The Bendix Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 430 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Bendix Corporation , Launch Support Division and
International Union , United Automobile , Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW),' Petitioner and International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, and
its Mila Lodge No. 690 ,2 Petitioner . Cases 12-RC-3383
and 12-UC-12
, May 14, 1970
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND BROWN
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , consol-
idated hearings were held before Hearing Officer Mary
Lee Meder . Thereafter , the Employer and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
AFL-CIO, and its Mila Lodge No . 690, filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended , the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in con-
nection with these cases to a three -member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, including the
briefs of the Employer and IAM , 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 ., , ; :, , IP ill
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer .., ; %,-E„t ,
3. The Employer , since 1964 , has been engaged in
providing direct support for launching spacecraft at Ken-
nedy Space Center at Merritt Island and Cape Kennedy,
Florida. Such support includes the operation , mainte-
nance, and management of launch complexes, test facili-
ties, and ground support equipment . Additionally the
Employer requisitions and disburses propellants and gas-
es, stores and disburses ordnance , and is responsible
for operation of support shops and specialized laborator-
ies. Its responsibilities encompass the operation of vari-
ous ground systems which directly support the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration ' s program for
launching various missiles.
The Employer ' s nonadministrative work force at the
space center consists of about 640 hourly rated produc-
tion and maintenance workers and a complement of
about 360 nonadministrative salaried employees various-
ly classified as technicians and logistics employees. On
March 12, 1965, the IAM, petitioner in the instant Case
12-UC-12, was certified , as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of all hourly production and
maintenance workers employed under the Employer's
Hereinafter also referred to as UAW
z Hereinafter also referred to as IAM
contract with NASA at Cape Kennedy.3 The nonadminis-
trative salaried employees were not sought by the IAM
in that proceeding and have been unrepresented histori-
cally. On August 5, 1965, and by subsequent agreement
of March 1, 1968, effective through March 1, 1971,
the IAM and Employer have had collective-bargaining
agreements covering the production and maintenance
unit specified in the Board's certification.
In 1967, Teamsters Local Union No. 769, affiliated
with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chau-
ffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America filed a
petition (Case 12-RC-2720) for a unit of Employer's
salaried logistics employees; UAW filed a petition (Case
12-RC-2734) seeking a unit of Employer's operating
salaried employees in work areas 4 and 6 of the NASA
facility at Cape Kennedy, Florida, including technicians
and rescue specialists, but excluding certain other
employees, and the IAM filed a unit clarification petition
(Case 12-UC-5) in which it asserted that most if not
all of the employees sought in the petitions of Teamsters
and UAW were production and maintenance employees
for whom IAM was certified and hence should be added
to the existing unit without an election. The cases were
consolidated for hearing and decision and the Board
in its Decision, Order, and Direction of Election4 dis-
missed the IAM's petition for unit clarification. The
Board further stated in that decision that, as the salaried
employees sought encompassed all unrepresented nonad-
ministrative employees of the Employer at this location,
they constitute a residual unit which might be appropriate
for separate representation and found that a question
concerning representation had been raised as 'to--them.3-
A Globe type election was directed , which provided
that -if a majority of the employees' in the voting group'
voted for the IAM they would be included in the existing
production and maintenance unit currently, represented
by, the IAM. No union was certified pursuant to, the,
Board-conducted election.
The instant proceeding involves the claims of IAM
and UAW affecting the unrepresented nonexempt sala-
ried employees involved in the earlier proceeding (168
NLRB 371). There is no bargaining history for the
employees sought.
Thus, in Case 12-RC-3383, UAW seeks to represent
separately all unrepresented nonadministrative salaried
employees comprised of technicians, propellant sam-
plers, and logistics employees. On the other hand, the
IAM opposes an election, contending that certain classi-
9 The unit certified (Case l2-RC-2092, not printed in NLRB volumes)
was as follows
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer
employed at the John F Kennedy Space Center in the separate
administrative division responsible for Contract NAS-100-1600, but
excluding all other employees including office clerical employees,
technical and professional employees, executive and management
employees, analysts, co-ordinators, planners, schedulers , statisti-
cians, hason men, accountants, estimators, time-keepers, buyers,
administrators, laboratory and test employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act
168 NLRB 371
In a supplemental decision the Board, Member Brown dissenting
amended its decision and permitted the JAM to seek separate representa-
tion of the residual unit (not printed in NLRB volumes)
182 NLRB No. 61
THE BENDIX CORPORATION 431
fications sought by UAW constitute an accretion to
the existing production unit represented by it, and that
its subsisting contract covers these classifications and
hence bars a present election with respect to them
Accordingly , IAM in Case 12-UC-12 urges the Board
to clarify its certification expressly to include about
80 employees classified as electrical instrumentation tech-
nician , mechanical technician , and calibration technician
located in the technical operations branch and the propel-
lant, life support , and ordance branch and to dismiss
the RC petition of UAW
The IAM claims these classifications as an accretion
to the production and maintenance unit despite the
Board's earlier dismissal of its UC petition seeking
all unrepresented nonadministrative salaried employees
In that case, the Board dismissed said petition, finding
that the salaried classifications, though in existence at
the time of IAM's certification for the production and
maintenance unit, were excluded from that election as
well as the ensuing collective-bargaining agreement nego-
tiated between the Employer and the IAM In connection
with its present UC petition, the IAM does not deny
that the classifications sought to be accreted herein
were covered by the earlier petition Instead, the IAM
argues that organizational changes have occurred since
the earlier proceeding which now makes it appropriate
to add these classifications to the certified unit without
need for an election
Thus the IAM contends that, as a result of a decline
in employment and reorganization, some functions have
been reassigned, that the positions have been substantial-
ly reduced in skill requirements and are now interchange-
able with classifications represented by it Also, changes
in the Employer's organizational structure and mode
of operation have merged previously separate divisions
The Employer, however, states that since the close
of the hearing in July 1967, and before the UAW's
instant petition was filed in August 1969, the Employer
made two administrative changes noted below One dealt
with changes in job titles, not relevant to IAM's argu-
ment, and the other with departmental reorganization
The substance of the organizational change resulted
in the abolishment of the "work area" concept with
the principal functioning division being on a department
level composed of operating sections Accordingly, what
was formerly known as work area 6 is now known
as the industrial operations department and reports on
the same level as departments which include hourly
rated employees Former work area 5 was abolished
with the former mobile gases groups now operating
as mobile gas section under the propellant life support
and ordance department (formerly designated as work
area 7) and the special pneumatics group now operating
as pneumatics section under the CX-39 department (for-
merly called work area 1) Other changes since 1967
were limited to (1) the decrease in overall employment,
(2) changes in work load resulting in reducing the amount
of modification work done by salaried technicians and
an increase of such work for hourly employees in the
technical shop department, and (3) the reduction in
skill requirements of technical jobs as a result of more
refined working procedures
In our opinion, the changes in circumstances alleged
by IAM in support of its petition furnish insufficient
bases for presently viewing the named salaried employ-
ees as an accretion to the certified production and mainte-
nance unit The changes, though perhaps strengthening
the community of interest between the unrepresented
classifications sought by the IAM and production and
maintenance workers, do not involve structural changes
in job content to a degree sufficient to treat them differ-
ently from other salaried classifications that historically
have been unrepresented In these circumstances, the
instant record furnishes no basis for distinguishing the
earlier case, and we therefore find that it is inappropriate
to add the salaried classifications to the IAM's unit
on petition for clarification Accordingly, we shall dismiss
that petition
4 As indicated, UAW seeks a unit of all technicians,
propellant samplers, and logistics employees occupying
salaried classifications at the Employer's Cape Kennedy,
Merritt Island, and Titusville, Florida, operations This
unit is identical to that found appropriate in the prior
case,6 and the parties apparently agree that it is
appropriate in scope The Employer however contends
that, since about 20 gas analysis technicians and liquid
analysis technicians requested by UAW are "technical"
employees, they should be excluded from the residual
unit The IAM takes no position as to these analysis
technicians
The salaried nonexempt gas and liquid analysis techni-
cians, herein also called analysts, are in the chemical
analysis section of the propellant systems component
laboratory department of the support services branch
While there are no hourly rated employees in the chemi-
cal analysis section, there are about 26 propellant sam-
plers and 3 support engineering technicians In the physi-
cal testing section of the propellant systems department
there are 6 nondestruction technicians and 11 leak detec-
tion technicians All the foregoing technicians are sought
in UAW's petition, and the Employer does not raise
any issue as to the appropriateness of their inclusion
The analysts' education ranges from high school diplo
mas to college degrees, and their work experience is
in analytical laboratory work The gas analyzers utilize
infrared spectrophotometers, gas chromatographs, mois-
ture monitors, hydrocarbon analyzers, oxygen analyzers,
and mass spectrophometers The liquid analysis techni
cians regularly employ gas chromatographs, automatic
tirimeters, atomic absorption units, analytical balances,
viscosity flash point, poor point, and apparatus for deter-
mining the characteristics of liquid The analysts work
principally in the laboratory but have worked outside
the laboratory in connection with the launching of Saturn
V Both analysts groups report to a nonsupervisory
lead chemist rather than to a regular foreman and are
located in the same building with about 70 hourly rated
employees of the precision cleaning section About 10
percent of the analysts are cross-trained between gas
' 168 NLRB 371
432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAI LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and liquid laboratory work The reports submitted are
prepared by each of the groups and their chemists
in conjunction with the samplers The analysts are
required to some degree, to interpret data as well as
make readings Quality assurance technicians monitor
the work of analysts in the laboratory The analysts
perform about 95 percent of their own maintenance
work
Analysts have daily contact with propellant samplers
and quality assurance technicians, share the same build-
ing with hourly rated precision cleaners, and have the
same supervision as propellant samplers While analysts
are administratively designated as in a different section
from the physical testing section and precision cleaning
section, both of which are included in the residual
unit, they share the same next higher level of supervision
with them They have the same fringe benefits as other
technicians Neither UAW nor IAM seeks to represent
analysts separately The Board has heretofore included
them in the unit with other nonadministrative salaried
employees, and employees have been transferred into
analyst positions from other areas of the Employer's
operations Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and
on the record as a whole, we find, without passing
upon the precise technical status of the dispute classifica-
tions, that gas analysis technicians and liquid analysis
technicians share a community of interest with the residu-
al unit of technicians , propellant samplers, and logistics
employees sufficient to warrant their inclusion in the
unit found appropriate herein'
As the nonadministrative salaried technicians , propel-
lant samplers , and logistics employees encompass all
unrepresented nonadministrative salaried employees of
the Employer at this location, we find they constitute
a residual unit which may be appropriate for separate
representation
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act "
All technicians, propellant samplers, and logistics
employees occupying salaried classifications at the
Employers Cape Kennedy, Merritt Island and
Titusville, Florida, operations, including gas analy-
sis technicians and liquid analysis technician but
excluding all other employees office clerical
employees professional employees guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition in Case 12-UC-12
be, and it hereby is, dismissed
[Direction of Election9 omitted from publication
The Sheffield Corporation 134 NLRB 1101
As the IAM seeks to represent the residual unit separately in
the event of an election and since the Employer does not oppose
IAM s participation in the election on that basis Chairman McCulloch
and Member Fanning have decided to dispense with the usual provisions
for a self determination election which would require the IAM to repre
sent the sought after salaried employees as part of its existing production
and maintenance unit if at all Member Brown dissents from the
majority s failure to require a self determination election whereby residu
al employees could vote on whether or not they wish to be represented
by IAM as part of the existing production and maintenance unit
Y 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 Underii ear Inc 156 NLRB 1236 N L R B v W) man
Gordon Compam 394 U S 759 Accordingly it is hereby directed
that an 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 12 within 7 days of the date of this
Decision Order and Direction of Election 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