General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 851 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.
General Dynamics Corporation , Convair Aerospace
Division , San Diego Operations ' and National Engi-
neers and Professionals Association , affiliated with
International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace,
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW),2 Petitioner. Case 21-RC-12723
October 4, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Orville S. Johnson of
the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
close of the hearing, the Regional Director for Region
21 transferred this proceeding to the Board for deci-
sion.
Thereafter, the Employer and Petitioner filed
briefs.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated that the Employer "Gen-
eral Dynamics Corporation is a corporation with its
Convair Aerospace Division San Diego Operations
engaged in the manufacture of aerospace systems and
items for industry and the United States Govern-
ment," and that during calendar year 1971 the Em-
ployer purchased and received in the State of
California goods valued in excess of $50,000 which
i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 Petitioner 's name appears as amended at the hearing
3 Inasmuch as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and
positions of the parties , we hereby deny the Employer's request for oral
argument Its motion to correct the transcript of proceedings , however, in
which Petitioner has acquiesced , is hereby granted . We also shall grant the
Employer's motion to reopen the record in order to receive into evidence the
March 15 , 1973, letter from UAW International President Woodcock to Mr
B D Teague , the Employer's director of industrial relations, and Teague's
reply letter dated March 29, 1973 Petitioner concedes the authenticity but
not the relevancy of these documents , both of which came into being subse-
quent to the close of the hearing , and which we hereby accept into evidence
as Emp Exhs 313 and 314, respectively, for the purpose of completing the
record
For the reasons discussed infra, we hereby affirm the Hearing Officer's
ruling granting Petitioner 's motion to amend the name on the petition, and
deny the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition , as well as its request for
an administrative determination of the adequacy of Petitioner 's showing of
interest
851
were shipped to it directly from points outside the
State of California. We find that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer. The Employ-
er, however, disputes this claim by questioning
Petitioner's status and validity as a labor organiza-
tion. It also contests the validity, adequacy, and suffi-
ciency of the showing of interest filed herein.
This proceeding originated when the "National En-
gineers & Professionals Assoc., Affiliate unit of
UAW, 887 International Union, UAW" filed a peti-
tion, later amended as to unit scope, for an election
in a unit consisting of the Employer's professional and
administrative employees located at the Employer's
San Diego, California, division facilities, i.e., Convair
Aerospace Division. This petition was supported by a
showing of interest which designated UAW Local 887
as the collective-bargaining representative. Petitioner
entered the proceeding at the hearing where it moved
to amend the name on the petition to reflect its name.
The Hearing Officer granted the motion over the
Employer's objection and contention that a new
showing of interest was required to support Petitioner,
whereupon the Employer moved to dismiss the peti-
tion. The Hearing Officer referred the Employer's
motion to dismiss to the Regional Director who did
not pass thereon, or on the Hearing Officer's ruling
permitting the petition to be amended, prior to the
time this proceeding was transferred to the Board,
thus leaving these issues unresolved.
The events underlying these issues began in mid-
1971 when a "Survey Committee" of Convair's em-
ployees sought to ascertain employee interest in estab-
lishing a bargaining unit of professional employees at
Convair. Despite apparently discouraging results, the
Committee continued its efforts by seeking organiza-
tional aid from the Engineers and Architects Associa-
tion (EEA), one of several unions representing certain
of Convair's other employees. Following a survey
funded by EEA to determine whether there was suffi-
cient employee interest for EEA to attempt to, orga-
nize the professional employees, the results of which
are not disclosed, the Committee elected officers and
an executive board from the Committee's members.
Despite the absence of either formal structure or
physical or monetary assets , it redesignated itself as
an "organizing committee" dedicated to seeking bar-
gaining rights for Convair's professional and adminis-
trative employees, renamed itself the "EEA
Professional Division Organizing Committee," under
which name it solicited authorization cards and, in
Case 21-RC-12644, filed a petition for an election
213 NLRB No. 124
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which was dismissed because of certain irregularities
in the cards.
In March or April 1972, the Committee learned
that the professional employees of nearby Rockwell
International Corporation were being organized by
the National Engineers and Professionals Association
(NEPA), and that the moving force behind NEPA
was UAW Local 887. The Committee then sought,
and was denied, recognition by the Employer, who
also informed it that counsel had been retained to
oppose the petition in Case 21-RC-12644. Based on
its awareness of the cost and time involved in such
litigation, its knowledge that it was unable to function
as an independent union, and its discussion with
UAW Local 887 officials, the Committee then affiliat-
ed with Local 887 on the basis of an April 18, 1972,
"Letter of Understanding" which was executed by
these parties and which, in pertinent substance, pro-
vided that the Committee had dissolved itself, or,
upon execution of the letter, would dissolve itself, and
that its members and officers had joined "Local 887
as its Engineers and Professionals Association Unit"
and as a "Unit Organizing Committee of Local 887";
that Local 887 would -render to the Committee any
and all assistance reasonably required to conduct a
successful organizational drive and election cam-
paign; that following an election victory, Local 887
and the Committee jointly would conduct bargaining
negotiations and thereafter request the International
Union UAW to charter the Committee as an autono-
mous local; that, should it so choose, the Committee
was free to hold itself out as an affiliate unit of Local
887 "during the organizing and . . . bargaining activi-
ties . . . prior to the time you receive your own char-
ter . . . ," but that it also was free "to designate the
name and title of your Local Union in any manner
you saw fit.... "
As expressed by Committee President Koulaxes,4
the Committee viewed the letter as an invitation "to
be chartered as an individual unit of NEPA-UAW,"
and further considered itself to be a local chapter, and
a sister local of NEPA at Rockwell International
Corp., of an as yet obscure parent National NEPA.
Accordingly, the Committee again changed its name,
this time to an "Organizing Committee of NEPA, an
affiliate of the UAW," and began referring to itself as
"NEPA, San Diego Chapter."
It then sought employee approval of its decision to
affiliate with Local 887, and also commenced its orga-
nizational drive, by mailing to all employees who had
signed "EEA Professional Division Organizing Com-
mittee" authorization cards a packet which contained,
C Koulaxes was laid off, apparently for economic reasons, in May 1972
and, as of the time of the hearing, was employed by the UAW International
Union.
inter alia, a copy of the "Letter of Understanding," a
covering letter which reinforced the letter's salient
points, a request for approval or disapproval of its
decision to affiliate with Local 887 (the response
showed a 90-percent approval rate), and a request to
sign an authorization card captioned "National Engi-
neers & Professionals Association, Affiliate unit of
UAW Local 887, International Union, UAW." The
Committee notified the remaining petitioned-for em-
ployees of both its actions and the salient portions of
the "Letter of Understanding" through materials
which were distributed at the Employer's plant gates
and which included an "NEPA, Affiliate unit of
UAW Local 887" authorization card.
The ensuing organizational drive, which still was
continuing as of the time of the hearing, produced the
showing of interest cards filed herein upon which Peti-
tioner relies, all of which are "Affiliate unit of UAW
Local 887" cards. Inasmuch as the Committee, now
NEPA San Diego Chapter, had virtually no physical
or monetary assets, it conducted its organizing drive
with the assistance of the UAW International Union,
which furnished it with an office and full-time staff,
and paid its rent, stationery, and telephone bills, as
well as its organizing salaries and expenses.
Meanwhile, during April 1972, the UAW Interna-
tional Union held its constitutional convention at
which it passed a resolution authorizing and empow-
ering its International Executive Board "to take what-
ever action is required . . . to bring professionals into
the UAW, individually or in groups." During June
1972, NEPA San Diego Chapter disaffiliated itself
from Local 887 without seeking or obtaining employ-
ee approval thereof. In early July 1972, it requested
the International Union to charter it as an indepen-
dent local. The request was granted on July 10, 1972,
when the International Executive Board chartered it
as "a Local Union at San Diego, California, to be
known as Local Union No. 1794 of the UAW-Int'l
Engineers Professional Association. . .. " Thereaf-
ter, the Committee referred to itself as "NEPA-UAW,
Local 1794, San Diego."
No reference to the Committee's latest change in
name and affiliation, however, was contained in any
of the union literature which had been distributed
during the organizational drive. All such literature,
moreover, referred to the Committee as "NEPA-Affil-
iate unit of UAW Local 887." In addition, no specific
approval was sought from, or given by, any of the
subscribers to the UAW Local 887 showing of interest
cards with regard to the Committee's disaffiliation
from UAW Local 887, or Local 1794's later affiliation
with the UAW International Union, or NEPA San
Diego-Local 1794's still later convergence into Peti-
tioner.
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.
Following the close of the hearing, the Employer
received a posthearing-dated letter from UAW Inter-
national Union President Woodcock which, on Inter-
national Union stationery,' stated that "On behalf of
[Petitioner] we wish to advise you that we represent
... the majority of employees in the [petitioned-for]
unit. . . . We request that you recognize us as the
collective bargaining agent for and on behalf of the
employees in the unit . . . and enter into . . . negotia-
tions with us as soon as possible." The Employer's
reply letter denied the request.'
The Employer contends that the foregoing facts not
only preclude Petitioner from relying on the showing
of interest filed herein, but also establish that the
showing was obtained through material misrepresen-
tation with regard to the true identity of Petitioner.?
It seems to buttress these positions through a series of
interrelated arguments predicated on its basic charges
that NEPA San Diego Chapter, Local 1794, and Peti-
tioner are "paper organizations" under the direct
domination and control of the UAW International
Union, for which Petitioner is a front.
The full implication of these charges is not clear, for
when we couple the Employer's characterization of
those three entities as "paper" organizations with its
concessions that those entities have enjoyed a contin-
uity of identity and its steadfast refusal to acknowl-
edge the existence of Petitioner as a labor
organization, we are faced with an impreciseness with
regard to the scope of the Employer's motion to dis-
miss the petition. Therefore, in order to resolve this
ambiguity, we shall assume that its motion is directed
in part to Petitioner's status as a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act.
The record shows in this regard that all of the em-
ployees named in Local 1794's charter also constitute
the entire membership of Local 1794, NEPA San Die-
go Chapter, and Petitioner; that there have been virtu-
5 Emp Exh 313
6 Emp Exh 314.
7 The Employer further has attacked the adequacy of the showing of
interest through its posthearing request for a Board -conducted administra-
tive investigation of its allegation that the showing of interest was obtained
through the participation of supervisory personnel . The Employer stated that
its request is "Based upon evidence which emerged at the hearing " It
has offered no explanation , however, as to why it failed to make such request
during , or prior to the close of , the hearing when clearly it could have done
so Instead , it chose not to take early action on a course which it considered
beneficial to its cause and which, if its views prevailed, also might have
modified the extent of this unusually lengthy proceeding which continued for
almost 8 months and finally resulted in approximately 6,000 pages of testimo-
ny, 10,000 pages of exhibits, and 1,200 pages of briefs . For us now to engage
in such a discretionary administrative action would not affect any rights of
the parties and would needlessly dissipate the Board's time , effort, and funds
In the final analysis , it is the election , not the Board 's showing of interest
requirements or its internal administrative procedures, which determines the
substantive issue of whether or not Petitioner actually represents a majority
of employees. Accordingly, we deny the Employer's untimely request for an
administrative investigation.
853
ally no changes in the membership, officers, or direc-
tors in any of those entities since NEPA San Diego
Chapter came into being; and that despite an absence
of structural formality or assets, or their utilization of
the International Union's constitution as their own,
the consistent underlying purpose of these entities
was, and is, to represent employees in collective bar-
gaining. The Employer, moreover, has conceded di-
rectly that NEPA San Diego Chapter is the same
entity as Local 1794 and, inferentially, that Petitioner
is a progeny thereof. It is clear, therefore, and we find,
that these entities are one and the same in which there
has been no interruption in identity, continuity, or
purpose, and that, even in its present emerging form,
Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act, regardless of whether it is fronting for the
International Union-an issue which may go to mis-
representation of the true bargaining representative
but has little to do with Petitioner's existence or status
as a labor organization.
More directly, the Employer argues, in substance,
that Petitioner, Local 1794, and NEPA are "paper"
organizations not only because they lack structural
formality, assets, and separate constitutions, but also
because they are subservient to the International
Union since that union furnished NEPA, later Local
1794, with monetary, personnel, and other organiza-
tional aid; because Petitioner and the other two enti-
ties have utilized the constitution of the International
Union as their own basic policy instrument; and be-
cause Local 1794 and Petitioner affiliated directly
with the International Union. The implications in this
argument are baseless. We already have found that
Petitioner and the other two entities are labor organi-
zations within the meaning of the Act despite their
organizational incompleteness. Inasmuch as the re-
maining cited factors evince nothing more than com-
monly accepted, rather routine, lawful organizational
procedures and tactics, we cannot infer therefrom
either that the International Union dominates and
controls any of these entities or that Petitioner is
fronting for the International Union.
The Employer claims, however, that the posthear-
ing letter bearing the signature of UAW International
President Woodcock supports its implications and
further indicates that Petitioner is a "straw entity"
fronting for the International. Again, we cannot draw
such inferences. In our view, the letter is simply an-
other organizational device which, on its face, merely
exhibits an attempt to assist Petitioner to achieve that
which Petitioner sought.
In sweeping charges based on the same theme, the
Employer next contends that the International Union
has used NEPA San Diego Chapter and Local 1794,
and is using Petitioner, as camouflages to conceal its
854 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
direct interest in the petitioned-for employees through
a scheme which "systematically covered up" the In-
ternational Union's "total domination of the San Die-
go organizers." The Employer further avers that the
employee-organizers were part of that scheme be-
cause former NEPA San Diego Chapter President
Koulaxes now is employed by the International
Union, and because the employee-organizers "well
knew the importance of . . . full disclosure in chang-
ing their affiliation during the organizational process"
in view of their experience with the defective EEA
Organizing Committee authorization cards, and their
having published their shift in affiliation from EEA to
UAW Local 887.
Once again the Employer would have us pile infer-
ence upon inference and presume the existence of
facts on the basis of innuendo and speculation, for,
beyond this, the Employer has not pointed to any
conclusive evidence to support its freewheeling accu-
sations, and we can find none in the record. We cer-
tainly cannot infer from any of the grounds cited that
the International Union played the role ascribed to it
by the Employer, or that the employee-organizers
schemed with, and entered into a clandestine, collu-
sive, and fraudulent pact with, the International
Union to conceal that union's alleged role, or that
they intentionally and maliciously plotted to deceive
their fellow employees. Nor can we presume the sug-
gested nexus merely because Koulaxes presently is
employed by the International Union. In our view,
the record points to the contrary conclusion. for it
clearly shows that the hoped-for paths toward the
unionization goals sought, as well as the International
Union's prospective role therein, were spelled out in
the "Letter of Understanding" which, in due time,
was forwarded to all card signers, and that the em-
ployees who testified in this regard understood and
endorsed the thrust of the letter. Accordingly, we find
that no of the Employer's foregoing contentions
and arguments, whether considered singly or in their
entirety, are meritorious.
In a somewhat different vein, the Employer argues
that Petitioner is precluded from relying on the show-
ing of interest because, it contends, that showing was
obtained through the material misrepresentation that
representation would be afforded by a local rather
than by an international union, and Petitioner's direct
affiliation with the International Union, therefore,
has nullified "the substantive independence and local
authority" which had been promised in the organizing
campaign and by the showing of interest cards, with
the result that "what [the employees] saw on the au-
thorization cards is not what they'll get on the vote."
It concludes that, inasmuch as the showing of interest
designates UAW Local 887 as bargaining representa-
tive, and since Petitioner failed to obtain the approval
of the card subscribers to act as their bargaining rep-
resentative, Petitioner cannot rely on these cards, and
a new showing of interest, therefore, is required to
support Petitioner.
We already have noted that the prospective role
which the International Union might or would play in
the scheme of things is contained in both testimonial
evidence and in the "Letter of Understanding." In
addition, there is no probative evidence to show that
that letter did not reach the subscribers of the showing
of interest cards. Furthermore, despite all of the
Employer's arguments, the record leaves little doubt
that the showing of interest evinces an underlying
substantial employee intent to acquire a bargaining
representative or, at the very least, an employee desire
of being placed in a position to cast a ballot. The mere
existence of the showing of interest is prima facie evi-
dence thereof. We cannot assume, therefore, that
these employee intents and desires have been blunted
by the wording on the cards. Moreover, since all of the
unions involved herein are members of the same In-
ternational Union, and since Petitioner is, in effect, a
successor to Local 1794 and NEPA San Diego Chap-
ter and seeks merely to substitute its name for that of
its predecessors, it is doubtful that the card subscri-
bers would be affected in their desire for representa-
tion simply by the substitution of Petitioner's name on
the petition.8 In any event, the employees will have an
opportunity to accept or reject Petitioner in an elec-
tion. Accordingly, we find that a new showing of in-
terest is not required herein.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit: Petitioner initially sought
to represent a unit consisting of all of the Employer's
professional and administrative employees, approxi-
mately 2,700 in over 270 job classifications, employed
at the Employer's San Diego, California, division fa-
cilities, i.e., Convair Aerospace Division. The unit
scope was reduced substantially through the parties'
agreement to amend the petition to exclude five classi-
fications 9 and Petitioner's further agreement to ex-
clude certain other classifications of employees, as
well as certain specific jobs within certain classifica-
tions, as managerial, supervisorial, or confidential.
Despite the Employer's continuing motion to dismiss
the petition, it also has conceded by stipulation or
otherwise that certain other classifications do not pos-
8 Cf. Atlantic Mills Servicing Corporation of Cleveland, Inc., et al., 118
NLRB 1023 (1957).
9 Engineering librarian , facilities analyst, material liaison man , property
auditor , and technical information specialist.
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.
sess managerial, supervisorial, or confidential status,
thereby inferentially agreeing that those classifica-
tions may constitute an acceptable unit. No agree-
ment , however, has been reached with regard to the
unit placement of over 1,600 employees in 85 classifi-
cations, 31 of which are populated by approximately
1,064 senior engineering and scientific employees
who, the Employer claims, enjoy a managerial and/or
supervisorial and/or confidential status;10 13 of which
contain approximately 233 administrative employees
whose unit inclusion is protested on both the afore-
said grounds and the additional ground of profession-
al status; and 41 of which encompass approximately
335 administrative employees whose professional sta-
tus only is in issue.
Subsequent to the close of the hearing, Petitioner
again modified its unit position and now seeks to
represent such unit or units of the Employer's profes-
sional and administrative employees as the Board
deems appropriate. The Employer, however, has de-
clared that "no appropriate unit has been sought here-
in . . . Moreover, none can be pieced together by the
Board."
The Employer argues that the petitioned-for em-
ployees cannot be incorporated in the unit sought, or
in any unit or units fashioned, because of an absence
of conformity to any meaningful community of inter-
est, and it has presented a series of arguments fa-
voring this position." It has sought to augment its
to The parties stipulated, and we find, that the employees in these 31
engineering and scientific classifications are professional employees within
the meaning of Sec 2(12) of the Act
" The Employer argues, in pertinent part , that a unit consisting only of the
professional and administrative employees sought is inappropriate because
of an overlap in the communities of interest between those employees and
employees on the supervisory payroll, in that employee interchange between
these groups occurs as part of normal career development and in times of
economic expansion or curtailment in order to keep a proper ratio of supervi-
sors to the work force Moreover , the Employer claims , such interchange has
little or no effect on the duties performed Similarly , it argues that many of
the petitioned -for employees have job responsibilities substantially similar to
those on the supervisory payroll The type of overlap described , however, in
reality , is not employee interchange within the concept of unit cohesion
Indeed , it indicates a diffusion rather than a commonality of interests The
record shows , for example, that employees who have transferred from the
supervisory to the professional and administrative payroll do not thereafter
exercise their former supervisory responsibilities Moreover , even assuming
that the petitioned-for employees who may have transferred to the superviso-
ry payroll perform the same technical duties, the record does not establish
that they also do not perform supervisory duties If they do not, then a main
purpose of such transfers , career development, is lost Furthermore , since the
record shows that supervisory payroll personnel possess functional supervi-
sory authorities concededly not possessed by the petitioned -for employees,
it would appear that the job responsibilities of the latter employees are not
substantially similar to those of the former employees We find no shared
communities of interest in these circumstances
In like vein, the Employer avers that any unit formed would interfere with
the integrity of its functional and organizational structures because such unit
would exclude classifications which share substantially similar responsibili-
ties with those included The reach of this argument is not clear If it pertains
to employees on the supervisory payroll , then we already have disposed of
the matter . If it alludes to classifications which have been excluded with the
consent and approval of both the Employer and Petitioner, then we shall not
855
position through a lengthy exposition of the job re-
sponsibilities of its senior engineering and administra-
tive employees vis-a-vis the nature of its operation
and the relationship of those employees to that opera-
tion and in their performance as proposal managers,
proposal team members, project leaders, project team
members, and change analysis board members. It
contends, basically, that these employees cannot be
included in any unit, and that the formation of any
unit or units which include them will destroy its orga-
nizational and functional structures.
A. The Employer's Operation
The Employer's Convair operation is based on the
concept of systems engineering.12 It is formulated as
a matrix , one axis of which is functionally, or organi-
zationally, oriented, and the other project-oriented.
The functional axis consists of the Employer's depart-
ments and subdepartments in which , inter aha, the
employees sought are located, and where they are
subject to institutional , or functional, supervision by
supervisory payroll employees. This axis is completely
bisected by the project axis, which is the operational
structure through which the Employer performs its
various projects. The apex of this latter axis is com-
posed of managerial-supervisorial people with overall
project responsibility. Further down the project axis
are the project leaders, the senior professional and
administrative employees in dispute, who have been
delegated the lesser responsibility of processing par-
ticular aspects of a project through project teams led
by them, and over which, the Employer claims, they
exercise managerial and/or supervisorial authority
and not mere technical oversight." Inasmuch as hun-
dreds of such projects are being conducted simulta-
neously, thereby requiring the utilization of various
disciplines involving both contested and uncontested
classifications , it is routine for project team members
to work simultaneously on a variety of projects under
the leadership of a variety of project leaders. It also
is routine for project leaders to work as team members
infringe upon such exclusions. If it refers to the duties performed by the
senior and nonsenior professional and administrative employees sought,
then , as will be seen , infra, we have not excluded classifications , or employ-
ees, which we have found to possess and exercise job responsibilities substan-
tially similar to those we have included, and vice versa
' Put simplistically , systems engineering is a process whereby all elements
required to perform functions necessary to accomplish a program or project
are integrated into operational systems and subsystems in a regulated and
controlled manner pursuant to defined, logical, engineering progression de-
signed to produce maximum efficiency and minimum error within parame-
ters bounded only by the system elements.
13 The Employer also contends that various of the disputed classifications
contain confidential employees We have found no evidence that employees
in any of those classifications deal in any manner with matters pertaining to
the labor policies of the Employer We note further that the parties have
stipulated to exclude employees with meaningful labor relation contacts and
duties
856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for other project leaders upon completion of their own
projects, and sometimes while still performing as a
project leader. The record, however, has presented no
formula to determine which of the senior disciplines
will or might be selected to perform as project leaders,
or the times or duration of time they will so perform,
since these matters basically are dependent upon the
Employer's business demands.
Translating the foregoing into practical applica-
tion , and utilizing the engineering disciplines as a typi-
cal model, the Employer conducts its operation
basically in the following manner:
The Employer generates business principally
through IRAD's, CRAD's,14 and solicited and unsoli-
cited proposals. A determination to explore a project
through the proposal method is made by management
which also establishes a budget and selects a program,
or proposal, manager capable of managing the entire
proposal effort for which he has total responsibility.
Management of these ventures, which may be of great
magnitude, monetarily and otherwise, has been dele-
gated virtually to anyone in the corporate structure
having the necessary capabilities, and have included
department chiefs and supervisors and, assertedly, se-
nior engineers .15 The program manager, in turn, se-
lects a team of varied engineering and administrative
disciplines from, inter alia, the classifications sought
to assist him in laying out an operational plan and
determining the proposal's technical and business fea-
sibility, that is, to forecast the state of the art in order
to accomplish a major team objective of developing a
system which may not be operative for years and yet
must then be functional, efficient, and competitive.
The program manager "assigns" tasks to the team
members whose work he "directs" and who report
directly to him. Each team member, in turn, supports
his own efforts by obtaining his own team of engineer-
ing and administrative disciplines from similar
sources who report to him and to whom he also gives
"work assignment and direction." These team mem-
bers usually remain in their home departments, but
are divorced from all other obligations. Proposal team
progress is subject to an interim review by manage-
14IRAD-independent research and development , and CRAD-con-
tracted research and development, are, respectively , relatively small compa-
ny- and customer-funded projects geared toward developing technological
breakthroughs or new products . These activities , which occur before a deci-
sion is made to propose or bid on a major program, build the Employer's
technological base to support customer acceptance of the Employer 's capa-
bilities. As in the case of proposals, the initial determination to proceed, or
not to proceed , with IRAD 's or CRAD's is a management decision which is
beyond the scope and authority of any of the petitioned -for employees.
5 The Employer's claim that the disputed senior disciplines have per-
formed as proposal managers is based solely on a bald statement to this
effect . The record fails to indicate the frequency or regularity of selection
from the ranks of the disputed classifications , or that any discipline sought
performed in such capacity with regard to the 10-16 proposal efforts being
conducted during the time of the prolonged hearing.
ment, inter alia, to survey the use of available re-
sources and unexplained problems that may have de-
veloped.16 Final decisions of the proposal team are
submitted to, and reviewed by, higher authority for
final disposition, notwithstanding that a team deci-
sion not to pursue the program proposed "will almost
surely be final."
Regardless of how any project originates, however,
it is processed essentially in the same manner. It is
assigned to a project leader from a disputed senior
engineering discipline " selected by management on
the basis of that person's ability to accomplish the
assignment perfectly, on time, and within an allocated
budget, and his capability to run the entire assignment
for which he has total responsibility. Once selected,
the project leader lays out an operational plan with
such input as may be necessary from other engineer-
ing and administrative disciplines.. He then sets out
the scheduling and the lead time required, and initial-
ly determines budget requirements which manage-
ment reviews and sets. Unless he is working alone on
the project, he determines the size and composition of
the work force required. Such required disciplines as
may be located in different departments are requested
by the project leader, generally by name and generally
through the project leader's functional supervisor, al-
though the record shows, without explanation there-
for, that a few project leaders have made such
requests directly to the requested discipline's func-
tional supervisor. Inasmuch as a viable business effort
now is involved, the requested disciplines invariably
are supplied, barring their participation in special or
emergency projects. Because other ongoing projects
also require their services, these disciplines may work
on a variety of other projects simultaneously under
the leadership of various project leaders who, while so
acting, also may assist or aid other project leaders in
a team member capacity.
The project leader processes the project by "assign-
ing" tasks to the disciplines in his group to whom he
also gives "work direction" as well as technical aid
and direction, and by constantly overseeing and mon-
itoring their work while working along with them. He
effectively may remove from his group any disciplines
who, in his opinion, are not performing adequately by
notifying that discipline's functional supervisor of this
fact. He has no authority, however, with regard to the
functional, or personnel aspects of the disciplines in
his group, that is, he cannot hire, discipline, discharge,
"Interim review involves corporate officers and departmental directors.
At this review point, specialists may be called in if technical problems have
developed . Although such interim review with management concededly
"may occur on several occasions" with respect to a program , the Employer
nevertheless contends that this review does not "supplant or undermine" the
making of independent decisions affecting policy by the team itself.
17 A limited number of the disputed engineering disciplines seldom , if ever,
perform as project leaders.
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.
promote, reward, or grant leave." Such matters are
handled by the employee's functional supervisor who
is carried on the Employer's supervisory payroll. It is
in this sense that the engineers in his group report
"functionally" to their institutional supervisors, and
"technically" to the project leaders.
The project leader also "participates" (the
Employer's word), in performance evaluations of the
disciplines in his group, presumably including senior
engineers performing as team members, by discussing
that matter with the discipline's functional supervisor.
The record is unclear as to whether this is done rou-
tinely or only when requested by the supervisor, but
it is done consistently. The efficacy of such evalua-
tions may be measured by the testimony of various
project leaders to the effect that, since they work di-
rectly with the disciplines in their groups for weeks,
months, and sometimes years, they are more aware of
the professional and/or technical aspects of the work
performance of their team members than the mem-
bers' functional supervisors and, therefore, the project
leader's "opinion weighs quite heavily." Beyond this,
there is no specific evidence that such evaluations are
afforded effective consideration by the functional su-
pervisor, or that they have impacted a career.
Project leaders have the further responsibility of
correlating their projects to the functional analysis
and functional and design requirements already for-
mulated through other projects which have been con-
ducted in the same manner as their own, thereby
integrating their projects into the totality of the over-
all basic project. Upon completion of his project, the
leader forwards the results thereof to his functional
supervisor for approval. At this point, the project
leader "loses" his project leadership responsibilities
and becomes, in effect, a rank-and-file employee until
such time as he may be reassigned as a project leader.
As indicated, supra, because of the many projects
being performed simultaneously, it is not uncommon
for the project leader to assist other project leaders
working on different projects as a team member while
simultaneously performing as project leader.
Project leaders also have rather frequent customer
contact during the preparatory stages of the project,
primarily with regard to technical matters.
Customer-directed project modifications are han-
dled by a change analysis board whose function is to
determine how to effectuate the changes at the least
cost impact to the Employer consistent with the
Employer's equipment and capacities. It is composed
of a permanent representative, and an alternate, from
each of the Employer's various departments and sub-
18 The record shows , contrary-to the clear general rule, that a few of the
disputed senior engineering classifications possess these functional supervi-
sory authorities
857
departments who, apparently, have the authority to
"commit" their respective departments in accordance
with board decisions which appear to be final. Board
membership, however, runs a broad range, for it ap-
pears to extend beyond the professional and adminis-
trative payroll, and its composition within that payroll
diversely includes at least one superintendent along
with disciplines from various of the categories sought
as well as from classifications excluded by the parties
because of managerial, supervisorial, or confidential
status.
B. Conclusions
1. We are faced with the unusual claim that the
work judgments, discretions, and decisions routinely
made by competent professional and administrative
employees in the ordinary course of their employment
formulate or alter the Employer' s business policy and,
therefore, are tantamount to expressions of manageri-
al authority. More succinctly, we are urged by the
Employer to find that such managerial authority re-
poses in the senior engineering and administrative
disciplines at all times by virtue of their intermittent,
but routinely regular, performances as proposal man-
agers, proposal team members, project leaders, or
change analysis board members.19
The Board long has defined managerial employees
as those who formulate and effectuate management
policies by expressing and making operative the deci-
sions of their employer, and those who have discretion
in the performance of their jobs independent of their
employer's established policy.20
It is clear from the legislative history of the Taft-
Hartley Act of 1947 and prior and subsequent Board
and court decisions that managerial status is not con-
ferred upon rank-and-file workers, or upon those who
perform routinely, but rather is reserved for those in
executive-type positions, those who are closely
aligned with management as true representatives of
management. Work which is based on professional
competence necessarily involves a consistent exercise
of discretion and judgment, else professionalism
would not be involved. Nevertheless, professional em-
ployees plainly are not the same as management em-
ployees either by definition or in authority, and
managerial authority is not vested in professional em-
ployees merely by virtue of their professional status,
or because work performed in that status may have a
19 Inasmuch as change analysis board membership appears to be of a
permanent nature and managerial in function , we shall exclude those serving
in such capacity
20 Palace Laundry Dry Cleaning Corporation, 75 NLRB 320 (1947), Eastern
Camera and Photo Corp, 140 N LRB 569 (1963) For currentjudicial approval
of the definition, see N L R B v BellAerospace Company, Division of Textron,
Inc, 416 U S 267 (1974)
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bearing on company direction. Likewise, technical ex-
pertise in administrative functions which may involve
the exercise of judgment and discretion does not con-
fer executive-type status upon the performer. A law-
yer or a certified public accountant working for, or
retained by, a company may well cause a change in
company direction, or even policy, based on his pro-
fessional advice alone, which, by itself, would not
make him managerial.
Here, purely technical decisions which are not dis-
cretionary and which comply with limitations previ-
ously established during the systems engineering
cycling process nevertheless may affect indirectly the
Employer's business direction simply because the na-
ture of the Employer's business is such that it is geared
to directional changes based upon the technical per-
formance of its employees.21 We do not view such
directional changes as policy changes.
Similarly, discretionary and independent judg-
ments routinely made on a project during the ordi-
nary course of employment and within the systems
engineering framework may affect company direction
directly, but again only because of the manner in
which the Employer's business is conducted. In every
instance, management makes the policy decision, the
effective decision whether to reject or pursue the re-
sults of those technical judgments, all of which have
been routinely rendered on the basis of, and as a result
of, professional and/or technical expertise and in ac-
cordance with the task assigned. Such judgments are
dependent completely upon the technical discipline of
the classifications involved and, in view of the
Employer's operation, of necessity, have the potential
of indirectly affecting or creating company policy. In
no event, however, are the engineers or administrative
employees specifically armed with true managerial
authority, nor do they pursue their work in a manage-
rial vein or in any vein other than routinely practicing
their. respective disciplines in a routinely and rigidly
regulated format. The fact that the employees in-
volved may handle the entire project assigned to them
undoubtedly is a tribute to their organizational skills
and abilities, but has little, if any, bearing on manage-
rial authority. Their discretions and decisions are
predicated solely on a technical base, and culminate
in technical reports or recommendations to manageri-
al superiors who, in turn, determine, establish, and
carry out management direction, i.e., "policy," by ap-
proving or disapproving the recommendations pre-
sented.
21 This result would occur where a technical determination made by an
engineer conducting an IRAD or CRAD shows sufficient promise to engen-
der a company decision to formulate a project team to prepare a bid on the
We cannot find, in these circumstances, that the
employees sought, who perform as proposal managers
(wherever they fit in the Employer's organizational
structure, see fn. 15, supra ), proposal team members,
or project leaders, formulate or effectuate manage-
ment policies, or that they have the type of discretion
indicative of managerial status, or, indeed, that they
have discretion in their job performance independent
of their Employer's established policy, since their job
discretions in fact are exercised in conformity with the
Employer's established policy, which is based on di-
rectional change rather than on status quo. We do not
believe that the employees who exercise these job re-
sponsibilities are true representatives of management
in the traditional sense, or that Congress intended that
managerial status be conferred upon, or extend to,
such employees. Conferring such status upon them
would eviscerate the traditional distinction between
labor and management.
It is basically for these reasons that we find that the
aforesaid job responsibilities do not embrace the type
of supervisorial authority essential for unit exclusion.
Supervisors are management people. Their job func-
tions are aligned with managerial authority rather
than with work performance of a routine, technical, or
consultative nature. While it is true that the authori-
ties contained in Section 2(11) of the Act are indica-
tive of supervisorial authority, it does not necessarily
follow that the exercise of one or more of those au-
thorities ipso facto confers supervisorial authority un-
less it is exercised in the genuine managerial sense.
This also is clear from the legislative history of the
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 wherein the Conference
Committee adopted the Senate version of the bill, S.
1126,22 which excluded supervisors, but with a nar-
rower definition thereof than the House version, H.R.
3020, by distinguishing between "leadmen, setup men
and other minor supervisory employees . . . and the
supervisor vested with genuine management preroga-
tives as the right to hire or fire, discipline; or make
effective recommendations with regard to such ac-
tion." 23
Here, while, proposal managers, proposal team
members, and project leaders exercise a certain
amount of discretion in assigning work, that discre-
tion primarily is made by the only people technically
competent to make it and within the parameters set by
the utilization of systems engineering. Such discre-
tions as the professional engineers may have in work
assignment and direction, moreover, are exercised in
a professional sense and are directly related to a pro-
fessional responsibility for the quality of work per-
component developed through an IRAD, or seek a customer for a compo- 22 H Conf Rept 510, 80th Cong., 1st sess (1947) at 35
nent developed through a CRAD 21 S Rept . 105, 80th Cong , 1st sess ( 1947) at 4
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 859
formed on the projects to which they are assigned.24
They merely are providing professional direction and
coordination primarily for other professional employ-
ees.25 Similarly, the like discretions exercised by the
administrative employees are exercised in accordance
with their technical abilities and bottomed on respon-
sibility for proper project work performance. Those
instances in which they assign and direct the work of
hourly technicians in their groups appear to be so
limited as to have no bearing on the issues involved.
As to efficacy of the project leaders' performance
evaluations of the disciplines in their groups, there is
no conclusive evidence that those reports are given
effective consideration by the disciplines' functional
supervisors. It is speculative, therefore, to conclude
that such reports have substantial and immediate im-
pact on the jobs of those disciplines.
In our view, true supervisorial authority is not vest-
ed in the senior engineering and administrative em-
ployees vis-a-vis the nonsenior employees in their
work groups, nor is it vested in themselves as equals,
who, for indeterminate periods of time, "supervise"
coequals who, in turn, later "supervise" their equals
while simultaneously being "supervised" by their co-
equals.26
By contrast, there are classifications of employees,
as well as employees in various of the classifications
sought, whose job responsibilities, whether as project
leaders or otherwise, exceed the above-described rou-
tine-type performances and include managerial and/
or functional supervisory authorities, thus mandating
their unit exclusion. Among such classifications are
advance system project engineer; development pro-
ject engineer; senior flight test engineer; preliminary
design engineer; project engineer; project engineer,
senior; and senior quality engineer.27 Among such
employees are those who regularly have rotated as
departmental supervisor during the absences of the
departmental supervisor and thus have administrative
and technical control over the departmental employ-
ees, such as Senior Design Engineers Anding, Vas-
24 Cf Wurster, Bernardi & Emmons, lnt,,192 NLRB 1049 (1971)
25 Cf Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, 192 NLRB 920 (1971)
26 Cf Post-Newsweek Stations , Capital Area, Inc, 203 NLRB 522 (1973),
where the Board viewed news editors as having no supervisory authority over
newscasters, the two being "equals involved in separate but sequential func-
tions "
Our long familiarity with the realities of working conditions has taught us
that since supervisors are entrusted to assure the workability of company
operations , an overabundance of supervisors would be counterproductive.
Were we to credit the Employer's contentions regarding the supervisory
status of the employees in issue , the ratio of supervisors to work force would
be approximately two to one
27 Member Fanning would include the senior flight test engineer classifica-
tion but excluded Pace as managerial He also would include the senior
quality engineer classification , though excluding as supervisory or manageri-
al Periera, Wade, Gross, Suggs , Arnott, Cohen, and Quality Engineer E
Covington Chairman Miller and Member Jenkins, however , join in exclud-
ing the senior flight test engineer and senior quality engineer classifications
quez, and Krumweide; Design Specialists Jackson
and Su who regularly perform as alternate depart-
mental supervisor; Design Specialists French and
Leonadis and Senior Aerodynamics Engineer Lowe,
who apparently function as departmental supervisors;
those who concededly have the authority to discharge
or otherwise effectuate changes in the employment
status of the employees in their groups and, therefore,
perform duties atypical of those performed by project
leaders, such as Design Specialists Tatro, Wentwick,
and Campbell and Quality Engineer Earl Covington;
and Senior Engineering Metallurgist Adsit, who may
effectively establish his project or work budgets
through his work estimates, and who also has the
authority to commit work performance by the Em-
ployer to customers.
There may be others whose unit exclusion also is
required for similar reasons, but whose identity has
not been resolved by the record. If so, their unit place-
ment will be safeguarded by appropriate challenges to
their ballots.
In view of the foregoing, and subject to the specific
or possible employee exclusions, supra, we find with
regard to the following disputed senior engineering
and scientific classifications that while all such classi-
fications are composed of professional employees,
none exhibits the managerial and/or supervisorial in-
dicia required for unit exclusion, and we shall include
them in the unit of professional employees:
Senior aeroballistics engineer, senior aerodynam-
ics engineer, senior design engineer, design spe-
cialist, senior dynamics engineer, senior
electronics engineer, senior engineering chemist,
senior engineering metallurgist, engineering staff
specialist, engineering test pilot, senior flight test
control engineer, senior guidance analyst engi-
neer, senior instrumentation engineer, senior me-
tallurgist, senior physicist, senior research
engineer, senior staff scientist, staff scientist, se-
nior standards laboratory engineer, senior sys-
tems engineer, systems engineering specialist,
senior test laboratory engineer, senior thermody-
namics engineer, test engineer A.
We also shall include in the professional unit the
following engineering and scientific classifications
which, the parties stipulated, do not enjoy managerial,
or supervisorial, or confidential status:
Aeroballistics engineer, aerodynamics engineer,
associate engineer, design engineer, dynamics en-
gineer, electronics engineer, engineering chemist,
engineering metallurgist, flight test engineer,
quality engineer, reliability engineer, senior relia-
bility engineer, research engineer, standards lab-
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
oratory engineer, structures engineer , senior
structures engineer, test laboratory engineer,
thermodynamics engineer , weight engineer, se-
nior weight engineer.
2. The parties are in dispute with regard to the
managerial, supervisorial, confidential, and profes-
sional status of the employees in the following admin-
istrative classifications:
Administrative Accountant
The employees in this classification are in the
Employer's industrial accounting section where,
working "closely" with, and apparently doing some of
the same work as, cost analysts,28 they: collect cost
data on all contracts and end products produced;
accumulate costs to overhead burden centers, such as
manufacturing, administration, engineering, and
fringe benefits; and allocate segments of cost relative
to telecommunications, rivet manufacture, cutting
tools, etc., by evaluating and deciding the most equi-
table method of allocation, thereby enabling manage-
ment to determine probable project profitability.
Each has the responsibility of up to 25 contracts to
either stop the input of improper costs to a contract,
or make appropriate readjustments to dispose of costs
if errors are discovered after recording, thereby exer-
cising judgment in contingencies which are either po-
tential or likely to occur. They also prepare financial
statements ; ascertain whether or not proposals for
new business or the purchase of major capital equip-
ment would provide a "workable" return on invest-
ment ; evaluate whether it is appropriate to purchase
or lease equipment; compile all state and Federal in-
come and franchise taxes, property taxes, and sales
taxes; provide summary profit forecasts and future
sales backlog positions, which requires them to be
privy to proposed plans and entails knowledge of fu-
ture manpower levels. Together with property audi-
tors, whom the parties excluded by stipulation and
whom some administrative accountants supervise,
they review contract requirements for commercial,
NASA, and Department of Defense work and proper-
ty accountability, and certify at contract completion
the Government equipment accountable to the con-
tract which has either been returned to the Govern-
ment or else is justified for retention. In situations
where Government equipment is retained and where
forgiveness of rental costs in whole or in part may be
applicable, they must be acquainted with the perti-
nent Government regulations so that they may evalu-
28 The parties have stipulated that the cost analyst classification is supervi-
sory, managerial , or confidential
ate whether the equipment rented is cost effective.
They, or at least some of them, prepare financial
analyses and evaluation of proposed capital acquisi-
tions in the form of an operating plan or budget, with
timespans ranging from 3 to 10 years, and then make
recommendations thereon to superiors. They evaluate
the reasonableness of proposed capital expenditures,
for hardware, and, if they determine the proposed
expenditures to be reasonable, they prepare a return
on investment, which requires reference to informa-
tion on Convair's long-range plans on business vol-
ume and anticipated levels of activity to which they
"have access.... " Final decision as to whether a
capital expenditure will be made, however, is de-
termined by higher authority. Their recommenda-
tions involve the exercise of judgment with regard to
the recovery and timing of investments, and, in arriv-
ing at a judgment, they must determine whether the
proposed acquisition is consistent with the projected
probabilities of the economic use of the acquisition
with regard to savings in manpower, business volume,
and investment recovery. We find that the administra-
tive accountants are managerial employees and we
shall exclude them 29
Budget Analyst and Budget Analyst, Senior
The chief difference between these classifications is
that the senior analysts generally have greater work
experience with Convair and may lead a work group.
Apart from this, both classifications perform similar
functions. They neither initiate budgets nor have bud-
getary decisional authority. Utilizing recognized cost
accounting theories and practices, they "set budget
levels directly with Directors, Managers and Chiefs of
Departments" and monitor performance vis-a-vis
those budgets. With regard to task budgets proposed
by department chiefs or project leaders, they establish
the validity of the proposed budget through interroga-
tion of the proposer in order to ascertain whether the
project in issue conforms to Convair's policies, con-
tains proper financial controls, and whether the pro-
posal costs reflect the true magnitude of the project.
They will not accept the proposed budget if the ex-
penditures sought are not justified to them, presum-
ably in accordance with the foregoing factors, thus
requiring further negotiations between the proposer
and the analyst.
When negotiations with a customer have occurred,
the accounting department accumulates data relative
to the project involved, overtime, and other budgetary
29 Contrary to Chairman Miller and Member Jenkins, who agree to ex-
clude this classification , Member Fanning would include administrative ac-
countants in Unit B, but would exclude D Young inasmuch as he supervises
an administrative accountant , two general accountants, and two hourly em-
ployees.
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP
information desired for the negotiations, and trans-
mits that data to the analyst who uses it in developing
budgetary data which is then forwarded to higher
authority for financial evaluation.
Budgetary changes are handled in accordance with
established procedure. The analysts cannot generate
a budget. "We can only move it around. . . . We can
only shuffle the budget among the departments."
The analysts also ascertain whether project or other
budgetary limits are met and, if they are not, "de-
termine why and to do something about it, to recom-
mend that something be done about it." Some
analysts prepare periodic reports which analyze the
effectiveness of manpower utilization; others have ac-
cess to, and deal with, data pertaining to salary and
fringe benefits, direct labor hours, and labor and over-
head rates; and still others ascertain, and thereby "de-
termine," funding requirements based on forecast
data from work departments, or "establish" budgets
and budgetary targets for operating departments, pre-
sumably on the basis of supplied forecast data, or
"initially propose" the rates at which the profits of
programs will be recorded in program financial state-
ments.
The Employer claims that Senior Budget Analyst
J. F. White "directs" the activity of four hourly em-
ployees in the statistical pool and "evaluates" their
performance, and that Budget Analyst M. R. Holm-
berg "directs the work activities of an hourly statisti-
cal technician." Inasmuch as there are 20 senior
analysts and 10 analysts, it would appear that the job
functions of White and Holmberg are atypical of the
duties of the employees in these classifications. More-
over, in the absence of specific evidence of the type
of work direction involved, or that White and Holm-
berg responsibly direct work, we have grave doubts as
to their claimed supervisorial status. However, to pre-
serve their rights to the fullest extent possible, we shall
permit them to vote subject to challenge.
Subject to the foregoing, we find that management
and/or supervisorial status is not invested in the em-
ployees in these classifications. Moreover, no showing
has been made that these classifications prepare mate-
rial concerning, or have access to information about,
the Employer's basic labor relations policy. We find,
therefore, they are not confidential employees.
Although a minority of the analysts and a majority
of the senior analysts are degreed in business adminis-
tration or accounting, and many of the remaining
analysts have taken either college level and/or techni-
cal courses generally relative to those fields, the char-
acter of their work does not clearly require knowledge
of an advanced type as does that ordinarily required
and ordinarily performed by employees with profes-
sional standing under Section 2(12) of the Act. We
861
find that the employees in these two classifications are
not professional employees, and we shall include
them in the nonprofessional unit.30
Plant Construction Engineer A
The employees in this classification, together with
the excluded classifications of senior equipment engi-
neer and departmental assistant, are responsible for
all maintenance engineering activities at Convair, in-
cluding preparation and execution of designs and
specifications for buildings, grounds, and equipment;
engineering services to maintain machinery, build-
ings, and equipment; planning, estimating, and sche-
duling facility construction; negotiations with
subcontractors for facility construction, and surveil-
lance of subcontract work, including changes and de-
cisions to accept or reject the work performed;
rearranging and modifying installations after securing
approval therefor; negotiating with environmental
agencies; preparation of procurement specifications
and vendor selection for machinery and equipment;
and direction of Convair's construction crew. They
also have signature authority to purchase equipment
for the tasks on which they are working.
We find that the employees in this classification are
managerial and supervisorial employees and we shall
exclude them.
Senior Equipment Engineer
The record shows, and Petitioner agrees, that the
employees in this classification and those in the classi-
fication of plant construction engineer A, immedi-
ately supra, perform similar functions and have
similar responsibilities, except the plant construction
engineer A focuses on buildings and machinery while
the senior equipment engineer concentrates on ma-
chine tools-their specification, acquisition, installa-
tion, acceptance, and alteration. We find these
employees to be management employees and shall
exclude them.
Senior Manufactunng and Development Engineer
Unlike most of the administrative classifications,
this classification is comparable to the engineering
classifications in function and performance in that the
employees therein are concerned with research and
development activities connected with the manufac-
turing process, and they serve as project leaders. Half
of them are degreed in fields ranging from art to
chemistry, physics, and mechanical industrial engi-
30 White and Holmberg, of course, will vote in the nonprofessional unit.
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
neering. All have taken college and/or technical
courses, and most have been certified in areas such as
air mechanics, metallurgy, and mechanical engineer-
ing. All but two are members of at least one technical
society, several have authored technical publications,
and one is the holder of three patents dealing with the
manufacturing process. In addition, their job func-
tions and work performance is comparable to that of
the professional engineers, albeit in different pro-
cessing areas. We find that the employees in this clas-
sification are professional employees within the
meaning of the Act.
We previously have concluded that project leaders
are neither managerial nor supervisorial employees,
and that conclusion is fully applicable to the employ-
ees in this or any classification. Accordingly, and sub-
ject to the below-stated modifications, we shall
include the employees in this classification in the pro-
fessional unit.
We have found that "project leaders" in certain
classifications exhibit, or appear to exhibit, manageri-
al and/or supervisorial indicia in addition to their
roles as project leaders, and have excluded them spe-
cifically. So it is here with regard to Senior Manufac-
turing and Development Engineer Kolbricht, who
regularly substitutes as departmental supervisor dur-
ing the absences of that supervisor. The same situa-
tion may prevail with regard to Senior Manufacturing
and Development Engineers Roden, Malik, and
Lundquist. Roden "directs the establishment of weld
manufacturing policies and procedures for Convair's
San Diego Operation"; Malik "provides direction and
guidance to four hourly manufacturing technicians,
production people and to persons on the supervisory
payroll in . . . tooling . . . who come to work under
his supervision"; Lundquist also direct hourly em-
ployees, as well as manufacturing engineers, and fur-
ther "establishes procedures for fusion welding.. . .
He establishes weld schedules.... "
In view of the broad language describing the job
responsibilities of Roden, Malik, and Lundquist, we
are not certain that these responsibilities are manage-
rial and/or supervisorial in nature. To overcome our
uncertainty, we shall permit these three employees to
vote in the professional unit subject to challenge. Kol-
bricht, however, we find is a supervisorial and/or
managerial employee, and we shall exclude him.
Price Estimator and Senior Price Estimator
The record shows that, except for project leadership
functions performed by the senior price estimators,
both classifications do much the same work. They
make determinations as to probable project costs
which are presented to both functional and project
management for approval; they utilize and have ac-
cess to present and projected overhead rates, includ-
ing taxes, maintenance costs, employee benefit costs,
and direct labor and overhead rates by department,
but they are not involved in rate development, nor do
they have access to rates for individual employees or
classifications. The hourly rates they utilize are ob-
tained from an estimating manual which quotes an
average departmental rate. Inter alia, they also are
responsible for determining and interpreting a poten-
tial customer's needs with respect to proposals, de-
scribing in detail the specific tasks involved, getting
technical information and estimates from various de-
partments, and evaluating and developing estimated
costs which will be profitable, yet competitive, by par-
ing or redefining tasks or allocating fewer man-hours
thereto, thereby monitoring and policing the
Employer's fiscal resources. They are responsible for
encoding and assembling all of the information with
a proposal package for presentation to the contracts
division for ultimate negotiations with a customer,
and they also participate in precontract negotiations
with the customer. While the Employer's "contracts
man only has the authority to accept or reject a
contract, they nevertheless enter into the give and
take of the negotiations and may stand firm with re-
gard to a customer request to lower costs or manpow-
er, etc., or may concede that modifications can be
made. In any event, their decision is effectively bind-
ing on the contracts man since, unlike the estimator,
he has neither the technical nor functional knowledge
of the work involved in the proposal.
We find that the employees in the price estimator
and senior price estimator classifications are manage-
rial employees, and we shall exclude them.31
Quality Assurance Project Administrator
There are 11 employees in this classification, 6 of
whom Petitioner would exclude as managerial or su-
pervisorial employees, a position with which we agree.
Brotherton has technical and administrative control
and direction over all concerned with quality assur-
ance on the F-111 airplane, which includes the au-
thorization to hire, discharge, promote, schedule
overtime, and disperse manpower between groups on
a project. Cook's duties and responsibilities are identi-
cal to Brotherton's, except that they are performed in
connection with the DC-10 airplane.
The duties of Boekamp, Swiggart, and Garcia in-
clude the responsibilities of establishing budget re-
31 Chairman Miller and Member Jenkins agree to exclude these two classi-
fications Member Fanning, however , would include the price estimator and
senior price estimator classifications since he is not persuaded that they
perform a managerial function
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 863
quirements, negotiating budget adjustments, coordi-
nating quality and reliability efforts with various de-
partments, dispersing technically oriented manpower
among the task groups working on their projects,
scheduling overtime, and coordinating vacation
schedules.
Magnuson is responsible for Convair's craftsman-
ship program, chairs the Employer's corporatewide
employee motivation panel, represents Convair in all
of its customer relations with respect to the aforesaid
programs, and conducts employee and organizational
award programs. Accordingly, we shall exclude
Brotherton, Cook, Baekamp, Swiggart, and Garcia as
managerial and/or supervisorial employees, which we
find them to be, and we also shall exclude Magnuson
because his unit inclusion would, or might, create a
conflict of interest.
While the remaining employees in this classifica-
tion have lesser managerial or supervisorial responsi-
bilities, they nevertheless function similarly to
department heads with regard to quality assurance on
various programs and projects. We find these employ-
ees to be managerial and/or supervisorial employees
and we shall exclude them also.
Senior Quality Assurance Specialist
The responsibility of the employees in this classifi-
cation is to review all new contract proposals, new
contracts, and revised contracts to assure that the
engineering specifications and design, manufacturing
methods, materials, and processes will result in a com-
pleted product which is mutually acceptable to Con-
vair and the customer in areas of appearance,
function, maintainability, reliability, and cost. In or-
der to attain these results, they, inter alia, review cur-
rent manpower skills required to attain the desired
quality levels and, if these skills are not available, they
will order the requisitioning or training required. They
implement control procedures to assure conformance
to approved manufacturing methods, and order in-
creased personnel manning in areas where excessive
discrepancies exist, and conversely, may decide cer-
tain functions are superfluous and should be discon-
tinued.
It would appear that the employees in this classifi-
cation exhibit sufficient managerial authority to war-
rant their exclusion.32
32 Member Fanning agrees, noting that the Employer 's contention that the
senior quality assurance specialists may require purchase or construction of
a building to assure noncontamination of a product during manufacture is
not contested
-Senior Service Engineer
The Employer does not consider the service engi-
neer classification to be a "truly engineering classifi-
cation ," and we agree . The employees in issue are
primarily concerned with writing publications to as-
sist the Employer 's customers , particularly in the use
of its aircraft products . They also maintain and con-
tinuously review basic historical data concerning de-
livered aircraft , conduct examinations of all accidents
and incidents concerning Convair equipment , and as-
sist in product liability legal actions . We find that
these employees are neither managerial nor superviso-
rial employees , and that , collectively , they fail to meet
the professional standards imposed by Section 2(12)
of the Act. Accordingly, we shall include them in the
nonprofessional unit.
Tool and Manufacturing Engineer-Senior, and
Tool and Manufacturing Engineer
The record shows that these two classifications es-
sentially perform the same type of work, but that the
seniors have greater scope and responsibilities. Ba-
sically, they analyze, develop, establish, and coordi-
nate the tooling aspects of a project, and relate with
personnel from management, design engineering, pro-
duction department, and quality assurance to insure
compliance with their phase of the project and that
the most economical methods of tool and product
manufacture are utilized, and, in this sense, they set
tool policy. They also assign, direct, and evaluate the
work of employees in their groups, groups up to 15 in
number, including hourly employees, and they act as
project leaders, performing all functions thereof. In
addition, senior tool and manufacturing engineers
can establish priorities and shift personnel to various
tasks, either by their own orders or, if need be, by
directing a supervisor to do so. We find that the em-
ployees in these classifications are managerial and/or
supervisorial employees, and we shall exclude them.
3. The parties have stipulated that the job responsi-
bilities of the employees in the 41 classifications set
forth below are not managerial, and/or supervisorial,
and/or confidential in nature. A dispute exists, how-
ever, with regard to professional status.
Systems Analyst
The four people in this classification are located in
the data systems and management planning and pro-
cedures groups of the Employer's management sys-
tems, which services all major functions and
interfaces with all departments as required. Three of
them have bachelor of science degrees in, respectively,
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
business administration, business management, and
industrial distribution; the fourth, has a bachelor of
arts degree in math and a master's degree in statistics.
They prepare and publish organizational charts, func-
tional statements, and policy directives to establish
the San Diego operation management manual; review
management directives for compliance with estab-
lished policies and responsibilities; participate in new
business proposal development and provide support
in preparation of proposal management plans; partic-
ipate in special studies related to San Diego opera-
tions management practices and procedures; and
participate in decisions made by supervision at all
levels of management. They also develop manage-
ment systems and procedures and publish standard
practices and programs management manual instruc-
tions. Stated otherwise, a basic function of this classi-
fication appears to consist of the analysis, devel-
opment, and improvement of work procedures and
functional and cost effective management control
systems in order to achieve the ultimate in efficiency
and effectiveness of the systems. Part of those func-
tions is dedicated to work in support of specific proj-
ects or programs or in the preparation of proposals to
customers. We find that-the systems analysts are pro-
fessional employees.33 and we shall include them in
the professional unit.
Manufacturing Development Engineer
These employees are concerned with research and
development activities connected with the manufac-
turing process. Their job functions are comparable to
those performed by the professional engineering clas-
sifications and, basically, identical to those performed
by senior manufacturing development engineers who,
earlier herein, we found to be professional employees.
We find the employees in this classification to be
professional employees, and we also shall include
them in the professional unit.
As to the remaining 39 classifications, the record
shows that although the employees therein exercise
considerable technical skill in assisting the Employer
to operate efficiently, the character of the work re-
quired of them as a group within their respective clas-
sifications falls short of that required of professional
employees. Their work clearly does not require
knowledge of an advanced type as does that ordinari-
ly required and ordinarily performed by groups of
employees with professional standing under Section
2(12) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the employ-
ees in the following classifications are not professional
employees, and we shall include them in the nonpro-
fessional unit.
Data Processing Specialist
The employees in this classification are part of the
Employer's data processing operation group which
provides all digital computer and related data pro-
cessing operation services in support of business and
engineering requirements for Convair and other Gen-
eral Dynamics divisions in the San Diego area. Their
functions are to "manage the budget,34 scheduling and
documentation functions for Management Systems
. .. . They train new employees and teach old em-
ployees new systems. . . . [They] develop and estab-
lish schedules for all sections of Data Processing
Operations.... " Basically, however, they are in-
volved in the analysis and development of punched-
card and digital computer systems.
Data Processing Analyst
These employees also are part of the data pro-
cessing group. They develop and implement new con-
trol systems and changes to control systems and
procedures for monitoring the flow and location of
incoming data; handle the hourly and salaried payroll
and employee status data; work directly with persons
in user departments to insure that incoming data for
processing is complete; train personnel; and handle
personnel, estimating, contract status, and cost data
for the Convair Division.
Senior Electronics Data Programmer
People in this classification are involved in such
tasks as redesigning data sytems and retrieval tech-
niques, implementing major modifications in pro-
gramming techniques, and designing new payroll
systems. While they have little contact with engineer-
ing personnel, they have considerable contact with
administrative personnel.
Electronic Data Processing Programmer
These people perform pure programming activities
for the computer.
74 The record shows that the word "mana e ," as used here and elsewhereg33 Cf. Loral Electronics Systems, a division of Loral Corporation, 200 NLRB by the Employer, incorrectly categorizes the function involved A more ap-
1019 (1972) propriate word would be "process "
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP
Engineering Documentation Analyst, Engineering
Documentation Representative , and Engineering
Documentation Specialist
These three classifications are concerned with de-
termining the contractual documentation require-
ments the Employer imposes on its vendors "to
support whatever they sell us. . .. " They subse-
quently monitor the contract to assure that the re-
quired documentation is adequately provided for, and
discuss with customers Employer-originated contrac-
tual changes.
Engineering Drawings Checker
The people in this classification review engineering
documents that are about the be released. They check
the documents against a design for technical accuracy
and completeness; verify that all Convair's internal
and contractual requirements have been met insofar
as they relate to the preparation of the documents;
audit the work of subcontractors hired to prepare
drawings for use in manufacturing; review the
supplier's engineering data regarding the supplier's
product to ascertain that such data conforms to
Convair's standards via its purchase order; and re-
lease the documents for purchase or manufacture. Al-
though the job classification description states that
they can recommend changes and/or improvements
in design from an engineering and manufacturing
point of view, the record shows that their recommen-
dations are restricted to matters involving manual
conformity, i.e., that a particular engineering pattern
is insufficient and does not comply with the manual.
Engineer Illustrator
The people in this classification are artistically ori-
ented and work primarily with design engineers and
design draftsmen in the operations function. They
prepare technical illustrations on subjects such as
tooling, production, hardware, manpower, and orga-
nization charts.
Senior Engineering Loft Coordinator
The incumbents in this classification use detailed
design drawings to prepare similar drawings on di-
mensionally stable material with accuracies to within
thousandths of an inch, but which represent parts in
their full size and shape, and develop flat patterns
from which the parts will be bent or otherwise formed.
Linesmen and Senior Linesmen
865
These two classifications deal with the description
of the outside surface of vehicles which are irregularly
shaped. They translate "designers statements," in
mathematical form, of the surfaces of wings, tails,
fuselages, etc., to a series of graphical representations
in full scale within very close tolerances or to a digi-
tized form stored in a computer file. They also devel-
op shapes that cannot be expressed mathematically
but are stated as being a smooth transition between
two or more mathematically or geographically de-
fined shapes.
Equipment Engineer
The Employer designates this classification as "spe-
cialists on equipment required for all tasks at Con-
vair." All are located in the operations function where
they severally perform duties involving facility re-
quirements and maintenance and machine mainte-
nance . The record shows that one equipment engineer
wrote the paper required to obtain approval of a facil-
ity investment by the corporate office and picked lo-
cations for equipment, made layouts, and monitored
the procurement and installation of the equipment;
two others determine equipment requirements in en-
gineering laboratories and "evaluate facilities effect-
ing transfer of work between divisions of General
Dynamics as well as cost reduction facilities"; anoth-
er is directly and almost entirely associated with the
maintenance of all numerically controlled and elec-
tronically controlled machinery and also investigate
trouble calls; still another devotes the major portion
of his time to special studies involving maintenance
management , work standards, estimates, and man-
power distribution. As lubrication engineer , he also
determines lubricant application for all plant service
applications and acts as a consultant to other depart-
ments on lubrication problems.
General Accountant
Basically, these employees maintain the general
books of accounts and all overhead expense ledgers
and issue final balance sheets and profit and loss
statements. Although the Employer has equated the
functions of these employees with those of adminis-
trative accountants, the record is too vague and in-
conclusive to support this position.
Manufacturing Analyst
This classification performs plant service functions.
They handle a variety of tasks involving layout, rear-
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rangement planning, production flow, material han-
dling, and task research, and including the analyza-
tion and evaluation of present operational methods to
determine if changes are necessary or desirable. In the
event production gets behind schedule, they develop
a recovery plan "to make a recovery to the master
schedule."
Manufacturing Engineer
The basic responsibility of the employees in this
classification is to determine what facilities will be
required to produce a new product, which entails hav-
ing knowledge of Convair's present facilities and how
they are being used. These determinations are then
passed on to management for approval or disapprov-
al.
Master Scheduler and Master Schedules Analyst
The record does not distinguish these two classifi-
cations beyond the Employer's testimony that "This
is normally a two-level operation, the master schedul-
er being the highest of the two." These people prepare
data based on engineering changes of a product sug-
gested by configuration management. Once a change
is suggested, they secure data from whomever neces-
sary, including engineers, in order to "identify possi-
ble adverse impact which might be caused [to] various
departments should a specific change be instituted in
one department. . . . " After evaluating and analyz-
ing this data, they, or a programmer, feed their results
into a computer. If the computer identifies anomalies
or errors, they investigate those errors and apparently
reanalyze the problem and attempt to solve it, or
"pass [it] on to others," or bring it before a change
board. They also record the status of the data they
have collected.
Senior Materials and Process Engineer
These employees are assigned to the material spec-
ification group within production engineering where
they create specifications for manufacturing which
provide detailed information and instructions relative
to a given operation. The specifications describe in
great detail how to install, assemble, and disassemble
a component, and how to execute manufacturing pro-
cesses. They write work directions which determine
the required efforts of other employees; train profes-
sional, administrative, supervisor, and hourly employ-
ees to accomplish the objectives which are set out in
the specifications that they prepare; conduct training
programs in methods of applying substances, such as
adhesives, pottings and potting compounds; are re-
sponsible for developing and coordinating all pro-
duction engineering computer systems; and may be
called upon to attend problem-solving meetings.
Operations Performance Control Analyst
These people primarily are concerned with fore-
casting manpower requirements for the quality assur-
ance people. The testimonial evidence does not define
their duties clearly, but apparently they must famil-
iarize themselves with particular operations, or proj-
ects, for which objective, budget, and manpower
previously have been established by others; analyze
the flow rate of work with regard to the manpower
needed to accomplish the objective within the estab-
lished budget; and advise various levels of manage-
ment "that if they [apparently the quality assurance
people] wish to meet their manning requirements and
the objectives of a particular responsibility . . . they
are going to have to make certain changes in order to
do so. . . . [The analyst] tells them what their alterna-
tives are."
Packaging Specialist
These people are concerned with establishing and
preparing drawings and specifications for boxing and
packaging and handling materials received and/or
sent by customers and the Employer. They design
shipping containers and related equipment, develop
packaging estimates, and furnish transportation cost
estimates with respect to commercial and military
current and new business proposals.
Parts Catalogue Editor
We are uncertain as to the existence of this classifi-
cation which Petitioner lists among those sought, but
which is not among any of the classifications listed by
the Employer. If it is unpopulated or nonexistent, we
shall exclude it; otherwise, we include it in the non-
professional unit. Its function is to administer the
preparation of assigned parts catalogues in accor-
dance with customer specifications and company re-
quirements.
Plant Engineering Cost Analyst and Preventive
Maintenance Analyst
These classifications are two of five in a program
planning and material group which conducts support
functions, maintains controls for the economical con-
duct of plant services responsibilities, and coordinates
Convair's San Diego responsibilities for compliance
with the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 867
plant engineering cost analyst primarily is concerned
with planned increases and decreases in the force level
and, in this capacity, participates in budget planning
for both direct and indirect budgets. The preventive
maintenance analysts primarily are concerned with
devising, as opposed to performing, programs to as-
sure that preventive maintenance techniques are ap-
plied. They determine whether to issue a work order
or hold it in backlog; prepare maintenance plans,
schedules , and estimates for preventive maintenance
of buildings, grounds, and equipment; prepare parts
provisioning plans for equipment, which involves
weight investment in parts against equipment down-
time ; and develop special techniques for maintenance
programs, such as machine lubrication, roof repairs,
and water treatment.
Publications Editor, Publications
Editor-Illustration, and Publications
Editor-Writing
These three classifications prepare publications for
external use . According to one of the Employer's
wage and salary administrators , they are located in
the research and engineering department , but he does
"not know the exact cut of their assignments," but
"for all practical purposes , the three classifications are
identical and could be one," and these people fre-
quently have English major or journalism back-
grounds. To the extent that the job descriptions reflect
"accurate generalizations" of duties , they show that
these classifications prepare publications for external
use.
Procurement Quality Assurance Representative
Petitioner seeks only those in this classification sta-
tioned in San Diego . The evidence concerning the
functions of this classification , however , is sketchy.
They apparently are concerned with the quality of
both a vendor and his product . They are stationed at
various areas of the country, including San Diego,
and work with "outside inspection representatives"
who visit a vendor 's place of business for the purpose
of ascertaining the vendor ' s performance capability
and product . In addition , whenever a buyer is faced
with either or both a problem vendor or problem
parts, they, or someone from procurement quality as-
surance , together with a technical buyer and an engi-
neering representative who is responsible for product
design , form a "procurement review team" which re-
views Convair' s requirements , the specifications in-
volved, and the levels of quality involved. The team
collectively "determines" the vendors with whom it
will, or will not , do business.
Production Change Analyst
The evidence also is sparse with regard to these
employees who are located in the production engi-
neering department , in which a dozen different classi-
fications are concerned with aerospace tool design
and the analysis of tools required to make particular
kinds of articles, and which run the gamut from man-
ufacturing planning to the design and manufacture of
tools for highly sophisticated equipment. The specific
evidence as to this classification is the broad Employ-
er statement that they are concerned with "evaluation
and assessment of changes that affect production."
Engineering Writer
These people analyze Convair products and cus-
tomer maintenance and operation facilities , plans,
and personnel to determine the technical support data
requirements for satisfactory and economic utiliza-
tion of Convair products by its customers, and pre-
pare all technical data required for training and
logistic support of all Convair products, utilizing the
most appropriate media , i.e., printed material, micro-
film, audio , visual , computer tapes, etc. Essentially
they prepare the necessary operational , maintenance,
overhaul , and repair instructions for Convair's cus-
tomers.
Publications Technical Specialist
The record does not clearly show the duties of this
classification but indicates that these employees are
concerned primarily with the in -house dissemination
of technical data. Apparently, they are located in the
techical report section , which is staffed with engineer-
ing editors and technical illustrators responsible for
editing and production of engineering technical re-
ports and related documentation required by the vari-
ous research and development programs undertaken
within the Employer ' s research and development de-
partment.
Quality Assurance Specialist
The Employer has stated that the employees in this
classification "perform the same tasks generally as to
small programs and parts of programs" (emphasis
supplied) as senior quality assurance specialists,
whom we have found to be, and excluded as, manage-
nal employees . In our view , this ambiguous statement
does not establish that the employees in issue perform
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the managerial functions performed by the senior spe-
cialists. Moreover, the Employer has stipulated that
the employees in this classification are not manageri-
al, or supervisorial, or confidential employees. We
find no basis for excluding this classification.
Shop Plans and Schedules Analyst
These employees develop, determine, forecast, and
maintain accurate load charts for the major fabricat-
ing areas, primarily with regard to the loading of ma-
chines for particular projects in order to have an
organized plan of utilization of all of the machinery
and equipment. This data is presented in the form of
forecasts used to reflect manpower needs and availa-
bility or inadequacy of facilities and equipment for
required tasks. If data shows unavailability or inade-
quacy, these employees have the responsibility of rec-
ommending other means of performing the task.
Specifications Analyst
This classification is located in the research and
engineering department and in launch vehicle pro-
grams where their primary tasks are developing speci-
fications in a written form which make sense
compatible with customer requirements and con-
tracts, and interpreting specifications established by
Government agencies or customers to determine
whether they affect any of the Employer's design re-
quirements. The evidence also suggests that they are
skilled in the preparation of specifications and in de-
fining, in that form, the Employer's requirements for
end products, materials, or processes.
Test Data Analyst
These employees are primarily found in areas of
programming, be it in a programming or scientific
programming department or in one of the Employer's
wind tunnels. They also are frequently found in areas
where they reduce test data either in a manual form
or in a computerized format.
Test Engineer B
The evidence as to this classification was given by
one of the Employer's wage and salary administrators
who stated that this classification is "frequently occu-
pied by an employee who has an extremely unique or
unusual ability, and I cannot speak with specifics
about individuals right now, but . . . historically, . . .
such unique tasks as designing, developing, perform-
ing subsequently such things as blowing glass beakers
or designing and fabricating extremely exotic mirrors
and other optical devices. It is a strange no-man's
land, in my own opinion, of a highly competent, high-
ly technical class of people, but they do not normally
possess the type of educational background that is
normally associated with a profession."
Tool Design Analyst
These employees are concerned with tooling prob-
lems relating to manufacture of specific hardware
programs. They are responsible for the design of tools
and for fabricating aircraft parts and assemblies, and
have a thorough knowledge of aircraft engineering
and production techniques.
Tool Engineer
These employees are concerned with the design and
fabrication of tools. They are involved in tool design
concept and in the analyzation , definition , and proc-
esses required to develop jigs, fixtures , and tools.
Tool Planning Analyst
This employee analyzes the method of producing
previously designed parts, and defines the tools and
special processes that may be required to produce the
part or the tool. In the event of blueprint changes or
modifications in the fabrication process, the analyst
must take whatever corrective action is necessary. He
makes certain that the related operation planning is
written to assure that the product will be built to all
applicable specifications.
4. In accordance with our findings herein, we shall
direct separate elections in the units of professional
and nonprofessional employees set forth below, each
of which, we find, constitutes a separate unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.35
Unit A
All professional employees on the Employer's pro-
fessional and administrative payroll, payroll grades I
through 9, and including "random rate," employed at
the Employer's San Diego operations facilities, and
35 We shall exclude the following classifications which were unpopulated
as of the time of the hearing because there is no evidence indicating if, or
when, they will be repopulated.
Aerospace medical specialist, chemist, senior chemist, commerical mar-
keting research engineer , senior commerical marketing research engi-
neer, engineering loft coordinator, flight test control engineer, guidance
analyst engineer , instrumentation engineer , manufacturing development
specialist , materials and process engineer , metallurgist , operations engi-
neer, senior operations engineer , physicist , plant construction engineer
B, research staff specialist , service engineer, standards engineer
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP.
within the classifications listed on Schedule A at-
tached hereto, but excluding: all represented employ-
ees; Senior Design Engineers Fred Anding, Anthony
Vasques, Gary Krumweide, and such other senior de-
sign engineers who regularly have rotated as depart-
ment supervisor during the absences of that
supervisor; Senior Aerodynamics Engineer Lowe;
Design Specialists Tatro, Wentwick, Campbell, Jack-
son, Su, French, and Leonadis; Senior Engineering
Metallurgist Adsit; Quality Engineer E. Covington;
the classifications of engineering librarian, facilities
analyst, property auditor, technical' informational
specialist, material liaison man,advance systems proj-
ect engineer, development project engineer, senior
flight test engineer, preliminary design engineer, proj-
ect engineer, senior project engineer, and senior qual-
ity engineer; those employees in the Employer's data
systems group "who are in job classifications where
other employees having the same job classifications
may or may not be excludable on some basis. The
functions of these employees are: (1) persons directly
involved in rate development for labor and direct uti-
lization of labor rate data which has been specifically
developed to forecast intended or anticipated rates
which may be granted by the company in the future
in collective-bargaining negotiations involving per-
sonnel who may be represented by labor organiza-
tions regardless of payroll designation; (2) personnel
directly assigned to data systems functions involving
the industrial relations data bank"; all clerical, super-
visorial, and management employees and guards as
defined by the National Labor Relations Act; all
other classifications; all other employees; and all em-
ployees employed at any facility other than the San
Diego facility, such as Vandenberg Air Force Base
and Cape Kennedy.
Unit B
All nonprofessional employees on the Employer's
professional and administrative payroll, payroll
grades 1 through 9, and including "random rate,"
employed at the Employer's San Diego operations
facilities, and within the classifications listed on
Schedule B attached hereto, but excluding all those
excluded in Unit A, supra; Senior Manufacturing and
Development Engineer Kolbricht, and the classifica-
tions of administrative accountant, plant constructive
engineer A, senior equipment engineer, price estima-
tor, senior price estimator, quality assurance project
administrator, senior quality assurance specialist, tool
and manufacturing engineer, and senior tool and
manufacturing engineer.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
869
CHAIRMAN MILLER, concurring in part and dissenting
in part:
This is a case in which the parties, instead of com-
ing to a mutually acceptable agreement on a unit in
which an election might be conducted, have instead
chosen to litigate the unit issue to an extent which we
rarely experience. The Region transferred the case to
this Board for decision-which, while understanda-
ble, has further contributed to the by now regrettably
lengthy delay in these proceedings.
We have been inundated by a sea of words. The
transcript and exhibits constitute a formidable array
of testimony and documents, and the briefs alone run
to well over 1,000 pages in toto. Brevity appears to
have been an art lost to these parties. We have been
told, as Mark Twain would have it, a helluva lot more
about penguins than we wanted to know.
The Union originally sought a unit comprised of
virtually all the personnel on the Employer's profes-
sional and administrative payroll, then later conceded
that certain positions on that payroll ought to be ex-
cluded, and ultimately, in effect, has left it to the
Board to determine what kind of unit or units might
be appropriate, indicating that it would go to election
in whatever unit the Board determines. The Employer
seemed at times to be arguing that no unit at all was
appropriate, and ultimately concedes that perhaps
some unit of lower level engineering personnel might
be acceptable, but continues to urge that we dismiss
the petition. Thus neither party has been particularly
helpful in providing us with clear-cut alternatives as
to possible appropriate units, although each vaguely
suggests that there may be some such alternatives
available.
Out of all this virtually utter chaos, I freely concede
that the majority has done a conscientious job in at-
tempting to shape an appropriate unit. It has not been
an easy task. In some respects I am sorely tempted to
join them, if for no other reason than to commend
their valiant effort to dispose of this matter in some
reasonably sensible way. Yet I find myself unable to
do so, essentially because I am persuaded that lying
somewhere beneath the obfuscation created by the
seemingly endless flow of words of both parties there
is a central issue upon which I find myself in dis-
agreement with my distinguished colleagues.
That issue, I think, can be rather simply stated. It
is whether the Employer's permanent line, or func-
tional, organization should be the sole key to our de-
termination about inclusions and exclusions from the
unit or whether the Employer's ever changing pro-
gram or project-oriented organization ought also to be
regarded as relevant and, indeed, determinative in
many of the classifications in issue. My colleagues
have opted for the former. I would opt for the latter.
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I do so not without some hesitancy, simply because
the record demonstrates that the program or project
teams appear and disappear from time to time. Thus
an employee who one day finds himself with substan-
tial supervisory and managerial responsibilities in
connection with a particular project may on other
occasions, or even simultaneously, be engaged in
functions having no supervisory or managerial indi-
cia. While I have no doubt that this flexible and ever-
moving organizational format is useful and perhaps
even indispensable to the Employer in the carrying
out of its varied missions, it makes any unit determi-
nation extraordinarily difficult. And the application
of our customary criteria, I admit, may lead to exclu-
sions from the bargaining unit which are not altogeth-
er equitable insofar as the employees are concerned.
I say inequitable, because it is at least possible that an
employee who would be excluded under these criteria
might, for some uncertain and unpredictable lengths
of time in the future, be performing no supervisory or
managerial tasks, during which times he would nor-
mally be entitled to collective representation if he so
desired it. Yet, at other times, on the basis of the
history contained in the record, he would be perform-
ing the kinds of functions which would clearly, under
the law, require his exclusion. Theoretically it might
be possible to include the job classification in the unit
with the proviso that when an employee's project as-
signment requires him to perform managerial or su-
pervisory work he would be excluded. But it seems to
me that would present a totally unworkable situation
for both parties from an administrative standpoint,
and would inevitably create conflicts of interest for
the employee, leaving him torn as to whether his real
allegiance ought to be to the management or to his
work group on the other side of the bargaining table.
The basic thrust of my dissent, then, is that, with
respect to classifications whose occupants have been
shown to my satisfaction to have been, with some
regularity, assigned functions of a supervisory or
managerial character in the carrying out of various
team projects, I find myself compelled by the statute
to apply a rule of exclusion.
I am not persuaded by Petitioner's argument that
all such project assignments require only the use of
higher techincal skills. The record in a great many
instances demonstrates that the supervisory and man-
agerial functions performed go well beyond that, and
extend to the responsible, discretionary selection of
employees to work on the project, the use of indepen-
dent judgment and discretion in assigning the work,
the making of effective evaluations and recommenda-
tions with respect to the work of persons serving un-
der their direction, and direct involvement both in
commitment of company finances and in negotiations
with customers. The performance of these kinds of
duties creates, of course, supervisory and/or manage-
rial duties as this Board has traditionally defined them
and, in the case of the supervisory indicia, as the
statute itself specifically defines them.
In an effort to keep this dissent within reasonable
bounds, I shall not attempt to recite in detail all of the
evidence underlying my determinations, but rather
will set forth only a brief summary of my grounds for
exclusion. In each case I have examined the record
with care and believe that the evidence supports what
will be a briefly stated reason for exclusion in each
instance.
I would exclude from the unit, contrary to my col-
leagues, all employees in the following classifications:
1. Senior Aerodynamics Engineer: Like virtually
all senior engineers, the record establishes that em-
ployees in this classification serve as project engineers
and project leaders and, in that capacity, are in charge
of such projects in a manner in which they exercise
supervisory authority, and also have managerial re-
sponsibility. I see no substantial difference in these
factors with respect to this senior engineering catego-
ry and other senior engineering categories which the
majority has excluded (see, e.g., senior project engi-
neer and senior quality engineer).36
2. Senior Design Engineer: Virtually all employees
in this category have been or are project leaders and
as such have supervisory duties and managerial re-
sponsibilities with respect to customer contact. Em-
ployees in this classification testified that they prepare
performance evaluations and that these evlauations
weigh heavily in the future of those whom they evalu-
ate-clearly effective recommendation, in my view,
within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act.
3. Design Specialist: The consensus of the testimo-
ny of the 14 engineers in this category who testified
is that virtually all have served as lead or project
engineers and that, when they do so, they assign work
to, direct, monitor, and review the work disciplines in
their groups.
4. Senior Dynamics Engineer: The senior engi-
neers in this category frequently serve as program
leaders and as such responsibly direct the work of
others, including making discretionary work assign-
ments and monitoring and supervising the work of
others on the team. They also make effective evalua-
tions of those in the groups which they lead. In my
view, therefore, they must be excluded as supervisors.
36 Because of the similarity of functions of virtually all senior engineers,
I have doubts about joining my colleagues in including senior aeroballistics
engineers Yet the record as to their duties is scant and appears to contain
an admission by a wage and salary administrator of the Employer that there
is little difference, in that category, between the duties of aeroballistics engi-
neers and senior aeroballistics engineers I have therefore not dissented from
their inclusion
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 871
5. Senior Electronics Engineer: Like other senior
engineers, persons in this classification, with some
frequency, function as project supervisors. The testi-
mony of the one employee in this classification called
makes clear that the program or project supervisor
effectively, and in the exercise of substantial discre-
tionary and independent judgment, assigns the work
within the program's structure. That, in my view, es-
tablishes that the employees in this classification
function regularly in a supervisory capacity. This ac-
cords with the more general testimony in the record
to the effect that all senior engineers function in this
manner, which I do not find refuted on the record.
6. Senior Engineering Chemist: As to this category
we have only the general testimony submitted by the
Employer that the classification is similar to all senior
engineer classifications and that all persons in senior
engineer classifications serve with some frequency in
a supervisory and managerial capacity with respect to
specific projects. No contrary testimony having been
offered by Petitioner, I would exclude the position as
supervisory and managerial.
7. Senior Engineering Mettalurgist: I would ex-
clude for the same reasons indicated above with re-
spect to senior engineering chemists, the state of the
record being the same with respect to this classifica-
tion. There is also supporting specific evidence that
such a metallurgist assigns work, prepares perfor-
mance appraisals, and has the authority to commit the
Company with respect to purchases and the perfor-
mance of work for customers. There is no evidence
that there are senior engineering metallurgists who do
not serve with frequency in the same manner.
8. Engineering Staff Specialist: The testimony
clearly indicates that employees in this category as-
sign work, including even the assignment of work to
the chief test pilot, stipulated to be a supervisor. Evi-
dence also indicates that in serving as leaders in spe-
cific projects employees in this classification have
authority to responsibly direct others and also make
effective performance evaluations of such employees.
I would exclude as supervisory.
9. Engineering Test Pilot: I would exclude as su-
pervisory because, although the evidence is scant
here, employees in the classification are required to
command aircraft, which clearly implies supervisory
duties in flight.
10. Senior Flight Test Control Engineer: Evidence
submitted shows, generally, that like other senior en-
gineers, employees in this category have supervisory
and managerial responsibilities with respect to specif-
ic projects. The job description also includes duties
which I regard as clearly supervisory. No contrary
evidence was presented by Petitioner. I would exclude
as supervisory.
11. Senior Guidance Analyst Engineer: Evidence
shows that, like other senior engineers, employees in
this classification regularly serve as project leaders
and that the project leader is the effective supervisor
on a day-to-day basis in terms of assigning work,
evaluating employees, and the like. I would exclude as
supervisory.
12. Senior Instrumentation Engineer: Like other
senior engineers, the evidence shows that employees
in this category serve as project leaders or have other
responsibilities in connection with specific projects
wherein they exercise substantial supervisory authori-
ty with respect to the assignment of work, the direc-
tion of the work, and the evaluation of employees.
Although the only employee who testified in this clas-
sification is not currently serving in such a supervisory
or managerial capacity, I do not think that refutes the
fact, established by the record, that all senior engi-
neers frequently and regularly do serve in such capac-
ity.
13. Senor Metallurgist: I would allow the single
employee in this classification to vote subject to chal-
lenge. His testimony fails to indicate that he has per-
formed supervisory duties. The evidence shows that
his predecessor did, but does not indicate with what
frequency. I would require additional evidence, which
could be obtained in our challenge procedures, before
making a final determination.
14. Senior Research Engineer: The generalized tes-
timony with respect to senior engineers was corrobo-
rated, in the case of this classification, by the specific
testimony of two employees in the classification. Both
are currently serving as project leaders in the course
of which they have selected employees from other
disciplines to work on the project, with no prior ap-
proval from anyone; they have responsibly directed
the work of those working under them on the projects;
and they effectively evaluate such personnel. I would
exclude as supervisory.
15. Staff Scientist: The employee in this classifica-
tion who testified stated that he was a program man-
ager, that he assigns work tasks to various engineering
disciplines and technicians, and that he has the final
decisions on all "technical engineering and scientific
decisions and financial decisions." He also testified
that he alone decides who works on the program and
how much they should work at it. There was also
testimony that people in this classification frequently
engage in just such direction of activities on a particu-
lar project or laboratory. I would exclude as manage-
rial and supervisory. It may seem odd for me to
exclude this classification and yet join with my col-
leagues in including the senior staff scientist, but the
testimony offered with respect to the senior staff sci-
entist establishes that persons in this classification do
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not regularly serve in a supervisory capacity on specif-
ic projects. The senior staff scientist who testified said
that he has no supervisory or managerial duties and
indicated that the last time he had supervised anyone
was 8 or 9 years ago. In this state of the record, I do
not disagree with my colleagues as to the inclusion of
senior staff scientists.
16. Senior Standards Laboratory Engineer: In the
absence of any record evidence to the contrary, I
would exclude on the grounds of the general testimo-
ny concerning the duties of all senior engineers with
respect to project leadership and management. Fur-
thermore, the job description indicates supervisory
responsibility. I would exclude as supervisory.
17. Senior Systems Engineer: Generalized testimo-
ny indicates that senior engineers in this category
have the same general characteristics as other senior
engineers. A parallel was also drawn between this
classification and that of systems engineering special-
ist which, as indicated below, I have found excluda-
ble. No contrary testimony was offered. I would
exclude as supervisory.
18. Systems Engineering Specialist: Like other se-
nior engineers, employees in this category serve as
leaders with respect to projects in the course of which
they obtain, on their own authority, engineering assis-
tants from other departments, whom they assign and
schedule. There is also direct testimony that persons
in this classification have authority to and do author-
ize overtime and perform other supervisory duties. I
would exclude as supervisory.
19. Senior Test Laboratory Engineer: The testimo-
ny of two of the incumbents in this classification bears
out the Employer's generalized testimony with respect
to the program assignments of senior engineers in the
course of which they responsibly assign and direct
work, evaluate the performance of others, and, in gen-
eral, assume supervisory functions. I would exclude as
supervisory.
20. Senior Thermodynamics Engineer: The testi-
mony of 3 of the 35 engineers in this classification
bears out the Employer's generalized testimony with
respect to assignment of senior engineers to project
leader functions in the course of which they responsi-
bly assign and direct the work of others, evaluate
performance of others, and the like. There is also
testimony that senior engineers in this group have
substantial financial authority of a type which I would
regard as managerial in nature. I would exclude as
supervisory and managerial.
21. Budget Analyst and Senior Budget Analyst:
Both of these classifications have essentially the same
functions. In my judgment each of them has sufficient
authority with respect to controlling budgets and
making internal financial decisions on behalf of the
Employer to qualify them as managerial and thus
excludable.
22. Senior Manufacturing and Development Engi-
neer: This category is comparable to other senior en-
gineers in that they direct teams or groups concerned
with the invention of new manufacturing technologies
and allocate tasks to, and responsibly direct, the work
of those on the team. This was borne out by the testi-
mony of certain employees in the classification whose
testimony clearly indicates that they are supervising
other engineers and, in some cases, also hourly em-
ployees. I would exclude as supervisory. There is, in
my view, no ground for separating out certain em-
ployees in this classification and excluding them.
There is no evidence that the duties performed by
these employees whom my colleagues find to be ex-
cludable are atypical of the duties of an employee in
the classification. Rather, the record supports the be-
lief'that they are, instead, typical.
Except for the above classifications, which I would
exclude (whereas my colleagues would include them),
I concur fully in the decision of the majority."
37 As noted in fns. 27, 29, and 31, 1 agree with Member Jenkins that the
classifications of senior flight test engineer , senior quality engineer, adminis-
trative accountant , price estimator, and senior price estimator should be
excluded.
Schedule A
Professional Unit
Aeroballistics engineer, aeroballistics engineer, se-
nior, aerodynamics engineer, aerodynamics engineer,
senior, associate engineer, design engineer, design en-
gineer, senior, design specialist, dynamics engineer,
dynamics engineer, senior, electronics engineer, elec-
tronics engineer, senior, engineering chemist, engi-
neering chemist, senior, engineering metallurgist,
engineering metallurgist, senior, engineering staff spe-
cialist, engineering test pilot, flight test control engi-
neer, senior, flight test engineer, guidance analyst
engineer, senior, instrumentation engineer, senior,
manufacturing development engineer, manufacturing
development engineer, senior, metallurgist, senior,
physicist, senior, quality engineer, reliability engineer,
reliability engineer, senior, research engineer, re-
search engineer, senior, staff scientist, staff scientist,
senior, standards laboratory engineer, standards labo-
ratory engineer, senior, structures engineer, structures
engineer, senior, systems analyst, systems engineer,
senior, systems engineering specialist, test engineer A,
test laboratory engineer, test laboratory engineer, se-
nior, thermodynamics engineer, thermodynamics en-
gineer, senior, weight engineer, weight engineer,
senior.
Schedule B
GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP. 873
Nonprofessional Unit
Budget analyst, budget analyst, senior, data pro-
cessing analyst, data processing specialist, electronic
data processing programmer, electronic data pro-
cessing programmer, senior, engineering documenta-
tion analyst, engineering documentation representa-
tive, engineering documentation specialist, engineer-
ing drawings checker, engineering illustrator, engi-
neering loft coordinator, senior, engineering writer,
equipment engineer, general accountant, linesman,
linesman, senior, manufacturing analyst, manufac-
turing engineer, master scheduler, master schedules
analyst, materials and process engineer, senior, oper-
ation performance control analyst, packaging spe-
cialist, parts catalogue editor, plant engineering cost
analyst, preventive maintenance analyst, procure-
ment quality assurance representative (San Diego
residents), production change analyst, publications
editor, publications editor-illustration, publications
editor-writing, publications technical specialist, qual-
ity assurance specialist, service engineer, senior, shop
plans and schedules analyst, specifications analyst,
test data analyst, test engineer B, tool design analyst,
tool engineer, tool planning analyst.