are not
professional employees. Evidence concerning the remaining eight
(formerly classified as production engineer B) shows that one has a
B.S. degree in industrial technology and one an academic B.A. degree,
but that all have a lower pay scale than manufacturing engineers A
or B. Evidence also shows that the eight regularly are assigned to
writing detailed process (operation) sheets for production operations
and that they often receive help from manufacturing engineers A and
B on the relatively routine projects to which they are assigned. On the
basis of the above evidence, and particularly in the absence of any posi-
tive and detailed testimony distinguishing their work from that of the
stipulated nonprofessional associate manufacturing engineers for-
merly classified as technical assistant, we are unable to find that the
former production engineers B meet the statutory requirements pre-
scribed by Section 2 (12) for professional employees.
A question was also raised as to three other unit employees, two of
whom are classified as estimators -parts cost and one as estimator-
advanced proposals. These employees work with cost estimators-
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assembly, who have been stipulated to be nonprofessional employees,
although, like the three disputed employees, they also often estimate
the cost of advanced proposals and parts. The evidence shows that the
cost estimating employees are not concerned with solving engineering
problems, but merely estimate the cost of material and manpower
which will be needed to manufacture or assemble a certain component
or item proposed. In view of the predominantly repetitive and routine
nature of the cost estimating function, and the stipulation that certain
cost estimators-assembly who perform comparable work are not pro-
fessional employees, we find that the cost estimator-advanced proposals
and the cost estimators-parts do not meet the statutory requirements
of Section 2(12) for professional employees.
In sum, it appears that the stipulated unit contains both professional
and nonprofessional employees, within the meaning of Section 2(12)
of the Act. Since the ballots of the professional employees did not
present the question of inclusion in the mixed unit and in any event
were not kept separate from those of the other employees, and since
it has therefore not been possible to ascertain that a majority of the
professional employees voted for inclusion in the unit, as required by
Section 9(b) (1) of the Act, we must of necessity exclude them from
the stipulated unit. Moreover, it is not clear that the Petitioner seeks
either a separate election among the professional employees in the unit,
or a finding that a substantially smaller unit (containing only the non-
professional employees) is appropriate. It is likewise not clear that
a majority of the nonprofessional employees who voted in this smaller
unit cast ballots for representation by the Petitioner.
Under all the circumstances, we shall vacate the certification hereto-
fore issued by the Regional Director and shall remand the proceeding
to him for such further action on the petition as may be appropriate,
consistent with our decision herein.
[The Board vacated the certification of representatives and re-
manded this proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 15 for
appropriate further action on the petition.]
Riley Aeronautics Corporation and Donald A. Depew and Fred
Lee, Jr. and Wallace J. Nelson and Sigmund R. Nied , and Homer
D. Sapp . Cases Nos.1w-CA-3055-1,12-CA-3055-2,12-CA-3055-3,
12-CA-3055-4, and 12-CA-3055-5. August 9, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER
On May 12, 1965, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
154 NLRB No. 25.