Pratt & Whitney

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 31, 1999

327 N.L.R.B. 1213 (N.L.R.B. 1999)

PRATT & WHITNEY 1213 Pratt & Whitney, a Division of United Technologies Corporation and Florida Professional Associa- tion, Petitioner. Case 12–RC–8040 March 31, 1999 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN TRUESDALE AND MEMBERS HURTGEN AND BRAME On May 1, 1997, the Regional Director for Region 12 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in which she, among other things, found appropriate the petitioned-for unit of professional and technical employees constituting what she termed the Employer’s “traditional engineering core” located in a division of the Employer’s West Palm Beach, Florida facility.1 Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely re- quest for review of the Regional Director’s decision, asserting, among other things, that the Regional Director erred in finding the petitioned-for unit appropriate and contending instead that the appropriate unit must include all of the Employer’s professional and technical employ- ees at its West Palm Beach facility.2 The Employer also argued that the Board should reconsider its method of conducting elections involving professional and nonpro- fessional employees. By Order dated May 28, 1997, the Board granted the Employer’s request for review. 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, including the Employer’s brief on review, and con- cludes, as explicated below, that the appropriate unit must include all of the Employer’s similarly situated pro- fessional and technical employees located at the Em- ployer’s West Palm Beach facility.3 We further conclude that the Board’s current method of conducting elections where professional and nonprofessional employees are involved do not require revision. 1 A list of the job classifications comprising this unit is attached to the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election as Appendi- ces A, B, and C, and in her Order of May 19, 1997, amending these lists in accordance with the parties’ joint stipulation of May 1, 1997, to amend appendix C of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election. 2 The Intervenor, Local Lodge 971, International Association of Ma- chinists, AFL–CIO, wishes to represent only the petitioned-for techni- cal employees. The Intervenor acknowledged at the hearing the need for it to appear on the professional ballot as well if a self-determination election is directed according to the Board’s balloting procedures for 9(b)(1) elections. 3 The Regional Director also excluded specific employee categories from the unit, concluding that they were not professional employees within the meaning of the Act, and that they lacked a sufficient com- munity of interest with the unit found appropriate to require their inclu- sion. The employee categories excluded by the Regional Director from the unit are: Proposal/Contract Administration Associates, Information Systems Support Analysts, Computer Systems Associates, Planning and Marketing Specialists, Product Quality Support Analysts, Procure- ment Associates, Writer Associates, Material Management Analysts, Administrative Services Coordinators, Program Management Special- ist, and related titles. The Employer requested review of this exclusion and argues for the further inclusion of some 92 technicians associated with the above-contended professional employees. The Employer argues that these technicians share the same community of interest with unit employees that its contended professional employees share. The Employer identified these technicians as falling into the following job classifications: 4 Electronic Technicians in two job classifications in the 035 job code; 2 Proposal/Contract Administrative Assistants in one job classification in the 085 job code; 7 Information Systems Support Analysts in three job classifications in the 090 job code; 7 Computer Programmer Assistants in the 095 job Code; 30 Material Management Technicians in four job classifications in the 255 job code; and 42 Administrative Services Assistants in three job classifications in the 265 job code. The Board granted that request for review. After careful consideration of the entire record in this case, we affirm the Regional Director’s findings that these employees are not professional employees within the meaning of Sec. (2)(12) of the Act. Contrary to his col- leagues, Member Brame would vote the employees in the Computer Systems Associate classification and related titles in MIS, subject to challenge. I. THE UNIT ISSUE A. Background The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of approxi- mately 2,150 professional engineers and technician em- ployees, including employees from both Government Engine Business (GEB) and Space Propulsion, but lim- ited to what it terms is the “traditional engineering core” of the Employer’s West Palm Beach work force. The Petitioner asserts that these employees share a commu- nity of interest sufficiently distinct to warrant a separate unit. The Employer contends that the employees sought by the Petitioner lack a sufficiently distinct community of interest to warrant a separate appropriate unit. The Em- ployer maintains that any appropriate unit must include all of its professional and technical employees at its West Palm Beach campus. Without any citation to or discussion of relevant Board precedent,4 the Regional Director found that a grouping of “traditional engineering core” employees at the Em- ployer’s West Palm Beach location constituted an appro- priate unit. In finding the unit appropriate, the Regional Director stated that the professional engineers and tech- nicians in the “traditional engineering core” categories constituted an “elite cadre” within the Employer’s or- ganization distinct enough to warrant a separate unit ap- propriate.5 As evidence of this distinctiveness, the Re- 4 The Regional Director discussed one case involving units in the healthcare industry. 5 The Regional Director found the following unit of professional employees appropriate: Engineering Associate; Engineer; Senior Engi- neer; Project Engineer; Materials Engineering Associate; Materials Engineer; Senior Materials Engineer; Materials Technologist; Engi- neering Support Administrator; Senior Engineering Support Adminis- trator; Engineering Support Specialist; Design Support Analyst; Senior Design Support Analyst; Design Support Specialist; Job Code 225E44; Job Code 225E46; Job Code 225E48 in the following engineering units: 327 NLRB No. 199 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1214 gional Director found that these employees possess the highest levels of engineering skills since they design and develop propulsion systems by applying advanced design methodologies and data acquisition systems. She also found their identity distinct since they have the “ultimate authority and the ultimate responsibility for the Em- ployer’s products,” and have interests in collective- bargaining issues separate from those of other employ- ees. For the reasons that follow, we disagree with the Regional Director. B. The Facts 1. The Employer’s operations The Employer is one of the nation’s largest aerospace employers and is engaged in the design, manufacture, and support of engines for military, commercial, and space propulsion systems. The Employer conducts op- erations throughout the United States and Canada and is broadly organized into five business units: technical, operations, commercial engines, Pratt & Whitney of Canada, and government engines and space propulsion (GESP). Segments of technical, operations, and GESP comprise the Employer’s West Palm Beach operations. Most of the petitioned-for employees are located in these business units.6 There are approximately 3,314 profes- sional engineer and technical employees working in the Employer’s three main buildings at its West Palm Beach campus. GESP is comprised of approximately 2,620 employees in two subdivisions: GEB with approximately 925 employees in 45 departmental units, and Space Pro- pulsion, which utilizes the remainder of GESP’s employ- ees. The Employer’s West Palm Beach operation utilizes what the Employer terms the integrated product devel- opment system (IPDS). The engineers and technicians throughout the facility are engaged in this process.7 113, 114, 117, 119, 179, 187, 336, 337, 338, 339, 705, 708, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 719, 721, 722, 723, 724, 732, 733, 734, 735, 738, 739, 740, 742, 743, 744, 746, 748, 749, 750, 751, 753, 755, 756, 758, 759, 761, 763, 764, 767, 768, 770, 771, 772, 773, 774, 775, 776, 778, 779, 783, 787, 791, 792, 793, and 795. Within the same engineering job units, the Regional Director found the following tech- nical employees constitute an appropriate unit: Engineering Computist; Instrumentation Technician; Senior Instrumentation Technician; Tech- nical Leader, Instrumentation; Engineering Technician; Engineering Assistant; Technical Assistant; Senior Technician; Senior Technical Assistant; Senior Engineering Assistant; Senior Drafter; Layout Drafter; Senior Design Drafter; Senior Materials Technician; Lead Materials Technician; Job Code 225G37. 6 Also under GESP is the chemical systems division located in San Jose, California, and “USBI” located at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Technical operations also employ engineers in its Connecticut facility. These employees are not at issue here. 7 The Employer uses a three-digit series to designate its major or- ganizations/departments at the facility, with the 700 series being engi- neering. Such other series refer to, e.g., program management, finance, management information systems (MIS), human resources, operations, customer support, and marketing. The Employer’s job codes comprise the aforementioned series together with a job function code (e.g., E for engineer, F for associate/trainee, G for technical), and a job salary IPDS is a process by which the Employer converts United States Government propulsion system require- ments into technologically state-of-the-art products and services. The process begins with the Government dic- tating the requirements it needs, for example, in the pro- pulsion system of a weapons system. The Employer then formulates a “concept” of what the propulsion system will look like. It generates simulations of the system as to, inter alia, how big it should be, how many stages it will utilize, and whether it will employ turbojet or turbo- fan engine technology. Design engineers create designs based on the results of the conceptualization process. Logistics, tool design, and support equipment design and development engineers plan how the system will be built, devise what tools and equipment will be needed for the manufacture of the system, as well as design what equipment will be needed by the Government to support and maintain the system. This information is incorpo- rated back into the design process for possible redesign of the system in light of this information. Quality engi- neers look at the process that will be used to inspect the system, i.e., determine how many cycles to run before checking it, and design facilities needed for testing it. Methods engineers lay out how the system will be put together. All this information is fed back into the design process again to make sure the system design is feasible and meets quality standards. The Employer then con- verts the design into hardware and tests the materials and components to be used in manufacturing the system. It then manufactures a prototype. Actual manufacturing beyond a prototype is performed at the Employer’s Con- necticut facility, and not by its employees at the West Palm Beach facility. Connected with its IPDS process is what the Employer designates as its IPDS teams (or IPTs) and its component improvement product teams (CIPTs), which are teams composed of employees from different departments who represent those departments in meetings with “core engi- neers” in order to have some design influence at an early stage. Such meetings occur two to four times “just about” every day to ensure a finished product is user friendly. There are about 25 teams whose members meet every other week for approximately 1–1/2 hours. Sev- enty-five percent of such meetings are attended by “en- gineering core” employees only. grade (42-48 for what it designates as professionals, and 38-40 for what it designates as technicals). An engineer in the engineer organization at salary level 44 would be designated, for example, as 700E44. In addi- tion, each job code has a job title and job description and these posi- tions are grouped together in job families of progressively skilled posi- tions, e.g., Engineering Associate, Engineer, Senior Engineer, and Project Engineer. Most, but not all, of the petitioned-for professional engineers are in the 700 series and the Petitioner seeks to exclude such other professional engineers as Quality, Tooling, and Methods engi- neers not in the 700 series. The Petitioner also seeks to exclude spe- cific information and computer systems classifications within the 700 series. PRATT & WHITNEY 1215 2. The employees at issue As noted, the Regional Director found a unit of the “traditional engineering core” of the Employer’s profes- sional employees, and the technical employees who work directly with them, constitute an appropriate unit. The professional employees include Engineering Associates, Engineers, Senior Engineers, and Project Engineers who are assigned to the “core” group. These employees de- sign and develop the Employer’s propulsion system. Also included are Materials Engineering Associates, Materials Engineers, Senior Materials Engineers, and Materials Engineer Technologists who are assigned to the “core” group. These employees conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses and tests to determine the chemical, physical, and metallurgical properties of mate- rials, such as metals, ceramics, and liquids. They also establish processing procedures and controls in order to insure that the given standards and specifications for the materials and parts used in the production process are complied with. In addition are Engineering Support Administrators, Senior Engineering Support Administrators, and Engi- neering Support Specialists. These employees perform a variety of administrative and analytical activities such as compile and analyze technical data to facilitate effective planning and control and assist administrators in making preliminary determinations of patentability of new proc- esses and products. Other included professionals are Design Support Ana- lysts, Senior Design Support Analysts, and Design Sup- port Specialists. These employees coordinate design and manufacturing efforts in order to facilitate the Em- ployer’s product. They perform such tasks as document- ing and following up layouts, drawings, and processes to be source approved. They also research files to deter- mine the availability of special parts or sources with the required manufacturing capabilities. Also included are Configuration Analysts, Senior Con- figuration Analysts, and Configuration Specialists. These employees prepare, review, and release pro- gram/project documentation and data related to configu- ration management and control, and monitor the activi- ties of other internal organizations and external suppliers to ensure compliance with the Employer’s configuration requirements and management. The professional engineers8 whose inclusion is in dis- pute consists of the following: First, the Technical or Logistics Support Associate, Technical or Logistics Sup- port Engineer, Senior Technical or Logistics Support Engineer, and Technical or Logistics Support Specialist. These employees are part of the customer service and 8 The Regional Director also excluded the technical classifications related to these professional positions. Also excluded by the Regional Director are those employees found by the Regional Director to be nonmanagerial employees. Additionally, the Regional Director ex- cluded those technical employees listed in fn. 3, above. support organization, and primarily provide technical or logistics support to the Employer’s customers related to the introduction, maintenance, modification, operation, overhaul, repair, and inspection of their in-service en- gines. They act as a liaison between the customers and the engineers to resolve performance problems. They also provide technical support during the IPDP develop- ment stage. Also in dispute are those Materials Engineering Asso- ciates, Materials Engineers, Senior Materials Engineers, and Materials Engineer Technologists who are assigned to the operations and manufacturing units (series 500) in the facilities planning or the materials control laboratory. Their duties and responsibilities are described above. The Regional Director also excluded Facilities Engi- neering Associates, Facilities Engineers, Senior Facilities Engineers, and Facilities Project Engineers. These em- ployees are part of the operations and manufacturing organization and primarily design, construct, maintain, and modify the Employer’s facilities, and modify test stands and related equipment. They oversee construction work performed by subcontractors. They also make parts, tools, and equipment for the Employer’s custom- ers. Additionally in dispute are those Engineering Associ- ates, Engineers, Senior Engineers, and Project Engineers who are assigned to finance and MIS, operations and manufacturing, or customer service and support units. Their duties and responsibilities are described above. Also at issue are the Methods Engineering Associates, Methods Engineers, Senior Methods Engineers, and Methods Engineering Specialists. These engineers are generally found in the operations and manufacturing or- ganization, however, four Senior Methods Engineers are assigned to the jet assembly operations department in the technical organization. These engineers plan and analyze the various methods, processes, and equipment used in the manufacture of engine parts. They also calculate costs related to specific designs, which affect decisions as to whether to manufacture or subcontract out the manufacture of engine parts. Analysis The Board has long held that a unit of professional and/or technical employees separate from similarly situ- ated professional and/or technical employees is not ap- propriate without a showing of a community of interest so distinguishable as to warrant the appropriateness of such a unit. See Continental Can Co., 128 NLRB 762, 763 (1960); General Electric Co., 148 NLRB 1660 (1964); Western Electric Co., 268 NLRB 351, 352 (1983); and Solar Aircraft Co., 116 NLRB 200 (1956). As the Board has stated: In general, the smallest appropriate unit of tech- nical employees working in similar jobs with similar working conditions and benefits comprises all such DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1216 technical employees. Although a unit of less than all professional employees may be appropriate if that unit consists of a readily identifiable group with dis- tinct skills and functions, the Board will not certify an arbitrarily defined segment of an employer’s similarly situated professionals. Western Electric, 268 NLRB at 352 (footnotes omitted). In making such a determination, the Board looks to such factors as the qualifications and similarity in skills and work of the professional employees; the geographic and physical integration of the manufacturing sections; contact and interchange; supervision; similarity of terms and conditions of employment; and pay between the pro- fessional and technical employees. See generally Gen- eral Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB 851 (1974). We find that, contrary to the Regional Director, the record does not establish that the employees in the petitioned-for unit have a distinct community of interest apart from other engineers and technicians excluded from the petitioned- for unit. First, the record shows that the Employer has no sepa- rate certification or licensing requirement for the peti- tioned-for engineers not required of its other engineers. There is no difference in the orientation of new employ- ees, irrespective of their professional classification or location. Similarly, there is no difference between the peti- tioned-for and excluded employees in their pay or other terms and conditions of employment. Although the Re- gional Director found it “virtually impossible” to make any meaningful comparison of wage rates, there is no evidence to suggest that the rates of engineers and others whom the Petitioner would include in the unit differs from those of employees in other, excluded professional and technical departments. There is also no difference in how the Employer computes seniority or continuous ser- vice, or in the fringe benefits offered to the employees under consideration here. The record also indicates comparatively little in the way of employee transfers into or out of the petitioned- for unit. During 1995 and 1996, the only years in which evidence of transfers was submitted, fewer than 30 em- ployees transferred into or out of the petitioned-for unit from other departments within the Employer’s West Palm Beach campus.9 Although the record indicates that there is comparably little on-the-job contact between the petitioned-for and excluded employees beyond the CIPTs, and comparably little in the way of transfers into or out of the petitioned-for unit, as the Regional Director found, employees generally have the most contact with other members of their individual departments/units. 9 The Employer’s evidence shows 51 transfers into and out of the unit, however, 2 transfers were of managers and 20 transfers had no job title or any indication as to whether they were employees or managers. Four “transfers” were actually promotions. Thus, there is no showing that the employees in the de- partments/units that constitute the “core” group have any more employee contact among their departments/units than they do with departments/units outside the “core” group. Although there is no common immediate supervision shared by the included and excluded employees, the re- cord also indicates that there is no common organiza- tional or overall supervision of all the employees in the petitioned-for unit that does not also include excluded employees. Hence, the significance of the petitioned-for employees’ separate supervision is thereby lessened. Cf. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of America, 223 NLRB 1439, 1441 (1976). Thus, the record clearly establishes, as the Employer contends, that the professional and technical employees in the larger proposed unit share similar qualifications, skills, pay, and benefits. Perhaps most fundamentally, the record also shows that the employees the Petitioner seeks to represent do not enjoy a distinctiveness in work performed that war- rants their representation in a separate unit. The unit found appropriate by the Regional Director includes, for example, the Materials Engineers and Materials Engi- neering Associates and Technologists, and related titles who are assigned to the “engineering core,” but not those same classifications that are assigned to facilities plan- ning and the materials control laboratory. As noted above, the employees in these classifications primarily test and analyze materials such as metals, ceramics, and liquids to determine their chemical, physical, and metal- lurgical properties. They also establish processing pro- cedures and controls to ensure the materials conform to the standards and specifications required for the product. According to the Regional Director, the petitioned-for employees in these classifications work with materials that are used in the “most challenging environments” of gas turbine and rocket engines, while the excluded em- ployees in these classifications located in facilities plan- ning and the materials control laboratory work with stan- dard construction materials. The Regional Director also included most of the engi- neers, project engineers, and engineering associates, and their related titles in that she found they are tasked with the design and development of the Employer’s propul- sion systems through “the application of advanced design methodologies and data acquisition systems.” However, she excluded those employees in these classifications who are assigned to finance and MIS, operations and manufacturing, and customer service and support units without further explanation.10 10 Classifications excluded by the Regional Director for the reasons stated herein are the Technological or Logistics Support Engineers, Facilities Engineers, Methods Engineers, and related titles and techni- cians. PRATT & WHITNEY 1217 The Regional Director’s finding that the employees in the “engineering core” are distinct in that, inter alia, they use advanced methodologies, lacks specificity. Indeed, her findings echo the testimony of the Petitioner’s presi- dent on this issue, which is similarly indistinct, as is the record as a whole on this issue. The lack of specificity in this matter is epitomized by a colloquy between the hear- ing officer and the Petitioner’s president. When the Peti- tioner’s president delineated the proposed unit as the “traditional engineering core” whose engineers possess the “ultimate authority and ultimate responsibility” for the product, the hearing officer queried the witness about what he meant by delineating the petitioned-for unit in this manner. The witness indicated that this was meant to distinguish those employees working directly on the product or service from those employees who “sup- ported” the product or service. The witness offered no further explanation of this distinction. Moreover, the witness conceded that the excluded Quality, Tooling, and Methods engineers, among others, have the same educa- tional background as the petitioned-for professional em- ployees. The record, furthermore, fails to indicate in what way or if the skills possessed by the “support” engineers and technicians are different from those possessed by the “core” group. Indeed, the Petitioner’s president ac- knowledged that he could not attest to the technical na- ture of the work that the excluded engineers perform.11 In these circumstances, the unit found appropriate by the Regional Director is an arbitrary segment of the pro- fessional employees. See General Electric Co., 120 NLRB 199 (1958) (unit of methods, planning, and time- study employees excluding engineers found to be an arbitrary segment of the professional employees). Under these circumstances, and in light of the record as a whole, we conclude, contrary to the Regional Direc- tor, that the interests of the professional and technical employees in the “traditional engineering core” are not so distinguishable from those similarly situated employ- ees at the Employer’s West Palm Beach campus as to warrant finding that they comprise a separate appropriate unit. The logistics support engineers, facilities engineers, methods engineers, and related titles, as well as the peti- tioned-for professionals and related titles, all require similar qualifications and skills and all enjoy the same benefits and pay structure. The inclusion of these profes- 11 The Regional Director also found that the “traditional engineering core” engineers and technical employees have special interests separate from other employees because, as she states, they had borne the burden of securing the Employer’s major productivity gains made during the 1990s by enduring, e.g., layoffs and denied overtime. To the extent that this consideration is relevant, the record reveals that today, it is uncontested that overtime has been restored to all engineers on an equal basis. Moreover, there is no indication in the record of any imminent layoffs or that such layoffs would be implemented differently for the petitioned-for engineers. sional engineers and related titles in the unit as sought by the Employer constitutes what amounts to an overall unit of professional and technical employees located at the Employer’s West Palm Beach facility. Thus, we find the appropriate unit must include all the Employer’s similarly situated professional employees, as indicated in the voting groups below, located at its West Palm Beach operations, and pursuant to an affirmative vote in a 9(b)(1) election in favor of a combined profes- sional and technical unit, the unit must also include any technical employees with the requisite community of interest with the professional employees. II. ELECTION PROCEDURES Finally, the Employer contends that the Board should modify its balloting procedures in elections involving professional and nonprofessional employees. For the reasons that follow, we find no merit in the Employer’s contentions. In enacting Sections 2(12) and 9(b)(1) of the Act, Congress set forth specific elements defining profes- sional employees, and a clear mandate on how to protect such employees’ rights in an election. As enacted by Congress, the Act specifically precludes the Board from finding appropriate a unit that joins professional employ- ees with nonprofessional employees unless a majority of the professional employees vote to be so included. Sec- tion 9(b)(1) codified the Board’s general practice of sel- dom including professional employees in the same unit with other employees. In enacting this legislation, Con- gress recognized professional employees’ special prob- lems and their community of interest in maintaining cer- tain professional standards.12 See generally Leedom v. Kyne, 358 U.S. 1184 (1958). In Sonotone, 90 NLRB 1236 (1950), the Board gave effect to this statutory mandate in cases where a com- bined unit of professional and nonprofessional employ- ees may constitute an appropriate unit for collective- bargaining purposes. In that case, the Board developed the voting procedure by which professional employees’ rights to determine whether they desired to be included with nonprofessional employees would be protected. The Board adopted a two-step voting procedure for pro- fessional employees. The ballot for professionals in- cludes, therefore, two questions to be answered. The first question asks the professional employees if they want to be included in a unit of professional and nonpro- fessional employees. The second question asks the pro- fessional employees if they wish to be represented by the union or unions involved. If a majority of the profes- sionals vote “yes” on the first question, their ballots are pooled with those of the nonprofessional employees vot- ing in the election, and ballots from both groups are 12 See S. Rep. No. 105 on S. 1126 at 11, I Leg. Hist. 417 (LMRA 1947). DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1218 counted together to determine whether they wish to be represented by a labor organization. If a majority of pro- fessional employees vote “no” on the first question, i.e., if they vote against inclusion with nonprofessional em- ployees, then the Board will not include them in the same unit with such employees. Their votes then will be counted separately to determine whether they wish to be represented by a labor organization. Consistent with the statutory scheme enacted by Congress, the ballots for nonprofessional employees in such elections ask but one question: whether such employee wish to be represented by a participating labor organization. The Employer now argues, however, that this voting procedure is flawed. The Employer contends that neither the professional nor the nonprofessional employees know in what unit they are voting, and, therefore, that they do not cast informed votes. The Employer further argues that nonprofessional employees are particularly impacted in this voting procedure, as they, unlike the professional employees, are not even permitted a separate vote to de- termine if they wish to be represented with the profes- sional employees. We find no merit in any of the Em- ployer’s contentions. The Board’s Sonotone procedures, which have existed for 50 years, clearly conforms to the statutory purpose of giving professional employees a separate vote on repre- sentation. The statutory language, as discussed above, is clear, as is Congress’ intent in enacting Section 9(b)(1). The Board’s voting procedure in this regard, then, simply provides the method by which to effectuate the purposes and policies of the Act. If Congress had intended that nonprofessional employees have the same choice as it granted professional employees, it clearly could have provided for it. Congress chose not to do so, however, and we perceive no basis in the Act for doing otherwise here. The Employer’s contention that the Board’s voting procedure for professional/nonprofessional employee elections runs afoul of Hamilton Test Systems v. NLRB, 743 F.2d 136 (2d Cir. 1984), is also misplaced. Hamil- ton Test and its progeny13 hold that if an election has been held in a designated unit, and the Board substan- tially alters the unit after the election, employee rights to vote have been hampered such that a new election is re- quired. The courts have reasoned that the employees may have voted differently had they known the unit would be so markedly altered from the one in which they originally voted. Under the Board’s Sonotone voting procedures, how- ever, the Board does not alter the unit after the election has taken place. To the contrary, the unit is determined by employee votes. The questions on the ballot clearly delineate the alternatives from which the voting employ- 13 NLRB v. Lorimar Productions, 771 F.2d 1294 (9th Cir. 1985); NLRB v. Parsons School of Design, 793 F.2d 503 (2d Cir. 1986). ees may choose. Both the professional and nonprofes- sional employees know the options available to them as they vote. The only open question is whether the profes- sional employees will choose to be represented with, or without, the nonprofessional employees. Such a proce- dure comports with the statute, as described above, and also presents the employees with an informed choice. See Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. NLRB, 957 F.2d 52 (2d Cir. 1992). In these circumstances, the Board is not changing the unit postelection. Rather, the professional employees determine the scope of the unit, consistent with the statu- tory requirements, during the election, and all partici- pants are aware of this practice. Finally, we note that the Employer’s alternative pro- posals to the Sonotone procedures are unduly burden- some, would unreasonably delay voting, and would in- troduce complexity into what has been long-accepted Board practice. The Employer’s first suggestion—that the professional employees initially vote, in a separate election, on the question of whether they wish to be rep- resented with nonprofessional employees, and that the Board then conduct a second election depending on the outcome of the vote in the first—obviously adds delay, cost, and complexity to the current straightforward, sim- ple system. Similarly, permitting nonprofessional employees the same option as professional employees as to whether to be represented in the same unit comports neither with the statute nor with common sense. Congress has prescribed the statutory scheme by which voting takes place in an election involving professional and nonprofessional em- ployees. That is a judgment Congress has made, and we are not free to ignore it. Finally, we note that if the professional and nonprofes- sional employees do not want to be represented together, they simply do not have to support or vote for the union. It is clear here, for example, that the Petitioner intended to represent professional and nonprofessional employees in the same unit, if the professional employees so voted. These two groups of employees were free to reject the Petitioner if they did not desire such representation.14 Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Director’s use of the Sonotone procedure. III. CONCLUSON Accordingly, and inasmuch as the Petitioner expressed a willingness to proceed to an election in any unit found 14 The Employer expressed a concern that, unlike the usual situation, the professional employees greatly outnumber the nonprofessional employees, and these circumstances warranted more protection of the nonprofessional employees. By our decision here, however, we note that the number of nonprofessional and professional employees in the unit is much closer than argued by the Employer. We also note that under our voting procedure, neither the profes- sional nor nonprofessional employees are favored in terms of knowl- edge of the outcome of the unit determination—neither knows until the votes are tallied what the unit will be. PRATT & WHITNEY 1219 appropriate, we shall amend the voting groups designated by the Regional Director to consist of the following vot- ing groups:15 (a) All salaried, full-time engineers employed by the Employer at its West Palm Beach, Florida facil- ity in the following job classifications, but excluding all other employees, managerial employees, confi- dential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act: Engineering Associate, Engineer, Senior Engineer, Project Engineer, Materials Engineering Associate, Materials Engineer, Senior Materials En- gineer, Materials Technologist, Engineering Support Administrator, Senior Engineering Support Administrator, Engineering Support Specialist, Design Support Analyst, Senior Design Support Analyst, Design Support Specialist, Job Codes 225E44, 335E46 and 225E48; Technical of Logistics Support Associate, Technical or Logistics Support Engineer, Senior Technical or Logistics Support Engineer, Technical or Logistics Support Specialist, Facilities Engineering Associate, Facilities Engineer, Senior Facilities Engineer, Facilities Project Engineer, Methods Engineering Associate, Methods Engineer, Senior Methods Engineer and Methods Engineering Specialist. (b) All salaried, full-time technical employees employed by the Employer at its West Palm Beach, Florida facility in the following job classifications, but excluding all other employees, managerial em- ployees, confidential employees, guards and super- visors as defined in the Act: Engineering Computist; Instrumentation Technician; Senior Instrumentation Technician; Technical Leader, Instrumentation; En- gineering Technician; Engineering Assistant; Tech- nical Assistant; Senior Technician; Senior Technical Assistant; Senior Engineering Assistant; Senior Drafter; Layout Drafter; Senior Design Drafter; Sen- ior Materials Technician; Lead Materials Techni- cian; Job Code 225G37; Proposal/Contract Adminis- trative Assistant; Proposal/Contract Administration Associate; Proposal/Contract Administration Ana- lyst; Senior Proposal/Contract Administration Ana- 15 Because the inclusion of the additional technical and professional employees changes the composition of the unit specifically sought, the Petitioner may have an inadequate showing of interest. In these cir- cumstances, we direct the Petitioner to submit to the Regional Director within 30 days of this decision any additional showing of interest that may be required to support its petition. lyst; Proposal/Contract Administration Specialist; Information Systems Support Analyst, Senior In- formation Systems Support Analyst, Information Systems Support Specialist; Computer Systems As- sociate, Computer Programmer Assistants; Com- puter Systems Programmer Analyst, Senior Com- puter Systems Programmer Analyst; Computer Sys- tems Specialist; Planning Specialist; Marketing Spe- cialist; Customer Support Representative; Senior Customer Support Representative; Customer Sup- port Specialist; Product Quality Support Analyst; Senior Product Quality Support Analyst; Product Quality Support Specialist; Procurement Associate; Procurement Analyst; Senior Procurement Analyst; Procurement Specialist; Procurement Analyst/Plan- ner; Senior Procurement Analyst/Planner; Writer Associate; Writer; Senior Writer; Writing Specialist; Material Management Technician; Material Man- agement Analyst; Senior Material Management Ana- lyst; Material Management Specialist; Administra- tive Services Assistant; Administrative Services Co- ordinator; Administrative Services Analyst; Senior Administrative Services Analyst; Staff Assistant; Program Management Specialist; and Electronic Technicians. The employees in the professional voting group (a) will be asked two questions on their ballots: (1) Do you desire to be included in the same unit as technical employees of Pratt and Whitney for the purpose of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be represented for the pur- pose of collective bargaining by the Florida Profes- sional Association or Local Lodge 971, International Association of Machinists, AFL–CIO? If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote “yes” to the first question, indicating a choice to be included in a unit with the technical employees, the group will be so included. The votes on the second question will then be counted with the votes of the technical voting group (b) to decide the representative for the entire unit. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting group (a) do not vote for inclusion, these employees will not be included with the technical employees, and their votes on the second question will be separately counted to decide whether they want to be represented in a separate profes- sional unit. [Direction of Election omitted from publication.]