McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS CO. McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company-Western Division, and the Douglas Aircraft Company, Components of the McDonnell Douglas Corpora- tion and Southern California Professional Engi- neering Association, Inc., Petitioner. Case 21-UC-46 December 21, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS On March 15, 1971, the Petitioner filed a petition to clarify a bargaining unit currently recognized by component companies of McDonnell Douglas Corporation' by including employees doing scientific programming and related work for McDonnell Douglas Automation Company's western location. A hearing was held on May 21, 1971, before Hearing Officer Theodore B. Horn. The parties appeared and participated at the hearing. On June 23 the Regional Director for Region 21 issued an order transferring the case to the Board. Briefs were filed by the Employer and the 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 authority in connection with this proceeding 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. 1 The contracting parties to the current agreement which runs from November 25, 1968 , to November 14, 1971, are . "McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company-Western Division and Douglas Aircraft Compa- ny, components of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in St Louis , Missouri" and the "Southern California Professional Engineering Association " 2 The contract specifically covers "professional engineers represented by the Association" and the recognition clause, which appears immediately after that statement reads Section I-Employees Represented The company recognizes the Association as the exclusive collective bargaining agent for such of its employees as are now or hereafter classified in the job classifications set forth in Appendix "A" attached 689 Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds: The existing contract unit is based upon a number of Board certifications dating back to 1945.2 As stipulated by parties, these "certifications certify only employees in engineering departments, divisions and subdivisions of the Company." However recognition has also been extended by contract to functions not within engineering departments.3 Also stipulated is the fact that McDonnell Douglas Automation Com- pany is a "new Company" of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, created to provide computer services to commercial customers on a national scale, as well as continuing to make its services available to all components of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. The McDonnell Douglas Automation Company-herein referred to as MCAUTO-was formed in November 1970 as a result of the merger of McDonnell Automation Company (St. Louis, Mis- souri), a company in existence since 1960, and the computer service organizations of Douglas Aircraft Company (Long Beach, California) and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company (Huntington Beach and Santa Monica, California). The latter two components of McDonnell Douglas Corporation have a history of collective bargaining with the Petitioner dating back to 1945. MCAUTO, since November 1970, is also a component of McDonnell Douglas Corporation. On or about December 28, 1970, MCAUTO was staffed at its western location by more than 500 salaried employees from Douglas Aircraft Company and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company. One hundred fourteen of these employees were represented by the Petitioner; 88 of these were engaged in scientific programming work and were transferred to the Scientific Programming branch of MCAUTO. As a group the 114 previously represented employees were transferred as follows: hereto and made a part of this Agreement who are employed in the following groups (i) those working in locations of the Douglas Aircraft Company which previously constituted the Aircraft Division of the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., (u) those working in locations of the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company-Western Division which previously constituted the Missile and Space Systems Division of the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., (in) those working in the Tulsa Division of the Douglas Aircraft Company Appendix A reads as follows. In addition, "Field" counterparts for most of these classifications are listed. 3 Stipulations 3 and 6 of Joint Stipulations , Exhs. 1-33 Removal of some employees from the unit occurred early in 1970 with respect to those deemed to have acquired managerial functions Stipulation 32. 194 NLRB No. 116 690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD From To (,ICAUTO) : 4/ 362 Computing Analyst 387 Technical Computing Analyst 363 Computing Engineer 388 Technical Computing Engineer 364 Computing Specialist 389 Technical Computing Specialist 715 Associate Engineer/ Scientist 386 Proudct Engineer-Associate 716 Engineer/Scientist 392 Product Engineer 719 Senior Engineer/ Scientist 377 Product Engineer Senior The represented employees transferred from Doug- las Aircraft Company were from its Scientific Pro- gramming Branch and engineering department; those from McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company were from its Information Systems Subdivision, also known as Information Systems Division, and were engaged in functions which were not within engineer- ing departments. All were reclassified at MCAUTO to nonrepresented classifications.5 At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss, contending that the subject matter was inappropriate for a UC petition. This motion was referred to the Board. It also contended that the new classifications are not covered by Appendix A of the current agreement6 and belong to a "totally new and independently operating company" not covered by certification or agreement, hence "the Corporation cannot recognize the Association as to this extension to MCAUTO." In its brief the Employer has renewed these positions, contending that the only proper solution is a self-determination election in an "appropriate unit within MCAUTO." 7, Petitioner contends that the Employer has vacillat- ed in its reasons for considering these employees outside the bargaining unit: as due to their removal from an engineering department, as due to their reclassification in classifications not included in Appendix A of the contract, and as due to their work since transfer being for a new and different company. Emphasizing that the reclassifications have entailed 4 Job code 387, "Technical Computing Analyst," was in existence before these transfers "and populated within the Company" by employees not represented by the Petitioner At the hearing the parties agreed, by stipulation 34, that no other Union claims to represent the disputed classifications s The parties stipulated that all 114 so transferred were informed that they would not be within a collective-bargaining unit, and that three additional employees offered such transfer elected to remain "with the Company in a represented status " 6 See quotation of Appendix A in fn 2, which confirms the fact that job code 387 and the five new classifications do not appear in Appendix A T MCAUTO has 1250 employees at the western location, including "427 nonrepresented salaried employees other than those at issue and their supervision " no change in work, location, or supervision-facts which are also a matter of stipulation 8-Petitioner seeks to prevent erosion of the bargaining unit by "arbitrary" reclassification. It views as frivolous the Employer's contention that accretion is the true motive of Petitioner. The problem here resolves itself into one of organizational transfer of employees from existing component companies of the basic McDonnell Douglas Corporation-transfers apparent on paper only-to job codes of obvious similarity in a "new" component company, McDonnell Douglas Automa- tion Company (MCAUTO). Actually the "new" component is not functionally new, but only a creature made up of existing scientific programming facilities from two existing components, who have long bargained with the Petitioner, and of the scientific programming operations of McDonnell Automation Company, a Missouri corporation in this family of companies. Despite the complete operating autonomy which each of these companies is said to have,9 there is nothing on this record which in any way suggests that the companies involved are not part of an organization that is an integrated whole with ultimate common control. In these circumstances the transfer of employees between component compa- nies, reflecting no change whatever in their work location and admittedly no substantial change in their supervision-certainly none that is ascertainable on the record before us-cannot be viewed as effectively 8 The stipulations show that all but two transferees do the same work for MCAUTO, with the only change in actual work of these two being that they spend 5 to 10 percent of their time doing work for specific clients with duties no different,-that no transferee has physically moved his place of work since the transfer and that MCAUTO has no "tangible plans" to move them or "to utilize or construct or lease or purchase" different premises to house "the involved classifications", and that supervision of scientific programmers at MCAUTO is substantially the same as it had been. 9 The Employer contends that MCAUTO implements its own personnel and labor relations policies and is a separate and distinct employer just as Douglas Aircraft Company and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company are each separate, distinct employers, but admits that MCAUTO comes under the labor relations staff and policies of the Corporation with respect to contracting for health and insurance benefits MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS CO. removing the employees involved from the currently recognized bargaining unit.10 Accordingly we deny the Employer's motion to dismiss and shall clarify the currently recognized bargaining unit by specifically including employees transferred from job codes 362, 363, 364, 715, 716, 719, to MCAUTO job codes 387, 388, 389, 386, 392, 377.11 10 See S D Warren Company, 164 NLRB 489, where clarification was granted though work location was changed General Electric Company, 170 NLRB 1272, cited by the Employer, involved employee mergers at a new location, with major personnel changes as to office clerical employees and conflicting union claims as to warehouse employees, hence elections were directed Chrysler Corporation, 140 NLRB 1024, also cited by the Employer, involved purchase of the automotive assets of Briggs, an ORDER 691 It is hereby ordered that the currently recognized bargaining unit be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically including in it the employees doing scientific programming and related work who were transferred on December 28, 1970, to MCAUTO job codes 387, 388, 389, 386, 392, and 377. apparently unrelated corporation, with an attempt-some 8 years and several transfers of physical location later-to add a small group of clerical employees to a technical unit of Chrysler solely on the ground that the clericals in question had originally been represented as part of a unit of engineering clericals at Briggs. 11 See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engmemen, 145 NLRB 1521, 1523. Appendix A reads as follows: CODE SALARY 40 HOURS NO. CLASSIFICATION GRADE MIN. MAX. 715 Associate Engineer/ Scientist 2 624 980 362 Computing Analyst 1 551 948 363 Computing Engineer 4 675 1132 364 Computing Specialist 8 990 1513 258 Contract Specifications Engineer 4 675 1132 904 Contract Specifications Engineer---Senior 7 898 1418 260 Coordinator 5 727 1190 997 Customer Service Representative 1 551 948 996 Customer Service Representative ---Senior 7 898 1418 264 Development Liaison Engineer 6 793 1288 721 Engineering Drawings Checker 5 727 1190 706 Engineering Research Assistant (Loc. A52 only ) 1 551 948 716 Engineer/ Scientist 5 727 1190 717 Engineer/ Scientist Specialist 8 990 1513 731 Flight Test Analyst 2 624 980 277 Flight Test Engineer 7 898 1418 995 Industrial Writer 2 624 980 903 Launch/Test Engineer 5 727 1190 902 Launch/Test Engineer--Senior 8 990 1513 284 Liaison Engineer 5 727 1190 718 Principal Engineer/Scientist non- graded 1634 2338 368 Production Designer 5 727 1190 307 Project Coordinator (Dept. C1--657 only) 9 1070 1603 993 Publications Editor 8 990 1513 719 Senior Engineer/ Scientist 11 1339 1939 994 Staff Writer ' 5 727 1190 366 Tool Design Engineer (Dept. C1--657 only) 3 639 1046 367 Tool Design Engineer--Senior (Dept . C1--657 only) 5 727 1190 329 Weight Control Engineer 5 727 1190 In addition , "Field" counterparts for most of these classifi- cations are listed.