General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 27, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Electric Company and Local 145 , American Federation of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 1-UC-105 June 27 1973 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On January 10, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 1 issued a Decision and Clarification of Bar- gaining Unit in the above-entitled proceeding in which he clarified the Petitioner's existing unit of manufacturing operational planning, methods and time standards employees at the Employer's Pittsfield, Massachusetts, plants so as to include 11 audit and work sample employees. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision on the ground that he departed from official- ly reported precedent and made findings of fact which are erroneous. The Petitioner filed opposition there- to. By telegraphic order dated March 12, 1973, the request for review was granted. 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 considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer, a New York corporation, is engaged at its Pittsfield, Massachusetts, location in the manu- facture of power transformers, distribution trans- formers, and protective equipment. In Case 1- RC-7708, the Petitioner was certified as the represent- ative of the employees in the following unit: All manufacturing operational planning, meth- ods and time standards employees of the Em- ployer at its Power Transformer Department, Distribution Transformer Department, and Dis- tribution Protective Equipment Department plants in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, excluding su- pervisory and managerial employees in these categories and excluding all other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.' In February 1972, the Employer established a new work measurement and control section within its 1 This certification issued on April 13, 1964 The most recent collective- bargaining contract for the employees in this unit was effective from January 26, 1970, through May 26, 1973 transformer division headquarters operation. The Pe- titioner contends that 11 of the employees in this new section who are engaged in effort appraisal and work sampling are an accretion to its aforesaid unit .2 The Regional Director found merit in this contention be- cause both groups were engaged in work measure- ment functions of a technical nature utilizing similar techniques, received similar pay and were ultimately responsible to the manager of manufacturing. The Employer generally contends that the work function of the unit employees directly involves the immediate production process-"to determine specif- ically how a piece or part will be made"-whereas the function of the new group involves fact findings used to "evaluate trends in the overall effectiveness of the [Employer's] business" and that therefore the new group may not be properly accreted to the existing production type unit. For reasons set forth below, we agree with the Employer. As set forth in the Regional Director's decision in Case 1-RC-7708 the Employer operates several man- ufacturing departments at its Pittsfield facility. Each department is directed by a general manager and is divided into subsections under the supervision of a subsection manager. Each subsection is further subdi- vided into functional units or groups which are under the control of a group manager. Within each such group are a certain number of bargaining unit em- ployees who are now classified as manufacturing methods and work measurement employees and oper- ational planners. Methods and work measurement employees in the unit are (1) to establish procedures for the operation of production machines and for the manufacturing of parts and (2) to determine time standards for the manufacture of parts. The opera- tional planners determine the sequence to be followed in the manufacture of a part. On the other hand, the new work measurement and control section consisting of two effort appraisers and nine work samplers was administratively established as a part of the Employer's power transformer divi- sion. This section is under the direction of a manager who is located in the transformer division headquar- ters. He reports to the manager of manufacturing sys- tems who is in turn responsible to the vice president of the transformer division. Within the section there is also one supervisor who directs the work of the employees sought. Utilizing an established procedure, the effort appraisers observe the motions an employee uses in order to assess the speed at which the employ- ees are working. The work samplers observe employ- ees in production areas to determine if they are 2 The record does not disclose the current number of employees in the existing unit At the time of certification there were approximately 85 em- ployees in the unit 204 NLRB No. 99 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 577 engaged in productive or nonproductive work. The data collected by these employees is correlated by a computer and the results are forwarded to the manag- er of measurement systems who is responsible for the preparation of trend charts, used by the management in assessing the overall trends in employee perfor- mance. Prior to the discontinuance of the incentive pay system in July 1972, the Employer utilized the effort appraisal and work sampling technique as a manage- ment tool only in sporadic instances in which it con- ducted special studies. In such instances the effort appraisal and work sampling were performed by su- pervisors, managerial employees, and, in a few instan- ces, by unit employees. The need for continuous information with respect to the effectiveness of plant operations did not arise until the Employer discontin- ued the use of the incentive rate method of pay in favor of a "daytime rate." According to testimony introduced by the Employer, the new group provides information for management to determine "if em- ployees overall are generally performing better or worse on a production basis under the new day-work system." When the Employer established the work measurement and control section in its transformer division headquarters, it recruited personnel from various different manufacturing departments but only one bargaining unit employee was selected. Al- though the unit employees occasionally utilize the ef- fort appraisal and work sampling techniques in con- junction with other techniques in the performance of their duties, the record also discloses that substantial additional training would be required for the newly established group to perform the duties of the unit employees. Even though both the unit employees and the new group spend a considerable portion of their workday on the production floor, the Employer antic- ipates it will expand the responsibilities of the new group beyond their existing functions in order to per- form method audits, paper administration audits, and administrative audits, thus broadening the scope of the new group's work. From the foregoing we conclude that, unlike the unit employees, effort appraisers and work samplers are not engaged in work which is directly related to the Employer's manufacturing operations. Although both groups may occasionally utilize similar work measurement techniques, this fact alone is insufficient to warrant the accretion of the new group to the ex- isting unit, where, as here, the functions performed by the two groups are in no way integrated or related and there is no common supervision. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.