Gould, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 9, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 312 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Gould, Inc. (Advanced Technology Group) and Inter- national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Case 8-RC-8913 October 9, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Vaughn Sterling. By direction of the Acting Regional Director for Region 8, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employ- er and the 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 Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the, Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Employer is engaged in the design, manufac- ture, modification, and servicing of underwater inte- grated weapon systems, primarily the Mark 48 torpedo which accounts for 98 percent of its business. This project is carried on primarily in two buildings, plants I and 2, separated from each other by a 1/2-mile parking lot, on an enclosed tract of land in Cleveland, Ohio. Additionally, the Employer operates a test lake in Columbia Station, Ohio, and a Product Development Division in Willoughby, Ohio, which is not herein involved. The Advanced Technology Group (ATG) has four divisions-Ocean Systems Division (OSD), whose function is production; Advanced Development Divi- sion (ADD), whose function is design; System Sup- port Division (SSD), whose function is field support; and the Product Development Division (PDD), which is concerned with additional products. The ATG employs approximately 2,032 individu- als. Of the approximately 1,800 persons employed at the Cleveland location, 1,400 work in plant 1 and 400 in plant 2. Employees of OSD and ADD work in plant 1 and employees of OSD, ADD, and SSD work in plant 2. No PDD employees work in either of these plants. Approximately 625 individuals are hourly pro- duction and maintenance employees who work in both plants and are represented by UAW Local 1631. There remain at these facilities approximately 800 sal- aried employees who are neither professional nor su- pervisory personnel. There is no history of collective bargaining involving any of these salaried employees. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of approxi- mately 140 technical employees of ADD employed in Cleveland and at the Columbia Station test lake facili- ty. The Employer contends that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate because it fails to include all other salaried, nonprofessional employees at the Cleveland and Columbia Station test lake facilities or, at least, all technical employees of all three divisions. We agree with the Employer that the requested unit is inappropriate. It is clear from the record facts that the unit petitioned for does not constitute a function- ally distinct or homogeneous group of employees. In- stead, the divisions form an integral part of, and are inextricably related to, the complete Mark 48 project. As recently as April 1972, there was only one division. Then, as the Employer grew from 200 employees to an employee complement of 2,000 and sales of $ 100 mil- lion, the division was reorganized for accounting pur- poses so that the various subgroups could be identified. Because the operation is not "linear," with the product proceeding from a design phase to a pro- duction phase to the support phase, the design func- tion (for which ADD is primarily responsible) is not a separate step toward a production process. Due to the intimate relation between design, manufacture, and field support, there are continual and substantial contact and interactions between technical and pro- fessional employees of all divisions . "Engineering change orders," which can be initiated by any division or by the Navy, are first directed to ADD and then to a board comprised of members of the three divi- sions. In one year, the change orders resulted in ap- proximately 1,000 changes made in the torpedo system. The record does not indicate that the skills pos- sessed by ADD's technical employees are signifi- cantly unique. To the contrary, the Employer' s entire operation is technological and common skills are used in all divisions. When a department needs to hire additional em- ployees, it sends an employee requisition slip to the centralized personnel department which seeks out candidates from within and without the Employer, interviews applicants, and in conjunction with the de- 206 NLRB No. 95 GOULD, INC. 313 partment head determines whether to hire the appli- cant. The centralized personnel administration is also responsible for labor relations, equal employment op- portunity, security indoctrination, medical facilities, and communications. All salaried employees of all divisions enjoy the same insurance benefits, vacation plan, holidays, sav- ings and profit-sharing program, and salary retire- ment program. They have the same salary structure and use the same cafeteria and parking facilities. The assistant personnel manager testified that there are no restrictions relating to the transfer of employ- ees from one division to another. The Employer cur- rently operates a job procedure called the "hot line" which provides for posting job vacancies enabling any employee to apply for positions available in any divi- sion. Additionally, testimony indicates that numerous transfers occurred both prior to and after the reorga- nization into separate divisions. Indeed, there was tes- timony that the Employer's "main strength" was its ability to "temporarily and permanently move people to meet the needs of the projects." All employees must inevitably come in frequent contact with each other since plant 1, the larger of the Cleveland plants, houses technical personnel of both the OSD and ADD and employees of OSD, ADD and SSD all work in plant 2. Employees are not segregated into distinct areas according to their divisions or job titles, but are randomly located in the various sec- tions. Under these circumstances, it is clear that a unit limited to the technical employees of the Advanced Development Division does not possess that degree of functional distinctness and autonomy which would warrant a finding of a separate community of interest. As the Petitioner has not demonstrated an interest in representing any other unit, we shall order the petition dismissed. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.