Boeing Vertol Co.

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Boeing Vertol Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Petitioner. Case 4-RC- 12320 December 1, 1977 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY On March 31, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found that a voting group of currently unrepresented plant clerical employees in the Employer's facility in and around Ridley Township, Pennsylvania, may be appropriately represented by the Petitioner as part of the established unit of production and maintenance employees presently represented by the Petitioner. Thereafter, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision, contend- ing that the Regional Director departed from officially reported Board precedent by finding certain employees to be plant clericals, rather than office clericals, and thereby including them in the voting group. On April 26, 1977, the National Labor Relations Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Employer's request for review and stayed the election pending review. 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 this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case with respect to the issue under review and makes the following findings: 1 The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing helicopters, vertical lift aircraft, and rail cars. It employs nearly 6,000 employees at its Ridley Township location, about half of which (including about 150 to 200 plant clericals) are in the production and maintenance unit represented by the Petitioner's Local 1069. In this proceeding, the Petitioner seeks to represent all currently unrepresented plant clericals. I The Employer requested that the hearings be reopened to admit evidence relating to changed conditions at its plant. We hereby deny such request. as the Employer has failed to set forth any facts which, if established, would persuade us to change any of our findings set forth herein or any of those findings made by the Regional Director in his decision. See Sec. 102.65(e I) of the Board's Rules and Regulations. 2 In 1964, the Union filed petitions by which it sought to represent, inter alia, the same group of employees which it now seeks to represent as a separate unit or as part of its existing production and maintenance unit. The Board at that time directed that an election be held among the plant clerical 233 NLRB No. 126 In his decision, the Regional Director concluded that the Employer's currently unrepresented plant clerical employees could be represented by the Petitioner, but only as a part of the Union's production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, he directed that an election be held in a voting group composed of such employees.2 The parties do not dispute that aspect of the Regional Director's decision. Rather, the only issue is the classification of certain employees as office or plant clerical employ- ees, and hence, their respective exclusion from or inclusion in the voting group. The Regional Director found that all but 4 of the 23 clerical employees in the assembly records section of the Employer's production control services depart- ment were plant clericals. He also found that a lead and a senior inspection records clerk in the quality assurance-configuration management section of the Employer's quality assurance department were also plant clericals. The Employer contends that these employees are office clericals and therefore should not be included in the plant clerical voting group. We agree with the Employer. Assembly records clericals: The assembly records section performs the function of routing certain types of paperwork from the planning department to the production line. This paperwork consists of instruc- tions for production employees regarding the assem- bly of the aircraft or rail car being produced. One of the section's main responsibilities is the maintenance of so-called "panels," which are metal bulletin boards that hold the paper instructions. The mainte- nance of these panels requires the constant assem- bling, updating, and insertion of the paper instruc- tions into the panels. Assembly records is one of four sections which comprise the production control services department, which is managed by Carl Oberg. The other sections under Oberg's overall management are the parts inventory control system (PICS)-production inven- tory-reproduction section, the production control records section, and the detail scheduling-control file section. Each of these production control sections performs clerical functions related to the effectuation of planning papers into the production process. Among other duties, the PICS-production inventory-re- production section maintains processing records and employees, but the Union failed to prevail in that election. See Decision and Direction of Election in Cases 4-RC-6010, 4-RC-601I, and 4-RC-6012, issued August 30, 1965 (not reported in volumes of Board Decisions). The decision in those cases was received as a joint exhibit in the present proceeding. Due to the passage of time and the significant intervening changes in the Employer's operations and job classifications, we agree with the Regional Director that a redetermination of employee classifications is now warranted. See Dobbs-Life Savers, Inc., 210 NLRB 51 (1974); N.L.R.B. v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 465 F.2d 950 (C.A. 5, 1972). 866 THE BOEING VERTOL COMPANY a control list of parts, and photocopies and files planning paper; the production control records section reviews data created by the planning depart- ment regarding quantities, production requirements, and schedules; and the detail scheduling-control file section reviews virtually every piece of planning paper issued in order to insure proper scheduling and also controls the inflow of the planning paper by input into a computerized reporting system. These sections in many instances interact with one or more of the others in the performance of their duties. For example, one of the duties of the assembly records section involves the record change function, whereby an assembly records employee effectuates the plan- ning department's revisions of manufacturing plans by updating paper instructions already inserted into a panel. The record change paper which is issued by the planners is first routed to the production control records section for processing, then it is sent to detail scheduling-control file for review, and it finally arrives at assembly records. After an employee in that section makes a panel change, a copy of the completed record change is sent back to the detail scheduling-control file section, which in turn routes a copy to production control records, which finally delivers a copy back to the planning department. Other types of planning paper, such as "out-of- sequence" paper and initial manufacturing instruc- tions, are routed through the various production control services sections in a similar manner. The job classifications of the clerical employees in the assembly records section are as follows: senior manufacturing services clerk, manufacturing services clerk, clerk A general, clerk B general, and change notice analyst. The Regional Director found that change notice analyst Reisch and clerk B general Stremil, whose duties are almost exclusively com- prised of indexing, photocopying, routing, and filing of paperwork, are office clericals. He also found that manufacturing services clerk Doohan is a plant clerical. Doohan performs the record change func- tion, described above, by going onto the production floor and making the required changes on the appropriate panel. He spends up to 70 percent of his working time on the shop floor. (He devotes the other 30 percent of his time to general clerical duties in his office.) Lastly, the Regional Director found that the senior manufacturing services clerks,3 the remaining manu- facturing services clerks, the clerks A general, and 3 The Employer contended that senior manufacturing services clerks were supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(1 I) of the Act. The Regional Director concluded, and we agree, that these employees are not supervisors, and thus should not be excluded from the voting group on that basis. 4 The Regional Director was unable to make a determination whether change notice analysts Rosenkranz and Chorney should be included in the voting group since there was insufficient evidence in the record upon which the remaining clerks B general were plant clericals and thus should be included in the voting group.4 The Regional Director based his conclusion on the grounds that the assembly records office is located near the production areas, the assembly records employees work the same hours as do the production employees, and various assembly records clerks spend a substantial amount of their time doing panel maintenance on the shop floor. In addition, the Regional Director noted that the function performed by the assembly records section allows the manufac- turing operations to run smoothly. However, despite these factors which appear to indicate some degree of integration between the assembly records section and the production process and hence intimate that the assembly records employees are plant clericals, a number of other factors, set forth below, clearly show that the employees in question should be classified as office clericals. First, assembly records employees have a strong community of interest with the employees in the three other production control services sections, who (with one exception) 5 were stipulated by the parties to be office clericals. For example, assembly records is one of four sections that comprise the production control services department, which is under the overall managerial supervision of Carl Oberg. More- over, the function of assembly records is but one part of the overall production control system utilized by the Employer in order to effectuate its planning for the manufacture of its products into the actual production thereof. (As mentioned above, a single function, such as a record change, involves the contemporaneous interaction of three of the four sections of the production control services depart- ment.) Furthermore, the functional grouping of production control services employees, apart from the production and maintenance employees, results in different wage scales, overtime requirements, vacation benefits, and promotional opportunities for those two groups of employees. Overtime and vacation scheduling for assembly records employees is determined not by production demands, but rather by the backlog of paper which emanates from planning. Additionally, employees have transferred from assembly records to other sections of the production control services department, but not to positions in the actual production process. to base such a finding. We agree with his assessment of the record evidence regarding these two employees, and, therefore, we shall permit them to vote in the election subject to challenge. I The parties contested the status of the employees in the production inventory branch of the PICS-production inventory-reproduction sec- tion. The Regional Director found that these employees were plant clericals. The Employer did not seek review of the classification of these employees. 867 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Secondly, as the Regional Director noted, all of the assembly records clerks other than Doohan spend a majority of their time at their desks checking the planning papers. Panel maintenance usually con- sumes no more than 25 to 35 percent of a clerk's working time. Panel maintenance in fact requires no functional interaction with production employees, despite the fact that the panels are on the shop floor. Finally, the factors relied upon by the Regional Director in finding that the assembly records employees are plant clericals do not necessarily support that conclusion. Thus, while the assembly records office is indeed located near production areas, it is also located in the general proximity of the employees in the other production control services sections. Moreover, despite the fact that the working hours of the assembly records employees are identi- cal to those of the production employees, the former employees do not take coffeebreaks at certain prescribed times as do the production workers and do not "punch" a clock as do the latter employees. And, although the assembly records employees perform their panel maintenance in the actual production areas, this duty, as indicated above, only comprises approximately a quarter or a third of their entire working time and does not require contact with the production employees. Lastly, while the function performed by the assembly records section does in fact permit the production process to run smoothly, that function is actually one part of an integral role performed by the entire production control services department, and is generally depen- dent upon the interaction and cooperation of each of the four production control services sections. On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that, while the function of the assembly records section is the last step in the control of the production process, its clerical employees are not so bound up in that production process itself as to provide them with a community of interest with the production employ- ees. On the contrary, the assembly records employees share a strong community of interest with the other clerical employees in the production control services department,6 almost all of whom are classified as office clericals. Accordingly, we find that the clerical employees in the assembly records section are office clericals and we shall exclude them from the plant clerical voting group.7 0 See Loral Electronics Systems, a division of Loral Corporation, 200 NLRB 1019, 1024(1972). T However, see fn. 4, supra, wherein we decided to permit two clerical employees in the assembly records section to vote in the election subject to challenge. 8 The Regional Director was unable to make a determination whether inspection records clerk Trexler should be included in the voting group since there was insufficient evidence in the record upon which to base such a Inspection records clerks: Inspection records clerks compile all of the paperwork generated during the manufacturing process of each aircraft and rail car. The clerks then assemble reference files for each product, which are handed to customers at the time of the delivery of their orders. These files provide the customers with a complete history of the manufac- ture of the orders, including the inspections which have been conducted on all of the parts. There are 13 inspection records clerks, who are classified as lead clerk-inspection records, senior clerk--inspection records, and clerk-inspection records. They are located in at least seven various buildings and trailers in the Employer's industrial complex. These clerks are scattered within the quality assurance control department, which is comprised of several sections. One such section is quality assurance-configuration management, in which eight inspection records clerks are grouped under the supervision of Robert Springer. The Regional Director classified all of the inspec- tion records clerks as office clerical employees with the exception of Holmes (lead clerk) and Gladney (senior clerk), whom he classified as plant clericals.8 The Employer, however, contends that Holmes and Gladney are office clericals and thus should not be included in the voting group.9 Holmes and Gladney work together and separate from other employees in an enclosed office. No other inspection records clerks work in their building. Holmes spends about 50 percent of her time in her office assembling data used to prepare the reference files, mentioned above. The remaining 50 percent of her working hours is spent outside the office in the "Barn," the final staging area for rail cars prior to delivery to a customer. In the "Barn," she is responsible for obtaining the signatures of customers attesting to the completion and quality of the product. Gladney spends nearly 100 percent of her time in her office performing support work for Holmes, including assembly of various data and typing. The Regional Director based his finding that Holmes was a plant clerical on the fact that she spends half of her time in the "Barn," and, while there, comes into contact with mechanics and inspectors, who are represented by the Union in the production and maintenance unit. The Regional Director classified Gladney as a plant clerical as well, finding. We agree with his assessment of the record evidence regarding Trexler. Therefore, we shall permit Trexler to vote in the election subject to challenge. 9 The Employer asserts in the alternative that Holmes is a supervisor within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. The Regional Director concluded, and we agree, that Holmes is not a supervisor, and thus should not be excluded from the voting group on that basis. 868 THE BOEING VERTOL COMPANY since her work enables Holmes to carry out her function in the "Barn." However, despite this apparent connection be- tween Holmes and certain production and mainte- nance employees, both Holmes and Gladney per- form functions which are office clerical, rather than plant clerical, in nature. Both employees are under the overall supervision of Robert Springer, and all of the other inspection records clerks supervised by him were found by the Regional Director to be office clericals. The function Holmes performs, similar to the function performed by the assembly records employees discussed earlier, represents the last step of a functionally integrated role which she accom- plishes in concert with other clerks in her depart- ment. The mere fact that she performs a part of her job in the company of employees in the production and maintenance unit, as do some of the assembly records employees, does not detract from her community of interest with the other inspection records clerks in the quality assurance control department. While Holmes is in fact the only such clerk who spends a substantial amount of time in an area where production and maintenance unit em- ployees are located, there is no specific evidence in the record that she actually works in conjunction with such employees. On the other hand, she works closely with Gladney, whose duties are clearly those of an office clerical employee. Lastly, Holmes herself performs clerical duties in her office at least half of her working time. o1 In describing the voting group in which he directed that an election be held, the Regional Director inadvertently omitted the words "currently unrepresented" before the words "plant clerical employees." The record is clear that the parties intended the voting group to comprise solely plant clerical employees who are presently unrepresented and to exclude plant In these circumstances, we find that both Holmes and Gladney are office clerical employees and, accordingly, we shall exclude them from the plant clerical voting group. The Regional Director found, and we agree, that an election should be held in the following voting group: All currently unrepresented plant clerical employ- ees located at the Employer's facility in and around Ridley Township, Pennsylvania, but excluding all other employees, technical employ- ees, office clerical employees, managerial employ- ees, off-site employees, professionals, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.10 As we have found that currently unrepresented plant clerical employees constitute an appropriate voting group, we shall remand the case for an election among the above-described employees, and, if a majority of such employees vote for the Petitioner, they shall be deemed to constitute a part of the existing production and maintenance unit now represented by the Petitioner and its Local 1069. See Fisher Controls Company, 192 NLRB 514, 515 (1971); Weyerhaeuser Company, 173 NLRB 1170, 1171 (1968). Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that ending immediately before issuance of this Decision on Review. clericals currently represented by the Petitioner. In addition, the Regional Director in his Direction of Election directed that an election be conducted in the "unit found appropriate," rather than in the "voting group" of currently unrepresented plant clerical employees. " [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.l 869