General Dynamics Corp.

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION 621 General Dynamics Corporation and American Federation of Technical' Engineers, AFL-CIO and its Local 151, Petitioner General Dynamics Corporation and Local 90, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 1-RC-10755 and 1-UC-66 July 24, 1970 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING , BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(b) and (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hearing Officer S. Anthony diCiero. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, these cases were transferred to the Na- tional Labor Relations Board for decision by direction of the Regional Director for Region 1. Briefs have been filed by both Petitioners and the Employer. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel. 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 this case, 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 organizations involved claim 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 o Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer operates a shipyard in Quincy, Massachusetts, and is currently engaged in the con- struction of surface vessels at that yard. Approxi- mately 8,000 employees are employed in the yard. The Intervenor, Local 5, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO ( hereafter referred to as Local 5), represents the production and maintenance em- ployees in a unit of approximately 5,280 em- ployees. One of the joint RC-Petitioners, Local 151, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL-CIO ( hereinafter referred to as Local 151), represents designers and draftsmen in a unit of ap- proximately 412 employees. The UC-Petitioner, Local 90 , Industrial Union of Marine and Ship- building Workers of America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter referred to as Local 90 ), represents of- fice, clerical , and technical employees in a unit of approximately 850 employees . In addition, there are two units of plant guards and a unit of medical employees. Local 1512 seeks an election in a unit consisting of the planners in Departments 820, 858, and 899, and the labor budget estimaters in Department 814. In the alternative it seeks a separate unit of plan- ners in departments 820, 858 , and 899, and a separate unit of labor budget estimaters . Local 151, although stating that it does not seek a residual unit of all unrepresented technical employees, states that it is willing to proceed with an election in any unit found to be appropriate. Local 90 seeks to clarify the existing unit it represents by adding the following employees to the existing unit which it represents; Production control coordinators, asterisk planners, material planners, and quality control analysts.3 Case 1-RC-10755: Local 151 contends that the planners and labor budget estimaters are an identifiable and functionally distinct group having common employment interests, work experience, basic skills, and business contacts and are engaged in the unique and highly integrated ship construc- tion-erection planning operation . The Employer contends that Local 15 l's petition must be dismissed as Local 151 seeks but a segment of all unrepresented technical employees , there is not sufficient community of interest among the em- ployees it seeks, and Local 151 's petition is based on extent of organization . Employer also contends that certain of these employees are managerial and professional employees and not properly includable in the requested unit. The planners Local 151 seeks to represent are located in three departments : 820, 899 , and 858. The 820 planners, approximately 24 employees, are primarily concerned with planning the erection of ' Over Employer's objection, the petitioning union in Case 1 -RC-10755 was permitted to change its name to reflect its Local 151 as a joint peti- tioner . Employer renewed its objection to this change in its brief to the Board In our opinion the Hearing Officer did not abuse his discretion by permitting the Petitioner to change its name Accordingly , we overrule Em- ployer's objection = References to Local 151 hereinafter include both Local 151 and its In- ternational 3 In addition , the parties at the hearing agreed that the inventory control clerks in Department 855 and clerk in Department 822 should be ac- credited to the unit represented by Local 90 Accordingly , we shall order the accretion of these classifications to the existing unit 184 NLRB No. 66 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the hull and superstructure sections . The planners in Department 820 are divided into three groups. One group breaks down the hull and superstructure into modules of construction units and sets up a schedule for erection and assembly of the units. The second group , working from design plans, prepares the steel trade operation sheet , defining the amount or type of work that is done at a par- ticular work station and, in many cases, defining the method and/or jigging fixture required. The third group is responsible for defining procedures to be followed in the trades for fitting and welding modules in a timely manner . The 899 planners, ap- proximately 30 employees , plan a program for erection of the ship within the perimeters established by Department 820. Each planner takes a customer's plans and specifications and, by checking material and labor requirements against available resources , defines installation and other schedules for board sectors of the vessel. The De- partment 858 planners, approximately 115 em- ployees, take the plans as outlined by Department 899, further break them down into 80-hour units and prepare plans for the work of each trade. The work of this department is broken down into nine groups. The work of each group is geared to a specific trade; e .g., pipe-fitting, sheet metal etc.4 The Department 814 labor budget estimaters, ap- proximately 40, make estimates of the number of hours required to build the ship. These estimates are made at three different times in the planning process: ( 1) when bids are made, ( 2) after the con- tract has been obtained , and(3 ) when the functions have been broken down into smaller units . Each of these estimaters is familiar with a particular trade and it is his function to estimate how many hours that particular trade will need to complete its as- signed tasks. The Board's practice is to find a unit of technical employees inappropriate where it does not include all of the employees in that category. Local 151 concedes that the unit it seeks does not include all of the unrepresented technical employees, but con- tends that the employees it does seek are a func- tionally distinct group . It does this on the basis that 4 These planners are further divided into the "asterisk" and "non as- terisk" planners The asterisk planners will be discussed infra in connec- tion with the UC petition S The following classifications are in this category . Accountant , accoun- tant sr , budget coordinator , financial analyst, buyer , buyer sr., contract ad- ministrator, contract administrator sr , contract representative , contract representative sr , cost analyst , cost analyst sr , cost estimator , cost estima- tor sr , engineering planner , industrial sales analyst, insurance analyst, labor performance analyst , manufacturing coordinator, manufacturing development analyst, manufacturing development analyst sr , methods analyst, methods analyst sr , production test analyst , programmer, staff assistant sr , structural sub-contract field rep , systems analyst, systems development analyst , systems development specialist , ship control coor- dinator, ship control coordinator sr , technical writer editor, welding development analyst, engineering specialist, engineering staff specialist, all of the activities of the employees in the proposed unit have a single purpose : "planning the erection , implacement and installation of every component of a complex naval and commercial ship." Employer contends that if the unit is granted there are approximately 250 to 275 technical and financial people , including some in Departments 814, 899 , 820, and 858 who will be left un- represented,' and that these employees are not functionally distinct from those in the requested unit. Local 151 does not suggest that the employees in the proposed unit have any basis for distinction from the remaining unrepresented technical em- ployees other than job function . Brief summaries of the duties of some of the remaining technical em- ployees are set forth in the record. From an ex- amination of these summaries, we conclude that the job functions of the employees in the requested unit are not so functionally distinct that they are entitled to separate representation . For example : the cost estimater, who is not included , estimates produc- tion and related costs on future contracts and the costs of changes in present contract, a function very similar to that performed by the labor budget estimater, an employee who is included in the proposed unit. The engineering planner , who is not included , performs technical and administrative du- ties for engineering contract groups, e .g., produc- tion control, budgets, cost control, planning, etc., functions which would not appear to be so func- tionally distinct from those required in planning the building of a ship as to justify their exclusion from the unit. In more general terms , it is apparent that the technical employees in the proposed unit do not perform functions which are sufficiently distinct from the remaining unrepresented technical em- ployees to justify our granting of the proposed unit to the exclusion of these unrepresented employees.6 Accordingly, we find that the unit petitioned for, and the alternative units proposed , are inap- propriate . We shall therefore dismiss the petition in Case 1-RC-10755.7 Case 1-UC-66 : As noted above, Local 90 seeks to add four classifications of employees to the of- ,materials value specialist, program manager, proposal leader , systems in- tegration specialist, budget analyst , contract change analyst sr , department administrative asst , engineering assistant, facilities analyst sr , financial analyst, financial management assoc , industrial engineer analyst , industrial engineer analyst sr , labor performance analyst , librarian (engineering), lo- gistics analysts, manufacturing development analyst sr , market analyst, material program administrator, methods analyst , methods analyst sr , operations manager asst to production control analyst, program analyst sr., staff assistant, technical information analyst , traffic coordinator, trial & guarantee representative. The same is true with respect to Local 15 l's alternate suggestion of a unit limited to the planners in Departments 820,899 , and 858 ' In view of our disposition of this petition we do not pass on Employer's alternative contentions GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION 623 fice, clerical, and technical employees unit it cur- rently represents: Production control coordinators, asterisk planners, material planners, and quality control analysts. Production Control Coordinators: This classifica- tion was established in August 1969,8 after the ef- fective date of Local 90's current collective-bar- gaining agreement with the Employer.9 The produc- tion control coordinator makes certain that the materials required by a particular trade are acquired, sequence processed, and expedited, through the use of chasers, to the ship in time to support shipbuilding requirements. This function was established to provide intelligent control of the sequence of arrival of material at the ship. Local 90 claims the duties of this classification are substan- tially similar to those of expediters, piermen, and storemen , all of whom are currently represented by Local 90. Employer contends that these employees are salaried supervisors and that they do not per- form expediting, pierman, or storeman functions. The evidence as to the supervisory status of the production control coordinators is contradictory with Employer presenting evidence tending to show that the production control coordinators have the authority to recommend effectively wage increases and discipline while Local 90 presented evidence, including the testimony of a production control coordinator, tending to show that recommendations of production control coordinators are subject to independent investigation before being acted upon. After a careful review of the record, we conclude that the production control coordinators are work- ing leaders who, as the most experienced em- ployees, direct the activities of from four to six chasers, and that they do not have the authority ef- fectively to recommend personnel actions. There- fore, we conclude that production control coor- dinators are not supervisors. As noted above, the production control coor- dinator's primary function is to provide intelligent control of the sequence of arrival of materials at the ship. The expediter, represented by Local 90, is responsible for progressing materials from the point of fabrication to the point of installation or the point of usage . It is clear from an examination of the closely related functions of these classifications that the work of the production control coordinator is an outgrowth of the work performed by the ex- pediters. We, therefore, conclude that the produc- tion control coordinaters are an accretion to the unit represented by Local 90 and we shall, ac- cordingly, clarify the certification to include them.to Asterisk Planners: " These Department 858 plan- ners assist the nonasterisk by reading plans and list- ing materials. In addition , they spend approximately one-third of their time implementing minor changes to plans. Employer concedes that the planners spend most of their time performing clerical duties and that, since Employer acquired the Quincy yard from Bethlehem Steel in 1964, Local 90 has con- tinually contended that these employees have been improperly excluded from the unit it represents.12 Employer now states that it does not object to the accretion of these employees to the unit. Ac- cordingly, we shall clarify Local 90's certification to include these employees. Quality Control Analyst: These employees set specification requirements for particular contracts, develop audit plans, write reports on projects, and recommend corrective action. They spend approxi- mately 15 percent of their time doing actual inspec- tion work.13 Local 90 contends that this classifica- tion is an outgrowth of the now defunct classifica- tion, quality control inspectors, which it represented prior to Employer's acquisition of the yard in 1964. The quality control analyst is a technical employee who spends very little of his time performing clerical duties similar to those per- formed by employees in the unit represented by Local 90. Moreover, any connection these em- ployees had with the pre-1964 quality control in- spector is now too remote for consideration. We conclude that these employees do not share a suffi- cient community of interest with the employees currently in the unit to warrant their accretion to the unit.14 Accordingly, we find that they are not appropriately a part of the existing unit and deny Local 90's request that these employees be added by means of unit clarification. Material Planners: These Department 856 em- ployees perform various functions, including so- phisticated control of the sequence of material ar- rivals and the analyzation of material availability and capital equipment needs, with regard to the ° There were some coordinaters prior to August 1969 However, the record is unclear as to their exact duties. It is clear , however, that Employer was here establishing a classification with a new set of responsibilities ° This agreement was signed December 23, 1968 , effective December 22,1968 10 We rind no merit in Local 5 's contention that these employees should be included in the production and maintenance unit it represents This designation is not an official designation used by the Employer, but was used by the parties at the hearing to distinguish these employees from the other planners in Department 858 " In 1967, Local 90 filed a grievance contesting this exclusion This grievance is still pending 13 Inspectors are represented by Local 90 " Moreover , even if that were not the case , as these employees have not been included in the unit when previous contracts have been signed and as there is no allegation that these duties have changed, we would find that the request for their inclusion in the unit at this time raises questions concern- ing representation which may not be resolved in a unit clanfication proceeding Laddish Co, 176 NLRB 1098, Crucible Steel Casting, 162 NLRB 1513, Beaunit Fibers, Inc, 153 NLRB 987. 624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL planning of the control and acquisition of material and equipment. Their actions are directed toward assuring and scheduling prompt arrival and delivery of goods and supplies to the proper work areas in the most efficient possible sequence. Local 90 con- tends that these employees should be added to its unit as their work is substantially clerical in nature. However, the record shows that these employees are technical employees who spend very little of their time performing clerical work.'5 We conclude that these employees do not share a sufficient com- munity of interest with the employees in the unit to warrant their accretion to the unit.'s Accordingly, we find that material planners may remain excluded " The record does not reveal any other basis for inclusion of these em- ployees in the unit " Moreover, even if that were not the case , as these employees have been specifically excluded from the unit when previous contracts have been signed and there is no obligation that these duties have changed, we LABOR RELATIONS BOARD from the unit represented by Local 90. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the certification hereto- fore issued to Local 90, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically includ- ing therein the production control coordinators, the asterisk planners, the inventory control clerks in Department 855 and clerk in Department 822. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein in Case 1-RC-10755 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. should find that the request for their inclusion in the unit at this time raises question concerning representation which should not be resolved by a unit clarification proceeding . Ladish Co., supra; Crucible Steel Casting, supra; Beaunu Fibers , Inc., supra