Avco Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1357 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1357
313 NLRB No. 253
AVCO CORP.
1 The Regional Director also included in the unit field service rep-
resentatives who were stationed outside the United States. The Peti-
tioner requested review of this issue as well, and the Board granted
that request for review. After due consideration, the Board has con-
cluded that it will not address the issue of the inclusion of employ-
ees working overseas unless the votes of the affected employees are
determinative after the Regional Director opens and counts the other
ballots.
Avco Corp./Textron Lycoming Division, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Textron, Inc. and Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aerospace
and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, UAW, AFL–CIO, Petitioner. Case 34–RC–
1061
June 2, 1994
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND DEVANEY
On March 31, 1992, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 34 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
which he, among other things, included in the unit 11
categories of engineers, who he concluded did not
have professional status. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner filed a timely re-
quest for review of the Regional Director’s decision,
asserting that the Regional Director erred in finding
that 11 categories of engineers lacked professional sta-
tus. The Employer filed a timely opposition to the re-
quest for review.
By Order dated May 11, 1992, the Board granted
the Petitioner’s request for review on the issue of the
professional status of several engineers.1
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the parties’ briefs on review, and con-
cludes, as explicated below, that the 11 disputed cat-
egories of engineers have professional status within the
meaning of the Act.
Background
The Petitioner seeks to represent a residual unit of
between 850 and 950 unrepresented clerical and tech-
nical employees at the Employer’s Stratford, Connecti-
cut plant, where the Employer develops and manufac-
tures gas turbine engines for tanks, helicopters, and air-
planes. The Petitioner sought to exclude various engi-
neers on the grounds that they have professional status
under the Act. The Regional Director found that 11
categories of engineers did not have professional sta-
tus.
Professional Status of 11 Categories of Engineers
The Petitioner disputes the Regional Director’s find-
ings that 11 categories of engineers did not qualify as
professionals within the meaning of the Act. Section
2(12) of the Act defines a ‘‘professional employee’’
as:
(a) any employee engaged in work (i) predomi-
nantly intellectual and varied in character as op-
posed to routine mental, manual, mechanical, or
physical work; (ii) involving the consistent exer-
cise of discretion and judgment in its perform-
ance; (iii) of such a character that the output pro-
duced or the result accomplished cannot be stand-
ardized in relation to a given period of time; (iv)
requiring knowledge of an advanced type in a
field of science or learning customarily acquired
by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual
instruction and study in an institution of higher
learning or a hospital, as distinguished from a
general academic education or from an appren-
ticeship or from training in the performance of
routine mental, manual, or physical processes; or
(b) any employee, who (i) has completed the
courses of specialized intellectual instruction and
study described in clause (iv) of paragraph (a),
and (ii) is performing related work under the su-
pervision of a professional person to qualify him-
self to become a professional employee as defined
in paragraph (a).
In Western Electric Co., 126 NLRB 1346 (1960),
the Board developed a test for determining profes-
sional status that remains valid. The Board concluded
that Section 2(12)(a) ‘‘defines a professional employee
in terms of the work he performs,’’ not in terms of in-
dividual qualifications. Id. at 1348. Thus, if an em-
ployee performs work of a predominantly intellectual
and varied character, involving the consistent exercise
of discretion and judgment, and requiring knowledge
of an advanced type in a field of science or learning
customarily acquired by a prolonged course of special-
ized intellectual instruction and study in an institution
of higher learning or a hospital, then that employee
qualifies as a professional.
In addition, although educational background does
not control, the Board examines educational back-
ground ‘‘for the purpose of deciding whether the work
of the group satisfies the ‘knowledge of an advanced
type’ requirement of Section 2(12)(a).’’ Id. at 1348–
1349 and fn. 6, quoting Sec. 2(12)(b). If a group of
employees consists primarily of individuals with pro-
fessional degrees, the Board may presume that the
work requires ‘‘knowledge of an advanced type.’’ Id.
at 1349. Conversely, if few in the group possess the
appropriate degree, it logically follows that the work
does not require the use of advanced knowledge. Id.;
1358 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 See, e.g., Utah Power & Light Co., 258 NLRB 1059, 1060
(1981) (engineers, most with B.S. in engineering and many with
M.S. in specialized field of engineering assigned to highly complex
and technical projects); Union Electric Co., 217 NLRB 666 (1975)
(experienced graduate engineers whose work required the use of
mathematical techniques involving statistics and calculus and back-
ground information and understanding learned in their engineering
education qualified as professionals; as well as an engineer who re-
cently obtained his bachelor’s degree in engineering but who had not
yet in the few weeks of his employment had an opportunity to apply
his technical knowledge, where the employer had hired him to act
in the capacity of a professional); Ryan Aeronautical Co., 132
NLRB 1160 (1961) (electronics engineers with B.S. and minimum
of 3 years’ related work; mechanical design engineer with 17 years’
experience; test engineers with experience equivalent to college de-
gree); Westinghouse Electric Corp., 89 NLRB 8 (1950) (engineers,
most of whom had degrees, and junior engineers with degrees work-
ing under full engineers and expected to progress to higher engineer-
ing classifications); Westinghouse Electric Corp., 80 NLRB 591
(1948) (production engineers, most of whom had degrees and the re-
mainder had acquired comparable skills thru experience); Solar Mfg.
Corp., 80 NLRB 1358 (1948) (degreed junior engineers working
under general supervision of senior engineers).
3 See, e.g., Aeronca, Inc., 221 NLRB 326 (1975) (quality control
engineer with 2 years of college); General Dynamics, 213 NLRB
851 (1974) (the case makes no mention of the educational standards
of employees, but none of the ‘‘engineering’’ related positions dis-
cussed, and held not to qualify as professional, bears any resem-
blance to the positions in the instant case); Loral Electronics, 200
NLRB 1019 (1972) (engineers with professional degrees working
under supervision of professionals found to be professionals; em-
ployees without degrees found not to be professionals; Board noted
that in the event one of the degree-less employees who performed
engineering duties earned his degree, ‘‘he may now be a professional
employee if he satisfies the other requirements of 2(12) of the
Act’’); F. W. Sickles Co., 81 NLRB 390 (1949) (manufacturing
methods engineers with high school diplomas).
4 The Employer designates the titles of those engineers who have
progressed beyond the engineer I and II and rotational engineer I and
II levels according to the area in which they work. For example, the
test engineers work in test engineering; development engineers work
in the research and development department.
see also Binghamton Press Co., 226 NLRB 808
(1976). In applying the ‘‘actual work performed’’ test
in conjunction with the presumption that a group of in-
dividuals with degrees performs work that requires
knowledge of an advanced type, the Board has consist-
ently found that employees with professional engineer-
ing degrees working in specialized fields of engineer-
ing qualify as professionals.2
By contrast, in those cases where the Board has
found engineers not to qualify as professionals, they
generally performed routine work and in virtually
every case did not have college engineering degrees.3
The cases cited by the Employer in support of the Re-
gional Director’s findings fall into this category and do
not support its contention that the engineers at issue
here do not qualify as professionals. In A.A. Matthews
Associates, 200 NLRB 250 (1972), for example, the
Board held that ‘‘engineer-inspectors’’ who held engi-
neering degrees were not professionals because the
major portion of their work involved inspection of con-
struction work similar to that performed by admittedly
nonprofessional employees, and even assuming that
they exercised some discretion, they did not do so con-
sistently. Id. at 251. Similarly, in Design Service Co.,
148 NLRB 1050 (1964), the Board found 151 ‘‘engi-
neers’’ to be technical employees, where only 24 had
engineering degrees and none performed work consist-
ently requiring the exercise of discretion and judgment
predominantly intellectual in character, but rather
merely wrote specifications for necessary material and
equipment after studying blueprints submitted by the
employer. Id. at 1051–1052. In contrast to these cases,
the vast majority of the engineers in the instant case
have bachelor’s degrees in specialized fields of engi-
neering and all work in jobs requiring the consistent
exercise of discretion and judgment in nonstandard-
ized, predominantly intellectual work. Applying the
relevant standard here, we conclude that the engineers
are professionals within the meaning of the Act, and
therefore should be excluded from the unit. The rel-
evant facts are as follows:
A. Engineers I and II; Rotational Engineers I and
II; Test Engineers: These engineers work at various
stages of the development and manufacturing of the
Employer’s gas turbine engines for tanks, helicopters,
and airplanes. A gas turbine engine takes approxi-
mately 10 years to develop from its inception to the
final product. Each engine takes thousands of hours to
machine and assemble, at a cost of $200,000 or more.
The Employer submitted a November 29, 1984
memorandum addressed to ‘‘All engineering exempt
employees.’’ The memorandum announced the creation
of a ‘‘Dual Ladder of Advancement’’ for technical
professionals in the engineering department. It added a
‘‘Technical Professional Career Ladder’’ to
engineering’s already existing ‘‘Technical Managerial
Ladder.’’ It shows a professional career progression
from engineer I at labor grade 26, to engineer II at
labor grade 28, to a [function] engineer4 at labor grade
30, to senior [function] engineer at labor grade 32.
After this point, an engineer can continue as a profes-
sional or branch into management. If the employee
elects to continue on a professional career path, he or
she would next become a staff engineer at labor grade
33, and then a principal engineer at labor grade 34. If
the employee elects to move into management, he or
she would become a section/project manager at labor
grade 32 or 33, and then a department manager at
labor grade 33 or 34. The memorandum stated that
‘‘The Dual Ladder will further strengthen the Divi-
sion’s commitment to technical excellence by provid-
ing greater opportunities for personal development and
advancement to our Engineering Professionals and so-
lidifying the organizational base of our Engineering
function, which is vital to future stability and success
of the Division.’’
1359AVCO CORP.
The Employer uses the generic titles ‘‘Engineer I
and II’’ and ‘‘Rotational Engineer I and II’’ for its
entry level engineers, who work in various departments
throughout the organization. The Employer employs
about five or six engineer Is at labor grade 26, who
work in various departments, including the test area,
materials laboratory, and the mechanical design depart-
ment. They support and help the experienced engineers
and the technicians.
The Employer employs about 11 or 12 rotational en-
gineer Is at labor grade 26. For all practical purposes,
rotational engineer Is perform the same function as en-
gineer Is, except that engineers stay with one type of
engineering task, while rotational engineers rotate
through various complimentary departments every 6
months for a 2-year period in order to develop a
broader expertise in a particular area. The particular
learning path a rotational engineer might take depends
on the needs of the Employer. For example, the me-
chanical design department might ask for a rotational
engineer, and that rotational engineer would train to
become a design engineer.
The Employer has an internal posting system for
jobs, and technical personnel may apply for engineer-
ing jobs if they have developed the necessary skills
and experience. Not all technicians can qualify as engi-
neers or rotational engineers. The Employer and Peti-
tioner submitted various examples of job postings as
exhibits, which show that the engineer I and rotational
engineer I positions require a bachelor’s degree in a
specialized field of engineering, depending on the type
of engineering position available, and 0 to 3 years of
experience. For example, a posting for a rotational en-
gineer I position in the weights and measurements de-
partment listed the minimum qualifications as a bach-
elor of science in Mechanical or Aeronautical Engi-
neering, and described the job responsibilities as:
Performs under relatively close direction of the
department Director on a variety of specific pro-
fessional Engineering tasks of an analysis, design
or test nature in specialized Engineering fields.
Applies theoretical knowledge and Engineering
techniques to the solution of basic analytical En-
gineering problems assigned. Prepares and com-
pletes the design of components or portions of
moderately complex functional systems working
from overall operational, space, functional and
similar design requirements.
After about 3 to 5 years of experience, engineer Is
become engineer IIs, at labor grade 28. The Employer
employs about 80 engineer IIs, who perform slightly
more complicated and intricate tasks than engineer Is.
They attend more meetings and write more reports.
After still more experience, an engineer II will ad-
vance to a labor grade 30 engineer position with an en-
gineering function in his or her title; for example, if
the engineer II developed experience in the research
and development department, he or she would become
a development engineer; if the experience occurred in
the test area, he or she would become a test engineer.
The Regional Director found, and neither party con-
tested, that most development engineers have previous
experience as engineers or rotational engineers, and
that all development engineers qualify as professionals
within the meaning of the Act. A job posting for an
engineer II in the materials technologies laboratory re-
quired a minimum of a bachelor of science degree in
Metallurgical/Materials Engineering or the equivalent
with 2 to 3 years of experience, and listed desirable
qualifications as a bachelor’s degree with 4 to 5 years’
experience in materials research or a masters degree
with 2 to 3 years’ experience, knowledge of super-
alloys including structure-property relationships, and
good communication skills, verbal and written. The
posting described the job responsibilities as:
Conduct metallurgical analysis and oversee devel-
opment programs on advanced materials. Cor-
relate results with material processing and heat
treatment. Communicate findings through oral
presentations and written reports.
The Employer employs about 15 test engineers. Like
development engineers, test engineers fall into labor
grade 30. Test engineers work with engineer Is and IIs
and test technicians. Each test engineer gets assigned
a particular engine and performs structural tests on the
entire engine, as opposed to testing a small part of an
engine, a function performed by structural engineers.
The Regional Director found, and neither party dis-
agreed, that structural engineers, who also fall into
labor grade 30, qualify as professionals within the
meaning of the Act. Test engineers write test reports
based on data collected from readings from test panels.
These reports describe the test conditions, the vari-
ables, problems that might have developed, and any
unusual occurrences. Test engineers share these reports
with other departments involved in developing an en-
gine and with the customer. An internal job posting for
a test engineering position shows that the position re-
quires an engineering degree in either manufacturing or
aerospace engineering, plus 5 to 8 years of experience,
or the equivalent, and it describes the job responsibil-
ities as:
Plan and execute full engine testing required to
acquire data from prototype, developmental, pro-
duction, or field return engines. Provide accurate
and complete test results of the engine testing to
the Engineering community as required. Reduce
date, evaluate and present test results in the form
of resumes, reports or oral presentations. Super-
vise all phases of an engine test program to insure
timely and safe execution. Occasional foreign and
1360 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
domestic travel. Occasional necessity to rotate
shifts.
B. Value Engineers I and II: The Employer cur-
rently employs five value engineers I and II, at labor
grades 28 and 30, respectively, most at the II level.
They must have a bachelor’s or master’s degree in en-
gineering and from 3 to 5 years of experience. All but
one has a bachelor’s degree, and that employee had a
number of years of experience in value engineering
with another company which the Employer considered
equal to a degree. At this time that employee has en-
rolled in a university to complete his degree require-
ments. Value engineers work in the purchasing depart-
ment, and report to the manager of purchasing value
engineering, who in turn reports to the director of pur-
chasing and materials.
Value engineers work directly with the Employer’s
buyers and suppliers. Each value engineer has a project
and must prepare at least a monthly report updating ac-
tions taken to achieve the project’s goals. They use
their expertise and training to evaluate the production
process used by a supplier in order to help make the
process more efficient and cost effective. Value engi-
neers interface with the engineering department in
order to evaluate the manufacturing process. They use
their discretion in requesting information or assistance
from other departments. For the first few months of
their employment, they receive extensive training; sub-
sequently, they stay current on the state of the art tech-
nology by visiting suppliers. A job posting for a value
engineer I position in the materials department listed
the minimum education requirement as a bachelor’s
degree in engineering, preferably in electrical manufac-
turing, materials, mechanical, or aerospace. The post-
ing described the job’s primary function as:
evaluating and improving supplier manufacturing
processes and purchas[ing] part designs to achieve
high quality, cost reduced parts. Requires nego-
tiating, interfacing and providing creative alter-
natives to various Textron engineering disciplines
for incorporation of value engineering proposals.
A job posting for a value engineer II required a bach-
elor’s degree in manufacturing engineering plus 5
years’ experience in manufacturing engineering and
described the job’s principal responsibilities as:
Determine that product designs are in consonance
with vendor ability to manufacture. Review and
analyze all engineering drawings, engineering
changes and specifications prior to release. Inter-
face and negotiate with design engineering and all
relevant manufacturing departments to achieve de-
sign-manufacturing compatibility. Provide design
alternatives with performance requirements to fa-
cilitate cost effective manufacturing. Participate in
problem solving studies, cost reduction and value
engineering activities, department studies and/or
cost analysis as considered necessary relative to
product, new or existing. Coordinate, as nec-
essary, with all appropriate activities; such as,
Adv. Mfg. Tech., Process Engr., Material Control,
Configuration Mfg. Engr., and all other disciplines
necessary to assure compatibility with factory
planning. Oversee design matters influencing en-
gineering and manufacturing to insure that long
term best interests of the business are served.
Maintain close liaison with latest state-of-the-art
manufacturing techniques and the application to
in-house cost effective producibility studies and
problem areas.
C. Product Quality Engineers I, II, and III: The
quality assurance department has the responsibility of
ensuring that Textron’s outgoing product quality level
fully meets the customer’s expectations and complies
with all structural contractual requirements. The Em-
ployer employs 1 product quality engineer I at labor
grades 26, 7 product quality engineers II at labor grade
28, and 20 product quality engineers III at labor grade
30. They work throughout the facility.
The entry level product quality engineer I position
requires a bachelor’s degree in engineering and gen-
erally the Employer hires them directly out of college.
The sole product quality engineer I works in depart-
ment 106Q and, despite the department’s focus on ana-
lyzing the quality of the Employer’s products, she fo-
cuses on the quality of supplier’s products. She main-
tains an automated data base of product certifications
from about 850 suppliers and keeps track of whether
her superiors have qualified or disqualified a particular
supplier from supplying parts. She makes no rec-
ommendations to managers, but rather merely enters
data into the database, keeps track of it, and responds
to internal inquiries regarding the qualifications of sup-
pliers to perform a certain process. The parties stipu-
lated at the hearing that, based on the work she per-
forms, this employee is a clerical or technical em-
ployee and properly included in the unit.
The tasks performed by product quality engineer IIs
and IIIs differ only in experience levels. They perform
some administrative work and some hands-on work in
the manufacturing process. They receive information
from various internal sources and use that information
while working hands-on in the manufacturing process
to determine the root cause of a problem and then rec-
ommend and implement corrective action. This in-
volves looking at all the variables in the manufacturing
process—they check the tooling to make sure that it
conforms to blueprint; check the computer tape to
make sure of the accuracy of the tape program that
governs the machinery; and make sure that the ma-
chine operator follows the process sheet. In some
1361AVCO CORP.
cases, they will determine that the process cannot con-
form to blueprint and will make a recommendation to
engineering to change the blueprint or to processing
engineering to change the process in order to yield the
quality product desired by the Employer. A job posting
for a product quality engineer II position listed the
minimum education and experience required as a bach-
elor’s degree in engineering and 2 to 5 years in quality
and/or manufacturing engineering. It listed the prin-
cipal responsibilities as:
diagnosis of chronic quality problems in assigned
area through collection and analysis of required
quality data. Responsible for assuring the continu-
ous adequacy of the Quality Plan and its applica-
tion by the manufacturing function to produce ac-
ceptable product quality.
A job posting for a product quality engineer III posi-
tion listed the minimum education and experience as a
bachelor’s degree in engineering and 5 years’ experi-
ence in quality and/or manufacturing engineering. It
listed the same principal responsibilities as the posting
for the level II position.
D. Plant Engineer II: The Employer utilizes six
plant engineer IIs. The Employer employs no plant en-
gineer Is and has no plans to hire any. Their work in-
volves architectural, civil, electrical and/or mechanical
engineering associated with buildings and equipment.
They must have at least an associate’s degree in archi-
tectural, civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering,
and 2 to 4 years of experience in plant engineering,
and preferably a bachelor’s degree. All but one of the
seven plant engineer IIs have engineering degrees and
most have 4-year degrees. They have overall respon-
sibility for all the plant’s utilities, such as gas, air,
water, and electricity. In the event of building a new
facility, they would determine the needed specifica-
tions for the proper installation gas, air, water, and
electricity; they would have the responsibility of creat-
ing blueprints of the floorplan showing what size
equipment to use and where to install it. In the pur-
chase of new equipment, they would determine that the
equipment’s specifications met all proper local, state,
and Federal codes and that it would meet the proper
specifications hookup for electrical, gas, or air. If, for
example, a building needed a new air conditioner in-
stalled on the roof, they would determine the size of
air conditioner needed for the building’s volume and
would work with the installer to evaluate how much
weight the roof could handle and where to place the
unit. In the event of needed repairs, such as a water
main break, they would investigate the problem, deter-
mine the steps necessary to solve it, and notify the
proper personnel either within or outside the company.
If an outside contractor made repairs to a roof, the
plant engineer would determine the roof’s load carry-
ing capabilities. On a day-to-day basis they work with
the company’s maintenance people, with outside trades
people, and with the Army Corps of Engineers. The
plant engineers do no hands-on work, but rather advise
the maintenance and trades people in the performance
of their tasks. A job posting for a plant engineer II po-
sition listed the minimum education and experience re-
quirements as a college degree in engineering with
special emphasis on plant engineering and 2 to 4
years’ experience. It described the job’s primary func-
tion as:
Conduct complex and specialized Facility (plant)
Engineering assignments involved in the mainte-
nance and alteration of structures, facilities and
utilities.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing and the record as a whole,
we conclude, contrary to the Regional Director, that all
the engineers under consideration qualify as profes-
sionals within the meaning of the Act. The majority of
these engineers have at least bachelor’s degrees in spe-
cialized fields of engineering, which raises a presump-
tion that they perform work requiring ‘‘knowledge of
an advanced type.’’ Western Electric Co., 126 NLRB
1346, 1349 (1960). The evidence supports a finding
that they perform work requiring ‘‘knowledge of an
advanced type.’’ For example, the the engineers I and
II, rotational engineers I and II, and test engineers
apply ‘‘theoretical knowledge’’ to the ‘‘solution of
basic analytical Engineering problems,’’ and prepare
and complete ‘‘the design of components or portions
of moderately complex functional systems.’’ Moreover,
there was testimony that these entry level engineers
work on a career ladder which will eventually lead
them, assuming that they qualify, to more senior
‘‘function’’ engineer positions, and the Employer’s
November 29, 1984 ‘‘Dual Ladder of Advancement’’
memorandum confirms this testimony. We have held
that junior engineers with degrees working under full
engineers and expected to progress to higher engineer-
ing classifications qualify as professionals. Union Elec-
tric Co., 217 NLRB 666 (1975); Westinghouse Electric
Corp., 89 NLRB 8 (1950); Solar Mfg. Corp., 80
NLRB 1358 (1948). Thus we find that the engineers
I and II and rotational engineers I and II qualify as
professionals within the meaning of the Act.
As part of this career ladder, some entry level engi-
neers may become test engineers, one of the ‘‘func-
tion’’ engineer positions described by the Employer
and by the Employer’s 1984 memorandum. It follows
that the test engineers qualify as professionals. The de-
scription of their work developed in the record also
supports this conclusion. Each test engineer tests an
entire engine of such complexity that it takes approxi-
mately 10 years to develop from its inception to com-
1362 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pletion, requires thousands of hours to machine and as-
semble, and costs $200,000 or more. The parties do
not dispute the professional status of structural engi-
neers and the record shows that test engineers perform
tests analogous to those performed by structural engi-
neers and have the same grade level in the Employer’s
career ladder.
The value engineers are similarly situated. In addi-
tion to their degrees, they must have sufficient exper-
tise to understand, evaluate, and improve the manufac-
turing process of the Employer’s suppliers. The parts
they are responsible for must meet the demanding
specifications of the Employer’s gas turbine engines
which take years to design and thousands of hours to
machine and assemble. They must review and analyze
engineering drawings, provide departments, and over-
see design matters influencing engineering and manu-
facturing. We conclude that these engineers qualify as
professionals within the meaning of the Act.
The product quality engineers essentially perform
the same work as value engineers, but rather than ex-
amining the products of suppliers, they examine those
of the Employer. They must have sufficient expertise
to understand, evaluate, and improve the manufactur-
ing process of the Employer’s products. As in the case
of the value engineers, they must evaluate the manu-
facturing process, examine blueprints, and suggest
changes in order to improve the quality and reduce the
cost of parts which must meet the demanding speci-
fications of the Employer’s gas turbine engines. We
conclude that the product quality engineers II and III
qualify as professionals within the meaning of the Act.
The parties stipulated that the sole product quality en-
gineer I does not so qualify, but if her work assign-
ment changes so that she performs work similar to
other product quality engineers, she may then qualify
as a professional.
Finally, the plant engineer IIs qualify as profes-
sionals here. Unlike the other engineers discussed
above, these engineers do not work directly with either
the Employer’s gas turbine engines or with the suppli-
ers’ parts. They do, however, perform primarily intel-
lectual work in the construction and maintenance of
the Employer’s facilities. The record shows that their
work varies over a wide range—from coping with
physical disasters such as water main breaks, to ana-
lyzing the electrical, gas, and air conditioning needs of
a new building, to calculating the stress capacity of a
roof, and advising trades people in the performance of
their tasks. They do no manual work. We conclude
that these engineers also qualify as professionals with-
in the meaning of the Act.
Accordingly, we exclude the contested engineers
from the unit as professionals.
ORDER
We remand this proceeding to the Regional Director
for proceedings consistent with this decision, including
the opening and counting of the impounded ballots,
and issuance of the appropriate certification.