United States Steel Corp.

58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United , States Steel Corporation?! ,and United Steel- workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 6-RC-5704 July 12, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS 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 Mark A. Rock, 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. Briefs were timely filed by the Employer and Petitioner. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case 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 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 represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: At both the hearing and in its brief, Petitioner described the requested unit as "all craft and maintenance employees, including group leaders,2 employed at the Employer's Applied Research Labo- ratory facilities located at Monroeville and Universal, Pennsylvania, excluding all other employees, techni- cians, laboratory assistants, draftsmen, illustration artists, office clerical employees, plant clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards and supervi- sors as defined in the Act." In its brief, however, Petitioner further stated that "The employees who would be included in this unit constitute the Employ- er's Division 6-Shops and Maintenance-at its Monroeville" and Universal facilities, thereby appar- ently restricting the scope of the requested unit. Subject to this modification, Petitioner does not seek an alternative unit. ,Petitioner contends that the employees sought have a sufficient community of interest to warrant. their inclusion in,a separate appropriate unittbecause they constitute a closely',,identifiable;,,functionally distinct and homogeneous group since- their work , wand interests differ from those of the employees in the several research divisions of the Employer's research center. More specifically, Petitioner argues basically that the employees in issue are engaged primarily in providing routine craft, janitorial, maintenance, and utility services to all of the center's buildings, equipment, and employees, and that the homogeneity of those employees is not impaired even though "some of [their] functions and duties" overlap with those of the research technicians with whom "of necessity" they must work in "close cooperation and proximity" and "in some coordination" on research projects. The Employer argues that the requested unit is inappropriate because it is not a distinct functional, homogeneous, or even a traditionally departmental grouping of employees, with a sufficient mutuality of interests which would entitle them to separate representation. The Employer further contends that only a research centerwide unit is appropriate because of the unique nature of its operation and the closely integrated functional and operational interrelation- ship between employees and among all areas of research and all divisions at the center. The Employer, a basic steel producer, is engaged in both fundamental and applied research and develop- ment (R and D) work at its research center which is comprised of facilities located at Monroeville, Penn- sylvania, where the major portion of its overall R and D program is conducted, and at various other facilities, including those located at Universal and Murrysville, Pennsylvania, both of which are located within 10-15 miles from Monroeville. No manufac- turing or production work is carried on in any of these facilities. The applied research segment of its center is administratively organized into seven areas of re- search with various divisions (chemical, mathemati- cal, electrical, structural, etc.) thereunder. The basic function and objective of the center is to research and develop new equipment, new products, new processes, and new concepts relating generally to the Employer's products. These objectives are accomplished on the task force principle of utilizing the particular and individual skills of such employees as may be necessary, regardless of the area or division to which they may be assigned. The research and development of a process, or a project, or a piece of equipment therefore requires a coordinated effort between the various divisions, including Division 6. I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing . meaning of the Act. 2 The parties stipulated that group leaders are not supervisors within the 192 NLRB No. 12 UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. 59 Division 6 is categorized by the. Employer as Shops and Maintenance, and there arevarious machine and electrical shops which ,are utilized primarily by-the employees in this division,' although technicians from other divisions-also -use the,shops on occasion. The division's _246 ,employees are, by and large, classified by various maintenance and craft job titles, but there is no evidence that the Employer requires craft status for the-performance, of the duties -required by the employees, of Division 6, or of -any division, or that any employee was required to have achieved craft status as a prerequisite for employment. Indeed, the record shows that the Employer has no apprenticeship training program, that the.three employees shown to be craftsmen acquired that status while employed elsewhere, and that. the. Employer uses the janitor classification as an entry level J or many higher positions, including , technicians' positions, . in _all, divisions throughout the center. Moreover, although Petitioner-,seeks -to represent craftsmen, it- has not designated, nor does the record indicate, which job titles or employees fall within that grouping. We must conclude, therefore, that no craft grouping as such exists at the center. The record further shows that there is not a separate group of maintenance employees within the tradition- al industrial meaning employed at the center, that while Division 6 employees perform maintenance work, such work also is performed by technicians in various divisions, and that maintenance work is but a part of the total responsibilities of many, if not most, of the Division 6 employees whose basic function is to augment the R and D work by routinely participating with technicians in various aspects of designing, construction, maintenance, and repair of experimen- tal research equipment. The record is replete with instances of such close cooperation not only with regard to experimental equipment, but also as to experimental projects, i.e., a Division 6 welder and Division 8 technicians jointly developed, fabricated, and constructed a mine cable splicing unit; the sole Division 6 fitter worked, on a daily basis, with Division 2 technicians in identifying, laying out, and flame cutting pipe specimen material. Moreover, the maintenance tasks performed by Division 6 employ- ees are limited in both degree and scope. Thus, those classified as janitors perform normal janitorial and housekeeping tasks, but not for the entire center nor to the exclusion of technicians in the ceramics laboratory, or those in the pilot coke oven area who, for example, clean their own work areas, or the technicians in the canning kitchen who maintain and clean their equipment at the end of test runs, or the storeroom attendants attached to the accounting department who clean up their areas. In addition, Division 4 employees perform all the construction, installation, and maintenance of glass apparatus at the center, using tools such as torches, pliers;.-files, cutoff wheels, and soldering equipment. Division I 1 ceramics technicians mix and.form refracting materi- als and, utilizing, a bricklayer's skill, lay-the brick into simulated furnace walls. This, group also assists Division 8 technicians in the replacement of refracto- ry linings in various pieces of pilot equipment. Further, Division 8 technicians have laid tile in the center's lockerroom, and Division I I -technicians have engaged in painting. Moreover, welding, soldering, and brazing operations are, and' have been, performed by technicians in Division"8 and ' 18 as'-well as by Division 6 welders who, in addition to performing routine maintenance welding work, also have worked side by side, with, and under the, direction " of, technicians on various experimental equipment; and projects. In 'performing their - overlapping ' work, moreover, the technicians and Division 6 employees often perform the same type of work, utilize the same tools, and work under common supervision. The portion, of time which Division 6 employees spend working on R and D'' equipment and/or with technicians or professional employees on experimen- tal processes or projects apparently varies according to job classification and the type of experimental work involved. The testimony of a Division 6 electrician reveals, for example, that he spends about 20 percent of his time working with technicians on their projects, and that during this time, he makes changes and adjustments on the equipment used for those projects, and that he has collaborated with technicians in making up drawings for such equip- ment. On the other hand, a Division 6 pipefitter testified that he has spent approximately 50 percent of his time performing pipefitting work on R and D projects for technicians or engineers. The 42 machin- ists in Division 6, however, spend only 10-20 percent of their time on pure maintenance work, while the remaining 80-90 percent is involved in the design and modifications of R and D equipment on various projects. The close coordination and cooperation which exists between Division 6 employees and the techni- cians also exists between the technicians in the various divisions in the center, including those in the facilities located at Monroeville, Universal, and Murrysville, who also collaborate in the designing and construc- tion of R and D projects and equipment which they also maintain and repair without assistance from Division 6 employees, using "craftsmen's" tools and equipment. The record further shows that the Employer has, over the years, permanently transferred many Divi- sion 6 employees to other jobs in other divisions and locations throughout the center in addition to those 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD temporarily transferred or assigned forxthe purpose of augmenting the technicians and professional employ- ees of other divisions, While much of the R and D work is performed at the Monroeville facility, definitive projectsusing experimental equipment also are conducted at' the nearby Murrysville facility, where two Division 6 employees assist Division 5 technicians iii modifying and maintaining the equip- ment used there, and at the Universal facility, where nine Division 6'employees are located. Regardless of location, `however, all of the center's approximately 1,500 employees share substantially the same working conditions and`enjoy common conditions of employ- ment and fringe benefits. In ;view of the integrated functional and operational nature,of the Employer's operation, the 'interchange of work-'and personnel between technicians of the various divisions, the routine contact with and interrelationship of work duties between the,techni- cians and Division 6yemployees who augment the R and D work of; the former by ' participating in such workat the three facilities named above, the perform- ance of many of. the traditional mai'fiteriance func- tions ' by technicians ` 1who utilize many of the same procedures and tools' as, Division 6 employees, the common supervision, then permanent transfers' of, Division 6 employees °to other jobs in other divisions throughout the center, and'the sharing- of common conditions of, employment, we are persuaded that any separate;i community of interest which the "craft" or "maintenance" employees might., enjoy,, has been largely submerged into the broader community of interests which 'those employees share with other. center employees. .nFurther,, we -find that the foregoing considerations preclude the establishment of a separate appropriate unit on either a maintenance or a departmental,basis, and that the evidence has not sufficiently, established a craft grouping of Division 6 or, other .employees, thereby negating the constitution of a separate appropriate unitonthat basis. Based upon our evaluation of the facts of this case, we conclude that the unit sought by Petitioner is not composed of a. distinct and homogeneous group of employees with interests, separate from.. those of other- employees- and, therefore, is not anappropriate: unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. - I 11 ORDER IT IS HEREBY -ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and, it hereby is, dismissed.