Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 4, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 670 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to, the Employer's production process." Under these circumstances,
and especially in the light of the similar conditions of employment
applicable to all the employees discussed herein, the similarity in their
skills and job functions, and their frequent interchange among the
departments sought by the Petitioner and the others discussed above,
we are unable to conclude that the departments requested by the
Petitioner possess that degree of functional distinctness and autonomy
which would warrant a finding that they have a separate community
of interest? We find, therefore, that the unit sought is too narrow in
scope to be appropriate.8 The Petitioner does not seek an election
in a broader appropriate unit.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
B Aire8earch Manufacturing Company of Arizona, a division of the Garrett Corporation,
137 NLRB 632, 635.
4 See The ShefReld Corporation, 134 NLRB 1101 , 1103-04.
8 In view of our finding that the proposed unit is not appropriate because it does not
include employees in the three departments discussed above, we find it unnecessary to
decide whether it is also inappropriate because it does not include employees,in the mass
spectrometry ; special analysis , radioactivity measurements , engineering setrvices , and Gov-
ernment stockroom departments.
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company and Local 248 of the
United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 30-UC-
12. May 4, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition for clarification of unit duly filed on Septem-
ber 28, 1965, under Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Michael P.
Miller. All parties appeared and were given full opportunity to
participate at the hearing.' Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief in
support of its position.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the Hearing
Officer's ruling made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
1 On the first day of the hearing, January 11, 1966, the Employer moved to dismiss
the petition in advance of the introduction of any evidence on the merits on the ground
that the issue presented was ree 9udscata in Case No . 13-CA-5615. The Hearing
Officer , referred the motion to the Board . In view of our dismissal for the reasons in-
dicated below, we find it unnecessary to pass on this motion.
158 NLRB No. 67.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 671
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
2 The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer
3 The Petitioner contends that the classifications of senior analyst-
product inventory and scheduling and analyst-product inventory and
scheduling should be included within the unit because these classifica-
tions, presently salaried and nonunit, are previously abolished clerical
jobs which have been renamed, include some of the same personnel
as were previously in the unit, and encompass the same job tasks as
are included in present and previously abolished unit jobs The
Employer opposes the Petitioner's request for clarification on the
grounds that these classifications have been in existence for many
years under the same and similar names and never have been included
within the bargaining unit or covered by any negotiations or labor
contract, that said classifications are managerial and would be inap-
propriate for inclusion in the bargaining unit, and that clarification
is an improper procedure for adding a substantial group of employ-
ees to an existing unit
The collective-bargaining history between these parties precedes
1947 The most recent certification of Petitioner was on June 22,1948,
in Case No 13M-RE-1 for the following unit
The production and maintenance employees (at the West Allis
plant of the Company) exclusive of draftsmen, technical engi-
neers, patteinmakers, maintenance electricians, powerhouse
employees, superintendents, assistant superintendents, general
foremen, foremen, assistant foremen, inspectors, graduate train-
ees, indentured apprentices in trades in which the journeymen are
not represented by the Union Cooperative, student trainees,
time-study foremen, apprentice supervisors, timekeepers, plant
protection employees, confidential employees, and all other
employees acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the Com-
pany in a supervisory, management, administrative or profes-
sional capacity
Since then the parties have executed successive bargaining agreements,
the most recent of which began on November 18, 1964, and expires
November 1, 1967 There has been no change in the recognition clause
between the first contract following the most recent cei tification and
the present agreement
672 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The job function of the senior analyst and analyst is to analyze
stores and work-in-process inventory in order to determine the most
effective and economical procedure for ordering materials and to
schedule orders that will result in optimum inventory levels Further,
they initiate and sign stock and purchase orders and schedules for
manufacturing in such a manner as to optimize inventory levels and
maintain material availability to satisfy the production of customers'
orders on time To achieve these goals, the senior analysts and analysts
apply judgment and experience to established procedui es and reported
data, much of which is calculated or reported by computer The
major difference between the senior analyst and analyst is supervisory
The senior analyst is responsible and accountable for the overall
performance of the analyst who works for him, although the analyst
himself is actually accountable for the individual inventory level
Previous to the 1960's the scheduling and inventory control function
was performed by the scheduling department and material control
department
The function of scheduling during this period was to develop man-
ufacturing cycles and establish start and completion dates for all
components that were involved in manufacturing as well as to estab-
lish schedule shipping dates The management group consisted of a
superintendent, assistant superintendents, general foremen, foremen,
and assistant foremen In the bargaining unit the classifications con-
sisted of procedural schedule clerks senior, procedural schedule clerks
A and B, record clerks production scheduling, file clerks, and typist
clerks
The function of the material control department during the pre-
1960 period was to maintain inventory levels by the most efficient
way for production purposes at the least cost to the Company The
inventory account was kept by a manual method As in scheduling,
the management personnel consisted of a superintendent, assistant
superintendents, general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen
Classifications in the bargaining unit consisted of specification clerk,
inventory clerk, order clerk, and ledger clerk The Petitioner had
never sought to represent the management personnel of either the
scheduling or material control departments
During 1959-60 new systems of scheduling and inventory control
were introduced based on the use of computers Consequently, in
1961 the various titles of the management personnel in these two
departments were changed In the scheduling department, the man-
agement personnel were reclassified as supervisor-scheduling In
material control, they were reclassified as analyst-inventory control
There was no claim at this time that these position=, were anything
ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY 673
but managerial. No unit employees were put into these classifications,
except for one individual who had been progressing through the ranks
and received his promotion to management during this period.
During 1961-62, the merger of these two departments occurred and
by December 1962 was substantially accomplished. At the same time,
some unit classifications were deactivated, chiefly the schedule clerk
senior and schedule clerk A, and others were added, including sched-
ule clerk detail, material application clerk, and routing clerk. Some
unit employees who had held the deactivated classifications were trans-
ferred to other positions, and some were put into the new classifica-
tions. No unit employee was reclassified as supervisor-scheduling or
analyst-inventory control. At this time there were about 20 employees
in these two classifications.
By 1963 the merger was complete and the job classifications were
changed to provide a more descriptive title. Supervisor-scheduling
and analyst-inventory control were respectively changed to senior
analyst-product inventory and scheduling and analyst-product inven-
tory and scheduling, the present classifications that Petitioner wishes
to include in the unit. There was an increase in the size of these two
groups, partly due to the transfer of the responsibilities of the position
of area scheduling to these classifications. Area scheduling has been
a nonunit, salaried management position for many years. The work
presently being done by the senior analysts and analysts is substantially
the same as that done in 1961, allowing for certain technological
advances. The men in these classifications at present are predomi-
nantly employees who had held the predecessor managerial classifica-
tions, outside hires, and reclassifications from a variety of nonunit
positions. A very small percentage were promoted from unit positions.
The senior analysts and analysts are salaried employees, unlike the
unit employees who are paid on an hourly basis. Hourly employees are
paid weekly, while salaried employees are technically paid once a
month, although in practice- they receive a mid-month advance. The
minimum salary rate for the analyst is $560 per month, and the max-
imum is $736 a month. The minimum for the senior analyst is $626 a
month, and the maximum reaches $876 a month. The salary range of
the highest paid unit employee, when converted to a monthly rate is
$490 a month minimum and-a $560 maximum. The pension and retire-
ment plan, life insurance, and medical plan of the unit employees are
considerably different from and less extensive than those of the salaried
employees.
There is some overlapping of function between unit employees and
senior analysts and analysts on a minor level. Some of the data on
which the senior analysts and analysts base their determinations is
221-731-67-vol 158-44
674 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gathered and recorded on cards by unit employees. In this sense, some
of the same material passes through the hands of both groups of
employees. Further, the schedule clerks historically performed some
of the duties that were also the responsibility of management per-
sonnel in the scheduling department. These duties have been absorbed
by the senior analysts and analysts. However, the essential respon-,
sibilitiesrofthe senior analysts and- analysts require the use of initiative,
judgment, and the authority to make decisions in a far greater degree
than the work of the unit employees requires. It is estimated that over
half their time is spent in problem solving. Included in their work is
the responsibility for determining the quantity and type of order to be
issued to satisfy or replenish stock on a particular account. They
review accounts and take corrective action necessary to prevent delay,
while, at the same time, keeping inventory cost at the lowest level.
They review commodities to determine the most desirable method of
flow of materials into the plant without disrupting production or caus-
ing- unnecessary additional material handling due to floor space
requirements. They graphically illustrate inventory levels, in order to
depict any deficiencies aiid excesses. They have the authority to vary
the standard 60 percent efficiency curve .2 While these are only part
of the actual duties of the senior analysts and analysts, none of these
duties are or have been any part of the responsibilities of unit
employees.
- The history of the job function and classifications which have
evolved into the present work and classification of senior analyst and
analyst indicates that the basic job function, allowing for technological
advance, is substantially unchanged and, that, employees performing
said jobs have always been considered management personnel. No
union has sought to represent these employees. The Petitioner did not
claim to represent or attempt to bargain for these employees previous
to the signing of the present contract in November 1964. Considering
these factors, together with the differences in job function, remunera-
tion, responsibility, and use of initiative and judgment, we find that
the senior analysts and analysts cannot be regarded as an accretion to
the existing unit .3 We shall, therefore, deny the Petitioner's motion
to amend the certification and'dismiss the instant proceeding.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2 On most jobs the time taken to manufacture all the component parts is increased by
60 percent to arrive at the allotted time for the completed job. The senior analysts and
analysts have the authority to vary this figure in scheduling the allotted time for any
particular job.
-'Worthington Corporation,- Compressor and Engine Division, 155 NLRB 222; General
Iron Works Co., 150 NLRB 190; Aluminum Company of America, 146 NLRB 929; Gen-
eral Electric Company, 144 NLRB 88.