General Dynamics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 7, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 322 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

11 322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD men. Harry Deutsch testified that at its Valley Stream operations, the Union has represented only the yardmen of the Maclobe Lumber Co., Inc., and he did not deny that the Union has represented only the drivers and chauffeurs at the Maclobe Lumber Company of Glen Cove. After the expiration of the Maclobe Lumber Co., Inc., contract on June 30, 1957, the Employer refused to enter into a new agreement with the Union covering the yardmen on the ground that it believed that the Union no longer represented a majority of these employees. Subsequently, the Union began picketing Maclobe Lumber Co., Inc., on November 6, 1957, and continued to do so until the time of the hear- ing held on December 13, 1957, in order to induce the Employer to execute a new contract with it covering the yardmen.? In view of the foregoing, and upon the record as a whole, we find that no question concerning representation exists in the unit which the Employer alleges to be appropriate. It is clear that the Union has never sought to represent any employees of Maclobe Millwork Cor- poration but only certain of the employees at the other two com- panies. Further, at the hearing, the Union expressly disclaimed any desire to represent the overall unit claimed to be appropriate by the Employer. Nor is its conduct in picketing for a new contract covering the yardmen of Maclobe Lumber Co., Inc., inconsistent with such dis- claimer. While the two aforementioned contract units may be deemed appropriate,8 no party desires an election in either of such unit. Ac- cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.9 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] 7 The record does not reflect the status of any negotiations for renewal of the 1956-57 contract covering the drivers and chauffeurs at Glen Cove. 8 Housatonic Public Service Company, 111 NLRB 877. 8 Ibid. Convair, a division of General Dynamics Corporation (Fort Worth ) i and Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 776, International Association of Machinists,' Petitioner. Case No. 16-R-1724. April 7, 1958 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Elections issued on Sep- tember 20, 1946,8 elections were directed in various units. On Decem- i The name of the Employer, which was designated as Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation (Fort Worth Division ) when this proceeding arose in 1946, appears as amended at the hearing. S The name of the Petitioner , which was designated as International Association of Machinists , Local No. 776, in the original proceeding , appears as designated in documents filed by the Petitioner in the current proceeding 8 70 NLRB 1357. 120 NLRB No. 51. CONVAIR 323 ber 2, 1946, the Board certified International Association of Machin- ists, Local No. 776, as the bargaining representative of a unit of hourly rated production and maintenance employees. On July 17, 1957, the Petitioner filed a motion for clarification, requesting inclusion, in the unit it represented, of all laboratory elec- tronics technicians A. On August 19, 1957, the Employer filed its opposition to this motion. On September 6,1957, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the unit placement of the category in question. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held on November 4, 5, 6, and 7, 1957, before Marvin L. Smith, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 4 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : 1. The unit background The production and maintenance unit established in 1946 was as follows : All hourly rated production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Fort Worth Division, including all confidential employees performing manual labor, tool designers performing manual labor, tool provers, leadmen, department clerks employed in the factory in connection with production and maintenance records, and all maintenance electricians, but excluding all execu- tives, administrators, professional employees, draftsmen and tech- nicians, general office employees, general foremen, foremen and assistant foremen, supervisors and assistant supervisors, depart- ment heads and assistant department heads, engineers, medical employees, plant-protection employees, accounting and cost em- ployees, accounting section heads, the accounting supervisors, inspectors, the chief inspector, timekeepers and time clerks, tool design checkers, tool clerks, all tool planners, tool designers and tool liaison employees not performing manual labor, student employees, department clerks employed in the general offices, the general foremen's offices and the parts plant office, and all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action 6 * The Employer 's motion to dismiss, referred by the hearing officer to the Board, is granted for the reasons stated below 6 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [ Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning]. â€¢ International Association of Machinists , Lodge 776-A, was certified as the representa- tive of a similar unit on March 10, 1943. (Consolidated Aircraft Corporation, 47 NLRB 30.) Technicians were excluded in both certifications. 324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The production and maintenance unit, which includes about 10,000 employees, has been modified from time to time in some respects, either by the Board pursuant to petitions and motions for clarifica- tion, or by agreement of the parties. 2. The disputed category In 1950 the Employer, in anticipation of increasing work in the electronics field, established a category of laboratory electronics tech- nicians with the evaluation of technical and office (T & 0) labor grade 6. However, the Employer did not get into aerophysics and electronics laboratory work to the extent expected until 1953. The job of laboratory electronics technician was then reevaluated and, on June 15, 1953, was placed in a higher grade, T & 0 labor grade 3. When the Employer decided to expand its electronics research work, the Air Force, for whom much of its work was done, doubted the feasibility of an aerophysics laboratory. The Employer therefore decided not to set up such a laboratory at the time , but, during a test period, to use available space and personnel of department 75, the electronics production department. Accordingly, it designated an area in the electronics building for this purpose, and transferred to this work about 10 electronics technicians from department 75. These men were chosen for their initiative , creative ability, education, and experience . About as many engineers as technicians were originally assigned to this project , and the technicians selected worked closely with these engineers . As it was uncertain whether this work would continue , these technicians continued to wear the same identification, to be included on the department 75 seniority list, and to be considered by both parties as part of the production and maintenance unit. In July 1953 the Employer decided that the aerophysics laboratory was feasible , and arranged for the establishment of a new subdivision within the aerophysics section, in a building owned by the Air Force and located about three-fourths of a mile from the electronics build- ing. Those employees who had participated in the evaluation program were offered transfers, but were told that those transferring would be excluded from the bargaining unit. Some rejected the offer on this basis, while others accepted it. The transfers were effective August 8, 1953. Due to a clerical error, union dues were deducted for these employees the first month-, after their transfer, but the Employer made restitution of these dues. As it thereafter developed that the work in question was increasing and becoming more complex, the Employer, on June 28, 1954, again reevaluated and raised this job to T & 0 grade 2, the grade now in effect. A number of grievances were filed by employees who claimed that their seniority and contract rights had been violated when they were CONVAIR 325 not transferred to these jobs. The grievances were processed and, finally, submitted to the permanent arbitrator, over the Employer's objection that the Board had defined the appropriate unit and the arbitrator, therefore, had no jurisdiction. The arbitrator found that the employees in question were in the production and maintenance unit. Thereafter, the Petitioner sought an injunction to compel the Em- ployer to abide by the terms of the arbitration award, but the State district court sustained the Employer's contention that the Board had exclusive jurisdiction of the unit dispute. Upon appeal by the Petitioner, this decision was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals for the Second Supreme Judicial District of Texas.7 There are now 22 laboratory electronics technicians A in the aero- physics laboratory, only 3 of whom were among the transferees from department 75.8 These employees work one shift, from 8 to 4: 45, the hours worked by engineers. There are 285 employees in department 75, of whom about 193 are electronics technicians A. With a few ex- ceptions, the employees in this department work three shifts beginning at 7 a. m. The Employer now requires laboratory electronics tech- nicians A to have 2 years of college training, but has no such require- ment for electronics technicians. There are nine engineers 9 assigned to the aerophysics laboratory. There are no engineers assigned to production from an organizational standpoint, although, from a functional standpoint, an engineering liaison group, referred to as product engineers, is stationed at various points in the shop areas, to answer questions concerned with manu- facturing techniques as well as design of production items. Product engineers are rotated in order to maintain familiarity with product designs and shop organization. The laboratory electronics technicians A assist the nine engineers in laboratory research on a nonproductive and nonrepetitive basis. Much of their work is theoretical and requires advanced knowledge in various engineering fields. Their work is not controlled by pro- duction schedules, manufacturing controls, or specifications, but only by general oral instructions and schematic drawings prepared by the engineers or by themselves. The production technicians, on the other hand, make bench tests and check products actually in production and being installed on airplanes, use established manufacturing tech- niques, work from blueprints, operational cards, detailed specifica- The Petitioner did not seek representation of the category in question in contract nego- tiations with the Employer during this period because of its policy not to seek negotia- tions on it matter being processed pursuant to the grievance procedure . Under these cir- cumstances , we find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the Petitioner slept on its rights. 8 There have been no transfers from production to aerophysics jobs since the formal establishment of the laboratory in July 1953 , and such transfers are unlikely in the future, according to the Employer , because of the seniority provisions applicable to department 75. 2 Engineers are not included in the unit. 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions, or other controls, and gear their work to the schedule of the production departments. Time standards have been established by the industrial engineering department for all production tasks, but have not been applied to the aerophysics laboratory. A laboratory electronics technician A is responsible to a chain of command running through an engineering hierarchy, while the supervision over de- partment 75 is part of the factory management. There is practically no correlation between the production work and that of the aerophysics laboratory, which is part of the technical design section of engineering, engaged in preliminary design and theoretical studies affecting planes of the future rather than those al- ready in production, and there is no job relationship between the two groups of technicians except to the extent that they occasionally borrow equipment from each other. There have been some promo- tions from laboratory electronics technicians A to professional engi- neering jobs. Apparently there has been no such promotion of a production technician, whose usual progression is to assistant fore- man or an administrative job. On the entire record, we find, as the Employer contends, that the laboratory electronics technicians A are technical employees as that term is used by the Board.10 The Petitioner argues that these employees should nevertheless be included in the unit it represents as this unit includes employees in different departments who are assigned as assistants to engineers, employees who work in laboratories," and employees whose job titles designate them as technicians." To the extent, however, that the record describes their work, it is apparent that some of these cat- egories, at least, whether or not classified by the Employer as tech- nicians, are not technical employees as that term is used by the Board. The Petitioner argues also that its contract with the Employer covers various T & 0 classifications. The T & 0 groups covered by the con- tract are in much lower grades, however, than the laboratory elec- tronics technicians A, and are not categories deemed technical by the Board. Moreover, even if the parties have added some technical groups to the unit, that does not warrant the continued piecemeal addition of such categories, particularly where, as here, the certified 10 See General Electric Company, 118 NLRB 1108 , and cases therein cited. 11 The reproduction laboratory was added to the contract unit after the current con- tract was executed. 12 I, e., electronics technicians and instrumentation research and development tech- nicians, both of which groups are in the Employer 's factory labor grades structure. The Employer maintains that the first group is engaged essentially in production work, and the second is, to some extent, interchangeable with production employees . The electronics technicians work in department 75, which is referred to as the electronics production department , but some electronics work is done in the aerophysics laboratory and in the plant engineering department. The Petitioner urged, as its alternative position in the event the Board directed an election , that the unit cover "all employees engaged in elec- tronics. . . .. We find it unnecessary to consider this request as no election is directed herein. JEFFERSON CITY CABINET CO . 327 unit, as well as the unit set forth in the contract, excludes tech- nicians.13 In addition, the Employer asserts that it has groups of technical employees who are not represented, including "employees who assist professional engineers in the mathematical field . . . employees work- ing in the field of chemistry, metallurgy, hydraulics, electricity, nuclear energy, and various fields of that type. . . ." Although these groups were not further identified, and the record does not establish that all of them are technical employees as defined by the Board, the Petitioner did not claim that the employees here involved were the only unrepresented technical employees, and it seems clear, from the entire record, that inclusion of the category here sought would leave other technical employees unrepresented. The Board will not include in any bargaining unit only a segment of the technical employees in an operation.14 The Board likewise will not include such employees in a production and maintenance unit where, as the Employer did here, any, party makes a timely objection to the inclusion of such employees.15 The circumstances that when the operation here involved was first established on an experimental basis, the original employees were transferred from a production department, and temporarily retained their production unit status, cannot alter these well-estab- lished Board policies. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the laboratory electronics technicians A working in the Employer's aerophysics laboratory are not included in the unit of which the Petitioner is the certified collec- tive-bargaining representative.16 We shall therefore deny the Peti- tioner's motion for clarification which requested such inclusion. [The Board denied the motion for clarification.] 13 See General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233. u Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation , 120 NLRB 63; Chapman Valve Manufacturing Company, 119 NLRB 935; General Electric Company, supra ; Solar Aircraft Co., 116 NLRB 200, 202. 15 General Electric Company. supra; American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 117 NLRB 542, 544. 1e The foregoing is not to be taken as a new certification. Jefferson City Cabinet Co. and Local Union No . 2839, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3935. April 8, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hugh Frank Malone, 120 NLRB No. 53.