General Iron Works Co.

190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD General Iron , Works Co. and Office Employees International Union, Local No. 5, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-R-1293. December 15, 1964 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On November 27, 1945, the Petitioner was certified as the exclu- sive bargaining representative for a unit consisting of "all office employees" at the Employer's plant at Englewood, Colorado. Since then the parties have executed successive bargaining, agreements. The recognition clause of the most recent agreement, which is effec- tive for a 3-year term beginning July 1, 1963, covers all office and clerical workers in the front office and department offices throughout the Employer's plant, excluding certain confidential secretaries and clerks and all supervisory employees. The job classifications spe- cifically enumerated as being covered by the agreement are tabulat- ing machine operators, keypunch operators, clerks, and' telephone operators. On August 3, 1964, the Petitioner filed a motion to clarify certifi- cation seeking to include as an accretion to its certified unit two employees in the newly established classifications of systems analyst and programer. On August 10, 1964, the Employer filed a state- ment in opposition to the motion. Thereafter, pursuant to a Board order remanding the matter to the Regional Director, a hearing was held on ' October 16 and 20, 1964, before Hearing Officer J. Donald Meyer. 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 Leedom and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : Since 1939 ,the Employer has used tabulating machines operated on the punchcard and unitcard principle for such purposes as pay- roll preparation, billing, and inventory processing. The cards were prepared by keypunch operators and were then run through IBM equipment operated by tabulating machine personnel. As a prelim- inary step in expanding the range of its data processing operations, the Employer ,hired a systems analyst in June 1962 to develop meth- ods for obtaining information with respect to its production opera- tions as an addition to information already being supplied through use of tabulating equipment. In October 1963, it placed an order for an IBM 1440 computer. Installation of this computer was finally completed about a year later. Early in 1964 it hired David- 150 NLRB No. 29. " GENERAL IRON WORKS CO.' '-' - 191 son as a'replacement for its first systems analyst, and a month later it hired Fisher as a programer to assist Davidson. Since the begin- ning of his employment, Davidson has been concerned with convert- ing the existing IBM applications of the unitcard equipment to the new 1440 computer. Once this conversion of about 65 data process- ing'programs is completed,' Davidson will work on the development of new computer applications. The ' j ob of Fisher, the new pro- gramer, is to place ea'ch•of these old programs, and new programs as they are developed, into a• sequence of data processing steps and to apply them by translation into so-called computer language which is set, by tape, into the new computer. The 'Employer estimates that 30 percent of the new computer time will be required to per- form some of its' payroll,- billing, and inventory functions previously performed by the old IBM tabulating equipment, while the remain- ing 70 percent will be devoted to such new applications of data processing as production scheduling'' and management cost reports. The 1440 computer will not replace all the IBM equipment previ- ously in use and the present tabulating machine and keypunch operators will continue to be employed. As one of the major reasons for acquiring the 1440 computer was to obtain information, reports, and analyses not readily available with the old- equipment, the duty- of advising department heads on the computer's capabilities and working closely, with • them to pro- duce the desired results, has been assumed by the systems analyst. He also works with the programer in formulating the technical role of the new data processing equipment. Both the systems analyst and programer are experienced in the research, and development aspect of data processing as. well as,in the operating phase of, the work. However, direct supervision of the tabulating'' machine and key- punch operators,,remains the responsibility of,,a tabulating equip- ment supervisor; excluded from the : unit, with whom the systems analyst and programer are likewise in close contact. Davidson and Fisher share a private office,-are supervised by the office manager; and are.' paid a monthly salary, unlike the. unit employees who are paid on an hourly basis., The programer's start- ing salary is almost $150 more per month,.and the systems analyst's starting salary is ,almost' $300 more per month than the, starting rate of the highest-paid ' classification, within the unit. Their fringe benefits, such. as accident and health benefits and, ,sick leave, are comparable to those received by, management employees and are greater than those of the unit employed. As noted previously, the Petitioner's contract covers only, the four named classifications of tabulating machine operators, keypunch operators, clerks, and tele- phone operators. Thus, in addition to the systems analyst and pro- 775-692-65-vol. 150-14 192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gramer, there are other nonsupervisory office employees who are not considered as included in the Petitioner's unit, such as the assistant purchasing agent and the estimators and planners who are assigned to the scheduling department. The differences between the systems analyst and programer on the one hand and the unit employees on the other, with respect to working conditions, remuneration, responsibilities, and use of initia- tive and judgment, are in our opinion sufficiently substantial so that the former cannot be regarded as an accretion to the existing office clerical unit.' We shall therefore deny the Petitioner's motion to amend the certification and shall dismiss the instant proceeding. In view of our dismissal for the above reasons, we find it unnecessary to decide whether the systems analyst supervises the programer or whether either is a technical employee. [The Board denied the motion to clarify certification.] I Aluminum Company of America, 146 NLRB 929. General Electric Company and International Union of Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 2-CA- 7581-1, 2-CA-7581-2, 2-CA-7581-4, and 2-CA-7864 (post 10-CA- 4682). December 16, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On April 1, 1963, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Counsel, and the Charging Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.' On May 7, 1964, the Board heard oral argument at Washington, D.C. All parties were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report and the entire record in the case, including the oral argument, the exceptions, and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. I The General Counsel and Charging Union were granted permission to file and did file briefs in reply to the Respondent's exceptions and brief. 150 NLRB No. 36.