General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 145 members of Carpenters Local Union No 627, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO 3 Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute, Local 59, Lathers, the Council, and each of the affiliated members of the Council respondent herein shall notify the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region, in writing, whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Jacksonville Tile Company, Inc, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign disputed work to members of Lathers rather than to Jackson- ville's own employees; who are members of Carpenters Local Union No 627 General Electric Company and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council (AFL-CIO) federated with the American Federation of Labor, Petitioner. Case No 1`9 RC--08 November 13, 1959 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION On February 24, 1949, after an election conducted pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, the Board issued a Decision and Certification of Representatives in the above-entitled proceeding in which the Council was certified as the collective- bargaining representative of the following unit of the Employer's employees All weekly salaried production and maintenance employees in and about Hanford Works of General Electric Company, Rich- land, Washington, excluding clerical employees, patrolmen, fire- men, medical division employees, health instrument division employees, laboratory assistants, technologists, technical gradu- ates, electrical division dispatchers, "P" and "S" division chief operators, glass blowers classified as instrument mechanics, ,messengers and motor messengers, transitmen, axemen, chain and rodmen, draftsmen, designers, and engineering assistants, all persons on the exempt salary payroll and no other constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, as amended. On February 2, 1959, the Employer and the Council filed with the Board a joint petition for a decision "as to whether certain General Electric employees classified as `specialists-instrument development' in the Irradiation Processing Department are excluded from the bar- gaining unit described in the certification or are engaged in produc- tion and maintenance work and therefore included in the unit " I On 1 On November 30, 1956, the Employer and the Council filed similar joint petitions for the clarification of the same certification as to the unit placement of 13 engineering assistants 118 NLRB 1108 125 NLRB No 14 146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD April 20, 1959, the Board remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for a hearing for the purpose of taking testimony with re- spect to the issue raised by the petition . Such hearing was held on May 20, 1959, before Howard E. Hilbun, hearing officer. The hear- ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following findings : The Employer contends that the three specialists-instrument de- velopment involved herein comprise a completely new classification and are professional employees and, at the least, technical employees not embraced by the 1949 certification. The Council urges that the three disputed employees are members of the instrument specialist craft who were upgraded by the Employer and their new duties are not unlike those performed by them prior to their upgrading when there was no dispute as to their inclusion within the certified unit. Under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, the Employer operates, and provides maintenance for, the Hanford Works for the United States Government, where it is engaged in the manufacture of plutonium. The manufacture of plutonium is organized into three operational phases, one of which is the irradiation processing department, where the disputed employees are assigned , and which is responsible for the operation of the reactors that produce plutonium by irradiation of the uranium. All of the departments engaged in manufacture of plutonium together with the Hanford Laboratories Operation, per- form some research and development work. In 1956, the Employer established as part of the irradiation proc- essing department, the instrument development operation for the ex- clusive purpose of performing research and development of nuclear instruments for production reactors. This new operation was staffed with eight engineers and one engineering assistant , who were ex- cluded from the certified unit as professional and technical employees, respectively. Prior to the establishment of this new operation, in- strument research and development was performed by engineers assigned to the various departments throughout the plant. In 1957, the Employer was authorized to design, develop, and con- struct a new and revolutionary type production reactor, entirely dif- ferent in concept from any type now in operation which will require better, safer, and more sensitive instrumentation. In July 1958, the instrument development operation was authorized to increase the size of its staff by six employees-three engineers and three development specialists-in order to perform the necessary instrument research GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 147 and development work in connection with the design of the type of nuclear instrumentation needed for the new production reactor. Similar instrumentation development work on the existing reactors had been performed in the past by graduate engineers, physicists, and engineering assistants. In the recruitment of the additional development specialists, the Employer's first preference was to hire engineers who could satisfy the following job description sheet, dated November 6, 1958: B.S. in engineering, plus demonstrated manual creative ability, or high school, plus 4 years of study at technical institute, or the equivalent in experience and/or other formal training. After the Employer's attempt to recruit qualified engineers or en- gineering assistants, with the above qualifications, at the Hanford plant and at its other plants proved unsuccessful, the Employer sent a memorandum to all of its supervisors at the Hanford plant who had instrument specialists, technicians, or instrumentmakers working under them, requesting that the supervisors recommend any sub- ordinates with at least 5 years of experience in instrument work who they felt were qualified to perform development work. The instru- ment specialists and technicians who were recommended by their supervisors were given tests which extended over a period of 11/2 days. The first test consisted of eight parts and included electronic theory, mathematics, hydraulic and temperature measurement, and general instrument problems. The employees who passed the initial test with at least a 70-percent average were given a second and more difficult test which consisted of current instrument theory and prob- lems. The three employees who achieved the highest score on the latter test were transferred in August 1958 to the instrument develop- ment operation as specialists-instrument development. The Em- ployer has also added two engineers to its instrument development staff, who formerly were employed in other departments at the Hanford plant. The three specialists-instrument development work under the supervision of the instrument development chief engineer. Like others within their department, they are concerned with long-range development projects which involve the solving of process, measure- ment, and control problems and, more particularly, with the new production reactor. The specialists-instrument development are as- signed subprojects by an engineer , such as the development of new methods for the detection of ruptured fuel elements. Using their own ideas, together with new concepts and theories of instrumenta- tion, and exercising independent judgment, they do research work, and design, develop , and fabricate prototypes of nuclear instruments to be embodied in the production reactors . They are assisted by 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engineering assistants who have been excluded from the unit as tech- nical employees. Although in the past certain of the instrument craftsmen have performed a limited amount of instrument repair work, this activity did not require their full time, as in the case of the specialists-instrument development. Moreover, the nature of the work thus performed was neither so highly complex nor did it re- quire the advanced degree of knowledge or creative ability and effort as does the work of the specialists here in question. The three specialists-instrument development, who formerly per- formed the duties of instrument craftsmen, were hired at the entrance salary of $7,440 per year, with a range up to $9,990 per year, whereas the basic wage schedule of instrument craftsmen is from $82.94 weekly in the lowest grade to $136.44 weekly in the highest grade. Thus, they were not only hired at a salary range substantially higher than that of the instrument craftsmen, but also higher than that of several engineers employed within the instrument development group. It is clear from the foregoing that the three specialists-instrument development in dispute perform highly complex technical duties, and are technical employees who are not included within the unit of which the Council is the certified representative. Contrary to the con- tention of the Council, we find that the fact that the three specialists- instrument development performed a certain amount of instrument modification work when they were classified as instrument craftsmen and included within the certified unit, does not militate against our finding herein. As indicated above, while the three disputed em- ployees were in the lower classification they performed development work only as an incident to their primary duty of repair and mainte- nance work. Moreover, such development work performed by them was not as complex nor required the degree of originality of design and concept as is true of their present positions. Accordingly, we find it unnecessary in this proceeding to determine whether or not specialists-instrument development are professional employees within the meaning of the Act, as urged by the Employer. Weis Markets, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Weis Markets and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 6-RC-2366, 6-RC-2372, 6-RC-2367, and 6-PC-.373. Novem- ber 16, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER. Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing on these consolidated cases was held before 125 NLRB No. 16.