Bell Aerospace Corp.

BELL AEROSPACE CO., A DIV. OF BELL AEROSPACE CORP . 493 Bell Aerospace Company, a Division of Bell Aerospace Corpora- tion and American Federation of Technical Engineers, Peti- tioner. Case No. 3-RC-2435. December 16, 196. DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION Since April 5, 1962, the Petitioner has been the certified representa- tive in a unit of all technicians of the Employer at its plants located in Erie and Niagara Counties, New York, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors, as defined in the Act. On December 4, 1963, the Petitioner filed a motion for clarification of the certification, seeking to include all Union members 1 who are temporarily transferred, from time to time, to areas outside Erie and Niagara Counties. The Employer opposed the motion. On April 29 and May 1, 1964, by direction of the Board, a hearing was held in Region 3 in the above-entitled pro- ceeding for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the issues raised by the Petitioner's motion and the Employer's opposition thereto. Following the hearing, the parties submitted briefs in sup- port of their respective positions. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds: The Employer has a total complement of approximately 350 tech- nicians in Erie and Niagara Counties. From time to time it assigns undisclosed numbers of technicians to field duty at military and re- search installations throughout the United States, abroad, and on United States Navy vessels at sea for periods which generally appear to be of 2 to 4 weeks in duration, but which may extend from a day to a year. When assigned to the field, technicians are usually, 'al- though not invariably, reclassified in a "technical representative" grade,3 which pays an average of 30 cents an hour more than the "technician" grades. At the time of the hearing, some 40 employees who may have previously worked in Erie and Niagara Counties as "technicians," were on assignment in the field. Of these, about 38 were classified as "technical representatives," including 24 salaried and 14 hourly paid employees, while only 1 or 2 had retained a "tech- nician" classification -4 1 The current contract between the Employer and the Petitioner contains a union-shop clause. 'Pursuant .to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these proceedings to a three-member panel [ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning]. a The term "technical representative" includes the specific classifications of representa- tive, technical, class III, and representative, service, engineering , class II. * The record does not clearly reflect how many of the 40 were on "temporary" duty and what number had received a "permanent" assignment. 150 NLRB No. 43. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While on field assignment, the employees in question do the same type of mechanical work they did in Erie and Niagara Counties. Thus, Bell employee Ernest Kreutinger testified that while classified as a "technician" working in Erie and Niagara Counties he built, serviced, and maintained a rocket belt, and trained Bell employees in the use of the belt. In the field, while still classified as a "technician," Kreu- tinger did "basically" the same work. Another Bell employee, Ray- mond Wachowiak, explained that at the Wheatfield, New York, plant, he was classified as a rocket technician and did test cell work, includ- ing the testing of rocket engines and components. When temporarily transferred to a California installation, Wachowiak was placed in a "technical representative" classification. His work in California consisted of assembling and servicing a target drone, which involved mechanical skills similar to those Wachowiak had exercised in Erie and Niagara Counties. In the field, technicians and technical repre- sentatives may work with employees of one of the Employer's cus- tomers. At some sites, however, technical work is performed exclu- sively for the Employer. In such instances technicians and technical representatives do not come in contact with customers' employees. Although technical representatives and technicians may work with- out supervision on occasion, more frequently their work is directed by engineers who in 'turn receive instructions directly from the Employer's home office. The current contract between the Employer and the Union pro- vides that "technicians" on the field assignments outside Erie and Niagara Counties shall continue to accumulate seniority, and on their return shall be reassigned in their area, seniority permitting, but that the seniority of "technicians" in the field shall cease to accumulate when they leave the "technician" classifications.5 In this proceeding, the Petitioner contends, in effect, that the cer- tification of April 5, 1960, should be construed as including within the appropriate unit all technicians on temporary assignment to field c The Employer contends that in the negotiation of the current contract the Petitioner acquiesced in the Employer's interpretation of the certification as excluding all "tech- nicians" and "technical representatives" assigned to work outside of Erie and Niagara Counties. Specifically, the Employer relies on paragraph 61(c) of the collective agree- ment which provides that "No employee shall be compelled to accept a transfer to a posi- tion not covered by the Bargaining Unit." It argues that the Petitioner had attempted to get explicit coverage for technicians and technical representatives on field assignment and had failed ; 61(c) was a comprise . The Petitioner argues that throughout the contiact negotiations it insisted upon the inclusion of the disputed categories of employees and never abandoned that position . An examination of the background evidence relating to the execution of the current contract shows that the contract provision adverted to above was agreed to only for the purpose of averting a strike, after an impasse had been reached in the contract negotiations and mediators had been summoned. As is evident, the contract provision relating to the accumulation of seniority for technicians in the field is no less inconsistent with the Employer's present unit position than 61 ( c) is with the Petitioner's unit contentions. In these circumstances , we do not view the execution of the current collective agreement as militating against the respective unit positions advanced in this proceeding. BELL AEROSPACE CO., A DIV. OF BELL AEROSPACE CORP. 495 locations, whether or not they were reclassified in a "technical repre- sentative" grade while on such assignments. The Employer, on the other hand, would have the certification construed as confining the unit only to those technicians who are physcially located at its opera- tions in Erie and Niagara Counties, excluding those employees classified in either "technician" or "technical representative" grades who are on temporary as well as permanent field assignments. Al- though the record does not show that the unit inclusion or exclusion of the disputed employees was specifically considered prior to the election,6 there can be little doubt, at least with respect to those who retain their "technician" classifications while on temporary field assignment, that they are appropriately part of the unit. The rec- ord shows that "technicians" in the field do essentially the same work as technicians at the Erie and Niagara installations, and con- tinue to be attached for payroll and other purposes to such installa- tions. The record also indicates that many of the technicians have spent substantial periods of time in Erie and Niagara Counties, and generally have been assigned to the field only for periods of short duration. In view of the above, we believe that those employees who retain their "technician" classifications while on temporary field assign- ment have a close community of interest with other unit employees, not appreciably disrupted by their temporary absence from the Erie and Niagara operations. Furthermore, it would be incongruous to require the Petitioner to bargain for, and to administer its contract on behalf of, the technicians while they are in Erie and Niagara Counties, but at the same time to allow for the temporary suspen- sion of such obligations as to those technicians who may be away for short periods of time. Such a state of affairs would be hardly conducive to stable labor relations or to effective representation of the interests of technicians on temporary field assignments. We find, therefore, that "technicians" in the appropriate unit who are tem- porarily assigned to the field are covered by the existing certification while on such field assignments. In determining the status of "technicians" who are reclassified as "technical representatives" while performing field duties, we find no substantial basis in this record for distinguishing them from the "technicians" on temporary field assignment who are not so reclassi- fied. A mere difference in job title can have no controlling effect on the unit placement of the technical representatives if, as is the situation herein, their employment interests and working conditions remain essentially the same as other unit employees. In urging that 6 Some technicians on temporary field assignment were included in the eligibility list submitted by the Employer, and voted without challenge in the election The Employer now claims this was due to an inadvertent error. 775-692-65-vol, 150--33 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the "technical representatives" are dissimilar from the "technicians," the Employer appears to rely primarily on the fact that some of the "technical representatives" work closely with the Employer's cus- tomers. But the record shows that even then the "technical repre- sentatives" continue to perform mechanical work, and such inciden- tal contact as some "technical representatives" have with customers does not, in our view, diminish their primary function as technicians engaged in such mechanical work. Moreover, at some field sites there are no customers, and technical representatives do work exclusively for the Employer. In sum, there appears to be little fundamental difference between the work of "technical representatives" and that of technicians working in the field who, we have found, are covered by the certification. We conclude, therefore, that employees in "tech- nical representative" classifications are covered by the certification while on temporary field assignment. Both the Petitioner and the Employer would exclude "technicians" and "technical representatives" who are permanently assigned to the field. Accordingly, we shall grant the Petitioner's motion for clari- fication and include in the unit all of the Employer's employees working in "technician" or "technical representative" classifications at the Employer's plants in Erie and Niagara Counties, in the State of New York, who are temporarily assigned to field duty outside those counties, but we shall exclude all employees in "technician" or "technical representative" classifications who are permanently trans- ferred outside those counties.' [The Board clarified the certification by specifying that the em- ployees in "technician" or "technical representative" classifications at the Employer's plants in Erie and Niagara Counties, New York, who are temporarily assigned to field duty outside those counties are included in the aforesaid unit.] 7 See J. I. Case Company, 105 NLRB 638, 640. Local 690, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO and Pipe Linings, Inc. and Laborers District Council of the Metropolitan Area of Philadelphia and Vicinity, Local 57, International Hod Carriers Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 4-CD-115. December 16, 1964 DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE This is a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act, following a charge filed by Pipe Linings, Inc., herein called the Company, 150 NLRB No. 48.