The Dayton Power and Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

THE DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 337
ing duties-making layout and design drawings for mechanical, struc-
tural, and electrical equipment. It is necessary that they work along
with, the inspectors at times in the process of inspecting structures
and electrical circuits and comparing them with the blueprints.
Petitioner would exclude them.
Petitioner seeks a separate unit of inspectors, all of whom are as-
signed to T/S. They are required to know the intricacies of all me-
chanical apparatus and some of the less intricate electrical apparatus.
It is their job to inspect this apparatus, diagnose errors and flaws, and
recommend corrective action. They must know thoroughly the job
of the industrial hygiene technicians and sometimes take their places.
As mentioned above, operations technicians sometimes work as in-
spectors. Their work takes them into ECF, S1W, and A1W.
The technical functions of NRF are thoroughly integrated and
interdependent, and all the employees spoken of above must be taken
together as constituting an appropriate unit. The interests and skills
of all those employees are quite similar. With the possible exception
of the photographers, all are technical employees within the meaning
of the Act. All are salaried, are on the same payroll, are subject to
the same personnel policies, are under the same progression program,
have common facilities for eating, receive the same training course in
criticality, and have identical employee benefits. Petitioner seeks
arbitrary and artificial groups of these employees. The units peti-
tioned for do not constitute functionally distinct or homogeneous
groups of employees, nor administrative or departmental units, such
as the Board might recognize .1
In view of the foregoing facts, and the entire record, the Board con-
eludes that neither of the two separate units petitioned for, nor the
proposed alternative unit, is appropriate. Hence, the petitions herein
must be dismissed.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
3 The result herein is consistent with the rule set forth in The Sheffield Corporation,
134 NLRB 1101.
The Dayton Power and Light Company and Local 175, Utility
Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO.' Case No. 9-R-1069.
May 24, 1962
ORDER DENYING MOTION
On July 7, 1943, following an election pursuant to an agreement for
consent election , Local 175 was certified as the collective-bargaining
I This is the present name of the Union . Its name at the time it was certified in 1943
was Local 175, Utility workers Organizing ' Committee , C.I.O. A motion to change the
records in this case to reflect the new name of the Union was granted at the hearing.
The Union is hereinafter referred to as Local 175.
137 NLRB No. 29.
64985G-63-vol. 137-23
338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative of all employees of The Dayton Power and Light Com-
pany, Dayton, Ohio, with the exception of guards, student employees,
administrative officers, the gas service engineer, and certain super-
visory and confidential employees.
The latest contract between Local 175 and the Employer, effective
October 20, 1961, contains a unit description essentially the same as
the one in the original certification. It includes "all employees,"
with a, long list of specific exclusions. The main exclusions are plant
protection employees, administrative officers, all part-time employees,
cadets, students, and specifically named supervisory, professional,
and confidential employees.
On October 30, 1961, Local 175 filed a motion to clarify the certifica-
tion to include within the unit three "programers" employed by the
Employer in its new data processing center. The Board having con-
sidered the motion, and, having decided that it raised substantial and
material issues of fact, issued an "Order Directing Hearing" on Janu-
ary 29, 1962. A hearing was held on March 26 and 27, 1962, before
Mark 11I. Reynolds, hearing officer. Thereafter, the Employer and
the Union filed briefs in support of their positions, and the matter
calve on to the Board for consideration.
Local 175 contends that the programers are technical employees,
that the present bargaining unit includes technical employees, and
hence the programers should be included in the unit. The Employer
contends that the programers are professional, managerial, and confi-
dential employees, and hence should not be included in the unit.
The record shows that Employer's data processing center was
started in September 1961. The Employer chose employees to staff
the center by giving an examination to 258 of its employees. From
those taking the exam, 42 were chosen and were sent to a 3-week train-
ing program in data processing given by the National Cash Register
Company, whose data processing machines Employer is leasing.
From the 42 taking the course, 3 were chosen to become "programers" 2
and 3 to become "analysts."
Basically, the data processing system is a system whereby all avail-
able information on a given subject is collected, analyzed, sununarized,
and synthesized into a conclusion or report, and then "coded" or put
into "machine language" which can be "fed" to data processing or pro-
graming machines. A full-scale data processing system employs
analysts, programers, and coders. The anlysts decide what informa-
tion is needed and pertinent, and they then collect this information,
edit it into language which will be more meaningful to the programer,
and pass it on to the programer. The programer devises a system or
program of digesting the information, and the coder translates the
2 The Employer presently employs four programers . All four are sought by Local 175
to be included in the unit.
THE DAYTON POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 339
program into "machine language," so that when a topic is fed to the
machine in code, the machine will "answer" with all the information
that it has been previously fed on chat topic. The Employer has only
two classifications-analysts and programers. The programers also
do the coding work involved. Local 175 seeks to include programers,
but makes no contention as to analysts.
As mentioned above, all the programers and analysts were chosen
from among Employer's employees. All four programers were previ-
ously members of the unit. record testimony shows that the formal
and on-the-job training received by the programers is equal to approx-
imately three one-semester college courses. Only one of the program-
ers is a college graduate. The programers have attended meetings
with management at which the use of the programing equipment was
discussed in relation to programing management reports and policies.
However, these employees do not in any way formulate, determine, or
effectuate management policies, nor do they assist in doing same. Al-
though these employees will come in contact with labor cost and wage
rate information, they will not be formulating policies as to those
costs and wage rates. In view of these facts, and the entire record, the
Board concludes that the programers are not professional,' mana-
gerial,' or confidential 5 employees, such as the Board would exclude
from an appropriate unit.
Nor are the programers technical employees, as urged by Local 175.
The job which is done by them was previously accomplished in a less
technical and less comprehensive way by employees working with an
IBM 650 computer machine. The training required to operate an
IBM 650 computer was 2 weeks, plus on-the-job training. The train-
ing required for programing is 3 weeks, plus a comparable amount of
on-the-job training as was required for the IBM 650 program. Al-
though it appears that the field of data processing is rapidly expand-
ing and becoming more technical and complex, we do not feel that,
at this time, the duties of the Employer's programers are significantly
different or more technical than were the duties of the former IBM
650 computer-operators. The Board has already decided that such
employees are not technical employees, and has included them in units
with other office clerical employees.6
When the Employer announced it would conduct an "eligibility"
exam for the data processing jobs, it informed Local 175 that it would
thereby be creating the job classifications of analyst and programer.
At that time, Local 175's representative expressed the opinion that
programers should be included in the unit, but it took no position as
to analysts, since it had doubts about them. Subsequently, when
8 See, e g., Loew'a, Inc., 127 NLRB 976.
' See, e g, Vulcanized Rubber and Plastics Company, Inc , 129 NLRB 1256.
6 See, e., g, Vulcanized Rubber and Plastics Company, Inc., supra.
See Loew's, Inc., supra.
340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
negotiations were carried on in October for the latest contract, no
discussion of the inclusion of programers was had. The motion
herein was filed after the contract was signed. Although the contract
describes the unit as "all employees," with specific exclusions, and
the office clerical employees are not listed among the exclusions, it
appears from the record that not all office clerical employees have
been included in practice. The most important example is the exclu-
sion of the employees who "programed" on the IBM 650 computer
machine.
As the employees who formerly did the job, which the programers
now do, were excluded from the unit, we find that a motion for clari-
fication is not the proper method for adding the classification of
programers to the existing unit.' In view of the above findings, we
shall deny Local 175's w. otion.
[The Board denied the motion.]
MEMBERS LEEDOrr and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Order Denying Motion.
r Cf. Renvington Rand Dtivasion of Sperry Rand Corpo) ation, 132 NLRB 1093
Franz Food Products of Green Forest , Inc. and Food Handlers,
Local 425, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen
of North America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 26-RM-129.
May 05, 1962
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On December 27,1961, the Acting Regional Director for the Twenty-
sixth Region, John E. Cienki, issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Union, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, filed
a timely request for review of such decision on the ground, inter alia,
that the petition should be dismissed as no question of representation
exists in view of the Union's unequivocal disclaimer at the hearing
herein.
The Board by telegraphic order, dated January 24, 1962, granted
the request for review solely with respect to the policy on disclaimer
and stayed the election pending its decision. Thereafter, the Union
filed a brief limited to review of Board policy on disclaimer.
The Acting Regional Director directed an election in the unit for
which the Union was certified on September 6, 1960, rejecting its claim
at the hearing not to represent any of the current employees in the
unit as inconsistent with its pressing an appeal from his dismissal of a
137 NLRB No. 35.