Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.-Pittsburgh Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 18, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 87 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. CO.-PITTSBURGH WORKS 87
several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall
recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action
which will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
Having found that the Employer unlawfully assisted and rendered support to
Local 868 in violation of Section 8(a) (2) of the Act and further that the Employer
violated Section 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act by executing, maintaining, and enforcing
an agreement containing unlawful union-security provisions, I shall recommend
that the Employer cease giving effect to the agreement signed on November 4, 1958,
retroactive to October 14, 1958, and all subsequent agreements with Local 868,
unless and until that Union shall have demonstrated its exclusive majority repre-
sentative status pursuant to a Board-conducted election among the employees of
the Employer. Nothing in this recommendation should be taken, however, to
require the Employer to vary those wage, hour, and other substantive features of its
relations with the employees themselves, if any, which the latter has established in
the performance of this agreement.
I shall further recommend that the Employer reimburse its employees and former
employees in the full amount of any dues or other moneys collected from them
under the Employer's aforesaid agreement with Local 868.
In view of the nature of the unfair labor practices committed, I shall also recom-
mend that the Employer cease and desist from infringing in any manner upon the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce and the Unions are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
2. By contributing assistance and support to Local 868, the Employer has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act.
3. By discriminating with respect to terms and conditions of employment, the
Employer has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a) (3) of the Act.
4. By the foregoing conduct, the Employer has interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the
Act, thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company-Pittsburgh Works and
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), Local 107,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 6-RC-2568. July 18, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert Schutzman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
128 NLRB No. 15.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The petition requests, and the Employer agrees to, a unit of all
technical employees at the Employer's Pittsburgh Works, where the
Employer is engaged in the development and production of electrical
transformers. In its brief the Petitioner took the position that all of
the employees in all of the job classifications to be reviewed herein-
after, except the blueprint machine operator and the blueprint ma-
chine attendants, are technical employees. The Employer declined
to take a position as to any particular classification, indicating only
that it desired the Board to make a determination in this regard.
The employees i involved are all employed in the engineering and
manufacturing departments of the Employer's Pittsburgh Works and
are presently unrepresented .2
Engineer's assistants : The engineer's assistants help the engineers
in working out details of electrical design and insulation for trans-
formers, and translate data supplied by the testing department into
performance reports, which are submitted to customers. A basic
understanding of electricity and a fluency in mathematics, generally
acquired through specialized college or high school training, are re-
quired by the Employer as qualifications for these positions. We
find that the engineer's assistants are technical employees.'
Senior designers, designers, draftsmen, senior draftsmen, detail
draftsmen, and drafting standards coordinator-engineering depart-
ment: All of the employees in these classifications except the drafting
standards coordinator are engaged in the interpretation of engineer-
'The record does not indicate , nor does either party contend , that any of these in-
dividuals is a supervisor as defined by the Act.
2 Subsequent to a stipulation for certification upon consent election , Petitioner was
certified on March 22 , 1957 , as the collective -bargaining representative for certain tech-
nical employees ( designers and draftsmen ) involved herein. Allis -Chalmers Manu factur-
ing Company, 117 NLRB 744 . Thereafter , the Employer refused to bargain with the
Petitioner in this unit The Board , on April 28 , 1958, found the Employer ' s conduct
violative of Sections 8(a) (5) and 8(a) (1) of the Act and ordered it to bargain with the
Petitioner. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 120 NLRB 644. However, the
Board ' s order was set aside by the court of appeals, based on the court ' s finding that
certain statements by the Petitioner during the course of the preelection campaign were
so misleading as to have prevented the employees from exercising a free choice in the
election . Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company v. N L R.B., 261 F. 2d 613 (CA. 7)
Petitioner is also the certified bargaining representative of the Employer ' s production
and maintenance employees . Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 84 NLRB 30
3 See Minneapolis -Honeywell Regulator Co, 125 NLRB 1283 (T-rated employees in
gyroscope laboratory).
ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. CO.-PITTSBURGH WORKS 89
ing specifications and outlines into shop drawings, although with
varying degrees of responsibility, e.g., the senior designers make
layouts in basic engineering design and the draftsmen make minor
layouts which result in detail drawings. The Employer prefers to
hire for these positions individuals who are in the process of obtaining
an engineering degree, although some have received their requisite
specialized training in mechanical drawing and simple mathematical
calculations at trade schools, high schools, or directly from the Em-
ployer. All receive substantial training on the job. The drafting
standards coordinator, who determines whether drawings produced
for the shop conform to the Employer's drafting standards, must have
a thorough familiarization with mechanical drawing and mechanical
drawing procedures and have had experience as a draftsman. We
find that the senior designers, designers, draftsmen, senior draftsmen,
detail draftsmen, and drafting standards coordinator are technical
employees.'
Laboratory technicians: The laboratory technicians, also referred
to as laboratory assistants, work under the supervision of the develop-
ment engineers whose ideas and drawings the laboratory technicians
convert into working models. This operation, the parties agree, is
highly specialized work. These employees also perform pressure
and electrical tests to determine strength and suitability of materials.
For this classification the Employer prefers to obtain the services of
individuals who have had several years of engineering training in
college. We find that the laboratory technicians are technical
employees.5
Blueprint machine operator and blueprint machine attendants: The
blueprint machine operator maintains and operates the blueprint
machine which is used to make copies of blueprints. The blueprint
machine attendants process the drawings of the draftsmen through
the machine. No specialized training, other than that obtainable
through experience on the job for a brief period, is required to attain
proficiency as an operator or attendant. We find that the blueprint
machine operator and attendants are not technical employees.'
Designer, draftsmen, detail draftsmen-manufacturing department:
These employees, also referred to as maintenance draftsmen, design,
redesign, and make layouts for jigs, fixtures, existing machines, drills,
or other small equipment. They have received drafting training
through specialized high school courses or in drafting schools. We
find that the draftsmen, detail draftsmen, and designer are technical
employees.'
4 See Litton Industries of Maryland, 125 NLRB 722.
6 See Leland Electrical Company, 126 NLRB 406.
Beloit Eastern Corporation, 119 NLRB 1407, 1409.
See Litton Industries of Maryland, supra.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Project leaders: The project leaders conduct investigations relative
to manufacturing problems involving proposed changes in manu-
facturing procedures or product sizes. They gather data, develop
specifications, and make rough designs of new layouts, machinery,
jigs, and fixtures, which are drawn up in detail by the draftsmen.
Their qualifications include extensive experience on the job as well as
specialized college training. One is a graduate engineer and others
are pursuing courses in engineering. We find that the project leaders
are technical employees.' The record does not support the Employer's
contention that the project leaders are managerial employees.'
Time-study foremen: The time-study foremen are engaged in clock-
ing employees at their work, developing the method of job perform-
ance, and determining the rate. Where a dispute arises about a specific
rate, the time study foremen are called upon to verify the rate in
question. The basic qualifications for this type of work are famili-
arity with the Employer's job processes and product and an under-
standing of time studies. Training in time study theory is ordinarily
acquired in (specialized technical schools or college, and one of the
time study foremen has an engineering degree with a background in
this subject. Like the project leaders the record does not support the
Employer's contention that the time study foremen are managerial
employees. In view of the nature of their work, their exercise of
independent judgment in determining job methods and rates, the fact
that training required for their work is of a type ordinarily acquired
in college or specialized technical schools, and from the record as a
whole, we find that they are technical employees.19
Project coordinators and welding supervisor: The project coordi-
nators and the welding supervisor are assigned projects to develop
new manufacturing methods and procedures from the point of incep-
tion to the point where their proposals may be incorporated into the
manufacturing process. It was testified that the projects to which
they are assigned are similar in nature to the projects assigned the
project leaders whom we have found to be technical employees. Al-
though both classifications (project leaders, and project coordinators
or welding supervisor) have never been assigned to the same project,
they may assist each other. The record, however, fails to indicate
what, if any, specialized training qualifications the Employer re-
quires for this type of employment. As with the project leaders, the
record does not support the Employer's contention that they are man-
agerial employees. Because the record is silent as to their specialized
8 See General Electric Company , 125 NLRB 145.
6 See Westinghouse Aar Brake Company, Union Switch d Signal Division, 119 NLRB
1391, 1393
10 Western Electric Company, Incorporated, 126 NLRB 1346.
ALLIS-CHALMERS MFG. C0.-PITTSBURGH WORKS 91
training qualifications, we do not make a determination as to whether
or not the project coordinators or the welding supervisor are technical
employees. However, inasmuch as their work is similar to that of the
project leaders, whom we have found to be technical employees, and
in view of the apparent necessity for the exercise of independent
judgment in the development of new manufacturing methods, we
permit the project coordinators and the welding supervisor to vote
subject to challenge."
Planner, assistant engineer, and cost analyst : The planner plans the
type of tooling required for a new part on a new product. The assist-
ant engineer determines the estimated cost of the new part to be
manufactured or designed. Although each has a college degree it was
testified that each was qualified for his present position on the basis of
experience rather than his education. The cost analyst develops and
analyzes information as to costs of production after a job is in opera-
tion. He is a high school graduate with prior experience in the
Employer's engineering department. Although the work of the
planner, the assistant engineer, and the cost analyst may be considered
allied to work which is technical in nature, none of the work of these
individuals appears to require any specialized training of the type
usually acquired in colleges, technical schools, or through special
courses. Moreover, the work of these individuals does not appear to
involve the exercise of independent judgment, but rather the exercise
of such routine judgments as would be made by a skilled craftsman or
an administrative office clerical employee. We find, contrary to the
Petitioner, that the record does not affirmatively support the claim
that the planner, the assistant engineer, and the cost analyst are tech-
nical employees.12
Inspector foremen: The inspector foremen perform the usual duties
of inspectors, that is, examine work in progress for general appear-
ance and for compliance with specifications and with the Employer's
standards of workmanship. Their inspection is basically visual and
includes the use of micrometers, calipers, and scales. Qualifications
for the position are a general high school education and experience
on the job. It requires several years of experience to perform the most
difficult inspections. At the hearing the Employer contended that the
inspectors are managerial employees because of their function. We
find, however, that they are not managerial employees.13 Inasmuch
as no specialized training is required for their type of work, and in
n See Cherokee Textile Malls, Inc, 117 NLRB 350, 352.
za See Litton Industries of Maryland, supra; Ladish Company, 126 NLRB 555 (estimator-
fitting, estimator-cost analysis, production analyst).
13 Metal Products Corpoi atoon, 107 NLRB 94, 96.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
view of the fact that such work does not appear to require the exer-
cise of independent judgment, we find, contrary to the Petitioner, that
the inspectors are not technical employees."
Lead testers, testers, assistant testers, and test helpers: The various
categories of testers perform electrical tests as distinguished from the
mechanical tests conducted by the inspector foreman. These elec-
trical tests are performed with the use of meters and other instru-
ments to ascertain whether a transformer or transformer part fulfills
specified performance requirements. Although it was testified that
only the lead testers can conduct the most involved electrical tests,
there are no particular specialized training requirements for any class
of tester except a high school education and a basic understanding of
electricity, which latter is obtained on the job. The Employer con-
tended at the hearing that the various categories of testers are man-
agerial employees because of their function. We reject this conten-
tion.15 The work of the various categories of testers does not require
any specialized training of the variety usually acquired in colleges,
technical schools, or through special courses. Although some knowl-
edge of electronics and experience in the use of testing devices is
required, it does not appear that their work requires the exercise of
independent judgment in view of the Employer's preestablished per-
formance specifications to which they test its products. Accordingly,
we find that the lead testers, testers, assistant testers, and test helpers
are not technical employees.'s
We fold that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical employees at the Employer's Pittsburgh Works,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, including engineer's assistants; senior de-
signers, designers, draftsmen, senior draftsmen, detail draftsmen,
and drafting standards coordinator-engineering department; labora-
tory technicians; designers, draftsmen, and detail draftsmen-manu-
facturing department; project leaders, and time study foremen; but
excluding the blueprint machine operator and blueprint machine
attendants; planner, assistant engineer, cost analyst, inspector fore-
men, lead testers, testers, assistant testers, test helpers, all other em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 Combustion Engineering, Inc , 117 NLRB 1589, 1593.
11 See Metal Products Corporation, supra.
19 Ryan Aeronautical Co., Electronics Division , 121 NLRB 1502, 1505 ; Transformer
Engineers , 114 NLRB 1325, 1328.
17 The project coordinators and the welding supervisor shall vote subject to challenge.