TRW Carr Division

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD TRW Carr Division and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 10-RC-12639 March 7, 1983 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND HUNTER On August 25, 1982, the Regional Director for Region 10 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-captioned proceeding in which he found appropriate a unit containing specified tech- nical employees. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review al- leging, inter alia, that the Regional Director had erred by failing to include all similarly employed technical employees in the same unit. On September 23, 1982, the Board by telegraphic order stayed the election and granted the Employ- er's request for review with respect to the question of the appropriateness of the unit in which the Re- gional Director directed an election. 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 issue under review, and makes the following findings: The Employer, located in Knoxville, Tennessee, manufactures plated plastic and electro-mechanical products for the automotive and appliance indus- tries. The Petitioner seeks to represent technical employees who work in the Employer's electronics laboratory.' The Regional Director directed an election in a unit of technical employees limited to those in the electronics laboratory and the classifi- cation of electro-mechanical product engineer. The Employer contends that this unit is inappropriate, urging instead that the only appropriate unit is one encompassing all technical employees at its Knox- ville facility. When technical employees work in similar jobs and have similar working conditions and benefits, I The Petitioner presently represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees The Employer's technical and administrative em- ployees are unrepresented, and there is no history of collective bargain- ing for these employees. the only appropriate unit for a group of technicals must include all such employees similarly em- ployed. Aerojet General Corporation, 131 NLRB 1094 (1961). Here, the record shows that the Em- ployer employs technical employees who were ex- cluded from the unit considered appropriate by the Regional Director.2 The record further shows that the functions of technicals excluded are closely re- lated to functions performed by those included in the unit considered appropriate by the Regional Director. 3 And, the record reveals that technical employees who were excluded and those who were included receive similar benefits and are subject to common personnel policies which are centrally ad- ministered.4 In sum, we find that the unit considered appro- priate by the Regional Director does not include all technical employees who work in similar jobs and have similar working conditions and benefits. Therefore, we hold that the proposed unit of tech- nical employees is inapproriate because it does not include all similarly employed employees in that category. As we have found that the unit in which the Regional Director directed an election is inap- propriate (and as the Petitioner has made clear that it does not wish to proceed to an election in a unit other than the one for which it petitioned), we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 2 Indeed, the Petitioner does not contend that the employees petitioned for are the only technicals, nor does the Regional Director's decision find that the unit in which he directed an election contains all of the Employ- er's technical employees. 3 For example, the engineering aide in the electronics department is in- cluded, and the engineering aide in another department of the Employer's operation is excluded. Yet, the work of the excluded classification is very similar to the functions of the included classification. Showing that some technical employees perform their duties in another phase of the Employ- er's operation is not enough to establish affirmatively why the segmented group of technical employees should be represented separately. See fn. 4, infro; The Bendix Corporation, Kansas Ciry Division, 150 NLRB 718 (1964). 4 The Petitioner at the hearing argued that the electronics department's technical employees have a common supervisor, work in the same area, perform similar jobs, and do not have a high degree of interchange with other groups of employees. However, it is the Board's policy to grant a unit including some, but not all, technical employees only when the em- ployees in the requested unit possess a sufficiently distinct community of interest apart from other technicals to warrant their establishment as a separate appropriate unit. Whitehead & Kales Company, 196 NLRB Ill1 (1972) We do not believe that the record or the Petitioner's arguments demonstrate sufficient grounds on which to base a finding that the em- ployees in the requested unit have a distinct community of interest. 266 NLRB No. 61 326