Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 17, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lockheed Aircraft Corporation , for its division, Lockheed-California Company and Engineers and Scientists Guild-Lockheed Section, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-2223 April 17, 1973 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND, MEMBERS FANNING AND KENNEDY On November 28, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, wherein he found, in accord with the Petitioner's alternative request, that certain currently unrepresented nonpro- fessional employees constituted a separate appropri- ate unit and directed an election therein, rejecting its primary request that a self-determination election be held among such employees to ascertain their desires with respect to inclusion in the Petitioner's existing engineering unit comprised of both professional and nonprofessional employees. Thereafter, in accord- ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Decision on the ground that he erred in his conclusion that a self- determination election for the requested employees is precluded by Section 9(b)(1) of the Act. By telegraphic order dated January 18, 1973, the National Labor Relations Board granted the Peti- tioner's request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs on review. The Petitioner also opposed the Employer's brief on review, insofar as it requests review of the Regional Director's finding that the requested employees share a substantial community of interest with employees in the existing engineering unit on the ground that it is untimely. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority 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, including the briefs on review, and makes the following findings: The Petitioner seeks to represent salaried produci- i From time to time , the composition of the certified engineering unit has changed , either by agreement of the parties or as a result of Board action See 72 NLRB 551; 155 NLRB 702, 703 and 713 Other cases resulting in consent elections or unpublished Board- or Regional Director- directed elections are referred to below 2 Sec 9(b)(1) provides in pertinent part that the Board "shall not decide" that a combined unit of professional and nonprofessional employees is bility cost coordinators, eight in number, and salaried producibility cost analysts, five in number, employed at the Employer's airplane and airplane parts manufacturing facilities located in Los Angeles County, California, particularly at Burbank and Palmdale. The Petitioner is and has been, since its certification in 1944, the representative of an engi- neering unit, comprised of professional and nonpro- fessional employees at these facilities.' Although the parties stipulated that the requested employees constitute an appropriate unit, the Petitioner seeks to add them to its engineering unit through a self- determination election. The Regional Director found the analysts and coordinators involved not to be professionals and, despite his finding that they share a substantial community of interest with engineering unit employees, he concluded that their addition to that unit was precluded by Section 9(b)(1) of the Act.2 The Petitioner contends that the Regional Director's interpretation of 9(b)(1) is in error. We agree. The classifications of producibility cost coordina- tor and analyst were created by the Employer in 1967. That the employees in these two classifications share a substantial community of interest with engineering unit employees, as found by the Region- al Director, is amply supported by the record. And, if it were not for the Petitioner's acquiescence in their exclusion therefrom since 1967, we would find, on the facts found by the Regional Director,3 that they are accretions to the engineering unit and we would grant a request to clarify the unit accordingly.4 However, in view of their exclusion from that unit since 1967 and as the parties agree that the coordinators and analysts involved share a commu- nity of interest apart from any other unrepresented employees, they may be added to the Petitioner's engineering unit only through a self-determination election, unless such an election is precluded by Section 9(b)(1). Contrary to the Regional Director, we find no statutory impediment to such an election. We have held that Congress did not intend the enactment of Section 9(b)(1) to render inappropriate previously established units combining professional and nonprofessional employees and that this section does not bar parties to such an earlier established relationship in such a unit from continuing to maintain their bargaining relationship on the same unit basis.5 And we said, in A. O. Smith, supra: "The appropriate "unless a majqrity of such professional employees vote for inclusion in such unit 3 The Regional Director's findings of fact with respect to the analysts and coordinators are attached hereto as an appendix 4 See A 0 Smith Corporation, 166 NLRB 845 5 See Retail Clerks Union Local No 324, Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO (Vincent Drugs, No 3, Inc), 144 NLRB 1247, 202 NLRB No. 168 LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1141 sole operative effect of 9(b)(1) is to preclude the Board from taking any action that would create a mixed unit of professionals and nonprofessionals without first according the professionals involved the opportunity of a self-determination election." [Fn. omitted.] Here, we are being asked to ascertain the desires of nonprofessionals for inclusion in a mixed unit established prior to the enactment of 9(b)(1). In doing so, we will not be taking action to create a mixed unit. Contrary to , the contention of the Employer in its brief on review, the addition of the coordinators and analysts involved will not create a mixed unit different in basic character from that established by the contracting parties: Indeed, as pointed out in the Petitioner's request for review, self-determination elections have been held in the past for certain groups of nonprofessional employees to ascertain their desires as to inclusion in the engineering unit represented by the Petitioners For these reasons, we find that the requested self-deter- mination election is proper herein. We find, therefore, that the following employees constitute an appropriate voting group: All salaried producibility cost coordinators, code #2434, and all salaried producibility cost ana- lysts, code #2435, employed by the Employer in Los Angeles County; excluding all other employ- ees, office clerical employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in this voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desires to be included in the existing engineering unit currently represented by the Peti- tioner and the Regional Director will issue a certification to that effect.7 Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date below.8 International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT Federal Federal Laboratories), 159 NLRB 1757 6 In Case 31-RC-870, on August 9, 1968, the Regional Director for Region 31 directed an election among salaried manufacturing planners and, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, provision was made for their inclusion in the engineering unit in the event a majority of them voted for the Petitioner In June 1972, the Regional Director for Region 31 approved a consent election among "salaried publications production analysts" to determine their desires as to inclusion in the engineering unit and in October 1972, he approved a similar consent self-determination election for "editors, job code # 2475 " 7 Such certification shall not be construed as a recertification of the Petitioner as majority representative of employees in the existing engineer- ing unit 8 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 769 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a corrected election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 31 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. APPENDIX There are five employees in the classification of producibility cost coordinator-engineering, job code #2434, and eight employees in the classification of producibility cost analyst-engineering, job code #2435. The duties of the producibility cost analyst generally are to accumulate cost factors-as they relate to engineering designs or revisions thereto-of such elements as manufacturing costs, production tool and tool design costs, materials and labor rates, and to submit the results of these analyses in report form for use by certain members of the engineering department. In accumulating such data these ana- lysts obtain cost figures through reference to an engineering cost handbook, parts lists, time stand- ards manuals, tool estimating and schedule manuals, and other related sources. The duties of the produci- bility cost coordinators generally are to "develop parameters and premises for costing and engineering design or redesign . . . [they] coordinate the activi- ties of analysts . . . work on interface with other organizations in obtaining cost data." In addition, they plan the work load and assignments of assigned employees in preparation of costing data; review in detail and approve data for incorporation in the engineering cost handbook, reports, analyses, and correspondence so as to assure maintenance of accuracy standards; and they guide and train analysts to achieve maximum capability growth within areas of assigned responsibility. Coordinators obtain data for cost determination from operational sheets, labor rates, and engineering cost handbooks. Producibility cost analysts and coordinators work with blueprints and engineering drawings. Sugges- tions and recommendations to the analysts and coordinators may result in a refinement of original ideas submitted by engineers or in the deletion of projects that are economically unfeasible. While the work of the analysts and coordinators does not require an engineering degree or profession- al background, and none has a college degree in engineering,, their employment records indicate that they took courses sponsored by the Employer. Thus three of the analysts took courses in value engineer- ing, one analyst took courses in engineering, another analyst took a course in human factors engineering, one coordinator took a course in value engineering, one coordinator took courses in value engineering 1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and system engineering, another coordinator took courses in value engineering and human factors engineering, one other coordinator took courses in value engineering drawing, and still another coordi- nator took a course in engineering report writing. Although 10 of the incumbents previously worked in the cost estimator classification-a classification the Employer contends the Board has excluded from the engineering unit-the incumbents since 1967, when their present classifications came into exist- ence, have been utilized exclusively in the Employer's engineering branch and now primarily perform their work in engineering buildings. The Employer pres- ently has approximately 90 employees in its estima- tor classifications , which employees are assigned to the financial operations branch, manufacturing branch, quality assurance branch, and the material branch; they perform no work in the engineering branch. The producibility and value engineers, who are represented by Petitioner in the engineering unit, perform functions involving the drafting boards, examining and evaluating designs, and making proposals for cost reduction and improvements in designs. There is an apparent line of progression from the classifications of producibility cost analyst and producibility cost coordinator to engineering classifications now represented by the Petitioner. Thus, since about 1967 approximately I1 cost analysts progressed to the position of producibility and value engineer or other engineering positions. Since 1968, two cost analysts and one cost coordina- tor performed the work of producibility and value engineer for periods of time between 9 months and 1 year. Furthermore, one of the present coordinators and two of the present analysts were formerly methods and time standards analysts, a classification also represented by Petitioner in the engineering unit. At the time of the hearing there were two coordinators and five analysts who work with the coordinators working on' the fourth floor of building 90 in Burbank on the L-1011 project. The immediate supervisor is Jex Coons, a group engineer. Working in the same room with the coordinators and analysts and also under the immediate supervision of Coons are approximately 13 producibility and value engi- neers (more commonly referred to as PVE's) and two lead-PVE's. Functionally, the PVE's submit requests for cost analysis to the coordinators and analysts to cost a particular design against a current design or an alternate. On occasion the coordinators and analysts have initiated requests for value analysis, but more often the requests are initiated by the PVE's and the design engineers. The request for cost analysis is then returned to the PVE for approval before it is released. In the performance of their work the coordinators and analysts on this L-1011 project spend approximately 25 percent of their time in consultation with the PVE's. Housed in Building 170 at Burbank , and working on the S3A project, are one coordinator and three analysts who work with the coordinator. Working in the same room with them , and under the same common supervision of Herman Barish , are six PVE's. In addition , there are 11 reliability engineers, who report to group supervisor Leo Pearlin; 14 maintainability engineers who report to group engineer supervisor Si Seyler ; 2 human factors engineers ; and 1 materials and processes engineer. Located within the room which houses the coordina- tor and analysts and engineers is the separate office of F. A. Alonso, head of the system assurance division , who has overall charge of, inter alia, the PVE's, human factors engineers, reliability engineers, maintainability engineers , and the incumbents. Sub- ordinate to Alonso is William Richter , department head of the design effectiveness department, to whom supervisors Pearlin , Seyler , and Barish report. In the same area , there are some thermal engineers who have responsibility for the design and monitor- ing of the environmental control system for the S3A aircraft and there are also some propulsion engineers whose function relates to engines and engine output. All or substantially all of the engineering personnel in this area are represented by the Petitioner in the established engineering unit. r On the ground floor of Building 63 at Burbank, where work on the P3 aircraft project is being performed , there is one coordinator who works under the supervision of Stanley Shappell, a group supervi- sor in the P3 design assurance group . Shappell also supervises a senior associate engineer , who performs producibihty functions; maintainability engineers; and an electromagnetic interference engineer . Also in this area are structures engineers, reliability engi- neers, design engineers, and visual aids and commer- cial artists . Functionally , the coordinator works in association with the senior associate engineer , struc- tures engineers , design engineers , reliability engi- neers, and Group Engineer Shappell , and performs all of the producibility cost analysis work for the project and serves the costing needs of everyone on the project. The coordinator spends about 85 percent of his time at his desk where his greatest contact is with engineering personnel and where he compiles cost figures on various cost reports , obtaining cost 'information from ' an engineering cost handbook, material catalogues , and operational sheets. In addition, he spends about 10 hours or more a week with various engineers on peripheral functions such as cost reduction programs . The coordinator shares the services of a typist with other engineering LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1143 personnel in his area . Substantially all of the engineering personnel with whom the coordinator works on this project , including the visual aids artist and the commercial artists , are in the engineering unit represented by Petitioner. One other coordinator works in the science and engineering department which is located in either Building 80 or 85 at Burbank . While this coordinator primarily performs his work at the Burbank facility, he apparently performs some functions at the Employer 's Rye Canyon facility where the supervisor to whom he reports is located. Functionally, this coordinator performs work of a nature similar to that of the coordinator on the P3 project at Building 63. The salaried coordinators and analysts and the employees in the engineering unit , most of whom are salaried , are covered by the same retirement plan, medical and hospital program , and also use the same parking areas, restrooms, and lunch facilities availa- ble for substantially all the employees in their respective buildings . Lunch hour schedules vary according to the branch in which the employees work; thus, the coordinator and analysts take their lunch hour at the same time as other employees in the engineering branch. The coordinators and ana- lysts do not punch timecards, but, as do other salaried employees, keep a record of their attendance on salaried rollcards which are turned in weekly to their supervisors.