Chrysler Corp.

352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees concerning their union sympathies, membership, or activities in a manner violative of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of, or create the impression that we are surveilling, the union activities of our employees. WE WILL NOT withhold, or threaten to withhold, existing benefits from our employees if they should join or support Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Union, Local 176, AFL-CIO. WE WILL NOT grant wage increases or other economic benefits to our employ- ees as an inducement to reject the above-named Union, or any other labor organi- zation, as their collective-bargaining representative. WE WILL NOT threaten our employees with adverse consequences, including job loss, in the event they select the above-named Union, or any other union, as their collective-bargaining agent. WE WILL NOT in any like or similar manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the above-named or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, or to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection or to refrain from any and all such activities. All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named or any other labor organization, or to refrain from such membership. GAL TEX HOTEL CORPORATION, D/B/A ADMIRAL SEMMES HOTEL AND MOTOR HOTEL, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, T6024 Federal Building (Loyola), 701 Loyola Avenue, New Orleans, Louisiana, Tele- phone No. 529-2411, Extension 6396, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. Chrysler Corporation-Space Division, Michoud Operations and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agri- cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner and Paul Fassnacht et al., Movants. Case No. 15- RC-2911. August 6,1965 DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election exe- cuted by the Employer and Petitioner on May 29, 1964, an election by secret ballot Was conducted on June 11, 1964, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 15, among certain 154 NLRB No. 28. CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION, MICHOUD OPERATIONS 353 classifications of employees stipulated to constitute an appropriate unit, but expressly excluding professional employees. At the conclu- sion of the balloting the parties were furnished a tally of the ballots, which showed that of approximately 90 eligible employees 80 cast valid ballots, of which 46 were for and 33 against the Petitioner, and 1 was challenged. As no exceptions or objections were filed by the Employer or Petitioner, the Regional Director, on June 23, 1964, certified the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the stipulated appropriate unit. On August 25, 1964, nine employees (herein called Movants) filed a motion with the National Labor Relations Board, specifically alleg- ing that they were "professional employees" within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by virtue of their educational backgrounds and experience, and were working as professional employees; that the Regional Director had included their classifications in the certified unit along with employees who were not professional employees; and that the Regional Direc- tor's action was unlawful within the meaning of Section 9(b) (1) of the Act.' On September 4, 1964, the Petitioner filed a response to the motion, contending inter alia that the Movants were not professional employ- ees entitled to any of the relief requested. On November 25, 1964, the Board, after duly considering the matter, issued an Order entertaining the motion, and remanding the proceed- ing to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a hearing limited to the question of whether any employees in the stipulated unit were professional employees. On January 5, 6, 7, and 8, 1965, the hearing was held before Hearing Officer Loren P. Jones. All parties, including the Movants, partici- pated and subsequently filed briefs. 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 Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : The principal question to be resolved, as indicated in our Order of November 25, 1964, is which, if any, employees in the unit certified by the Regional Director are professional employees within the meaning 1 Section 9 ( b) (1) prohibits the Board from establishing such a unit as appropriate unless , unlike here , it has been clearly ascertained that a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in the unit. 206-446-66-vol. 154 24 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Section 2(12) of the Act.2 It is clear, from examination of the statutory definition, that the resolution of this question turns on the nature of the work engaged in by the employees involved. If the work is predominantly intellectual and varied rather than routine or stand- ardized, if it consistently involves discretion and judgment in its per- formance, and if it requires an advanced type of knowledge customar- ily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized study in an institution of higher learning, the employees performing the work come within the meaning of Section 2(12). It is likewise clear that the statutory definition does not limit professional status to employees who have received a degree from, or completed a prolonged course of specialized study in, an institution of higher learning.3 Thus, the requisite knowl- edge may also have been acquired through training or experience.' Accordingly, when a group of employees are being evaluated to deter- mine whether they are professionals, the principal test depends not so much on the individual qualifications of each employee as on the pre- dominant character of the work in which they are engaged.5 With these principles in mind, we turn to an examination of the alleged professional work performed by the employees in the certified unit. The unit is composed of employees engaged in the development and production, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) of the U.S. Government, of a major com- ponent of the Saturn rocket, known as the Saturn booster. The record shows and the parties stipulated that most of the employees in the unit are production and not professional employees. The largest group of employees whose professional status is in ques- tion are 27 engineers in the production engineering department (department 2621), classified as manufacturing engineer A and manu- facturing engineer B at the time of the hearing. (Manufacturing engi- neers B were formerly classified as production engineers.) The rec- ord shows that their duties are practically identical, and encompass the following principal types of work : 'Section 2(12) of the Act defines the term "professional employee " to mean: "(a) any employee engaged in work (1) predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental, manual , mechanical , or physical work; (ii) involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance, ( iii) of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time ; (iv) requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a general academic educa- tion or from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental, manual, or physical processes ; or "(b) any employee, who (i ) has completed the courses of specialized intellectual instruction and study described in clause ( iv) of paragraph (a), and (11) is per- forming related work under the supervision of a professional person to qualify him- self to become a professional employee as defined in paragraph (a) " 8 Only half of the admittedly professional senior engineers have such degrees. * The Ryan Aeronautical Co., 132 NLRB 1160. 5 Western Electric Company , Incorporated, 126 NLRB 1346, 1348. CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION, MICHOUD OPERATIONS 355 1. The preparation, from a generalized blueprint received from the professional employees of the design engineering department, of a concrete manufacturing plan, which determines the plant area, the major tooling, the special facilities, and the testing and heat treating procedures to be utilized, and, most important, determines the sequence of the manufacturing operations to be performed. 2. The preparation (from the manufacturin g plan) of process (operation) sheets detailing completely for production and mainte- nance personnel the precise manner in which to manufacture, assemble, or test the particular component involved. 3. Active and continuous consultation on the production floor with assembly and manufacturing supervisors to resolve engineering prob- lems which arise during the production process. 4. Providing detailed information to the contracting agency (NASA) regarding the impact upon the cost and the delivery schedule of proposed changes in the Saturn booster. 5. Determining, from the standpoint of feasibility of manufacture, the practicability of components based upon an analysis of the blue- prints-a design review function. 6. Evaluating vendor proposals 6 as they affect production costs, manufacturing operations, or production schedules. 7. Performing management research. The evidence further shows that manufacturing engineers A and B have a clear and definite project responsibility in connection with the manufacture, assembly, or testing of various parts of the Saturn booster, and that, although they receive limited professional supervi- sion, they have great latitude in performing their work. They have also been assigned to a wide variety of projects. Thus, one manufac- turing engineer A (Mitchell) was assigned to the installation of out- board and inboard engines and to the removal of static test equipment from a rocket; a manufacturing engineer B (Rachal) was assigned to tail-unit structural problems and to a maj or modification program on the Saturn booster. The Employer's hiring requirements for the two classifications differ somewhat. Manufacturing engineering B is required to have an engi- neering degree or its equivalent and 3 to 5 years' experience in the air- craft or missile industry, while manufacturing engineer A is required to have an engineering degree or its equivalent and 6 to 8 years' experi- ence in the same industry. The record shows that 9 of the 27 manufac- turing engineers in question have degrees in electrical or mechanical engineering, or related fields such as mathematics or industrial tech- nology. The remaining 18 engineers have an average of 14 years of manufacturing and assembly experience, the greater part of which has 9 The term "vendor" used herein means the supplier of parts or components. "Vendor proposals" refer to prospective changes in these parts or components. 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD been in the aircraft industry. Of these 18, 9 have had an average of 2 years of institutional training in electrical, mechanical, or aeronauti- cal engineering. One other received 4 years of college training in aca- demic subjects, and the remaining eight individuals finished high school. But all have had substantial training and experience, and four of them have had from 17 to 20 years of experience, most of which is in the aircraft industry? The Petitioner first contends that although a third of the afore- mentioned 27 employees have college degrees in engineering, the fail- ure of the remaining two-thirds to hold such degrees precludes all 27 from qualifying as "professional employees" under Section 2 (12), and that the Employer's policy of accepting an equivalent amount of engi- neering experience and training as a substitute for the degree produces "a failure to meet the stringent statutory education requirements of Section 2(12)." The argument lacks merit as pointed out in recent decisions dealing with the statutory definition of professional status. Such a contention was recently rejected in the Ryan Aeronautical case,8 where the union involved argued against the inclusion of various engineers in a professional unit engaged in the manufacturing of elec- tronic guidance systems because they lacked college degrees. The Board, however, included the disputed engineers in the professional unit, stating as follows : Apparently the Petitioner's principal argument against the inclusion of the particular engineering employees in the profes- sional unit is that employees who are not college graduates do not meet the definition of professional employees under the Act. The Act requires professionals 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 "indi- vidual qualifications of each engineer, but rather the character of the work required of them as a group," which is determinative of professional status. The background 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. The principle that "knowledge of an advanced type" may be acquired by training and experience which is the equivalent of a college degree has also been recognized as applicable to missile engineers by the Board in deciding unit placement questions in representation cases. Thus, in a Manufacturing engineers (A and B) are summarized as a single group because the record reflects that their duties are practically identical. Their education and experience, if considered as separate groups, would produce essentially the same ratio of higher education and college degrees to practical experience 8 132 NLRB 1160, 1163, 1164. CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION, MICHOUD OPERATIONS 357 Ladish Company,9 the work of the engineers required an engineering degree, preferably in metallurgy, or the equivalent in training or experience. The engineers there evaluated missile projects and made recommendations as to the type of metals to be used, whether new met- als should be developed, and the methods of manufacture, and also oversaw the heat treatment, test procedures, and manufacturing opera- tions in connection with such projects. The Board decided that the engineers in question were professional employees under Section 2(12), finding, inter alia. that the work of the missile engineers was predomi- nantly intellectual and varied in character, and otherwise conformed to the section's requirements. In the light of the above precedent and on the basis of the qualifications and work of manufacturing engi- neers A and B, we find no merit in the Petitioner's contention that they fail individually or as a group to meet the "knowledge of an advanced type" requirement of Section 9(b) (1). Moreover, the present record itself refutes this argument, for it shows that one of the Movants, who is not a graduate engineer, has been promoted to a clearly professional position in the design engineering department on the basis of his advanced qualifications derived from extensive engineering experience. Petitioner also contends in its brief that three factors clearly demon- strate that manufacturing engineers A and B perform work that falls short of the statutory requirements, which are limited to work that is predominantly intellectual and varied in character as opposed to routine mental work. It argues that (1) the engineers are subject to supervision in submitting recommendations to the Employer's design engineering department; (2) they cannot make on-the-spot changes in blueprints, but must remedy manufacturing problems by recom- mendations submitted to the design engineering department through their supervisors; and (3) the large number of engineering changes proposed by NASA or vendors for the many systems and components of the Saturn booster each month (600 to 800) negatives any contention that the manufacturing engineers' work is other than routine. Peti- tioner further urges that these same three factors show that the work performed by the manufacturing engineers does not involve the fre- quent exercise of discretion and judgment which Section 2(12) requires. With regard to the first factor, it is clear from the record that both manufacturing engineers A and B do receive limited supervision of their work from a senior engineer and a group supervisor. Thus, their written recommendations (clarification requests) to the design engi- neering department on manufacturing and assembly problems ordi- narily require approval by a senior engineer or group supervisor before 0 126 NLRB 555, 558, 559. 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD transmission to that department. Similarly, the general manufactur- ing plans and operation sheets prepared by the manufacturing engi- neers require approval before they are released to the production floor and other interested departments of the Employer. The record reflects, however, that approval of their recommendations , manufac- turing plans , and operation sheets is usually given as a matter of course in view of the clear project responsibility of the manufacturing engi- neers for particular systems and components of the booster. Indeed, it is common practice for the manufacturing engineers at times to work directly with design engineering personnel on manufacturing prob- lems, -with no advance notification to any senior engineer or group supervisor. In our opinion, the supervision received by the manufac- turing engineers does not preclude them from qualifying as profes- sional employees under Section 2(12) of the Act. Neither do the other two factors cited by the Petitioner support the contention that the manufacturing engineers perform only routine work. True, the evidence indicates that such engineers cannot make design changes on the production floor as problems arise. However, as noted above, their recommendations with regard to the solution of manufacturing and assembly problems customarily receive approval from design engineers as realistic appraisals of how manufacturing and assembly feasibility can be assured once a problem arises in con- nection with some system or component . Petitioner's further argu- ment that the number of changes impacted each month "destroys a contention that the work is not routine " also lacks merit, when the com- plexity of the Saturn booster is contemplated and it is recalled that many changes impacted (or considered) are actually made. However, in the case of all such changes which are evaluated, the intellectual and varied character of the engineers' work is clear since requisite material, manpower, space, and tooling requirements must be estimated by the engineer impacting a change with a high degree of accuracy, so that the cost and scheduling effect of the proposed change may be promptly appraised with due regard to all relevant factors and communicated to NASA for approval. Moreover, the engineer must make this appraisal in an imaginative manner utilizing only a general one-para- graph or one-page description of the change proposed. The varied and intellectual nature of the manufacturing engineers' duties is evident from the diverse nature of the projects to which they have been assigned and also from the particular work they have per- formed on these projects: drafting manufacturing plans, estimating the impact upon the booster of the various changes proposed by NASA and contractors supplying missile components, determining the tool- ing requirements (including the design of tools for certain assembly procedures), solving manufacturing, assembly, and testing problems, working on the production floor with production supervisors, and exer- CHRYSLER CORP.-SPACE DIVISION , MICHOUD OPERATIONS 359 cising a design review responsibility to assure manufacturing feasibil- ity of particular components . Fassnacht, for instance , not only had to determine what testing equipment would assure the manufacturing and assembly tolerances required by NASA, but also had to calibrate or modify such equipment when necessary to assure that such toler- ances were maintained . Other manufacturing engineers had to make judgments concerning whether component changes would lead to abnormal testing costs or production delays-and whether in-plant manufacture or procurement from outside contractors of missile com- ponents would best serve the Employer's and NASA's needs, yet still assure maintenance of critical delivery schedules. In sum, the record shows that the work of manufacturing engineers A and B is being per- formed in a relatively new industry, in which the end products (mis- siles and rockets) are of such novelty and complexity that widespread knowledge of an advanced type is essential to those having responsi- bilities related to formulation and guidance of the manufacturing process. In view of all the evidence outlined above relating to the question of the professional status of the 27 employees who are classified as manufacturing engineers A and B, we find that they meet the statu- tory requirements of Section 2(12) for professional employees and were qualified as such at the time of the election. The evidence shows that none of the remaining employees in the stipulated unit are professionals . A question was raised as to some of the 14 associate manufacturing engineers also employed in the Employ- er's production engineering department. The record shows and the parties stipulated, however, that six of these employees, who were for- merly classified as technical assistant (production) engineers, are not professional employees. Evidence concerning the remaining eight (formerly classified as production engineer B) shows that one has a B.S. degree in industrial technology and one an academic B.A. degree, but that all have a lower pay scale than manufacturing engineers A or B. Evidence also shows that the eight regularly are assigned to writing detailed process (operation) sheets for production operations and that they often receive help from manufacturing engineers A and B on the relatively routine projects to which they are assigned. On the basis of the above evidence, and particularly in the absence of any posi- tive and detailed testimony distinguishing their work from that of the stipulated nonprofessional associate manufacturing engineers for- merly classified as technical assistant, we are unable to find that the former production engineers B meet the statutory requirements pre- scribed by Section 2 (12) for professional employees. A question was also raised as to three other unit employees, two of whom are classified as estimators -parts cost and one as estimator- advanced proposals. These employees work with cost estimators- 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD assembly, who have been stipulated to be nonprofessional employees, although, like the three disputed employees, they also often estimate the cost of advanced proposals and parts. The evidence shows that the cost estimating employees are not concerned with solving engineering problems, but merely estimate the cost of material and manpower which will be needed to manufacture or assemble a certain component or item proposed. In view of the predominantly repetitive and routine nature of the cost estimating function, and the stipulation that certain cost estimators-assembly who perform comparable work are not pro- fessional employees, we find that the cost estimator-advanced proposals and the cost estimators-parts do not meet the statutory requirements of Section 2(12) for professional employees. In sum, it appears that the stipulated unit contains both professional and nonprofessional employees, within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act. Since the ballots of the professional employees did not present the question of inclusion in the mixed unit and in any event were not kept separate from those of the other employees, and since it has therefore not been possible to ascertain that a majority of the professional employees voted for inclusion in the unit, as required by Section 9(b) (1) of the Act, we must of necessity exclude them from the stipulated unit. Moreover, it is not clear that the Petitioner seeks either a separate election among the professional employees in the unit, or a finding that a substantially smaller unit (containing only the non- professional employees) is appropriate. It is likewise not clear that a majority of the nonprofessional employees who voted in this smaller unit cast ballots for representation by the Petitioner. Under all the circumstances, we shall vacate the certification hereto- fore issued by the Regional Director and shall remand the proceeding to him for such further action on the petition as may be appropriate, consistent with our decision herein. [The Board vacated the certification of representatives and re- manded this proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 15 for appropriate further action on the petition.] Riley Aeronautics Corporation and Donald A. Depew and Fred Lee, Jr. and Wallace J. Nelson and Sigmund R. Nied, and Homer D. Sapp. Cases Nos.1w-CA-3055-1,12-CA-3055-2,12-CA-3055-3, 12-CA-3055-4, and 12-CA-3055-5. August 9, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On May 12, 1965, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent 154 NLRB No. 25.