Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1420 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
States & Canada, Local No. 533, AFL-CIO admits that it is not
lawfully entitled to force or require the Kansas City Power & Light
Company to assign the work of tying in steam pipe to members of
this Organization rather than to members of any other craft or class
of employees.
This Organization advises you that it will not induce or encourage
the employees of any employer to engage in a strike or a concerted
refusal to work where an object thereof is to cause the Kansas City
Power & Light Company to assign the work of tying in of steam
pipe to members of this Organization rather than to members of
any other craft or class of employees.
We wish to further advise you that any inducement which allegedly
had such a purpose or effect has long since ceased. We respectfully
urge that no further action be taken in this matter and that the
charges heretofore filed be withdrawn or dismissed.
Yours truly,
CHICK HUMPHREY,
Bus Mgr. Local 533.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Buffalo Section, West-
inghouse Engineers Association, Engineers and Scientists of
America,' Petitioner. Case No. 3-RC-1634. May 28, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Marcus, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.$
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
I The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions to dismiss made at the hearing
by the Intervenor . For the reasons set forth below , these motions and the motions to
dismiss made in the Employer 's brief are hereby denied.
Buffalo Salaried Employees Association , Incorporated , herein called the Intervenor,
was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its contractual interest In
the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent . The motion to intervene was
granted without objection , but the Petitioner , later in the hearing and In Its brief filed
after the hearing , contended that the Intervenor had no standing as its most recent con-
tract failed to reflect a change in its name. We find this contention without merit. Ac-
cordingly, the Intervenor's petition to reopen hearing , filed on April 30, 1956, to take
evidence as to its change in name, Is hereby denied.
The Petitioner and the Intervenor refused to stipulate that each was a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act . We find that as both the Petitioner and the Intervenor
115 NLRB No. 228.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1421
3. The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioner' s motion
made at the hearing to amend the unit set forth in the petition.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit described
in the petition is inappropriate, that the Petitioner's amendment of the
proposed unit at the hearing was so substantial as to constitute a new
petition, and that the contract entered into after the filing of the peti-
tion but before the amendment was therefore a bar.
The Petitioner's original proposed unit sought 5 categories of engi-
neers , totaling 166 employees. The amendment to the petition would
add 5 more categories of engineers, totaling 67 employees. The par-
ties stipulated that all the employees sought by the Petitioner are pro-
fessional engineering employees. Under these circumstances, we find
that the amendment did not constitute a new petition or affect the
timeliness of the original filing.' The Petitioner's motion to amend
the unit set forth in the petition is hereby granted. We find therefore
that the contract is not a bar and the motions to dismiss on this ground
are denied. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The unit, as set forth in the petition, sought employees in the
following job descriptions : Engineer assistant, engineer associate,
engineer, engineer senior, and engineer fellow. The unit, as amended
at the hearing, sought all professional employees including, in addi-
tion to the categories named in the petition, manufacturing engineer,
manufacturing engineer senior, plant layout engineer, methods engi-
neer (formerly time and motion analyst), and purchasing engineer.
As stated above, the parties stipulated that employees in all the
categories set forth in the amended unit are professional employees
within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act. None of the parties
disputed the appropriateness of a unit of professional employees nor
the inclusion in such unit of all the categories in the amended unit .r,
The parties were in disagreement, however, as to the unit placement
of five additional categories: Engineer order service, engineer test
record, engineer contact, order correspondent master, and safety
are organizations which exist for the purpose of representing employees for collective.
bargaining purposes , they are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act
4 Hyster Company , 106 NLRB 347. 348.
6Folloning a consent election in 19 46 (3-R-1388, not reported In printed volumes of
Board Decisions and Orders ), the Intervenor was selected by two voting groups of pro-
fessional employees and of salaried nonprofessional employees . The parties in that pro-
ceeding having agreed that in such event the two groups would be combined in a single
unit, the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representative for such unit. The
parties herein stipulated at the hearing that the Employer , the Intervenor , and another
labor organization , which is not a party in the present proceeding , have entered Into an
agreement ( 3-RC-1595, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders)
for a consent election in a unit of the salaried nonprofessional employees.
1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inspector.' The Intervenor maintained that the employees in these
categories have professional status and should be included in the unit
of agreed professional employees. The Petitioner maintained that
the employees in these five categories are not professional employees as
defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act, and should therefore be excluded.
The Employer took no position at the hearing with respect to the unit
placement of these disputed categories, which are not classified as pro-
fessional by the Employer. In its brief filed after the hearing, how-
ever, the Employer maintained that employees in four of the dis-
puted categories should be included in the unit because they "are
so closely allied with and integrated in the engineering operations at
the plant . . .," but that the fifth category, safety inspectors, "are
rather administrative, and probably should be excluded from any
unit."
There are 5 employees in the engineer order service category, 1 in
class A, 2 in B, and 2 in C. These employees progress on the basis of
training and education from C to A, which is the highest classifica-
tion. All five do similar work but handle proportionately more diffi-
cult assignments in the higher classifications. Their work requires
electrical or mechanical knowledge and experience. They check cus-
tomers' orders to determine the extent to which standard or special
products are called for, and estimate the amount of engineering re-
quired in order to determine when delivery to the customer can be
made. In some instances they develop variations in standard designs
themselves and then put the orders through the factory for produc-
tion, but they refer more complicated problems to the admittedly pro-
fessional design engineers. They work in the same room as the de-
sign engineers, and are in constant contact with them. They report
to an engineering manager, as do the employees sought by the Peti-
tioner. Although the Employer does not require, it prefers, engi-
neering degrees for these jobs, and some men in this category have
such degrees. Men have been transferred from this category to that of
engineer.
There are 3 employees in the engineer test record category, 1 in class-
A and 2 in class B. They compile data received from the test floor on
such matters as currents, voltages, watts, and temperatures, into pre-
scribed forms. Using higher mathematics, they plot the data into
curves which express torques and efficiencies, power factors, losses, and
regulation. They are also responsible for preparing data on curves
and other forms which go to the Employer's customers.
Their work brings them into frequent contact with design engineers.
They work in the same section and under the same supervision as some
E The parties stipulated that employees in the category of machine designer are not pro-
fessional , and no contention was made that they should be included . Accordingly, they
are excluded from the unit.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1423
of the design engineers. Although not required, some of these men
have engineering degrees. A few men in this category have been
transferred to jobs in the engineer assistant category.
There is one man in the engineer contact category, who is the liaison
man between the design engineering department and the shop. He
makes on-the-spot diagnoses of trouble in manufacturing or tests, can
authorize some changes in design or material, and refers others to the
design engineers. He also allocates the cost of a correction to the sec-
tion responsible for the error. He works frequently with design en-
gineers, is located in the same office, and reports to the same super-
visor. His job does not require an engineering degree, but the work
requires some engineering skill plus considerable experience with the
Employer's products. Men have moved from this work to jobs in
categories stipulated to be professional.
There are three employees in the category of order correspondent
master. They coordinate customer orders,-which may run as large as
100 carloads in shipment. Their work requires familiarity with appa-
ratus built at the plant here involved, at other Westinghouse plants,
and at plants of other companies. They handle order service papers,
obtain data as to availability of equipment from engineers and from
Westinghouse district offices, and relay this information to the cus-
tomers. They work in the same building as the engineering sections
but in a separate office. Their work is under the supervision of the
order service supervisor, who also supervises a number of order serv-
ice correspondents and another group which handles renewal orders.
There are two employees in the category of safety inspector. They
are responsible for maintaining safety in the plant. When necessary,
they design safety devices for machines. There are no formal educa-
tional requirements for these jobs. The office of the inspectors is in
the industrial relations department, in the same building as the
engineering department but on a different floor. They work under a
supervisor of safety, who reports to the head of the industrial relations
department.
We find, upon the basis of the entire record, that the employees in
the five disputed categories are not professional employees within the
meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act. We find further, however, that
employees in the three categories of engineer order service, engineer
test record, and engineer contact, have had considerable education and
experience in the engineering field, are occasionally transferred to
the professional engineering categories, work in the same general area
and under common supervision with the admittedly professional
engineering employees, spend much of their time collaborating and
consulting with these professional employees, and share a close com-
munity of employment interests with them: Furthermore, employees
in these three categories were included with the admittedly profes-
1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sional engineers in the voting group in the 1946 election. Also, it does
not appear that the addition of the 9 employees in these categories to
the unit of 233 employees stipulated to be professional would destroy
the predominantly professional character of such a unit. Under all
the circumstances, we shall include these employees in the profes-
sional unit.' We do not, however, find that the order correspondent
masters and safety inspectors share this mutuality of employment in-
terests with those in the unit. They were not included with the
engineers in the 1946 election, and we shall exclude them from the unit
here found appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Em-
ployer's Cheektowaga, New York, plant constitute an appropriate unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act: All professional employees, including the cate-
gories of engineer assistant, engineer associate , engineer , engineer
senior, engineer fellow, manufacturing engineer, manufacturing engi-
neer senior, plant layout engineer, methods engineer (formerly time
and motion analyst), purchasing engineer, engineer order service,
engineer test record, and engineer contact, but excluding the cate-
gories of machine designer, order correspondent master, and safety in-
spector, all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act .8
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 111 NLRB 497, 501; Westinghouse Electrio Cor-
poration . 80 NLRB 591, 594.
8 In view of our unit finding above, which corresponds substantially to the unit In the
amended petition, we deny the motion to dismiss on the grounds (1) that the unit set
forth in the original petition Is too limited , and (2 ) that the unit set forth in the amended
petition is not comprehensive enough.
General Electric Company, Apparatus Service Shop , Petitioner
and United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America,
Local 1412. Case No. 20-ISM-188. May 29, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Shirley N. Bingham,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1 United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America , Local 1412, herein called
UE Local 1412, moved to dismiss the petition because of the pendency of General lthectrio
Company ( Apparatus Sales Division, Service Shop ), Cases Nos. 20-RC-2969 and 2970.
We deny this motion because the above consolidated cases were Issued March 28, 1956.
(Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders .) Further , insofar as
they are relevant , the Board has taken judicial notice of the cases and has applied them
to the present case.
115 NLRB No. 229.