Monsanto Research Corp.

MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP Monsanto Research Corporation, Mound Laboratory and International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC and its Local 682, Petitioners . Case 9-RC-8402 August 26, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer William C. Mittendorf. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs. 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 case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.' 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 organization involved claims to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer.' 'At the hearing the Employer moved that the record not be closed until such time as the Employer's counsel could obtain security clearance so he could examine certain classified work done by the employees in the proposed unit We are, however, of the opinion that the unclassified record as well as the briefs submitted by the parties present sufficient information about the nature of the employees' work to allow us to make a determination as to the propriety of the unit sought by the Petitioner Accordingly, we deny the motion The Employer also moved to correct the transcript That portion of the transcript at which the change is proposed is not relied on in making our present determination of the appropriate unit Accordingly, we deny the Employer's motion 3 The Employer concedes that the international Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act but challenges whether Local 682 is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act The record discloses that Local 682 was chartered by the International Union for the purpose of only represent- ing employees of this Employer The present members of Local 682 are not dues-paying members since there is no existing collective-bargaining agreement with this Employer The members are internally governed by a model constitution supplied by the International and at some later date the membership will vote on adopting the Local's own constitution Although meetings are not, as yet, held on a regularly scheduled basis the Local Union has held several meetings We find that Local Union 682 of the international Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers is a labor organization within the meaning 137 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer with- in the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machine shop employees employed ?+ the Employer's Miamisburgh, Ohio plant, but excluding all office clerical employees, technical employees with diverse Interectc, ' mployees represented by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer takes the position that the request- ed unit is not appropriate on either a craft or depart- mental basis and is inappropirate as a residual unit in that the petitioned-for unit does not contain all the unrepresented employees. The Employer argues that the machine shop employees do not perform all of the machining operations at the Employer's facility and any appropriate unit should include all of the employees who perform similar work. Further- more, according to the Employer, the machine shop employees are not a homogeneous group and their background, training, type of work, supervision, and working conditions vary. The Employer's Mound Laboratory facility consists of numerous structures located on a 182-acre site owned by the United States Government. Monsanto Research Corporation operates the facility under a contract with the Atomic Energy Commission where- by it agrees to provide the personnel, management, and technical skills necessary to achieve the objectives of the Atomic Energy Commission. Essentially, all of the activities of the laboratory are directed towards the defense effort. The laboratory's main function is to perform research and development work; howev- er, it also performs a certain amount of production work for other similar laboratory facilities, such as Los Alamos Laboratory, and other atomic energy contractors. The total work force at the laboratory consists of approximately 1,800 employees, all of whom are cleared, for security purposes, through the Atomic Energy Commission and receive what is known as a "Q" clearance. A number of these employees are represented by unions. The Employer presently has two collective-bargaining agreements. One is with the of the Act The objectives of the Local Union are the same as the chartering international, which the Employer has conceded is a labor organization Further there is evidence in the record to show that the Local Union has actually begun to function, i e , holding union meetings ' The Employer questioned the adequacy of the showing of interest The sufficiency of a petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation OD Jennings and Company, 68 NLRB 516 We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest is adequate 185 NLRB No. 17 138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the OCA- WU, covering 570 hourly paid employees in a produc- tion and maintenance unit. The other agreement is with the United Plant Guard Workers Union covering the 50 guards at the laboratory. The balance of the employees, or approximately 1,280, 300 of whom are supervisors, are all salaried employees and consist of machine shop employees, technicians, chemists, mathematicians, physicists, and degree people in all branches of physical and organic chemistry, as well as technical degree people in all fields of the physical sciences. These employees work in five different departments at the laboratory: nuclear, explosives, engineering, administration, and quality and reliability control. The nuclear and explosives departments are the two primary operating departments. Nuclear is concerned primarily with the handling of radioisotopes used both in weapons and nonweapons work. There are approximately 300 employees in nuclear operations, of which total there are 5 hourly paid employees represented by the OCAWU. All remaining employees are salaried. The explosives department is concerned primarily with the development of explosive devices using radioactive and nonradioactive explosive sources. There are approximately 539 employees in the Explosives department, of which 185 are hourly and the remainder salaried. The machine shop, the employees of which comprise the unit requested by the Petitioner, provides to the two above-mentioned operating departments (nuclear and explosives) certain services as will be set forth below. There are approximately 65 employees who work under the overall supervision of Paul Kleine, the machine shop superintendent. Under Kleine, there are six other admitted supervisors: Robert Ackley, Chester Small, Richard Cooper, Carl Shawhan, Dean Good, and Tom McCormick. The employees in the unit, who work under these six supervisors are classi- fied as modelmakers, precision machinists, machnists, gage room employees, glassblowers, heat treat techni- cians, and plating technicians. The main machine shop area is located in building M from which all of the employees involved work in or "out of." All administrative matters relating to machine shop personnel are performed at this location. At the main machine shop are located approximately 42 modelmakers, 11 precision machin- ists, 3 machinists, 3 glassblowers, 3 plating technicians, and 1 heat treat technician. There are also seven employees, three model makers and four precision machinists, permanently assigned to building T and doing substantially the same type machine tool work in that location as is done in the main machine shop. Most of the employees sought by the Petitioner fall into one of three classifications: modelmakers, precision machinists, and machinists. The modelmaker classification represents the highest degree of skill and ability acquired by individuals who began their training as machinists. There is some doubt whether there is or is not a formal training program required of individuals desiring to upgrade themselves from machinist to modelmaker. While there are no specific requirements for hiring an individual into the machinist class,4 it is clear that interviews center on a determination as to whether the applicant has had high school mathematics, particularly trigonometry, and also some mechanical skill. A technical aptitude test was former- ly given but it has since been abandoned. Once having been accepted as a machinist, the applicant is notified that there are correspondence courses available to him which are provided at company expense and are required if the applicant intends to move up in classification. The International Correspondence School (I.C.S.) courses have been available to the employees for approximately 4 years. Petitioner's wit- nesses, George Brown (a modelmaker) and Mitchell Ballard (a precision machinist), testified that they took these I.C.S. courses. According to their testimony the beginning machinist must complete a course con- sisting of 16 books in machine shop training which upon completion is returned to the Employer who mails it to the correspondence school for grading, after which it is returned to the individual. Upon satisfactory completion of the courses the machinist becomes eligible to be promoted to precision machin- ist. At this point his training through correspondence continues and his further advancement is dependent on the successful completion of an additional 34 books. Upon the completion of these books the preci- sion machinist would become eligible for promotion to the grade of modelmaker. At the present time, 11 of the 15 precision machinists are taking the I.C.S. courses, as are all of the machinists. In addition to correspondence courses, the begin- ning machinist receives instruction from and works with either a modelmaker or a precision machinist. Under the tutelage of these individuals he acquires skill in the handling and operation of all machine shop equipment, and he must be skilled on all prior to becoming a modelmaker. ' The Employer also hires individuals who have experience in the machine tooling as precision machinists and modelmakers depending on the extent of prior experience MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP. The work in all of these three classifications consists of building fixtures, gauges for use by the inspectors, jigs, and gadgets for special use, as well as special items for either development or production. The degree of complexity involved in the building of such items is determined and the work assigned accordingly to one of the three classifications. All three classes may work from prints, sketches, or verbal orders which come to them either through their immediate supervisor or from one of the departmental supervisors located elsewhere at the laboratory. The latter may be an engineer, chemist, or physicist who is working on a particular research or developmental project. Ordinarily such jobs are received directly from their own foreman; however, once having been assigned the job, the employee works independently of his immediate foreman and may for a substantial period of time receive all of his instructions from the engineer, chemist, or group leader on the project involved.' A substantial amount of the work on any particular product may be done either in the machine shop located in buildings M or T or it may be done on equipment located at the site where work on the project is being done. Evidence was presented to show that there are many areas throughout the laboratory where some machine shop type equipment is located, but not in the quantity and variety available at the main machine shop. The machine shop type equipment located in the remote areas of the laboratory may frequently be operated by technicians, chemists, engineers, or physi- cists, each of whom has specifically assigned work to be done on a project. However, the record is clear that, for the most part, the machining work done by employees other than the machine shop group is simple in nature, and when complex machin- ing work is required the services of a machinist, precision machinist, or modelmaker is sought. As the machine shop employee completes his project he will report to his foreman in building M or T, who then assigns him to his next project. ' The Employer's method of operation in researching a specific problem revolves around a "research team " A group leader, normally an engineer in one of the disciplines related to the problem being researched, is assigned to the particular project He is to supervise other engineers m' the same or related field as well as technicians having skills to be utilized on the project Ordinarily, the "research team" consists of one or more modelmakers who work as an integral part of the team The assigned project may take as much as 6 months or as little as a few days, but in either event the modelmaker assigned takes his day-to-day instructions from the group leader although he remains under the administrative supervision of Kleine in the machine shop The usual procedure appears to be for the employee to report in the morning to the machine shop area and go immediately to the site of the project work However, if his duties require machining he may spend a day or several days in the machine shop area In some cases the modelmaker may be called on, along with other members of the project team, to consult with potential customers about a projected product 139 Certain modelmakers who have continually worked in a particular field have developed highly specialized skills related to that limited field. Some, in fact, have developed such an expertise in a particular field that they have coauthored scientific papers along with other members of the "research team." On many occasions, the modelmaker is called on to work closely with technicians working on the same research project to which the modelmaker has been assigned. The technicians, lab assistants, and lab technicians are normally nondegree individuals who assist the engineers in performing the research necessary to complete the research project. These technicians may be called on to perform a wide variety of duties necessary to complete the project, including at times a certain amount of machining. Technicians may eventually become classified as engi- neers since the Employer does not regard a degree as a prerequisite to a classification of engineer, although the record is clear that practically all do have such degrees. There are three employees in the glass shop located in building M adjacent to the main machine shop. These highly skilled individuals specialize in free from glassblowing. Of the three glassblowers, two are car- ried on the exempt payroll and are classified in grade class 10, whereas modelmakers are in a nonexempt grade classification of grade class 8. The glassblowers do a substantial amount of work in the shop area; however, they, as the modelmakers, may be required to do a substantial portion of their work in the laboratories where specially designed glassware is required. Frequently, components will be manufac- tured in the glass shop in building M but, because their interconnection and subsequent transportation to the remote location in the Laboratory is impractical, the component will be taken to the location and there assembled under the supervision of the group leader or person in charge of that portion of the project. In this respect the glassblower's position is similar to that of the modelmaker in that he takes instructions from the group leader during the time he works as a part of the "research team." Glassblow- ers may work for any such group; as in the case of the modelmaker, their assignments may vary from a few days to a few weeks, depending on how long their services are needed. While there is day-to-day contact between the employees in the glass shop and the other employees in the machine shop area, there is no interchange since the skills required are separate and distinct. While the skills of the glassblow- er are extremely difficult to master, there is no class- room training. All training is "on the job." There are three lab technicians in the plating depart- ment and one in heat treatment. These individuals 140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD do not require any special knowledge of machining operations. They have daily contact with the machine shop employees who bring materials to them to be plated and heat treated . The skills required in both of these sections of the machine shop area were acquired through special training at schools offering such courses. The individaul presently in charge of heat treat was formally a machinist whom the Employ- er discovered to have extensive experience in this field . Both heat treating and plating require a knowl- edge of metallurgy in that the content of the metal being worked must be known so that the extent of heat applied can be kept within permissible limits, or the type of acids and plating used will achieve the desired results. As already mentioned , modelmakers, as well as precision machinists and machinists classified as nonexempt employees , are paid according to the Com- pany's general pay classification system . According to this plan, machinists are classed as grade 6, preci- sion machinists as grade 7, and modelmakers as grade 8. In the glassblowing section there are two senior glassblowers who are classified as grade 10. In the plating and heat treat sections there is one employee classed as s senior lab technician with a rating of grade 11. Although the Employer's wage classification system may give the impression that the wage rates are uniform for all employees within a particular pay grade, such is not the case. According to the record the Employer, in its most recent wage increase, revised wages according to the type of work being performed rather than the employee's classified pay scale. Thus, employees within a particular pay grade are paid different wages depending on the work they are performing . Fringe benefits are uniform through- out the Company depending on the numerical grade classification . The machine shop employees receive overtime at the rate of time and a half after 40 hours' work. There is some testimony in the record that the group herein sought by the Petitioner has been recog- nized previously by the Employer as a separate group. According to Petitioner's witness Earl Finke , approxi- mately 4 years ago the employees in the machine shop elected a committee of six or seven modelmakers to meet with the then supervisor of the machine shop to resolve grievances . The formation of the committee was encouraged by this supervisor to pro- mote the interests of the machine shop group. The committee met regularly about once a month and in addition to meetings with management also held employee meetings on the Employer 's premises. The committee, it is claimed , was responsible for creating the present classification of modelmaker. It is also claimed that all of the employees in the unit herein sought were represented by this committee and any benefits resulting therefrom accrued to the machine shop employees including the heat treat , plating, and glassblowers . Kleine, however, testified that at the present time he was unfamiliar with the activities of the committee although meetings were held with a group of employees (including Finke) about whether wage surveys were being conducted by the Employer. Basically, the Employer contends that it would be impossible to create any appropriate unit among the employees in the machine shop . It points out that the type of work being performed by these employees is not exclusively performed by them. Other salaried personnel throughout the plant perform machining operations of varying degrees of difficulty. Consequently , it is argued that only a unit comprising all those who perform these machining functions would be appropriate. Such a unit should at least include the nondegreed laboratory assistants and tech- nicians who normally are called on to perform machin- ing operations as part of their job. It is further argued that the proposed unit is also inappropriate because of the nature of the work and supervision. Most of the time these employees are not under the direct supervision of their foreman in the machine shop but rather under the supervision of group leaders or other research and production supervisors. More- over, according to the Employer, the nature of the machine shop employees' work requires a close involvement with research employees in the develop- ment and perfection of components. According to the Employer, the machine shop employees are consid- ered to be part of the research team and are expected to follow all directions of those supervising the research project . Finally, the Employer argues that the machine shop employees can hardly be considered a homogeneous group . The machine shop consists of a multitude of small groups, which either specialize in particular types of work or possess specialized skills which distinguish them from other members of the machine shop. The Petitioner, on the other hand , contends that all the employees in the unit have a community of interest sufficient to make the proposed unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In response to the Employer's arguments, the Petition- er contends that, although there may be other employ- ees at the laboratory who do machining from time to time, it is only secondary to their primary tasks at the laboratory. Only the machine shop employees are primarily concerned with performing machining operations. The Petitioner also points out that, although the nature of the employees ' work requires that they be supervised by group leaders and other research and production supervisors , such supervision is only of a temporary nature. The machine shop MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP foremen are actually the supervisors who have control of their activities and make evaluations as to their abilities. Finally, in answer to the Employer's conten- tions, the Petitioner notes that although there are some special groups, i.e., the glassblowers and plating technicians, these groups still have a community of interest with the modelmakers. All employees in the machine shop provide a specialized service to the laboratory's research and production personnel. These employees possess the requisite skills necessary to physically create the components which the laborato- ry's research personnel are seeking to develop. They are integrated into the research and development program only to the limited extent to which their skills are needed. We agree with the Petitioner that its proposed unit is an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining purposes in the special circumstances present here. Sufficient evidence has been presented in the record to show that there is a community of interest among the employees in the machine shop to create a depart- mental unit. All employees, regardless of particular skills, are highly skilled craftsmen. Most of these employees possess the skills and ability to construct original component parts and instruments from not only blue- prints and plans but also verbal instructions given by those engaged in the research and development. On occasion, these employees are also called on by those engaged in research and development to give advice on how to construct a component part or instrument to achieve the researcher's intended pur- pose. But this, except in a few isolated instances, is the extent of their involvement in the research and development carried on by the Employer at the laboratory. The employees engaged in research, profes- sionals, laboratory assistants, and technicians, on the other hand, are involved in the whole spectrum of activities necessary to complete their assigned research project. True, on occasion, nonmachine shop employ- ees will use machine tools scattered throughout the laboratory, but only to the extent necessary to achieve their primary goal of completing the research project. In fact, several nonmachine shop witnesses pointed out that, whenever difficult machining or glassblowing was required, laboratory research employees always sought the services of the machine shop employees. The record is clear that all administrative functions relating to the employees in the proposed unit are carried out through the machine shop regardless of where they are working and at whose direction. The Employer maintains training programs by which the bulk of the employees in the unit, machinists, precision machinists, and modelmakers, are able to improve their skills. Each employee in the proposed unit is under the supervision of a machine shop foreman. 141 This foreman determines to which project the employ- ee is to be assigned and makes the evaluation of the employee's performance. True, in order properly to fulfill the machine shop employee's assigned work he must, on occasion, follow the instructions of "group leaders" and other laboratory supervisors. But such direction is only transitory until the project is complet- ed. Clearly, such periods of transitory supervisory control are not a controlling factor in determining the proper unit as compared with the permanent administration and direct work supervision exercised through the machine shop.' We are also of the opinion that there is, contrary to the Employer's contention, a community of interest among employees in the machine shop. Whether the employee is a glassblower or a modelmaker he shares the same relationship with the research and production personnel. Each machine shop employee, under the common supervision of the machine shop superintend- ent, supplies the skill necessary to physically create component parts and instruments necessary to com- plete the research and production projects. In other words, all these employees in the proposed unit serve the same function within the laboratory's organization- al structure.' We find that the following employees of the Employ- er constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All machine shop employees employed at the Employer's Miamisburgh, Ohio plant, but exclud- ing all office clerical employees, all other employ- ees, employees represented by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, and professional employees, guards, and supervi- sors as defined by the Act. [Direction of Election' omitted from publication.] The situation presented in this case must be distinguished from those cases involving unit questions of whether there should be separate production and maintenance units or a single unit composed of both in those cases the extent of interchangeable supervisory control may be an important factor in determining the proper unit ' Moreover, even if we did not find a close community of interest between the modelmakers and the glassblowers, platers and heat treater, we would still include them in the unit as the residual employees of the department since these employees are included by the Employer in the machine shop department for administrative and supervisory purpos- es In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236, NLRB. v Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 9 within 7 days of date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed