Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 317 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 317
Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said
notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Notify in writing the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, New
Orleans, Louisiana, within 20 days from receipt thereof, what steps the Respondent
has taken to comply with this Recommended Order .6
0 If this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board , this provision shall be modified
to read: "Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within 10 days
from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that: _
WE WILL, upon request, bargain in good faith with United Bakery & Con-
fectionery Workers Local 441-B, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all our employees in the unit herein found to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and condi-
tions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such under-
standing in a signed agreement.
The appropriate unit is:
All production, maintenance , shipping and cleaning employees at our
Montgomery, Alabama, candy manufacturing plant, excluding office em-
ployees, executives, watchmen. guards, truckdrivers, salesmen, foremen,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL, without prejudice to existing wage rates, furnish for inspection by
the above-named Union all pertinent payroll data and other records used by
us as a basis for establishing rates of pay and job classifications at our Mont-
gomery, Alabama, plant, including such records and data now maintained at
our plant in Centralia, Illinois.
HOLLYWOOD BRANDS, INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024
Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, 70113,
Telephone No. 529-2411, if they have any question concerning this notice or com-
pliance with its provisions.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Salaried
Employees Association at South Philadelphia , affiliated with
Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions.
Case No. 5-RM-64. Apr7il 25, 1963
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On June 29, 1950, the Board certified the Federation of Westing-
house Independent Salaried Unions as the bargaining representative
of a unit of professional employees at the South Philadelphia works
142 NLRB No. 32.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Employer, excluding manufacturing engineers, who were held
to be managerial employees.'
On September 6, 1962, the Union filed a petition for clarification
of unit, in which it alleged that, since the date of the certification, the
Employer has misclassified a large number of additional employees,
who are performing professional engineering functions, as "manu-
facturing engineers," and, also, that the duties and responsibilities
of persons found by the Board to be "manufacturing engineers" have
been changed so that most of such employees no longer have man-
agerial authority. It contends that these persons have been and are
being improperly classified by the Employer for the purpose of exclud-
ing them from the unit. On October 1, 1962, the Employer filed a
memorandum entitled "Opposition to Petition for Clarification of
Unit" in which it requested that the Board dismiss the petition, deny-
ing assertions by the Union therein and contending, in any event, that
the problem raised can only be resolved by a representation petition
and a Board-conducted election.
On October 22, 1962, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region for the purpose of taking testimony
on the issues raised by the Union's petition for clarification of unit and
the Employer's opposition thereto. A hearing was held on Decem-
ber 20, 1962, before David S. Reisman, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
The manufacturing engineers whose inclusion in the certified bar-
gaining unit is requested by the Union are highly qualified engineers
who act as coordinators between the engineering and manufacturing
departments in establishing the broad methods and procedures under
which a proposed product is produced and in setting the design and
manufacturing standards of the product, utilizing methods calculated
to insure the lowest possible costa In carrying out their duties, manu-
facturing engineers first study the design of a product to determine
whether, and at what cost, it may be produced. If it is decided to
proceed with the manufacture of a proposed product, the manu-
facturing engineer assigned to the job reviews the detailed routing of
the product recommended by the industrial engineer. The manu-
facturing engineer must also determine whether proper tools and mate-
rials exist for producing the product and notify the tool design depart-
1 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 89 NLRB 8, 30.
2 No evidence was adduced by the Union which supports its allegation that the Employer
had misclassified other professional engineers as manufacturing engineers
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 319
ment and other departments involved with the precise requirements
of the job. After approving a design from the standpoint of manu-
facturability, the manufacturing engineer follows the product through
the shop, observing the details of its manufacture, attempting to as-
certain solutions to any difficulties which may arise in the course of
its production and insuring that it meets specifications.
Although testimony indicates that manufacturing engineers are con-
sulted at every stage in the manufacture of a product, it does not ap-
pear that they are empowered to make final decisions in any of their
various areas of responsibility or to translate their technical judg-
ments into orders which must be executed by employees of the depart-
ments through which a product must pass in the course of its nianu-
facture. It appears, rather, that while engineers may offer advice
and suggestions, any disagreements which proceed to impasse are re-
ferred to higher authorities for resolution.
Should a manufacturing engineer conclude and recommend that a
product under consideration may not be manufactured advantageously
at the South Philadelphia plant, he does not participate in the fornnT-
lation of the decision as to where and when it will be manufactured.
Similarly, with respect to tools, dies, fixtures, and materials required
in the manufacturing process, the decision to purchase them is made
by higher authority.
Salary ranges of manufacturing engineers are comparable to those
of other senior engineers currently represented by the Union, and they
receive the same overtime pay and other benefits enjoyed by engineers
in the certified unit. The Union presently represents several hundred
manufacturing engineers at 10 locations of the Company, and the
record indicates that all of these manufacturing engineers do essen-
tially the same kind of work. It does not appear that the duties and
responsibilities of the manufacturing engineers herein differ mate-
rially from those considered by the Board in the Che.sw,cle Plant case,
where manufacturing engineers were included in a professional unit,'
and the Company has advanced no persuasive reason for according
them different treatment. It therefore appears from this record that
the employees in dispute are not so closely allied to management as to
preclude their inclusion in a professional unit.
Even so, however, the Employer contends that the only proper
method by which the manufacturing engineers may be represented by
the Union in a unit of its professional employees is by means of a
representation petition and an election. We agree. The classification
of manufacturing engineer was in existence prior to the Board-
ordered election in 1950. Employees in that classification did not
ITVestingh.ouse Electric Corporation, 113 NLRB 337 To the extent of its inconsistency
the earlier decision concerning the South Philadelphia woiks herein involved (see foot-
note 1, supra) was overruled.
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
participate in that election and have never been represented by a
union. Neither the contract executed pursuant to the certification nor
any subsequently executed contracts included manufacturing engi-
neers. In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we be-
lieve that the excluded classification may not be added to the existing
unit by means of a motion for clarification. Clearly, the manufactur-
ing engineers are not an accretion to the existing unit whom we would
include therein by amendment of the certificate. They are entitled to
vote whether they desire to be represented as part of the historical
professional unit. Since the proper procedure for accomplishing this
purpose is a petition pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act seeking an
election rather than a motion or petition for clarification, we shall
dismiss the instant proceeding .4
[The Board dismissed the petition for clarification of unit.]
4 Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation , 132 NLRB 1093 , 1095 ; Brockton-
Taunton Gas Company, 132 NLRB 940; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233; ef.
D.V. Displays Corp., at al., 132 NLRB 568.
Douglas and Lomason Company and International Union, United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 26-CA-1298, 26-C,A-1303,
and 26-CA-1373. April 26, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 19, 1963, Trial Examiner Edwin Youngblood issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceed-
ing, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner also found
that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with re-
spect to such allegations. Thereafter, the Respondent and the Charg-
ing Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the former
also filed a brief in support of his exceptions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire record
142 NLRB No. 36.