Mack Trucks, Inc.

382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mack Trucks, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Petitioner. Case 4- RC-10484 October 29, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO On October 19, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found, in accordance with Petitioner's request, that a unit confined to draftsmen in the engineering division of Employer's Allentown, Pennsylvania, facility was an appropriate unit. In so finding, the Regional Director rejected the Employer's contention that all of the Employer's engineering division employees located in three separate cities should be included in the unit or, in the alternative, that all engineering division employees located at Allentown constitute the small- est appropriate unit. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Re- gulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely Request for Review with the National Labor Relations Board in which it claimed that the Region- al Director erred in rejecting its unit contentions. It further claimed that in no event could a unit com- posed solely of draftsmen be found to be appropriate under the Board's established unit rules allegedly be- cause: (1) the draftsmen enrolled in the engineering division at Allentown composed only a segment of a much larger class of employees within the engineer- ing division who shared a substantial community of interest with one another; and (2) draftsmen were only one of many other classifications of unrepre- sented technical employees employed by the Em- ployer both within and outside the engineering divi- sion. On December 19, 1973, the Board denied the Employer's Request for Review with respect to the Regional Director's finding that a unit consisting solely of draftsmen was appropriate. However, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional Director to direct a further hearing to obtain evidence as to whether there were "other unrepresented technical employees employed within the Engineering Division or elsewhere in the Employer's Allentown facility." A hearing was held January 29 and 30 and Febru- ary 21, 1974, before Hearing Officer Dorothy L. Moore. All parties were represented by counsel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to exam- ine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues raised. The parties' stated positions at that hearing evidenced uncertain- ty as to what unit issues were open for review. There- fore, on May 20, 1974, the Board issued a Notice To Show Cause which (1) clarified the remand order with respect to the unit issue, and (2) directed that the parties show cause why a unit composed of all nonsupervisory, nonprofessional employees in the engineering division of the Allentown, Pennsylvania, facility excluding only employees classified as file clerks, typists, microfilm clerks, and secretaries would not be an appropriate unit under established Board unit precedents. Thereafter, both Petitioner and Employer filed an- swering briefs to the Notice To Show Cause. 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 au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, includ- ing the briefs on review, and hereby affirms the Re- gional Director's decision only to the extent consis- tent herewith. 1. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT A. The Parties' Contentions The Petitioner initially requested a unit confined to "draftsmen" in the Employer's engineering divi- sion located in Allentown, Pennsylvania. In the briefs filed subsequent to our order granting review and our Notice To Show Cause, Petitioner indicated its willingness to accept, as alternatives, units broad- er in scope than that initially requested, though con- fined, nonetheless, to employees who are employed in the Allentown engineering division. Thus, alterna- tively it proposed either a unit composed of employ- ees who could be identified as "technicals" within the meaning of the Board's normal definition of that term, or a unit of substantially all nonsupervisory, nonprofessional employees, but excluding that part of the complement classified as laboratory drivers and mechanics employed, mainly, at the Employer's "Test Shed." Petitioner objected to the inclusion of "Test Shed" employees because it claimed that they were production and maintenance employees and, therefore, should be excluded from the unit found appropriate. The Employer's position, as ultimately developed at the hearing held in January and February 1974, 214 NLRB No. 57 MACK TRUCKS, INC and in the briefs filed thereafter, does not dispute the appropriateness of a unit composed of all, or sub- stantially all, of the nonprofessional, nonsupervisory employees employed in the engineering division at the Allentown facilities. The Employer, however, would exclude from such unit all employees classi- fied as file clerks, typists, microfilm clerks, and secre- taries. It asserts that all employees classified as draftsmen, machine operators, record clerks, sched- ule clerk, change writers, engineering aides, staff as- sistant, assistant engineers, laboratory drivers, and laboratory mechanics share job interests so closely related as to preclude their fragmentation. For rea- sons hereafter set forth, we find merit in this latter stated position of the Employer. There is no bargaining history among any of the employees of the Employer's engineering division and no labor organization currently represents any such employees.' B. The Facts The Employer is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of trucks. It designs, fabricates, and assembles all of the component parts of the trucks it manufactures and sells. Although it has fa- cilities located in other parts of the United States, it conducts the major portion of its operations at the facilities located at Allentown, Pennsylvania-the sole location with which we are here concerned.' It has allocated to the engineering division-which is composed of several departments-all responsibili- ties related to product development, product engi- neering, and design function. It operates that division as an integrated corporate function, as distinguished from its operation of other departments which per- form plant functions. The engineering division is headed by the execu- tive vice president of products and engineering (Mr. W. M. May) who is located at the World Headquar- ters Building in Allentown, Pennsylvania. The divi- sion is organized into two major subdivisions, prod- uct engineering and product development, each headed by a vice president, also located at the World Headquarters Building. Each such subdivision has four departments, each of which is headed by a chief engineer. Four of these eight departments, plus engi- neering administration, are located at the Allentown 1 Petitioner currently has collective-bargaining contracts covering, sepa- rately, production and maintenance employees and office clerical employ- ees in other divisions of the Allentown, Pennsylvania, facilities The unit descriptions in both of these bargaining agreements specifically exclude rec- ognition of any engineering division employees 2 The Employer's other engineering facilities are located at Hagerstown, Maryland, and Hayward, California Its corporate headquarters are located at Allentown , Pennsylvania 383 facilities . Two departments, namely, highway vehicle engineering and special purposes vehicles, are locat- ed, mainly, at the World Headquarters Building. The vehicle development department is situated both at the World Headquarters Building and a few miles away at the Union Boulevard facility. The vehicle development laboratory department is located at the "Test Shed," approximately 1-1/2 miles from the World Headquarters Building. The record reveals, however, that a new building is under construction about a mile from the World Headquarters Building, to be occupied in winter of 1974 by both the vehicle development department and the vehicle devel- opment laboratory department. After this construc- tion is completed, all four departments of the engi- neering division at Allentown will be centralized at two locations; i.e., the World Headquarters Building and the new facility. The different job classifications of employees in the engineering division are spread throughout the four departments and the functions of the four de- partments are interrelated.' Draftsmen and engineers work in all four departments. The engineering division, as a whole, is maintained primarily for the purpose of research, design, and de- velopment of new products, and for the specialized design of custom orders. Its day-to-day work activi- ties are, in the main, determined by professional em- ployees, most of whom are professional engineers. Apart from supervisors, the other employees in the division, approximately 265 in number, perform sup- porting job functions under the general direction of the professionals. Of these 265 employees, about 25 occupy classifications which all parties would de- scribe as "office clerical" within the meaning of the Board's definition of that phrase, viz, file clerks, mi- crofilm clerks, typists, and secretaries. The remaining 240 occupy various classifications as follows: about 156 are engaged as draftsmen,' 13 as machine opera- tors, 11 as records clerks, I as schedule clerk, 15 as change writers, 7 as engineering aides, 4 as laborato- ry drivers, 30 as laboratory mechanics, and 3 as assis- tant engineers.5 We find that the following classifications belong in the unit we find herein to be appropriate for the pur- ' The facts we hereafter recite as descriptive of the job functions and classifications of the engineering division employees are related only to the employees who worked at the facilities located at or near Allentown, Penn- sylvania , hereafter identified as the "Allentown-based " employees Each broad job classification has a number of subclassifications and grades 5 Although some of these employees were listed on a "clerical" payroll list, the Employer argued that all of them were technicals Petitioner con- tended that only the draftsmen and the assistant engineers were techmcals, and the others were office clerical or production and maintenance employ- ees Considering the view we are taking of this case , we find it unnecessary to determine the dispute regarding the technical status of some of these employees 384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poses of collective bargaining. The record shows the following with respect to the interrelationship of these employees and their duties: Draftsmen: The employees occupying the drafts- man classifications perform the type of work normal- ly associated with that title. They work in the various departments in squads under the immediate supervi- sion of the drafting "squad leaders," admitted profes- sionals. They either majored in drafting in high school or took specialized drafting courses after they finished high school. Of those employees currently occupying the position of draftsman, 75 began their employment in job classifications below described. Draftsmen work closely with the professional engi- neers who review their work. The blueprints they produce are turned over for reproduction to the em- ployees occupying the machine operator classifica- tions. Machine Operators: The employees classified as machine operators are subdivided into three job-title groups: machine operator leader, machine operator A, and machine operator B. Their common primary work task is to operate and maintain the Employer's various reproduction machines. They work in engi- neering administration and are supervised by the re- production supervisor, H. H. Heistrand, who also supervises four record clerks. Heinstrand reports to L. U. David, engineering administration manager. All of them have frequent day-to-day contact with draftsmen whose work they reproduce and a number of them have had some training in drafting work as such. Indeed, it is the established practice of the Em- ployer to employ as machine operators B applicants with some drafting training, and to promote them to draftsman classifications when they complete their drafting courses. Six of the machine operators- those occupying the machine operator B classifica- tions-are currently studying to become draftsmen. Change writers: There are three classifications of change writers: change writer leader, change writer A, and change writer B. They work in engineering administration and are directed by A. A. Zellner, the change writer supervisor, who also reports to L. U. David, engineering administration manager. The change writers all have a high school education and many took drafting courses in high school. The change writers compile manufacturing lists (ML); i.e., lists of parts and assemblies needed to complete and maintain a Mack truck. When the change writers have a "change" to write they receive a "header sheet" from the drafting department. This sheet out- lines what the drafting department is doing, why it is being done, and what references the draftsmen have as far as described differences between old and new parts. Along with the "change," change writers also receive blueprints from the draftsmen. From these blueprints, the change writers set up new manufac- turing lists which incorporate these changes and itemize all parts of a model. If a change writer has any questions regarding blueprint, he confers with a draftsman. After the ML is prepared, the change writers make up a set of "requirement cards" 6 and then write up an "engineering change notice." The latter is composed from information obtained from the drafting department. Before the change can be issued, the change writer must get the approval of a drafting squad leader or group supervisor. As is obvious from the foregoing, the tasks per- formed by change writers require constant contact with draftsmen. Records clerks: This classification is divided into records clerk A and records clerk B. Four records clerks are supervised by H. H. Heistrand, the re- production supervisor; two are supervised by the en- gineering administration manager; and the rest are supervised by the various heads of the subdepart- ments in highway vehicle engineering. All records clerks have high school diplomas and their work re- quires the ability to read blueprints. Two of those currently employed as records clerks B have taken courses in drafting with the intent of becoming draftsmen. The records clerks all perform different duties. Four of them are primarily engaged in maintaining histories of all changes as reported to them by the draftsmen, from the drafting stage to production. Each has a specific area or responsibility: one works with vendor prints; another with fire or special re- leases; another with standard drafting changes; and the last keeps records of the drafting done for cus- tomer orders. Each of these records clerks receives the change information from the draftsmen, and must clear with the draftsmen any questions or prob- lems he might have regarding a change. Of the two other records clerks, one has the re- sponsibility of gathering information, as released by the standard production design area, to determine what compliance is necessary to meet safety regula- tions. Practically 100 percent of his time is spent con- ferring with drafting squad leaders and draftsmen. Another records clerk has the responsibility of keep- ing draftsmen current as to production requirements to insure that the drafting department is keeping up with the general sales orders. His work also requires constant contact with draftsmen. Schedule clerk: The single schedule clerk works in the highway vehicle engineering department under 6 Each Mack part has a requirement card which indicates the part num- be r, the title, the color, the code, and on what model truck it appears MACK TRUCKS, INC the supervision of the supervisor of customer order drafting. He works in a room with 50 to 60 draftsmen and is in contact with drafting squad leaders on a daily basis. His primary function is to receive general sales orders and distribute them, according to their model number, to one of the four drafting squad leaders. The schedule clerk also maintains a daily "promise and place schedule" which serves as a guide to drafting squad leaders for the assignment of drafting tasks. Engineering aides: Each of the seven employees classified as an engineering aide has a different function. They work throughout the various depart- ments of the engineering division and are supervised by the supervisors of the subdepartments in which they work. One engineering aide processes the pat- ents developed by the employees in the engineering division; another handles deviations that have to be made in manufacturing lists due to changes in speci- fications by reason of the requirements of foreign countries or because of shortages due to the failure of the vendor to deliver; another orders special equip- ment for new orders of fire apparatus; another stud- ies the engineering experimental releases to de- termine what new material needs to be ordered; an- other orders parts necessary for "running prototype models"; another procures the weights of all Mack units, records them, and works up weight estimates for the sales department; another does liaison work between the portion of the engineering division in Hagerstown and that in Allentown; and yet another does liaison work at the test shed which involves in- suring that the test shed employees have all the mate- rials necessary to conduct tests. Although not all of the engineering aides have daily contact with the draftsmen, the undisputed evidence shows that the engineering aide who does liaison work between Hagerstown and Allentown and the one who does liaison work at the test shed are in daily contact with draftsmen. Two of the employees who are currently engineering aides formerly occupied the classifica- tion of draftsmen. The engineering staff assistant works in the division headquarters under the supervision of L. L. David, engineering administration manager. He estimates the cost of the engineering work required for various projects. Using a rough estimate of what a project will cost, he determines the areas of engineering which are involved and how the available funds should be allocated. A substantial amount of the in- formation which he needs he obtains from the em- ployees listed above. Assistant engineers: ' They work under the direc- 7 Petitioner's willingness to include the assistant engineers in its primary 385 tion of the chief engineer in the vehicle development laboratory. They work with the laboratory mechanics and engineers in the test shed and, on occasion, they test-drive the prototype trucks along with the labora- tory drivers. Each of the three employees currently classified as assistant engineers formerly worked for the Employer as draftsmen. As noted, the parties disagree with regard to the inclusion of laboratory drivers and mechanics in the unit. Petitioner contends that these employees are production and maintenance employees and should therefore be excluded from the unit. We disagree. We find, for the reasons explained below, that there is a sufficient community of interest among these em- ployees and the other engineering division employees to warrant their inclusion in a divisionwide unit. Laboratory drivers come under the supervision of the chief engineer of the vehicle development labora- tory. They test all components of a newly designed truck in prototype-"engines, brakes, tires,-any- thing that is in the Engineering Division." They per- form their work under the guidance of engineers (professionals) who explain to the drivers what to ex- pect during a test drive and what to do should a failure occur. Occasionally, the engineers will accom- pany the drivers on test runs. Performance of their assigned task also involves some contact with the draftsmen, particularly when a new part is being put on a prototype truck. At such times, draftsmen show the driver how to install the new part and explain what to expect during testing of that part. The labo- ratory drivers work out of the test shed, about 1-1/2 miles from the World Headquarters Building. Laboratory mechanics: This classification is divided into four groups, largely the basis of experience and skill: laboratory mechanic leader, laboratory me- chanic A, laboratory mechanic B, and laboratory mechanic helper. They are supervised by engineers. The majority of these employees work in the vehicle development and testing laboratory (test shed). This is the same test shed where the laboratory drivers work. The remainder of the employees in this classifi- cation work in the vehicle development department at another location-the Union Boulevard facility- which is about 3 miles from the World Headquarters Building. However, as stated above, both the vehicle development department and the vehicle devel- opment laboratory will be combined into one facility by winter 1974. The laboratory mechanics, working under the di- rection of a test engineer, for the most part perform physical tests of prototype vehicles and their compo- nent parts. The tests are conducted as chassis, bench, unit request is based solely on its concession that, like draftsmen, they are technical employees 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD steering, and driving tests to determine stress, cooling ability, performance, fatigue, strength, and durability of the vehicle and its parts. Other tasks involved the assembly, disassembly, and replacement of compo- nent parts being tested and developed. As part of their job qualifications, the laboratory mechanics must be able to read and interpret blueprints, as well as written engineering instructions and orders. The laboratory mechanics have daily contact with draftsmen, as well as with test engineers under whose guidance they work. When the design of a new part of a prototype truck must be changed, a draftsman will come to the test shed and work with the engineer and laboratory mechanic in the modification of the design of the new part. Draftsmen are also required to come to the test shed to record any changes that the mechanics or engineers may make in the design of a new part or a prototype truck. II. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The records shows that all of the engineering divi- sion employees are salaried and enjoy the same fringe benefits (holidays, sick benefits, vacations, life and accident insurance, stock purchase plans, medi- cal and hospital insurance, and cafeteria and parking facilities). The salary grade structures of the drafts- men, machine operators, records clerks, schedule clerk, change writers, engineering aides, engineering staff assistant, assistant engineers, laboratory drivers, and laboratory mechanics cut across all job classifi- cations. In fact, many of the employees, listed as "clerical" and "laboratory" employees on the pay- roll, earn greater salaries than the draftsmen. The employees have the same hours of work, wear similar badges, and are paid out of the same centralized en- gineering division payroll. As indicated above, there are frequent transfers from one classification to an- other within the division. Except for the laboratory drivers, mechanics, clerks, and engineers who work at the test shed, and the employees who work at the Union Boulevard facility, the employees all work at one central location-the World Headquarters Building-where they share common or overlapping supervision. As stated, a new facility is currently being built which, when opened, will house both the test shed employees and the Union Boulevard em- ployees at one location. At that time all draftsmen, clerks, laboratory mechanics, and drivers will share either one or two common buildings, as well as com- mon supervision. The foregoing facts establish the validity of the Employer's position that no less than a grouping of engineering division employees engaged as drafts- clerk, change writers, engineering aides, engineering staff assistant, assistant engineers, laboratory drivers, and laboratory mechanics may properly be estab- lished as "an" appropriate unit. It cannot be gainsaid that all of these employees, including those working at the test shed, compose a functionally integrated group whose tasks are com- monly directed toward research and development and are performed, largely, in one location and in one administratively indentifiable section of the Employer's operation. While the above-described employees perform dissimilar tasks, the work of the employees in each classification relates to one com- mon project, determined and planned by the profes- sional employees of the engineering division. Contrary to the contention of the Petitioner, the fact that not all of the engineering division employ- ees above described may be properly identified as "technicals," within the Board's definition of that term, affords no basis for treating such employees separately from others for unit purposes. The Board has not, since its decision in The Sheffield Corpora- tion, 134 NLRB 1101 (1961), held that technical em- ployees must be represented apart from others where, as here, the evidence discloses that the claimed tech- nicals are but one segment of a functionally integrat- ed group of employees performing interrelated tasks.' Nor do we find any merit in Petitioner's attempt to justify its primary unit proposal on the ground that all the engineering division employees, other than those identified as technicals, are "office clericals." It is true that most of these employees work in an of- fice, as distinguished from a plant location, but it does not follow that all must be labeled as "office clerical" employees. Indeed, it seems to us that to attach the label of "office clerical" to employees clas- sified as machine operators, records clerks, schedule clerk, change writers, engineering staff assistant, and engineering aides would be to disregard the fact that the functions they perform within the division are clearly functions in support of tasks performed by those whom Petitioner identifies as "technicals" and are interrelated. It seems to us that these functions are, in a real sense, analogous to those performed by plant clerical employees supporting a production operation's work and, like plant clericals, they func- tion as an integral part of that division's operation. We also find that a similar determination is justi- fied with respect to the functions performed by labo- ratory drivers and mechanics for the admitted tech- nical and professional employees within the engi- neering division. We find no merit in Petitioner's , g , p y, , y , men, machine operators, records clerks, schedule NLRB 1153 (1962), Whitehead & Kates Company, 196 NLRB 111 (1972). 8 See e The Budd Com an Automotive Division Gar Plant 136 MACK TRUCKS, INC 387 contention that these are production and mainte- nance employees and, as such, should not be includ- ed within a unit of engineering division employees but should be represented in a production and main- tenance unit. We find that these employees are func- tionally integrated with the rest of the engineering division, as their duties at the test shed form an integ- ral part of the engineering operations and processes within the engineering division. All parties agree, and we find, that file clerks, mi- crofilm clerks, typists, and secretaries are clearly identifiable as "office clerical" and hence must be excluded from the unit. Accordingly, we find, subject to the condition indi- cated below,' that the following constitute an appro- priate unit: 'The unit we here find appropriate is larger than that defined in the petition Accordingly , we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with the election herein until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the All nonsupervisory and nonprofessional em- ployees in the Engineering Division at the Employer's Allentown, Pennsylvania, plant, ex- cluding only employees classified as file clerks, typists, microfilm clerks, and secretaries, and all professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] appropriate unit who are eligible to vote in the election Foremost Dairies, Inc, 118 NLRB 1424, In 7 (1957) In the event that the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election in such a unit, we shall permit it to withdraw its petition without prejudice upon notice to the Regional Director 5 days from the date of issuance of this Decision and we shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election