Telecomputing Corp.

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act 1 Local 35, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Can- ada, AFL-CIO, and its agents are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require Delbert Hunter or any employer in St Louis County, State of Missouri, to assign the work of installing water mains to its members rather than to employees of Delbert Hunter or any other employer 2 Said Local 35 shall within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination notify, in writing, the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region of the National Labor Relations Board, whether or not it accepts the Board's determination of this dispute, and whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Delbert Hunter or any employer in St Louis County, State of Missouri, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to members of Local 35 rather than to employees of Delbert Hunter or any other employer Whittaker Gyro Division of Telecomputing Corporation and In- ternational Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, & Agricul- tural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No 21-EC-5885 November 4, 1959 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 Louis S Eberhardt, 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning] 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer 1 Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the trausetipts and exhibits in Cases Nos 21-RC-5344 and 21-RC-5494 are incorporated as part of the record in the instant case The Board has also considered herein the briefs and other documents heretofore filed in Cases Nos 21-RC-5344 and 21-RC-5494 125 NLRB No 3 WHITTAKER GYRO DIVISION OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 7 .3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act' 4. The Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit limited to the Employer's Whittaker Gyro Division, hereinafter called Gyro. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit is one encom- passing all its plants in the Los Angeles, California, area. In an earlier proceeding,' the Board rejected the identical unit con- tention made by the Employer and found appropriate a unit limited to the Employer's Lynwood and Hollywood plants. The Petitioner herein has, since May 11, 1959, been the certified representative of the employees yin that unit. In support of its contention herein the Em- ployer relies both on the evidence adduced and arguments made in the earlier proceeding, and on certain additional evidence adduced herein. Such additional evidence is, however, merely cumulative with respect to matters considered by the Board in rejecting this contention in the earlier proceeding, and fails to establish any substantial changes which would warrant a different conclusion here.4 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the decision in the earlier proceeding, we find no merit in the Employer's contention .5 With respect to the appropriateness as a separate unit of the Gyro plant, which produces a product not produced at any of the Em- ployer's other plants, the record discloses that the personnel policies and operations of a subsidiary, Electronic Components, Inc., which is located about 3 miles from the Gyro plant, are administered by the Gyro plant management. This subsidiary produces one item utilized by Gyro in its manufacturing operations, and also produces other items utilized by another subsidiary and a division of the Employer's operations. It does not appear, however, that the operations of Gyro and Electronic Components are administratively integrated below the top level of management. Nor does it appear either that the operations at Gyro are functionally integrated with the operations at any of the Employer's other plants, or that there is any employee interchange between Gyro and any of the other plants. We, there- 2 The Employer questioned the timeliness of the authorization cards supporting the Petitioner 's showing of interest . The sufficiency of a Petitioner 's showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. We are administratively satis- fied that the Petitioner 's showing of interest is adequate and timely . 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516. 3 Whittaker Controls Division of Telecomputing Corporation, 123 NLRB 708; see also 122 NLRB 624. 4 Although it appears that the Employer 's plans to consolidate all its operations at a single location are progressing , the Employer 's reliance on such plans is clearly pre- mature in connection with the instant petition. 5 In its brief in the instant proceeding , the Employer moved that the Board recon- sider its unit finding in the previous proceeding , supra, and set aside the election and certification therein. The motion is denied because it is improperly filed and because, as. found hereinabove , it is lacking in merit. S DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD fore, find that the presumptively appropriate single-plant unit, sought by the Petitioner, is appropriate here.' The Disputed Categories The parties generally agree that a production and maintenance unit is appropriate and have stipulated as to the inclusion or exclusion of most of the job classifications. However, certain job classifications remain in dispute. The Employer contends that the employees in these classifications are office or technical employees who should be excluded, while the Petitioner would include them in the unit. Equipment test and repair technician, senior: Employees in this classification work in the engineering equipment test laboratory, where they repair, maintain, and calibrate electrical, electronic, and electron test equipment, and devise and assist in designing and build- ing special test equipment. An employee in this classification must have a thorough knowledge of the electronics field, with at least 3 years of well-rounded experience in repair and calibration of elec- tronic test equipment, and 2 years of college mathematics. In view of the knowledge and training required, and the nature of their work, we find that the employees in this classification are technical em- ployees. As the parties disagree concerning their placement, we shall, therefore, exclude employees in this classification from the unit. Equipment test and repair technician: Employees in this classifica- tion maintain, repair, test, and calibrate diversified laboratory and shop equipment, which is less complex than that worked on by the senior technician and modify, and build special purpose test equip- ment under supervision. On occasion they are assisted by the senior technician. They are required to have a good knowledge of electronic components, high school mathematics, and experience in electronics. In view of the knowledge and training required, the nature of their work, and similarity of their duties to the above mentioned classifica- tion, we find that employees in this classification are technical em- ployees. As the parties disagree concerning their placement, we shall, therefore, exclude employees in this classification from the unit. Engineering or engineering lab, prototype and development ma- chinist: Employees in this classification work in the engineering de- partment, which is located in the research and development areas, apart from the machine shop. They fabricate and assemble machines, devices, test equipment, prototype equipment and instruments, and are required to be trained machinists. We find that they are not technical employees within the sense that the Board uses that term,' 6 Compare Whittaker Controls Division, footnote 3, Supra. In this connection, the fact that certain operations and employees at Gyro could be interchanged with other plants is immaterial, in the absence of evidence of actual substantial interchange. Nor is the appropriateness of this unit affected by the use of Gyro 's testing facilities by other divisions. 7 See Emerson Electric Company, 102 NLRB 303, 306. GUARDIAN PRINTING AND LITHO `CORP. 9 and we shall, therefore, include employees in this classification in the unit. Expediter, shop: This employee reports to the manager of produc- tion control. His duties are to check stock on production line for shortages of material, to see that sufficient stock is available to per- form work on production schedules, and to inform his superior of stock shortages that may tie up and delay the meeting of the schedules, From the foregoing, we find that this employee is a plant clerical em- ployee s We shall, therefore, include him in the unit. Timekeeper: Employees in this classification are responsible to the Employer's Finance Division, a separate division not connected to Gyro. They are, however, physically located at Gyro, and perform the customary duties of a factory timekeeper with respect to produc- tion and maintenance employees. The Board has held that time- keepers such as these are essentially plant clerical employees. This is true even where certain of their conditions of employment, such as their supervision, are the same as office employees. Accordingly, we shall include these timekeepers in the unit.' On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Van Nuys, California, plant, including engineering or engineering lab, prototype and development machinist; expediter, shop ; and timekeeper, but excluding equipment test and repair tech- nician; equipment test and repair technician, senior; office clerical employees; watchmen; guards; professional employees; and all super- visors as defined by the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ' Fairbanks, Morse & Company, 117 NLRB 1449, 1452. 9 The Bussick Company, 118 NLRB 1032. Guardian Printing and Litho Corp. and Local 1, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, and New York Printing Pressmen's Union No. 51, and New York Press Assistants' Union No. 23, International Printing Pressmen's and Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-10125 and 2-RC-10160. November 6, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Milton Pravitz, hearing 125 NLRB No. 4.