Control Data Corp.

330 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL Control Data Corporation and United Independent Toolmakers Association , Local 100, Petitioner. Cases 18-RC-8061, 18-RC-8062, 18-RC-8063, and 18-RC-8064 June 30, 1970 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS On January 14, 1970, the Regional Director for Region 18 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Decision, contending that the Regional Director erred in finding appropriate a unit of modelmakers at the Employer's Normandale facility and a unit of toolmakers at the Employer's Cedar Engineering facility. On February 10, 1970, the National Labor Rela- tions Board by telegraphic order granted the Em- ployer's request that the scheduled elections be stayed pending consideration of the Employer's request for review. Thereafter by telegraphic order dated April 22, 1970, the Board granted the Em- ployer's request for review. 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 this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this proceeding and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the production and sale of electronic computer systems, maintaining its corporate headquarters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, metropolitan area (Twin Cities). There it operates about 22 plants, spread out over a 25- mile area, and employs approximately 3,600 production and maintenance employees. Petitioner filed four election petitions seeking to represent four units of employees at three of the Twin Cities plants. In three of these petitions, Peti- tioner requested separate elections for toolmakers and other machine shop employees at the Em- ployer's Arden Hills, Normandale, and Cedar En- gineering facilities . In the fourth , it sought to represent all the modelmakers at the Employer's Normandale plant. All the petitioned-for employees are unrepresented and there has been no history of ' No party requested review of these dismissals 2 The Regional Director excluded from the Cedar Engineering tool- makers' unit certain machine shop employees in lower salary grades whom Petitioner had sought to include LABOR RELATIONS BOARD collective bargaining for any of the Employer's em- ployees in the Twin Cities area. The Regional Director found, in agreement with the Employer, that the requested toolmakers' units at Arden Hills and at Normandale were inap- propriate and, accordingly, he dismissed the peti- tions in Cases 18-RC-8062 and 18-RC-8063.' The Regional Director found appropriate separate units for the toolmakers at Cedar Engineering and the modelmakers at Normandale, essentially as requested by Petitioner.2 The Employer asserts that the Regional Director erred in finding the two latter units to be ap- propriate. It argues, inter alia , that neither the Cedar Engineering toolmakers nor the Normandale modelmakers constitute a distinct homogeneous craft or departmental grouping entitled to separate representation. We find merit in this contention. The Normandale Modelmakers The Normandale facility is primarily responsible for the design , development, and assembly of peripheral computer equipment . The approximately 12 modelmakers employed at this facility work in a building which houses most of the Employer's Nor- mandale machinery operations . There they work under separate supervision in a room situated ap- proximately 300 feet from the machine shop area in which are located the toolmakers whose petition was dismissed . The modelmakers plan, set up, and perform complex machine operations in order to fabricate parts and components for engineering prototypes . They machine parts and work on all types of metals and materials including ceramics, rubber , and plastics . They also perform welding, braising , and heat treating . Although the Employer requires the modelmakers to have a high school diploma and prior experience , it does not have an apprenticeship program. The Regional Director found that the modelmakers form " a distinct group clearly identifiable and separate in character from that of the other employees and exercise special skills as- sociated with their craft." We disagree. The Board does not normally find appropriate a separate unit of modelmakers3 unless they con- stitute an unrepresented residual group of an em- ployer's highly skilled toolmaking employees.4 Here , it is clear that the modelmakers are not the only unrepresented employees within this trade grouping at this plant. ' Minneapolis Honeywell Regulator Co, 127 NLRB 878, and Bendix Avia- lion Corp , 125 NLRB 380 Bendix Aviation Corp , 114 NLRB 118 184 NLRB No. 34 CONTROL DATA CORPORATION 331 On the contrary, the record establishes that the modelmakers and the unrepresented Normandale toolmakers use nearly identical machinery and ex- ercise similar skills in performing tooling work. Thus, both groups fabricate parts, using such machines as lathes, mills, grinders, and presses. Both toolmakers and modelmakers must be capable of using similar precision measuring instruments such as calipers and micrometers and they must work to fine tolerances of plus or minus .0001 of an inch. The similarity of skills of the modelmakers and the toolmakers is also evidenced by the frequent transfers between the two employee clas- sifications. Modelmakers likewise receive compen- sation which is approximately equal to that received by the highest toolmaker classification. The record further discloses that the modelmakers frequently work alongside un- represented production and maintenance em- ployees with whom they share a community of in- terest. Thus, production and maintenance em- ployees regularly work in the machine shop, in some cases up to 32-40 hours a week, and modelmakers often leave their modelshop to work in the machine shop. Moreover, although the modelmakers spend approximately 75 percent of their time on basic prototype work, it appears that they spend the remainder of their time on tooling and production work which is similar to that done in the machine shop. Modelmakers share the same benefits and have similar working conditions as those of other employees. Based upon the foregoing we conclude that the modelmakers are not a functionally distinct and homogeneous craft or traditional departmental grouping entitled to separate representation.5 Ac- cordingly, we find that the requested unit is inap- propriate and shall dismiss the petition.6 The Cedar Engineering Toolmakers The Cedar Engineering facility produces rotary components, including a variety of motors for com- puters and precision aircraft instrumentation. The approximately 15 toolniakers employed at the facility work under separate supervision in one area of the Employer's machine shop. They build molds and tools to close tolerances, set up and repair production machinery, and perform production work, including work on jigs and fixtures. The Em- ployer does not perform all of its own tooling work at Cedar Engineering but frequently finds it neces- sary to subcontract to outside jobbers because it does not have the requisite equipment or because quantity requirements exceed the capacity of its toolmaking force. The Employer does not have an apprenticeship program for toolmakers. The Regional Director held, in agreement with Petitioner, that the Cedar Engineering toolmakers constitute an appropriate unit. While acknowledging that the toolmakers do some production work, the Regional Director concluded that such work was insignificant and that the tool- makers "exercise the special skills associated with their craft." We do not agree with the Regional Director's unit determination. The record indicates that the toolmakers spend from 50-60 percent of their time on basic piece part production work such as torsion bars, shafts, and winding machines .7 There was a dispute at the hearing whether the winding machine work represents a production function. However, it is clear that winding machines constitute an element of the Employer's finished product which it at one time sold to its competitors but now, apparently, furnishes only to its subsidiaries. Also, the work on these machines does not appear to require the degree of independent judgment which is the hall- mark of a skilled craftsmen because it is repetiti,,e in nature . Nor does any of the other production- type work performed by the toolmakers on torsion bars and shafts require the exercise of the skill nor- mally associated with the toolmakers' craft. Further, the record does not establish that the requested toolmakers are a homogeneous grouping but rather shows that they share a substantial com- munity of interest with other unrepresented em- ployees at this plant. Thus, other machine shop em- ployees, as well as production and maintenance em- ployees, work on machines primarily used by the toolmakers and the toolmakers regularly use equip- ment located throughout the machine shop and production area, at which time they are sometimes supervised by the area supervisor. It is undisputed that numerous employees have progressed to the toolmaker classification from the machine shop and that machine shop employees in the lower grades perform work similar to that performed by the tool- makers. Finally, the toolmakers and the other un- represented employees share substantially similar terms and conditions of employment. Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that the ' See Soroban Incorporated, 179 NLRB 445 , where toolmakers and modelmakers were found to be production specialists 6 While Petitioner did not seek a combined unit of the Normandale modelmakers and toolmakers , such a unit would likewise be inappropriate for the same reason the Regional Director dismissed the petition for a separate unit of the Normandale toolmakers and other machine shop em- ployees, i e , the toolmakers and other machine shop employees constitute a diverse group of employees performing dissimilarlobs , a large proportion of which entail production r At least one toolmaker has spent approximately 90 percent of his time on production work 332 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD requested unit of toolmakers at the Employer's ORDER Cedar Engineering plant is not a functionally distinct and homogeneous grouping of employees entitled to separate representation." We find, there- It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases fore, that this unit is inappropriate and we shall 18-RC-8061 and 18-RC-8064 be, and they hereby dismiss the petition. are, dismissed. " Sorohan, supra, and Lear-Siegler, Inc , 170 NLRB 766