The Ryan Aeronautical Co.

1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD union, because of the high pay salary that we would get laid off in the summer months, which we did not before without the union , and we all had a good steady job. He said we might lose out on account of the high salaries. That is all I can recall right now. It is found based upon the above testimony that Louis Willard 's speech to the employees did not violate Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act. The speech predicts the effect of union activity and acceptance of the Union by the employees upon the economic future of the Respondent and it states the personal attitude of Willard toward the Union. Although its tone is antiunion, the speech does not contain threats of reprisal or promise of benefit. Accordingly, it is found that the speech comes within the free-speech protection of Section 8(c).15 3. Interrogation Terry Hanks, a former employee, testified that on or about February 4, 1959, Wayne Willard, son of Respondent's president, Louis Willard, asked him if ht was contacted by the Union. Carr Baldwin, an employee, testified that Louis Willard asked him sometime prior to April 16 if the Union had contacted him and he replied in the negative . Leslie Morrison, an employee, testified that sometime in February, Wayne Willard asked him if he had been approached by the Union. Even though it may be contended that the Respondent may have violated the Act by asking the questions delineated above, it is found, in the context of the entire record, that these instances are so isolated that the issuance of a cease -and-desist order is not warranted as the questioning of these employees was not linked with a pattern of other antiunion conduct . Moreover, these instances of interrogation did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in a manner which infringed on guaranteed rights in Section 7 of the Act when , as here, it occurs in a noncoercive context.16 When one considers the rather intimate and friendly relationship that had existed between the employees and employer in this small grocery store, the fact that it would appear that the employees and the owner of the store had un- doubtedly discussed employment problems together , and that a part, at least, of Willard and his son for talking to some of the help was due to his surprise and dis- comfiture upon learning of the Union, it would seem it would be rather captious to hold that, under the circumstances, these ingenuous inquiries require a ruling of an independent violation of Section 8(a) (1) or that any useful purpose would be served by issuing a cease-and-desist order based on them.17 In view of the foregoing conclusions, and upon the entire record , it is found that the evidence warrants no finding that the Respondent committed unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and 8 (a)(3) of the Act, and it will, therefore, be recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entiretyle '5 Edmont Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 525 , 528-530 ; The Lux Clock Manu- facturing Company, Inc., 113 NLRB 1194 ; Southwester Co., 111 NLRB '805, 806. 18 Cf. N.L.R B . v. England Brothers, Inc., 201 F. 2d 395, 397 (C.A. 1). 17 Walmac Company, 106 NLRB 1355 , 1357 ; Gibbs Automatic Division, Pierce Industries, Inc., 129 NLRB 193, and case cited at footnote 2; cf. Mall Tool Company, 112 NLRB 1313, 1314 ; N.L.R.B. v. Cousins Associates, Inc., 283 F. 2d 242 ( C.A. 2) ; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 129 NLRB 757. 19 The conventional "conclusions of law " which are customarily repeated at this point are omitted as they will be found in the text of the Intermediate Report. The Ryan Aeronautical Co.' and South Bay Chapter, Engineers & Architects Association, Petitioner. Case No. 931-RC-66992. August 23, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul J. Driscoll, hearing 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 132 NLRB No. 125. THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO . 1161 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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. 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.2 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of electronic navi- gational and guidance systems for military use. The Petitioner seeks to represent separate units of professional and technical employees limited to the Employer's test equipment group, departments 840, 841, 842, and 843 3 at the Employer's Torrance, California,4 plant. As an alternative position, the Petitioner states that it desires to par- ticipate in any election in any unit or units which the Board may find appropriate. The Employer contends, inter alia, that the requested units should include the technical and professional employees located in department 890, its liaison engineering department. The Inter- venor takes no position on this issue. All parties in effect agree, how- ever, that, because of a diversity of interests, duties, and supervision, certain miscellaneous engineers and technicians employed elsewhere in the plant should not be included in the requested units, and that such units limited to the employees in the enumerated departments are appropriate. There is no history of bargaining for any of the Employer's professional or technical employees. The record shows that the employees in departments 840, 841, 842, and 843 are responsible for the design, assembly, calibration, and re- pair of electronic equipment used to test electronic navigational units as they are assembled on the production line; those in department 890 design and calibrate the navigational units. Although the employees in the test equipment departments sought by the Petitioner and those in department 890 are separately supervised, and are stationed in dif- ferent areas of the plant, both groups are essentially concerned with the design and proper functioning of interrelated electronic equip- ment. In the performance of their separate tasks they often work to- 2 International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW, AFL-CIO, and its Local 881 , herein referred to jointly as the Inter- venor, were permitted to intervene on the basis of alleged contract interests. 8 The record shows that there are no professional employees employed in department 841. These departments are entitled "Test Equipment Design," "Test Equipment Fabrica- tion," "Test Equipment Drafting," and "Standards Repair and Chemical Laboratory," respectively. 1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gether on the production floor or in each other's work area and use each other's tools in testing equipment or in seeking the cause of, or remedying, a unit's malfunctioning. Employees in these departments are frequently interchanged, and there have also been permanent transfers from one group to the other. Although the employees in the test equipment group and those in the liaison engineering department perform different functions, es- sentially their work is of a closely related character. They have iden- tical classifications, salary scales, benefits, and working conditions, and they are required to have the same technical or professional quali- fications, as the case may be. In view of the foregoing, we find that the professional employees in departments sought together with those in departments 890 have sufficient interests in common to warrant our finding that they consti- tute an appropriate unit; the same considerations dictate a similar conclusion with respect to the technical employees.' The parties disagree on the composition of both the professional and technical units. There are approximately 101 employees in the de- partments here in question. Of these, 31 are classified as profes- sional employees and 25 as technical employees. There are also 45 employees classified as either production or clerical employees, 27 of whom, the Petitioner contends, are technical employees. The parties are agreed that 16 employees in the professional classi- fications are in fact professional employees within the meaning of the Act.' However, the Petitioner contends that 10 of the employees classified as electronics engineers, 2 of those classified as electronics engineer senior, and the employee classified as mechanical design en- gineer senior are technical employees? The Petitioner also questions the status of the test engineer and test engineer senior, contending that they are technical employees .8 Furthermore, while conceding that employee Mordick, classified as mechanical design engineer, is a pro- fessional, the Petitioner nevertheless contends that he be excluded from the unit as a supervisor.' 6 Continental Can Company, Inc., 128 NLRB 762 6 The classifications and names of these employees are as follows : Chemist : S. P. Perry. Electronics engineer : A. T Amirant ; J. S. Ano ; D E. Kind ; C. S. Kraft, Jr.; H. J Kwart ; J. Poppa ; J. Reading ; A. Silagyi. Electronics engineer senior: M. Barr ; J. J. Contus ; R. J. Hegedus ; R. J. Hess ; R. Mott ; R. R. Warner. Mechanical design engineer : W. M. Mordick. 7The classifications and names of these employees are as follows: Electronics engineer : H. B. Brown ; Gale Cipra ; W. M. Hall ; O. P. Harvey ; E. D. Neff ; P. S. Nicholson ; W. C. Seckinger ; F. L. Swann ; D. R. Tait ; J. Tyson. Electronics engineer senior : D. R. Bealey ; N. Johnson. Mechanical design engineer senior : D. R. Orton. 9 These employees are test engineer, F. J. Indelicato , and test engineer senior, P. J. Prohoroff. 9 This issue is discussed infra. THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO . 1163: The electronics engineers and electronics engineers senior: The record shows that all employees classified as electronics engineer or electronics engineer senior are basically engaged in the same type of work. It is clear on the record that their work entails the exercise of discretion and independent judgment in its performance and the ap- plication of advanced engineering principles, with only limited super- vision. The duties of the electronics engineers consist in general of developing master plans for, and designing and evaluating therefrom, electronic and electromechanical circuitry. The senior classification,, as the title indicates, requires, if anything, a higher degree of skill, knowledge, education, and training, and those within the classifica- tion are assigned tasks which present more complicated problems and call for the application of their superior knowledge and experience. As set forth in the Employer's job description, the normal require- ment of education and training for electronics engineer is "10 years' training and experience including 4 years' college engineering training,. or the equivalent, and 3 years in electronics or related work," and for the senior engineer, "10 years' experience, including 5 years of college training or the equivalent and 5 years' experience." Of the 18 elec- tronics engineers, employed by the Employer, 11 have bachelor of science degrees and at least 3 years of the required experience.10 Those who do not have degrees have had several years of schooling and a minimum of 4, some as much as 10, years' experience. Of the eight electronics engineers senior employed by the Employer, five have engineering degrees and the required years of experience. The three. who do not have degrees have had several years of schooling and,. respectively, 19, 11, and 6 years' experience in electronics. The mechanical design engineer senior: The mechanical design en- gineer senior, D. R. Orton, has 3 years of mechanical engineering and has had 14 years' related experience. His duties, like those of the mechanical design engineer, Mordick, whose professional status is con- ceded, involve the design, analysis, and investigation of problems in the field of electromechanics and electromechanical circuitry. If any- thing, Orton's work is of a more complex nature. His duties require the exercise of discretion and independent judgment in the engineer- ing field, and it is not disputed that employees in the mechanical design engineer senior classification are required, under their job, description, to have more years of experience than the mechanical design engineer. The test engineer and test engineer senior: The two employees thus classified are basically concerned with engineering problems involved in developing, modifying, designing, and redesigning test equipment used in testing items in the electrical, electromechanical, and mechan- ical fields. Although job descriptions detailing their professional re- 30 The parties stipulated to the professional status of 8 of the 11 . See footnote 6, supra.. 1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD quirements do not exist, the Employer maintained that they are re- quired to have the same training and educational background as is required normally of the other engineers. Apparently the Petitioner's principal argument against the inclu- sion of the particular engineering employees in the professional unit is that employees who are not college graduates do not meet the defini- tion of professional employees under the Act. The Act requires pro- fessionals to possess "knowledge of an advanced type." However, such knowledge need not come through academic training alone. It is settled Board policy that it is not the "individual qualifications of each engineer, but rather the character of the work required of them as a group," which is determinative of professional status." The back- ground of the individual is, of course, relevant and is examined for the purpose of deciding whether the work of the group satisfies the "knowledge of an advanced type" requirement. If it appears that a group of employees within a classification "is predominantly composed of individuals possessing a degree in the field to which the profession is devoted, it may be presumed that the work `requires knowledge of an advanced type.' " 12 Moreover, the Petitioner itself impairs any validity its argument may have by challenging the status of some professionally classified employees who do have the requisite engineer- ing degrees, as well as by admitting the professional status of other employees who possess no degrees at all. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and on the basis of the entire record, we find that all electronics engineers, electronics engineers senior, the mechanical design engineer senior, test engineers, and test engineers senior, whose status as professional employees has been chal- lenged by the Petitioner, are in fact professional employees. We therefore include them in the unit of professional employees. The technical employees: The parties agree that all employees in departments 840, 841, 842, 843, and 890 classified as coordinator, design draftsman, engineering drawing checker "A," engineering writer, en- gineer liaison man senior, liaison engineer, research laboratory analyst "A," and standards engineer, are technical employees. The record shows that these employees exercise discretion and independent judg- ment in the performance of their work and possess specialized tech- nical experience and training in the fields of electronics and electro- mechanics. It is clear that these employees are technical employees within the definition as laid down by the Board in the Litton case.13 The parties differ, however, on the propriety of including in a tech- nical unit four classifications of hourly paid employees in the enumer- ated departments.14 The Employer and Intervenor contend that the u Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 126 NLRB 1346, 1348, footnote 5. ' Id. at 1349. Ia Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 725. ' The Intervenor contends these four classifications of employees, except for the ones located in department 890, are covered by its current contract with the Employer and THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO. 1165 instrument technician (engineering), the instrumentation technician (engineering), the mechanic-engineering research, and the mechanic master-engineering research are production employees, whereas the Petitioner claims that they are technical employees.16 The employees classified as "mechanic-engineering research" and "mechanic master-engineering research," like the two assemblers, are located in department 841. They work under the same supervision as the assemblers. Their work is similar to that of the assemblers, but of a more skillful type and is comparable to that of a skilled sheet metal worker. Like the assemblers, they work from blueprints and schematic drawings, but, unlike the assemblers, who are engaged pri- marily in the assembly of test equipment, the mechanics are engaged primarily in the fabrication of the chassis which house the electronic components of the test instruments. There is a direct line of progres- sion from assembler electronic equipment (engineering) senior to assembler and fabricator-engineering research, to mechanic-engineer- ing research, to mechanic master-engineering research. The latter two categories require respectively 3 and 5 years' training or experience, but no technical education is specified or required. In addition, there is some transfer of these employees into the production unit and pro- duction employees into these classifications. In view of the foregoing, we find that the mechanic-engineering research and the mechanic master-engineering research are highly skilled production employees rather than technical employees. We therefore exclude them from the unit."' Employees in the instrument technician (engineering) and instru- mentation technician (engineering) classifications are engaged in the routine calibration and repair of electronic test equipment. With added experience and skill employees progress from instrument technicians to instrumentation technicians. Their job descriptions require 6 years' training and experience in electronics, electrical circuitry, and related subjects. Although classified as technician and performing work that calls for the exercise of some independent judg- ment, the individuals in these classifications are not required to exer- cise, nor do they possess, that degree of specialized training which would, under the Board's definition, constitute them technical em- requests the Board to find that as to these employees its contract is a bar and to dismiss the petition as to them as untimely filed . The Employer contends that these employees are part of the engineering department and with all other engineering department em- ployees were specifically excluded from the production and maintenance unit for which the Intervenor was certified . Moreover, the Employer contends that the Intervenor has never represented or bargained for these employees . In view of our finding hereinafter that these employees are not technical employees , and our exclusion of them from the unit of technical employees, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Intervenor's contract bar contentions. 15 The Petitioner concedes that the employees classified as "assembler electronic equip- ment (engineering ) senior" and "assembler and fabricator-engineering research" are pro- duction employees. iS Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Redstone Division, 123 NLRB 888, 892 1166 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees." Rather, as characterized by the Employer, their work is more like that of highly skilled maintenance employees than of tech- nical employees. We find that the instrument technician (engineer- ing) and instrumentation technician (engineering) are production employees and therefore exclude them from the unit of technical employees. The parties stipulated that the following employees, whom the Em- ployer classifies as clericals, are not technical or professional employ- ees : department clerk "B," stenographer "A," and steno-secretary. Petitioner contends, however, that the employees classified as experi- mental project planner "A" are technical employees, whereas the Em- ployer and the Intervenor contend that they are clerical employees. The duties of the experimental project planners "A" are to compile lists of the component parts in testing and production items from which they prepare material requisitions and purchase orders and see that the parts are available to meet existing schedules. Their job description calls for normally 3 years of diversified shop and tool or experimental planning experience. As the duties and interests of the experimental project planners "A" are sufficiently related to those of the technical employees to whom they apparently serve as assistants, we include them in the unit. The Petitioner contends that W. M. Mordick and C. W. Ball are supervisors.18 Mordick is located in department 842, and several months ago, when the supervisor of that department terminated his employment with the Employer, Mordick was appointed "acting lead- man" in the department. The record shows that Mordick has no authority to hire, discharge, promote, or discipline employees or to recommend effectively such action. His duties consist of coordinating the work of the other two engineers and five technical employees who comprise the department and, upon instructions from the test group supervisor, routinely directing the work of these employees. In view of the foregoing and on the entire record, we find that W. M. Mordick is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.19 As we found above, Mordick is a professional employee, and we include him in the unit of professional employees. C. W. Ball was formerly a supervisor, classified as assistant group engineer. Although still classified by the Employer as a supervisor, 17 Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722, 725 18 Although the Intervenor initially contended that R S Bailey, at present classified as mechanic master-engineering research, was a supervisor, it altered Its position upon the Introduction of evidence showing that he now neither possessed nor exercised any super- visory authority. All parties thereafter stipulated, and we find, that R. S. Bailey is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Inasmuch as we have excluded the classifica- tion of mechanic master-engineering research from the unit of technical employees, we exclude R S Bailey from such unit. 10 See Phillips Petroleum Company, 129 NLRB 813. THE RYAN AERONAUTICAL CO. 1167 for the past several months Ball has been serving as an adviser on a special engineering assignment as a part of a team directly under the supervision of the test group supervisor. In this capacity, Ball has no supervisory duties. Furthermore, he has been informed by the Employer that upon the completion of his special assignment, he will not be restored to his former supervisory position. In these circum- stances, we find C. W. Ball is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The parties stipulated that if the Board should find Ball is not a supervisor, he should be included in the unit of professional em- ployees. We include him in that unit. We find, in accordance with the foregoing, that the following groups of employees in departments 840, 841, 842, 843, and 890 in the Em- ployer's Torrance, California, plant, constitute separate units appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: 20 ,(a) All professional employees including chemists, electronics en- gineers, electronics engineers senior, mechanical design engineers, me- chanical design engineers senior, test engineers, and test engineers senior, but excluding all technical employees, and all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) All technical employees, including the coordinator, design draftsman, engineering drawing checker "A," engineering writer, en- gineer liaison man senior, liaison engineer, research laboratory ana- lyst "A," standards engineer and experimental project planners "A," but excluding instrument technicians (engineering), instrumentation technicians (engineering), mechanics-engineering research, mechanics master-engineering research, electronics engineers, electronics engi- neering senior, test engineers, test engineers senior, and all other em- ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 21 20 The unit of professional employees found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Petitioner, containing some employees whom the Petitioner contended should be in- cluded in the unit of technical employees . Therefore, the exact interest of the Petitioner in the unit of professional employees is not clear. Accordingly, we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with the elections hereinafter directed until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the unit of professional employees , who are eligible to vote in that election. See Foremost Dairies, Inc, 118 NLRB 1424, 1428, footnote 7. In the event the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election in the unit of professional employees, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition as to that unit upon notice to the Regional Director within 5 days from the date of issuance of this Direction n The Intervenor has requested to be placed on the ballot in the election among the technical employees in the event the Board should include in the unit of technical em- ployees any of the following categories : instrumentation technician ( engineering ), instru- ment technician ( engineering ), mechanic-engineering research , mechanic master -engineering research , assembler electronic equipment (engineering ) senior, assembler and fabrication engineering research . Without passing on whether the Intervenor would be placed on the ballot if one or more of the above-enumerated categories of employees had been in- cluded in the unit of technical employees , inasmuch as we have not included any of the categories in the unit, we will not place the name of the Intervenor on the ballot.