General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION 621
General Dynamics Corporation and American
Federation of Technical ' Engineers, AFL-CIO
and its Local 151, Petitioner
General Dynamics Corporation and Local 90,
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases 1-RC-10755 and 1-UC-66
July 24, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING , BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(b) and
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer S. Anthony diCiero. Following the
hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, these cases were transferred to the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board for decision by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 1.
Briefs have been filed by both Petitioners and the
Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer within the meaning o Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer operates a shipyard in Quincy,
Massachusetts, and is currently engaged in the con-
struction of surface vessels at that yard. Approxi-
mately 8,000 employees are employed in the yard.
The Intervenor, Local 5, Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
AFL-CIO ( hereafter referred to as Local 5),
represents the production and maintenance em-
ployees in a unit of approximately 5,280 em-
ployees . One of the joint RC-Petitioners, Local
151, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO ( hereinafter referred to as Local 151),
represents designers and draftsmen in a unit of ap-
proximately 412 employees . The UC-Petitioner,
Local 90 , Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America , AFL-CIO
(hereinafter referred to as Local 90 ), represents of-
fice, clerical , and technical employees in a unit of
approximately 850 employees . In addition, there
are two units of plant guards and a unit of medical
employees.
Local 1512 seeks an election in a unit consisting
of the planners in Departments 820, 858, and 899,
and the labor budget estimaters in Department 814.
In the alternative it seeks a separate unit of plan-
ners in departments 820, 858 , and 899, and a
separate unit of labor budget estimaters . Local 151,
although stating that it does not seek a residual unit
of all unrepresented technical employees, states
that it is willing to proceed with an election in any
unit found to be appropriate.
Local 90 seeks to clarify the existing unit it
represents by adding the following employees to the
existing unit which it represents ; Production control
coordinators , asterisk planners, material planners,
and quality control analysts.3
Case 1-RC-10755: Local 151 contends that the
planners and labor budget estimaters are an
identifiable and functionally distinct group having
common employment interests , work experience,
basic skills , and business contacts and are engaged
in the unique and highly integrated ship construc-
tion-erection planning operation . The Employer
contends that Local 15 l's petition must be
dismissed as Local 151 seeks but a segment of all
unrepresented technical employees , there is not
sufficient community of interest among the em-
ployees it seeks, and Local 151 's petition is based
on extent of organization . Employer also contends
that certain of these employees are managerial and
professional employees and not properly includable
in the requested unit.
The planners Local 151 seeks to represent are
located in three departments : 820, 899 , and 858.
The 820 planners, approximately 24 employees, are
primarily concerned with planning the erection of
' Over Employer 's objection , the petitioning union in Case 1 -RC-10755
was permitted to change its name to reflect its Local 151 as a joint peti-
tioner . Employer renewed its objection to this change in its brief to the
Board In our opinion the Hearing Officer did not abuse his discretion by
permitting the Petitioner to change its name Accordingly , we overrule Em-
ployer 's objection
= References to Local 151 hereinafter include both Local 151 and its In-
ternational
3 In addition , the parties at the hearing agreed that the inventory control
clerks in Department 855 and clerk in Department 822 should be ac-
credited to the unit represented by Local 90 Accordingly , we shall order
the accretion of these classifications to the existing unit
184 NLRB No. 66
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hull and superstructure sections . The planners
in Department 820 are divided into three groups.
One group breaks down the hull and superstructure
into modules of construction units and sets up a
schedule for erection and assembly of the units.
The second group , working from design plans,
prepares the steel trade operation sheet , defining
the amount or type of work that is done at a par-
ticular work station and, in many cases, defining
the method and/or jigging fixture required. The
third group is responsible for defining procedures
to be followed in the trades for fitting and welding
modules in a timely manner . The 899 planners, ap-
proximately 30 employees , plan a program for
erection of the ship within the perimeters
established by Department 820. Each planner takes
a customer 's plans and specifications and, by
checking material and labor requirements against
available resources , defines installation and other
schedules for board sectors of the vessel. The De-
partment 858 planners, approximately 115 em-
ployees, take the plans as outlined by Department
899, further break them down into 80-hour units
and prepare plans for the work of each trade. The
work of this department is broken down into nine
groups. The work of each group is geared to a
specific trade; e .g., pipe-fitting , sheet metal etc.4
The Department 814 labor budget estimaters, ap-
proximately 40, make estimates of the number of
hours required to build the ship. These estimates
are made at three different times in the planning
process : ( 1) when bids are made, ( 2) after the con-
tract has been obtained , and(3 ) when the functions
have been broken down into smaller units . Each of
these estimaters is familiar with a particular trade
and it is his function to estimate how many hours
that particular trade will need to complete its as-
signed tasks.
The Board 's practice is to find a unit of technical
employees inappropriate where it does not include
all of the employees in that category . Local 151
concedes that the unit it seeks does not include all
of the unrepresented technical employees , but con-
tends that the employees it does seek are a func-
tionally distinct group . It does this on the basis that
4 These planners are further divided into the "asterisk" and "non as-
terisk" planners The asterisk planners will be discussed infra in connec-
tion with the UC petition
S The following classifications are in this category . Accountant , accoun-
tant sr , budget coordinator , financial analyst, buyer , buyer sr., contract ad-
ministrator, contract administrator sr , contract representative , contract
representative sr , cost analyst , cost analyst sr , cost estimator , cost estima-
tor sr , engineering planner , industrial sales analyst, insurance analyst,
labor performance analyst , manufacturing coordinator , manufacturing
development analyst , manufacturing development analyst sr , methods
analyst , methods analyst sr , production test analyst , programmer, staff
assistant sr , structural sub-contract field rep , systems analyst, systems
development analyst , systems development specialist , ship control coor-
dinator , ship control coordinator sr , technical writer editor, welding
development analyst , engineering specialist, engineering staff specialist,
all of the activities of the employees in the
proposed unit have a single purpose : "planning the
erection , implacement and installation of every
component of a complex naval and commercial
ship." Employer contends that if the unit is granted
there are approximately 250 to 275 technical and
financial people , including some in Departments
814, 899 , 820, and 858 who will be left un-
represented ,' and that these employees are not
functionally distinct from those in the requested
unit.
Local 151 does not suggest that the employees in
the proposed unit have any basis for distinction
from the remaining unrepresented technical em-
ployees other than job function . Brief summaries of
the duties of some of the remaining technical em-
ployees are set forth in the record. From an ex-
amination of these summaries , we conclude that the
job functions of the employees in the requested unit
are not so functionally distinct that they are entitled
to separate representation . For example : the cost
estimater , who is not included , estimates produc-
tion and related costs on future contracts and the
costs of changes in present contract, a function
very similar to that performed by the labor budget
estimater , an employee who is included in the
proposed unit. The engineering planner , who is not
included , performs technical and administrative du-
ties for engineering contract groups, e .g., produc-
tion control , budgets, cost control, planning, etc.,
functions which would not appear to be so func-
tionally distinct from those required in planning the
building of a ship as to justify their exclusion from
the unit . In more general terms , it is apparent that
the technical employees in the proposed unit do not
perform functions which are sufficiently distinct
from the remaining unrepresented technical em-
ployees to justify our granting of the proposed unit
to the exclusion of these unrepresented employees.6
Accordingly, we find that the unit petitioned for,
and the alternative units proposed , are inap-
propriate . We shall therefore dismiss the petition in
Case 1-RC-10755.7
Case 1-UC-66 : As noted above, Local 90 seeks
to add four classifications of employees to the of-
,materials value specialist, program manager , proposal leader , systems in-
tegration specialist , budget analyst , contract change analyst sr , department
administrative asst , engineering assistant, facilities analyst sr , financial
analyst , financial management assoc , industrial engineer analyst , industrial
engineer analyst sr , labor performance analyst , librarian ( engineering), lo-
gistics analysts, manufacturing development analyst sr , market analyst,
material program administrator, methods analyst , methods analyst sr ,
operations manager asst to production control analyst, program analyst
sr., staff assistant , technical information analyst , traffic coordinator , trial &
guarantee representative.
The same is true with respect to Local 15 l's alternate suggestion of a
unit limited to the planners in Departments 820,899 , and 858
' In view of our disposition of this petition we do not pass on Employer's
alternative contentions
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION 623
fice, clerical, and technical employees unit it cur-
rently represents: Production control coordinators,
asterisk planners, material planners, and quality
control analysts.
Production Control Coordinators: This classifica-
tion was established in August 1969,8 after the ef-
fective date of Local 90's current collective-bar-
gaining agreement with the Employer.9 The produc-
tion control coordinator makes certain that the
materials required by a particular trade are
acquired, sequence processed, and expedited,
through the use of chasers, to the ship in time to
support shipbuilding requirements. This function
was established to provide intelligent control of the
sequence of arrival of material at the ship. Local 90
claims the duties of this classification are substan-
tially similar to those of expediters, piermen, and
storemen , all of whom are currently represented by
Local 90. Employer contends that these employees
are salaried supervisors and that they do not per-
form expediting, pierman, or storeman functions.
The evidence as to the supervisory status of the
production control coordinators is contradictory
with Employer presenting evidence tending to show
that the production control coordinators have the
authority to recommend effectively wage increases
and discipline while Local 90 presented evidence,
including the testimony of a production control
coordinator, tending to show that recommendations
of production control coordinators are subject to
independent investigation before being acted upon.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude
that the production control coordinators are work-
ing leaders who, as the most experienced em-
ployees, direct the activities of from four to six
chasers, and that they do not have the authority ef-
fectively to recommend personnel actions. There-
fore, we conclude that production control coor-
dinators are not supervisors.
As noted above, the production control coor-
dinator's primary function is to provide intelligent
control of the sequence of arrival of materials at
the ship. The expediter, represented by Local 90, is
responsible for progressing materials from the point
of fabrication to the point of installation or the
point of usage . It is clear from an examination of
the closely related functions of these classifications
that the work of the production control coordinator
is an outgrowth of the work performed by the ex-
pediters. We, therefore, conclude that the produc-
tion control coordinaters are an accretion to the
unit represented by Local 90 and we shall, ac-
cordingly, clarify the certification to include
them.to
Asterisk Planners: " These Department 858 plan-
ners assist the nonasterisk by reading plans and list-
ing materials . In addition , they spend approximately
one-third of their time implementing minor changes
to plans. Employer concedes that the planners
spend most of their time performing clerical duties
and that, since Employer acquired the Quincy yard
from Bethlehem Steel in 1964, Local 90 has con-
tinually contended that these employees have been
improperly excluded from the unit it represents.12
Employer now states that it does not object to the
accretion of these employees to the unit. Ac-
cordingly, we shall clarify Local 90's certification
to include these employees.
Quality Control Analyst: These employees set
specification requirements for particular contracts,
develop audit plans, write reports on projects, and
recommend corrective action. They spend approxi-
mately 15 percent of their time doing actual inspec-
tion work.13 Local 90 contends that this classifica-
tion is an outgrowth of the now defunct classifica-
tion, quality control inspectors, which it
represented prior to Employer's acquisition of the
yard in 1964. The quality control analyst is a
technical employee who spends very little of his
time performing clerical duties similar to those per-
formed by employees in the unit represented by
Local 90. Moreover, any connection these em-
ployees had with the pre-1964 quality control in-
spector is now too remote for consideration. We
conclude that these employees do not share a suffi-
cient community of interest with the employees
currently in the unit to warrant their accretion to
the unit.14 Accordingly, we find that they are not
appropriately a part of the existing unit and deny
Local 90's request that these employees be added
by means of unit clarification.
Material Planners: These Department 856 em-
ployees perform various functions, including so-
phisticated control of the sequence of material ar-
rivals and the analyzation of material availability
and capital equipment needs, with regard to the
° There were some coordinaters prior to August 1969 However, the
record is unclear as to their exact duties . It is clear , however, that Employer
was here establishing a classification with a new set of responsibilities
° This agreement was signed December 23, 1968 , effective December
22,1968
10 We rind no merit in Local 5 's contention that these employees should
be included in the production and maintenance unit it represents
This designation is not an official designation used by the Employer,
but was used by the parties at the hearing to distinguish these employees
from the other planners in Department 858
" In 1967, Local 90 filed a grievance contesting this exclusion This
grievance is still pending
13 Inspectors are represented by Local 90
" Moreover , even if that were not the case , as these employees have not
been included in the unit when previous contracts have been signed and as
there is no allegation that these duties have changed , we would find that the
request for their inclusion in the unit at this time raises questions concern-
ing representation which may not be resolved in a unit clanfication
proceeding Laddish Co, 176 NLRB 1098, Crucible Steel Casting, 162
NLRB 1513, Beaunit Fibers, Inc, 153 NLRB 987.
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
planning of the control and acquisition of material
and equipment. Their actions are directed toward
assuring and scheduling prompt arrival and delivery
of goods and supplies to the proper work areas in
the most efficient possible sequence. Local 90 con-
tends that these employees should be added to its
unit as their work is substantially clerical in nature.
However, the record shows that these employees
are technical employees who spend very little of
their time performing clerical work.'5 We conclude
that these employees do not share a sufficient com-
munity of interest with the employees in the unit to
warrant their accretion to the unit.'s Accordingly,
we find that material planners may remain excluded
" The record does not reveal any other basis for inclusion of these em-
ployees in the unit
" Moreover , even if that were not the case , as these employees have
been specifically excluded from the unit when previous contracts have
been signed and there is no obligation that these duties have changed, we
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from the unit represented by Local 90.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the certification hereto-
fore issued to Local 90, Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically includ-
ing therein the production control coordinators, the
asterisk planners, the inventory control clerks in
Department 855 and clerk in Department 822.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed
herein in Case 1-RC-10755 be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
should find that the request for their inclusion in the unit at this time raises
question concerning representation which should not be resolved by a unit
clarification proceeding . Ladish Co., supra ; Crucible Steel Casting, supra;
Beaunu Fibers , Inc., supra