General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1959

125 N.L.R.B. 145 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 145
members of Carpenters Local Union No 627, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO
3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local 59, Lathers, the Council, and each of the
affiliated members of the Council respondent herein shall notify the
Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, in writing, whether or not
it will refrain from forcing or requiring Jacksonville Tile Company,
Inc, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to
assign disputed work to members of Lathers rather than to Jackson-
ville's own employees; who are members of Carpenters Local Union
No 627
General Electric Company and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades
Council (AFL-CIO) federated with the American Federation
of Labor, Petitioner. Case No 1`9 RC--08 November 13, 1959
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On February 24, 1949, after an election conducted pursuant to a
stipulation for certification upon consent election, the Board issued
a Decision and Certification of Representatives in the above-entitled
proceeding in which the Council was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the following unit of the Employer's
employees
All weekly salaried production and maintenance employees in
and about Hanford Works of General Electric Company, Rich-
land, Washington, excluding clerical employees, patrolmen, fire-
men, medical division employees, health instrument division
employees, laboratory assistants, technologists, technical gradu-
ates, electrical division dispatchers, "P" and "S" division chief
operators, glass blowers classified as instrument mechanics,
,messengers and motor messengers, transitmen, axemen, chain and
rodmen, draftsmen, designers, and engineering assistants, all
persons on the exempt salary payroll and no other constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, as amended.
On February 2, 1959, the Employer and the Council filed with the
Board a joint petition for a decision "as to whether certain General
Electric employees classified as `specialists-instrument development'
in the Irradiation Processing Department are excluded from the bar-
gaining unit described in the certification or are engaged in produc-
tion and maintenance work and therefore included in the unit " I On
1 On November 30, 1956, the Employer and the Council filed similar joint petitions for
the clarification of the same certification as to the unit placement of 13 engineering
assistants 118 NLRB 1108
125 NLRB No 14
146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
April 20, 1959, the Board remanded the proceeding to the Regional
Director for a hearing for the purpose of taking testimony with re-
spect to the issue raised by the petition . Such hearing was held on
May 20, 1959, before Howard E. Hilbun, hearing officer. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel
[Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following
findings :
The Employer contends that the three specialists -instrument de-
velopment involved herein comprise a completely new classification
and are professional employees and, at the least, technical employees
not embraced by the 1949 certification. The Council urges that the
three disputed employees are members of the instrument specialist
craft who were upgraded by the Employer and their new duties are
not unlike those performed by them prior to their upgrading when
there was no dispute as to their inclusion within the certified unit.
Under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, the Employer operates, and
provides maintenance for, the Hanford Works for the United States
Government, where it is engaged in the manufacture of plutonium.
The manufacture of plutonium is organized into three operational
phases, one of which is the irradiation processing department, where
the disputed employees are assigned , and which is responsible for
the operation of the reactors that produce plutonium by irradiation
of the uranium. All of the departments engaged in manufacture of
plutonium together with the Hanford Laboratories Operation, per-
form some research and development work.
In 1956, the Employer established as part of the irradiation proc-
essing department, the instrument development operation for the ex-
clusive purpose of performing research and development of nuclear
instruments for production reactors. This new operation was staffed
with eight engineers and one engineering assistant , who were ex-
cluded from the certified unit as professional and technical employees,
respectively. Prior to the establishment of this new operation, in-
strument research and development was performed by engineers
assigned to the various departments throughout the plant.
In 1957, the Employer was authorized to design, develop, and con-
struct a new and revolutionary type production reactor, entirely dif-
ferent in concept from any type now in operation which will require
better, safer, and more sensitive instrumentation. In July 1958, the
instrument development operation was authorized to increase the size
of its staff by six employees-three engineers and three development
specialists-in order to perform the necessary instrument research
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 147
and development work in connection with the design of the type of
nuclear instrumentation needed for the new production reactor.
Similar instrumentation development work on the existing reactors
had been performed in the past by graduate engineers, physicists,
and engineering assistants.
In the recruitment of the additional development specialists, the
Employer's first preference was to hire engineers who could satisfy
the following job description sheet, dated November 6, 1958:
B.S. in engineering, plus demonstrated manual creative ability,
or high school, plus 4 years of study at technical institute,
or the equivalent in experience and/or other formal training.
After the Employer's attempt to recruit qualified engineers or en-
gineering assistants, with the above qualifications, at the Hanford
plant and at its other plants proved unsuccessful, the Employer sent
a memorandum to all of its supervisors at the Hanford plant who
had instrument specialists, technicians, or instrumentmakers working
under them, requesting that the supervisors recommend any sub-
ordinates with at least 5 years of experience in instrument work who
they felt were qualified to perform development work. The instru-
ment specialists and technicians who were recommended by their
supervisors were given tests which extended over a period of 11/2
days. The first test consisted of eight parts and included electronic
theory, mathematics, hydraulic and temperature measurement, and
general instrument problems. The employees who passed the initial
test with at least a 70-percent average were given a second and more
difficult test which consisted of current instrument theory and prob-
lems. The three employees who achieved the highest score on the
latter test were transferred in August 1958 to the instrument develop-
ment operation as specialists-instrument development. The Em-
ployer has also added two engineers to its instrument development
staff, who formerly were employed in other departments at the
Hanford plant.
The three specialists-instrument development work under the
supervision of the instrument development chief engineer. Like
others within their department, they are concerned with long-range
development projects which involve the solving of process, measure-
ment, and control problems and, more particularly, with the new
production reactor. The specialists-instrument development are as-
signed subprojects by an engineer , such as the development of new
methods for the detection of ruptured fuel elements. Using their
own ideas , together with new concepts and theories of instrumenta-
tion, and exercising independent judgment, they do research work,
and design , develop , and fabricate prototypes of nuclear instruments
to be embodied in the production reactors . They are assisted by
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engineering assistants who have been excluded from the unit as tech-
nical employees. Although in the past certain of the instrument
craftsmen have performed a limited amount of instrument repair
work, this activity did not require their full time, as in the case of
the specialists-instrument development. Moreover, the nature of the
work thus performed was neither so highly complex nor did it re-
quire the advanced degree of knowledge or creative ability and effort
as does the work of the specialists here in question.
The three specialists-instrument development, who formerly per-
formed the duties of instrument craftsmen, were hired at the entrance
salary of $7,440 per year, with a range up to $9,990 per year, whereas
the basic wage schedule of instrument craftsmen is from $82.94
weekly in the lowest grade to $136.44 weekly in the highest grade.
Thus, they were not only hired at a salary range substantially higher
than that of the instrument craftsmen, but also higher than that of
several engineers employed within the instrument development group.
It is clear from the foregoing that the three specialists-instrument
development in dispute perform highly complex technical duties, and
are technical employees who are not included within the unit of which
the Council is the certified representative. Contrary to the con-
tention of the Council, we find that the fact that the three specialists-
instrument development performed a certain amount of instrument
modification work when they were classified as instrument craftsmen
and included within the certified unit, does not militate against our
finding herein. As indicated above, while the three disputed em-
ployees were in the lower classification they performed development
work only as an incident to their primary duty of repair and mainte-
nance work. Moreover, such development work performed by them
was not as complex nor required the degree of originality of design
and concept as is true of their present positions. Accordingly, we
find it unnecessary in this proceeding to determine whether or not
specialists-instrument development are professional employees within
the meaning of the Act, as urged by the Employer.
Weis Markets, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Association,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Weis Markets and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 6-RC-2366, 6-RC-2372, 6-RC-2367, and 6-PC-.373. Novem-
ber 16, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER.
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing on these consolidated cases was held before
125 NLRB No. 16.