Control Data Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 330 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Control Data Corporation and United Independent
Toolmakers Association , Local 100, Petitioner.
Cases 18-RC-8061, 18-RC-8062, 18-RC-8063,
and 18-RC-8064
June 30, 1970
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
On January 14, 1970, the Regional Director for
Region 18 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter in
accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a
timely request for review of the Regional Director's
Decision, contending that the Regional Director
erred in finding appropriate a unit of modelmakers
at the Employer's Normandale facility and a unit of
toolmakers at the Employer's Cedar Engineering
facility.
On February 10, 1970, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board by telegraphic order granted the Em-
ployer's request that the scheduled elections be
stayed pending consideration of the Employer's
request for review. Thereafter by telegraphic order
dated April 22, 1970, the Board granted the Em-
ployer's request for review.
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
this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this proceeding and makes the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the production and
sale of electronic computer systems, maintaining its
corporate headquarters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul,
Minnesota, metropolitan area (Twin Cities). There
it operates about 22 plants, spread out over a 25-
mile area, and employs approximately 3,600
production and maintenance employees.
Petitioner filed four election petitions seeking to
represent four units of employees at three of the
Twin Cities plants. In three of these petitions, Peti-
tioner requested separate elections for toolmakers
and other machine shop employees at the Em-
ployer's Arden Hills, Normandale, and Cedar En-
gineering facilities . In the fourth , it sought to
represent all the modelmakers at the Employer's
Normandale plant. All the petitioned-for employees
are unrepresented and there has been no history of
' No party requested review of these dismissals
2 The Regional Director excluded from the Cedar Engineering tool-
makers' unit certain machine shop employees in lower salary grades whom
Petitioner had sought to include
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective bargaining for any of the Employer's em-
ployees in the Twin Cities area.
The Regional Director found, in agreement with
the Employer, that the requested toolmakers' units
at Arden Hills and at Normandale were inap-
propriate and, accordingly, he dismissed the peti-
tions in Cases 18-RC-8062 and 18-RC-8063.' The
Regional Director found appropriate separate units
for the toolmakers at Cedar Engineering and the
modelmakers at Normandale, essentially as
requested by Petitioner.2
The Employer asserts that the Regional Director
erred in finding the two latter units to be ap-
propriate. It argues, inter alia , that neither the
Cedar Engineering toolmakers nor the Normandale
modelmakers constitute a distinct homogeneous
craft or departmental grouping entitled to separate
representation. We find merit in this contention.
The Normandale Modelmakers
The Normandale facility is primarily responsible
for the design , development , and assembly of
peripheral computer equipment . The approximately
12 modelmakers employed at this facility work in a
building which houses most of the Employer's Nor-
mandale machinery operations . There they work
under separate supervision in a room situated ap-
proximately 300 feet from the machine shop area in
which are located the toolmakers whose petition
was dismissed . The modelmakers plan, set up, and
perform complex machine operations in order to
fabricate parts and components for engineering
prototypes . They machine parts and work on all
types of metals and materials including ceramics,
rubber , and plastics . They also perform welding,
braising , and heat treating . Although the Employer
requires the modelmakers to have a high school
diploma and prior experience , it does not have an
apprenticeship program.
The Regional Director found that the
modelmakers form " a distinct group clearly
identifiable and separate in character from that of
the other employees and exercise special skills as-
sociated with their craft ." We disagree.
The Board does not normally find appropriate a
separate unit of modelmakers3 unless they con-
stitute an unrepresented residual group of an em-
ployer's highly skilled toolmaking employees.4
Here , it is clear that the modelmakers are not the
only unrepresented employees within this trade
grouping at this plant.
' Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Co, 127 NLRB 878, and Bendix Avia-
lion Corp , 125 NLRB 380
Bendix Aviation Corp , 114 NLRB 118
184 NLRB No. 34
CONTROL DATA CORPORATION 331
On the contrary, the record establishes that the
modelmakers and the unrepresented Normandale
toolmakers use nearly identical machinery and ex-
ercise similar skills in performing tooling work.
Thus, both groups fabricate parts, using such
machines as lathes, mills, grinders, and presses.
Both toolmakers and modelmakers must be capable
of using similar precision measuring instruments
such as calipers and micrometers and they must
work to fine tolerances of plus or minus .0001 of an
inch. The similarity of skills of the modelmakers
and the toolmakers is also evidenced by the
frequent transfers between the two employee clas-
sifications. Modelmakers likewise receive compen-
sation which is approximately equal to that
received by the highest toolmaker classification.
The record further discloses that the
modelmakers frequently work alongside un-
represented production and maintenance em-
ployees with whom they share a community of in-
terest. Thus, production and maintenance em-
ployees regularly work in the machine shop, in
some cases up to 32-40 hours a week, and
modelmakers often leave their modelshop to work
in the machine shop. Moreover, although the
modelmakers spend approximately 75 percent of
their time on basic prototype work, it appears that
they spend the remainder of their time on tooling
and production work which is similar to that done
in the machine shop. Modelmakers share the same
benefits and have similar working conditions as
those of other employees.
Based upon the foregoing we conclude that the
modelmakers are not a functionally distinct and
homogeneous craft or traditional departmental
grouping entitled to separate representation.5 Ac-
cordingly, we find that the requested unit is inap-
propriate and shall dismiss the petition.6
The Cedar Engineering Toolmakers
The Cedar Engineering facility produces rotary
components, including a variety of motors for com-
puters and precision aircraft instrumentation. The
approximately 15 toolniakers employed at the
facility work under separate supervision in one area
of the Employer's machine shop. They build molds
and tools to close tolerances, set up and repair
production machinery, and perform production
work, including work on jigs and fixtures. The Em-
ployer does not perform all of its own tooling work
at Cedar Engineering but frequently finds it neces-
sary to subcontract to outside jobbers because it
does not have the requisite equipment or because
quantity requirements exceed the capacity of its
toolmaking force. The Employer does not have an
apprenticeship program for toolmakers.
The Regional Director held, in agreement with
Petitioner, that the Cedar Engineering toolmakers
constitute an appropriate unit. While
acknowledging that the toolmakers do some
production work, the Regional Director concluded
that such work was insignificant and that the tool-
makers "exercise the special skills associated with
their craft." We do not agree with the Regional
Director's unit determination.
The record indicates that the toolmakers spend
from 50-60 percent of their time on basic piece
part production work such as torsion bars, shafts,
and winding machines .7 There was a dispute at the
hearing whether the winding machine work
represents a production function. However, it is
clear that winding machines constitute an element
of the Employer's finished product which it at one
time sold to its competitors but now, apparently,
furnishes only to its subsidiaries. Also, the work on
these machines does not appear to require the
degree of independent judgment which is the hall-
mark of a skilled craftsmen because it is repetiti,,e
in nature . Nor does any of the other production-
type work performed by the toolmakers on torsion
bars and shafts require the exercise of the skill nor-
mally associated with the toolmakers' craft.
Further, the record does not establish that the
requested toolmakers are a homogeneous grouping
but rather shows that they share a substantial com-
munity of interest with other unrepresented em-
ployees at this plant. Thus, other machine shop em-
ployees, as well as production and maintenance em-
ployees, work on machines primarily used by the
toolmakers and the toolmakers regularly use equip-
ment located throughout the machine shop and
production area, at which time they are sometimes
supervised by the area supervisor. It is undisputed
that numerous employees have progressed to the
toolmaker classification from the machine shop and
that machine shop employees in the lower grades
perform work similar to that performed by the tool-
makers. Finally, the toolmakers and the other un-
represented employees share substantially similar
terms and conditions of employment.
Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the
' See Soroban Incorporated, 179 NLRB 445 , where toolmakers and
modelmakers were found to be production specialists
6 While Petitioner did not seek a combined unit of the Normandale
modelmakers and toolmakers , such a unit would likewise be inappropriate
for the same reason the Regional Director dismissed the petition for a
separate unit of the Normandale toolmakers and other machine shop em-
ployees, i e , the toolmakers and other machine shop employees constitute
a diverse group of employees performing dissimilarlobs , a large proportion
of which entail production
r At least one toolmaker has spent approximately 90 percent of his time
on production work
332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
requested unit of toolmakers at the Employer's ORDER
Cedar Engineering plant is not a functionally
distinct and homogeneous grouping of employees
entitled to separate representation." We find, there- It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases
fore, that this unit is inappropriate and we shall 18-RC-8061 and 18-RC-8064 be, and they hereby
dismiss the petition. are, dismissed.
" Sorohan, supra, and Lear-Siegler, Inc , 170 NLRB 766