The Boeing Co.

1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the Respondent be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Columbia Management Corporation , Kelmar Realty Corporation, Louis Wein- stock, d/b/a Village Realty, Cosmopolitan Associates, Henry Moskowitz, and Hong are engaged in commerce or in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) of the Act. 3. Local 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 4. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Columbia Manage- ment Corporation, Kelmar Realty Corporation , Louis Weinstock, d/b/a Village Realty, Cosmopolitan Associates, Henry Moskowitz, and Hong to engage in a strike or a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services, and by thereby coercing and restraining the foregoing employers , with the objects of forcing and requiring them, together with Al-Ri Corporation, and Finmar Realty Corporation, to cease doing business with the Company, and forcing and requiring the Company to recognize and bargain with the Respondent as the representative of its electricians, although not certified as such representative , the Respondent has violated Section 8(b) (4) (i) and (ii) (B ) of the Act. 5. By threatening employees of the Company with loss of employment, and by threatening, and inflicting, physical harm, the Respondent has coerced such employees in the exercise of their right not to engage in concerted activities , thereby violating Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. [Recommended order omitted from publication.] The Boeing Company and Association of Electronic Technicians. Case No. 19-RC-3169. October 15, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Orville W. Turnbaugh. The Hearing Officer's rulings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ° 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.' 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons : 2 'International Association of Machinists, AFI-CIO, referred to here as IAM, inter- vened as the representative of a multiplant unit of Boeing employees , including those sought to be severed by the Instant petition. 2 As we agree with the Employer and IAM that the unit sought is not appropriate, we do not deem It necessary to decide whether the intervention of the Federal Government into IAM's contract dispute with the Employer , which began before the Instant petition 144 NLRB No. 103. THE BOEING COMPANY 1111 The Employer is engaged in the design and manufacture of mili- tary and commercial aircraft and parts and of missile systems and parts. Its major manufacturing facilities are at Seattle, Washington; Wichita, Kansas; and Morton, Pennsylvania. One of its production divisions, Aero-Space, is headquartered at Seattle where it is engaged in the production and testing of missiles and rockets and in their installation at missile sites located throughout the country. Boeing employs on the average in excess of 100,000 employees, of whom about 40,000 are represented by IAM in a multiplant production and maintenance unit. The Petitioner seeks to sever as a craft or technical unit about 2,800 employees engaged in electronic work, most of whom are as- signed to the Employer's Aero-Space Division and are employed in the State of Washington at what is known as the Seattle-Renton complex. They are employed in more than 50 separate job classifi- cations, grouped into about 15 different job families. However, almost 2,500 of these 2,800 employees are classified in one of four major job families; experimental electronic technician; electronic test equip- ment technician; inspector electro mechanical-pilotless aircraft; and electronic technician-minuteman systems. All hourly paid employees are classified in 1 of 11 wage grades, and a large majority of the employees sought herein are graded in the upper half of the wage classification scheme. Depending on their skills and classifications, the electronic technicians assist in research and development work, in testing, repairing, and inspecting electronic components and de- vices, in assembling such equipment, and in formulating procedures for doing all the foregoing. The application and development of electronic theory to military and civilian uses has been greatly expanded since World War II. Whereas before that time, the principal electronic products were radios, broadcasting equipment, other receiving and transmitting equipment, and electron tubes, the number and variety of electronic components and devices has increased significantly even in the last 10 years. The heart of every electronic product is a device for dis- charging, controlling, or directing the flow of small active particles of negative electricity. However, although electronic discharge is a form of electricity, the traditional skills of electricians, based on handling high voltage electrical currents, are not required of elec- tronic technicians. The Board has in the past considered the placement of small num- bers of electronic technicians in electrical craft units on the basis of was filed, should bar an election here. See Aeiojet-General Corporation, 144 NLRB 368 For the same reason, it is unnecessary to discuss other contentions of the Employer as to why this petition should be dismissed. 1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -their training or experience as electricians.' Such an approach is not feasible in this case since neither the Petitioner, Employer, nor Inter- venor contend that the electronic technicians are craft electricians. All parties agree that their right to separate representation should depend on the same considerations that are applicable generally to craftsmen or technical employees. Our first inquiry then will be whether the electronic technicians sought here may constitute a craft unit, that is, "a distinct and homo- geneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen, working as such, together with their apprentices and/or helpers."' Electronic technicians are hired for the lower grades on the basis of aptitude tests for electronics and mathematics and other general background factors. The only academic requirement is knowledge of high school algebra and trigonometry. An aptitude for electronics is also required of other classifications not sought by the Petitioner, including electronic assemblers. Individuals without prior experience as electronic technicians may be hired directly for one of the job families sought by the Petitioner or may be transferred to that classi- fication from other production and maintenance jobs. Although electronic technicians are normally assigned immediately upon hire or transfer to attend a basic electronics training school of some 13 weeks' duration, such training is not required of all the classifications sought by the Petitioner. Electronic technicians may also take sup- plementary courses at the Edison Vocational School, a part of the Seattle school system, to qualify for promotion to higher grades, but such additional training is not 'a requirement for promotion. Al- though further academic training and experience on the job qualify employees in the lower grades for promotions within a single job family, transfers from one job family to another require additional experience and training. Since electronic devices are so integral a part of the Employer's final product, there is no sharp distinction between the work performed by the electronic technicians and that performed by other technical or production employees. Although, for the most part, the duties of the electronic technicians are not routine or repetitive, the same is also true of other job classifications engaged in experimentation, inspection, and testing. Electronic devices are incorporated in all manner of sub- assemblies on which many classifications of employees are engaged. Because of the size of the plant and the complexity of its operation, many electronic technicians work in small units under their own super- visors on a particular aspect of the program, but this is not invariable. Electronic technicians are also assigned to units with employees in 8 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 117 NLRB 1728; Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, 117 NLRB 579; and Royal McBee Corporation, 127 NLRB 896. A American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, 1423. THE BOEING COMPANY 1113 other classifications under supervisors who have responsibilities for more than the electronic portion of the job. Instruments employed by electronic technicians, such as voltmeters, ohmmeters, oscilloscopes, and signal generators are also used by other employee classifications outside the proposed unit. Nor is a knowledge of mathematics and electronics required only of these technicians, since the salaried techni- cal employees who serve as engineering aids must also possess these skills in a more advanced form, while production employees who work with electronic devices must possess some of the same knowledge of a less advanced nature. There are approximately 5,500 other manual employees now rep- resented in the multiplant production and maintenance unit whose work also requires technical knowledge. Many of these employees must also exhibit an aptitude for physics and mathematics as a pre- requisite for hiring. Their duties as assemblers, fabricators, testers, and inspectors require training in electronics similar in nature to that required of the electronic technicians. Many of these employees also use and test the various instruments relied' on by the electronic technicians. In view of the comparatively recent origin of electronic technology and its proliferation into many varied types of industrial processes, there have not developed as yet any accepted standards by which to measure whether and when craft proficiency has been attained. There is no formal apprenticeship system for the employees sought, the suc- cessful completion of'which would be the equivalent of a journeyman status in a traditional craft; nor is there agreement on what constitutes experience on the job comparable with apprenticeship training. It may be that applicable standards will be gradually developed in the course of years, but for the present we cannot agree with the Petitioner that only those employees whom it has designated as electronic tech- nicians are in fact craftsmen. It appears to us that within the broad spectrum of skills and training exercised by these technicians there are many other manual employees whose skills and training are not sharply distinguishable from those sought by the Petitioner. Accord- ingly, we conclude that the electronic technicians petitioned for herein do not constitute an appropriate unit on a craft basis. We turn now to the Petitioner's contention that the employees it seeks may constitute an appropriate unit of technical employees. The parties stipulated that the electronic technicians perform work of a technical nature. In view of the specialized training they received at the Employer's electronics school and in the more complete course offered by the Seattle school system at the Edison Vocational School, it appears that the educational requirement for technical employees has been met here. In varying degrees, depending upon their grade and 1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the jobs to which they are assigned, these electronic technicians are called upon to exercise independent judgment in the development, formulation, or accomplishment of tests and procedures for testing electronic components. Considering the nature of their skills, their educational background, and their use of independent judgment, it would appear that the electronic technicians are technical employees.' As noted above in our discussion of the craft status of the elec- tronics technicians, there are approximately 5,500 other manual em- ployees, classified in 200 or so different job classifications, whose work also requires a background in, and an aptitude for, physics and mathe- matics and the -application of electronic theory. An indeterminate number of these employees could satisfy the same tests for technical employees as the electronic technicians. There are, in addition, some 1,700 unrepresented salaried employees at Seattle-Renton who are not sought by the Petitioner although their background and skills more clearly entitle them to be classified as technical employees than the electronic technicians sought here. In many cases they work as subprofessional aids to engineers and scien- tists. They are normally required to have 2 years of technical college training prior to employment and their work is therefore more intel- lectual in nature than that of the electronic technicians. However, even without deciding whether the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate because it does not include all technical employees of the Employer,' we believe that there is a more basic impediment to separate representation for the electronic technicians. The Board decided in the Sheffield case, 134 NLRB 1101, that it would not automatically permit separate representation for technical em- ployees but would decide each such question on the basis of whether they have so separate a community of interest as to make their inclusion in a production and maintenance unit inconsistent with their particular interests. We find no compelling reason here for granting separate representa- tion to these electronic technicians. Their conditions of employment are the same as those of other employees represented by IAM. They may be supervised by production foremen and may work closely with other manual employees. Not only is there some interchange between the work of the electronic technicians and other employees, but it ap- pears from a study of the individual job descriptions that there may be a greater similarity of skills and functions between the upper grades of the electronic technicians, and the subprofessional aids Who are unrepresented, than there is between the upper and lower wage grades of the electronic technicians themselves. e Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722; General Electric Com- pany, Pinellas Peninsula Plant, 127 NLRB 919; The Sheffield Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101. 6Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Naval Reactors Facility ), 137 NLRB 332 THE ARMSTRONG RUBBER CO., PACIFIC COAST DIVISION 1115 Moreover, the manufacture of missiles is so complex as to make comparison with ordinary manufacturing plants and processes mis- leading. Each missile is in a sense handcrafted, in that each compo- nent, subassembly, and larger assembly must be worked on, repaired, tested, and inspected alone and in combination with other items. Thus, the testing and inspection which are among the major duties of the employees sought are not separate steps in the production process as in other types of manufacture, but the production process itself. In refusing to exclude certain technical employees from a produc- tion and maintenance unit, the Board recently said in Airesearch Manufacturing Company of Arizona, 137 NLRB 632,635: In the case before us the entire operation of the Employer is es- sentially technological, the testing function and the instrumenta- tion utilized therein is an integral part of, and inextricably related to, the total production process. A product which has not been tested, or could not meet test specifications, would be as unfinished a product as one whose parts had not been fully assembled. What- ever conclusion might be arrived at with respect to "experi- mental," "developmental," and laboratory testing employees in other industries, development is a distinguishing feature if not the raison d'etre of the employer's business in the instant case. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the interests and functions of the electronic technicians are sufficiently close to those of the other production and maintenance employees to warrant denial of their sep- arate representation. Accordingly, the petition will be dismissed. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. The Armstrong Rubber Company, Pacific Coast Division and General Teamsters, Warehousemen, Cannery Workers & Help- ers, Local 94, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America (Ind.), Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-5471. October 16, 1963 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 Hearing Officer Elizabeth M. Bianchi. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 144 NLRB No. 104.