Monsanto Co.

MONSANTO COMPANY 415 Monsanto Company and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case 14-RC-6002 June 16, 1970 DECISION ON APPEAL AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, BROWN, AND JENKINS On August 7, 1968, the Communications Wor- kers of America, AFL-CIO, hereinafter CWA, filed a petition seeking to represent certain employees at the Employer's St. Peters, Missouri, plant. On Sep- tember 5, 1968, the Regional Director for Region 14 administratively dismissed the petition finding that the maintenance unit sought was inappropriate as the maintenance employees in his view did not constitute a readily identifiable group of employees with a distinct community of interest apart from other employees. Thereafter, the CWA filed an ap- peal from the Regional Director's dismissal with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C., contending that the maintenance unit sought was appropriate. The Board concluded that the appeal raised sub- stantial and material issues which could best be resolved on the basis of record testimony and, ac- cordingly, on October 11, 1968, reversed the Re- gional Director's dismissal of the petition, rein- stated the petition, and directed that a hearing be held on the issues raised by the appeal. The hearing opened on November 7, 1968, and was continued on various dates thereafter until May 20, 1969. Fol- lowing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67(h) of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director by an order dated May 23, 1969, transferred the case to the Board in Washing- ton, D.C., for decision. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs in support of their respective positions. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in the case,' including the briefs, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The CWA seeks a maintenance unit of approxi- mately 57 employees, including electronic main- tenance technicians, mechanical maintenance technicians, maintenance utility men, a quartz repairman, and custodians. The CWA contends that the maintenance employees constitute an ap- propriate unit in that they compose an identifiable homogeneous group of employees sharing a com- munity of interest which is separate and distinct from that of the production employees. Alternative- ly, the CWA, as stated at the hearing, seeks to represent only the electronic and the mechanical maintenance technicians who, it contends, exercise electronic and mechanical craft skills. The Em- ployer contends that the petition should be dismissed and that, because of the highly integrated nature of its operations and the mutuality of in- terests and homogeneity of all hourly employees, only an overall plant unit of production and main- tenance hourly employees is appropriate. At its St. Peters' plant, the Employer is engaged in the development and manufacture of electronic grade silicon semiconductor material, which is used for military electronic computers, missile guidance systems, radar systems, sonar systems, nuclear systems, space vehicle control systems, solar cells, and testing and measuring equipment. It employs some 484 employees. The entire plant operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on a four-shift basis. The plant began production in 1960 and has ex- panded in size from 15,000 square feet under roof to 80,000 square feet under root. The plant's operations are automated and extensively instru- mented. Its equipment is of a highly sophisticated nature. The manufacturing operation is divided into six basic process areas in which the silicon semicon- ductor material is produced from chemical solution and the raw material processed by a variety of methods. Before the finished product emerges it will have been refined by one or more crystalliza- tion processes and thereafter ground, sawed, lapped, and polished to extremely close tolerances by production employees. One end use of the product calls for the deposition of an ultra-thin layer of a metallic substance or substances on the surface of the silicon crystal. The mechanical and other equipment in use is often a product of the Employer's own design or is standard equipment modified by the Employer to meet its particular requirements. Although the maintenance classifications are under the primary superintendent-level responsibili- ' As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties, the Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied 183 NLRB No. 53 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ty of the plant's mechanical superintendent, this in- dividual also has manufacturing responsibilities for one of the six process areas with authority over more than 100 production classification employees. He also has responsibility for the purchasing, receiving, and stores functions in the plant. Furthermore, while the maintenance classification employees are assigned to four administrative group leaders for the purposes of pay, record handling, overtime equalization, vacation schedul- ing, and handling leaves, sickness, grievances, and other personnel matters, the contact between main- tenance personnel and their group leaders is limited and the leaders share their administrative authority with the production foremen who directly supervise all maintenance employees who are assigned to maintenance work in the respective production areas. There is little work contact among main- tenance classification employees of the same ad- ministrative group and no work contact between employees of different administrative groups. Each of the six process area groups and each rotating multiclassification production group con- tain production and maintenance salaried and hourly classifications, all of whom regularly work within the same process areas2 on the same kinds of equipment and under the immediate direction and control of production supervisors. In fact, 34 of the 37 electronic and mechanical maintenance techni- cians, who comprise a majority of the requested unit, spend 80 to 95 percent of their time perform- ing on-site routine preventive maintenance, troubleshooting, and general repair functions in production areas in contact and in conjunction with the work performance of production classifications. The area-adjunctive shops are used infrequently by maintenance employees, and then only for perform- ing minor repairs and adjustment requiring little time and for holding occasional safety talks or ad- ministrative meetings . Work functions have frequently been reassigned from maintenance clas- sifications to production classifications and vice versa. Similarly, production and maintenance clas- sification employees perform many of the same or similar functions, frequently and regularly work together, and during slack production periods, production employees are regularly assigned to maintenance utility crews to avoid laying them off. Only production supervisors determine work requirements and maintenance priorities. In addi- tion, production supervisors have authority to recommend the discharge of maintenance em- 2 There is a I-year to 1-1/2 year minimum service requirement in each process area ' There is no basis in the instant case for concluding that the employees sought have similar skills On the contrary , it appears that they are a diverse ployees as well as of production employees, although all hiring and firing is done by the person- nel department. Employees in the production and maintenance classifications are subject to common safety stan- dards and provisions, attend on-the-job training and instruction sessions together, utilize the same operating procedures distinctive to each process area, and are trained with the same source materi- als and operating procedures. In hiring employees for general maintenance jobs, the Employer im- poses no experience or background requirement. As to the electronic and mechanical maintenance technician classifications, the record shows that the Employer merely requires some practical ex- perience and a basic knowledge of the fundamen- tals of electronics or mechanics. In fact, 22 of the 37 employees in the electronic maintenance techni- cian and mechanical maintenance technician clas- sifications, the one quartz repairman, and all the maintenance utility employees were originally production employees. The record clearly demon- strates that maintenance classification personnel in the electronic and mechanical maintenance techni- cian categories can and do "bump back" to production classification jobs in the event of a reduction in force. In like fashion, the record shows that maintenance classification personnel in the electronic and mechanical maintenance technician classifications bid into production technician jobs. Plant seniority is determinative on all job bids and with respect to layoffs and recalls. All employees, regardless of classification, share substantially the same working conditions and enjoy the same fringe benefits. Based on the entire record, we are persuaded that any separate community of interest which the maintenance employees might enjoy3 has been lar- gely submerged in the broader community of in- terest which they share with the production em- ployees.4 This is so by reason of the fact that, as noted, the majority of the maintenance classifica- tions spend 80 to 95 percent of the time on the production floor in contact with production em- ployees and work in conjunction with them under common supervision, that production and main- tenance employees perform similar functions and frequently work together using the same procedures and tools, that work functions have frequently been reassigned from maintenance clas- sifications to production classifications and vice versa, that maintenance employees are recruited group of employees ranging from unskilled custodians to relatively skilled technicians. 4 Dundee Cement Company, 170 NLRB 422 , U.S Plywood-Champion Papers, Inc , 174 NLRB 292 MONSANTO COMPANY largely from the production ranks, that main- tenance employees have the right to "bump back" into production work in the event of a layoff, and that both production and maintenance employees enjoy common working conditions and fringe benefits. In view of the above, it is apparent that American Cyanamid Company, the case on which our dissent- ing colleague places primary reliance, involves en- tirely different facts and is thus inapplicable.' We also note that in that case the Board did not state that every maintenance department must automati- cally be found to be an appropriate unit, but only that such a unit may be appropriate where the record esgablishes "that maintenance employees are readily identifiable as a group whose similarity of function and skills create a community of in- terest such as would warrant separate representa- tion."' In applying this dynamic standard, which takes into account the circumstances of each case, the Board has since both granted and denied separate representation to maintenance department employees depending on the particular facts before it. Upon our evaluation of the facts of this case, as set forth above, we conclude that the maintenance unit sought herein is not composed of a distinct and homogeneous group of employees with interests separate from those of other employees, and hence is not an appropriate unit. Furthermore, we conclude that the electronic and the mechanical maintenance technicians do not constitute a separate appropriate unit on a craft ba- sis.' None of the electronic or mechanical main- tenance technicians is a licensed journeyman, and none was selected for his job because he possessed a particular craft skill. In essence they are equip- ment area specialists or technicians rather than craftsmen and neither possess nor exercise the full gamut of craft skills. The Employer has no ap- prentice programs or formal training courses lead- ing to a status of journeyman craftsman. All train- ing is on the job and equipment-related. Moreover, major repairs are performed by independent con- tractors. Finally, it is clear that by far the greater number of them need possess no more than limited skills in order to perform the functions required of them for the maintenance of the Employer's auto- mated production process. ' 131 NLRB 909 We find that decision is distinguishable on its facts and is not controlling in the instant case Thus, in contrast with the findings herein, there was no interchange between production and maintenance employees , the majority of the maintenance classifications did not spend 80 to 95 percent of the time on the production floor in contact and in con- junction with the work performance of the production employees and under the immediate direction and control of production supervisors, and all the maintenance department employees had similar functions and skills, whereas in the instant case the employees sought are a diverse group rang- 417 Accordingly, we shall, in view of the foregoing, grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER FANNING, dissenting: Having remanded this case to the Region for a hearing, my colleagues now dismiss , finding a separate maintenance unit at this unorganized plant inappropriate. In the group sought by Petitioner are electronic maintenance technicians and mechanical main- tenance technicians-about 37 of these, who, it ap- pears, are the highest paid group of hourly em- ployees at the plant-plus maintenance utility men, a quartz repairman, and custodians, altogether a total of 57. Characterizing these maintenance em- ployees as "diverse, ranging from unskilled custodi- ans to relatively skilled technicians," my colleagues conclude that any inherent common interest the group may have had as maintenance employees has been "largely submerged" in the broader interest which occurs by working in proximity with other employees no matter what their function or specific skill. Actually this is typical maintenance unit. Three employees work full time in the machine shop in the modification building. Six rotate round the clock, with the rotating production shifts, in order to keep operative equipment which can be kept running without major repair. The others, who are the great preponderance of the noncustodial main- tenance employees, work a fixed-day shift from 8 to 4 or 4:30 doing precautionary maintenance, and making major repairs and modifications, pursuant to schedules drawn up by maintenance supervisors who work the same fixed shift. Units of main- tenance employees engaged in similar work have long been granted by the Board on initial organiza- tion." Increased automation, of course, has meant that electronic skills are more and more included. Essentially the unit sought is the unit approved by my colleagues in the lead case ofAmerican Cyana- mid Company, 131 NLRB 909. That decision re- versed a dismissal in the same case grounded on the presence of another union seeking a combined production and maintenance unit (130 NLRB 1, fn. 6). I dissented. In reversing, my colleagues agreed mg from unskilled custodians to relatively skilled technicians The other cases cited in the dissenting opinion are also inapposite as their facts are entirely different from the facts herein lbid at 910 ' Potlatch Forests, Inc, 165 NLRB 1065, Dundee Cement Company, supra " Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation , 120 NLRB 63 , 67, and cases there cited 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD with my position and, with full cognizance of auto- mation, technological change, and industrial ad- vancement, found that these maintenance em- ployees at an acrylic fiber plant having "integrated operations" had not lost their identity as perform- ing a function separate from production. ;Although there is no union here that wishes to represent both production and maintenance em- ployees, and although the Employer asserts con- tinuous operation less as a fact than an asserted necessity because of the defense orientation of sil- icon production and the "job order" nature of the plant's business,9 my colleagues deny a main- tenance unit. 10 In reaching their result they rely on recent cases which supplied the pattern for today's full-cycle change of position from American Cyanamid, lead case since 1961. I dissented in Dun- dee." Member Zagoria and I dissented in U.S. Plywood-Champion Paper, Inc.12 One was a new plant and the other had had no organization for a period of years. At both, plantwide as well as main- tenance units were being sought; plantwide units were granted by my colleagues. Perhaps my colleagues equate Dundee and U.S. Plywood-Champion Paper with a new rule, one which no longer permits separate maintenance units at an unorganized plant in any circumstances. If so, then surely it is time to say, in so many words, that American Cyanamid is overruled. Orderly procedure and fairness to those seeking to represent maintenance employees would seem to require that." The Employer here repeatedly asserts that there is little distinction between "production techni- cians" and "maintenance technicians." The latter and other maintenance employees it refers to as only one of many "support" employees. Yet it quotes testimony in its brief belying the lack of distinction between production and maintenance. For example, at p. 79: "Production technicians don't have the time to go into major repair work. ° This does not appear to be a continuous flow plant as in E I DuPont de Nemours & Co , 162 NLRB 413, 415, where, as my colleagues and I found, "maintenance work must be done in such a manner as to keep the produc- tion process operating constantly, even during repair of the electrical and electronic controls which regulate the flow of the product " There, em- ployees did not personally process the raw or finished product at any time, contrary to the import of the instant record concerning raw material processing Here, according to the Employer, the production of silicon is "tailor-made" to customer specification; "production requirements" are "slack" at times in some work areas and production employees are then assigned to other duties; "site development of products and processes" is the norm-and "substantive and substantial plant changes" occur for "each advanced and changed variant " 10 Compare the result here with that in Mesta Machine Company, 167 NLRB 99, where-no broader unit being sought-my colleagues granted a powerhouse unit, and with DuPont. referred to in the footnote above, where only an electrical craft unit was sought and this was granted despite the continuous manufacturing process (on which point American Cyanamid was cited) and despite frequent employee contact between electricians and production employees, the former spending 90 percent of their time in the This is what the mechanical maintenance and elec- tronic maintenance are therefor." And, at p. 72, it describes the six-shift EMT's (electronic main- tenance technicians) "who rotate across the plant's continuous operations" in order to keep running that equipment which can be kept operative "with- out a major repair." Testimony of this sort hardly supports the conclusion that industrial progress has reached the point at this plant of obliterating the distinctiveness of the maintenance function. Nor, would I say, that the fixed, day-shift work schedule of the great preponderance of main- tenance employees and of their supervisors sup- ports any such conclusion. Nor do the four rotating production shifts support that conclusion because of their help from the six-shift EMT's. Nor does the Employer's emphasis on production supervision of maintenance personnel, which, on careful study, seems revealed as the power to veto scheduled overhaul rather than to direct maintenance work in progress. In American Cyanamid my colleagues spoke of "adjusting" future Board decisions to reflect the "evolving realities of industrial progress." I did not understand those words to mean adjustment for adjustment's sake, regardless of industrial reality. My colleagues purport to distinguish American Cyanamid in a context of broadly generalized testimony amassed over an 18-month period con- cerning the maintenance function at this plant. 14 I would direct an election in the maintenance unit as requested. No broader unit is sought. Employees with specific skills of the sort represented here- and their support employees-engaged in precau- tionary maintenance, major repairs, equipment modifications, and troubleshooting, are entitled under the Act to that choice. To me it seems time for my colleagues to fish or cut bait with respect to American Cyanamid, the lead case of the last decade on the subject of main- tenance units at unorganized plants. production area after reporting to one of four focal points for electricians 170 NLRB 422 tY 174 NLRB 292 " In its brief the Petitioner stresses the similarity in the maintenance or- ganization at American Cyanamid and that at the instant plant , both having maintenance carried out by separate departmentalized sections with their own first-line supervision, in addition to second-line maintenance supervi- sion The Union also stresses the function of production workers, as in American Cyanamid, to clear or set up equipment for repairs, but without any joint participation in the repair itself other than the turning of a switch or checking a dial in the course of the repair by maintenance personnel " I agree wholeheartedly with my colleagues that the standard set forth in American Cyanamid is "dynamic," the more so perhaps because the facts were so broadly stated there separate departmental sections of main- tenance employees with own supervision, varied maintenance work for en- tire plant, exercising the particular skills required, and frequent work in groups, sometimes in conjunction with production workers whose function is incidental to the preparation of equipment for repairs by maintenance employees Nevertheless my colleagues continue to "read in" factual distinctions with current cases even as here where no other unit is sought