American Bosch Arma Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 748 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit essentially composed of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's packing-
shed. The Intervenor contends that two separate units, one of chauf-
feurs, maintenance employees, and warehousemen and the other of
packers, graders, loaders, and unloaders, are appropriate. As we
have found the maintenance man to be covered by an existing valid
contract and therefore excluded from the unit, and, as the record is
devoid of any evidence that Doroski employs any ^chauffeurs or ware-
housemen in connection with the operation of the packingshed, we
find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a trait
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) of the Act :
All packers, graders, loaders, and unloacers employed at the Em-
ployer's larger packingshed at North Road, Southold, Long Island,
New York, excluding the bookkeeper, maintenance employee, and
supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
5. The Employer's packingshed operations are conducted during
the period from mid-July to the end of November. In accordance
with our usual practice in seasonal industries we shall direct that an
election be held at or about the peak of the season, on a date to be de-
termined by the Regional Director, among the employees in the ap-
propriate unit who are employed during the payroll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of the issuance of notice of election by the
Regional Director.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Tele-Dynamics Division , American Bosch Arma Corp. and
American Federation of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-4470. August 4, 1961
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 William Draper Lewis, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1 The Employer' s request for oral argument is denied as the record , including the
briefs , adequately sets forth the issues and the positions of the parties.
132 NLRB No. 61.
TELE-DYNAMICS DIV., AMERICAN BOSCH ARMA CORP. 749
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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of technical employees
at the Employer's Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant. The Employer
and the Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Ma-
chine Workers of America, AFL-CIO, stipulated that employees in
the job classifications sought by the Petitioner are technical employees.
However, the Employer contends that field engineers should also be
included in the unit.2 The Intervenor would include, whereas the
Petitioner and Employer would exclude, engineering expediters, re-
production room employees, keypunch operators, tabulating machine
operators, a photographer, and test technicians with the classifications
of instrument technician, systems technicians, and technicians X, A,
B, and C. The Intervenor also contends that the professional em-
ployees should be included; the Petitioner and the Employer would
exclude them.
The Employer is engaged in engineering and manufacturing tele-
metering equipment for guided missiles, and electrostatic recorders
and switchboards for U.S. Navy missile ships. It designs, manufac-
tures, and tests all its products, and provides maintenance services for
them to its customers.
Field engineers work in the telemetry section and the weather sec-
tion. The qualifications for employees in each group are a technical
school education and a minimum of 3 years' practical experience.
The engineers in the telemetry section service, maintain, and repair
equipment that has been sold by the Employer to companies through-
out the United States. They must be able to read schematics, locate
and repair faults, and report any discrepancies in the design of the
equipment which hinder its proper functioning. In addition, they
write technical reports with recommendations for improving the equip-
ment. As the Employer contracts to provide field engineering service
for the equipment it sells, the telemetry engineers are often away from
the plant for periods of up to 3 years at a time.
The engineers in the weather section are sent out by the Employer
to determine for its customers what locations are most suitable for
the installation of weather censors and other related equipment. They
must be familiar with the functioning of this equipment and with what
will be required of the equipment when it is in use. The weather en-
gineers spend 25 percent of their time in the field and the remainder
at their own desks in the engineering section of the plant.
In view of the technical background possessed by the field engineers
2 At the hearing the Employer also contended that development technicians should be
included as technical employees ; the Petitioner opposed their inclusion . However, in its
brief , Petitioner concedes that the development technicians are technical employees and
should be included
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the use of independent judgment required in their work, we find
that they are technical employees. However, as the engineers in the
telemetry section often work for a period of years away from the plant,
their interests and working conditions are different from those of
technical employees, who work in the plants Accordingly, we shall
include in the unit only field engineers in the weather section.
Engineering expediters keep records in the engineering storeroom
and chase parts which are identified by number. Reproduction room
employees file blueprints and reproduce prints from tracings. Key-
punch operators punch data which is given them onto cards. Tabulat-
ing machine operators process punched cards through various
accounting machines. The photographer, classified by the Employer
as a graphic arts coordinator, gathers material for publication pur-
poses, does some composition and layout work, and contacts the print-
ing houses. None of the above employees is required to have any
technical training beyond the high school level. We find that they are
not technical employees. We exclude them from the unit.
Instrument technicians certify, maintain, and repair the measuring
equipment which is used by the other technicians in testing the per-
formance of the Employer's products. They check the testing instru-
ments against known standards to determine their accuracy before
certifying them and refer to the manufacturer's manual for assistance
whenever a defect in any instrument is discovered.
Systems technicians and technicians X, A, B, and C are supervised
by the production test supervisor. They test component parts and/or
complete systems which have been manufactured and assembled.
Where there is a defect, they follow cataloged procedures which have
been set up for each component and system. They do not repair equip-
ment whose defects cannot be traced, but seek the assistance of a
supervisor. Although the instrument technicians, the systems tech-
nicians, and X and A technicians are required to have a technical school
education, their work does not involve the exercise of independent
judgment.
All the test technicians were included in a unit of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees which the Intervenor herein
sought to represent in an election conducted on December 20, 1960.
We find that the instrument technicians, systems technicians, and
technicians X, A, B, and C are not technical employees 4 We exclude
them.
The Intervenor would include the professional employees in the unit.
The Petitioner, which does not seek their inclusion, has made no show-
ing of interest among the employees in this group. In addition, the
showing of interest made by the Intervenor is insufficient to justify
a Dixie Spindle and Flyer Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 109.
4 Electro-Mechanical Research, Inc, 128 NLRB 111.
' SPRANGER SPRING COMPANY 751
holding a separate election among them. We shall therefore not direct
an election to determine whether they desire to become a part of the
unit herein found appropriate.-'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, plant, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical employees, including engineering aids, senior and
junior engineering aids, design draftsmen A and B, detail draftsmen
A and B, model shop employees, senior and junior technical writers,
weather section field engineers, and development technicians, but ex-
cluding telemetry section field engineers, engineering expediters, repro-
duction room employees, keypunch operators, tabulating machine
operators, photographers, instrument technicians, system technicians,
technicians X, Al B, and C, production and maintenance employees,
office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Election.
5 Cf. Dierks Paper Company , 120 NLRB 290
Spranger Spring Company and International Union, United
Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 7-CA-2741. August 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27, 1961, Trial Examiner Earl S. Bellman issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions
to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel
[ Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
132 NLRB No. 46.