Bell Aerospace Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 214 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bell Aerosystems Company, Division of Bell
Aerospace Corporation ' and Niagara Frontier
Technical Association , Local 205 , American Feder-
ation of Technical Engineers , AFL-CIO,2 Petition-
er and Local 501, International Union , United
Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW) Intervenor and Local
516, International Union , United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers
of America (UAW), Intervenor . Case 3-UC-39
August 27, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION
BY MEMBERS FANNING , MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
On September 5, 1969, Petitioner, the representative
of a unit of the Employer's employees since it was
certified by the National Labor Relations Board in
1962, filed a petition requesting clarification of the
unit . On October 8, 1969, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer L. Warren Tucker for the purpose
of taking testimony with respect to the issues raised
by this petition.' All parties appeared and participated
at the hearings. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs
and answering briefs. On October 8, 1969, the Region-
al Director issued an order transferring this case
to the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearings and finds that no prejudi-
cial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record, including briefs and reply
briefs, the Board finds:
The Employer is a division of the Bell Aerospace
Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Textron, Incor-
porated. It is engaged in engineering, research and
development, and production of military and
aerospace hardware, including rocket engines and mis-
siles.
As amended at the hearing
As amended at the hearing
The present petition is virtually identical to one filed by Petitioner
in 1966 The 1966 petition was withdrawn after completion of a hearing
and after the case had been transferred to the Board The present proceed-
ing is essentially a reopening of the 1966 proceeding The record of
the 1966 hearing was stipulated into evidence, and additional evidence
was received The parties also were afforded another opportunity to
submit briefs to the Board Geoffrey D Spinks was the Hearing Officer
at the 1966 hearing
Petitioner was certified in 1962 as the representative
of a unit of "All technicians in the Avionics and
Rockets divisions of the Employer [at the Employer's
Niagara Frontier facilities in Erie and Niagara counties
in the State of New York], but excluding all other
employees, office clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act."'
Petitioner contends that it is entitled to represent
classifications as to which the Employer refuses to
grant it recognition. The first argument Petitioner
advances is that its 1962 certification as representative
of "all technicians" in the Rockets and Avionics
Divisions authorized it to represent all technicians
in the two divisions regardless of their location, func-
tion, or representation at the time of Petitioner's
certification. This contention requires a review of
the bargaining history at the Employer's operation.
Local 501, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW),5 an Intervenor in this case, has
maintained a collective-bargaining relationship with
the Employer since about 1937. Essentially, Local
501 represents production and maintenance employ-
ees.
Local 516, International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America (UAW),6 also an Intervenor, has maintained
a collective-bargaining relationship with the Employer
since 1946, at which time it was formally certified
to represent a unit of inspection employees.'
In 1952, Local 501 filed with the Board a petition
seeking an election to obtain the benefits of a Board
certification in the aforementioned production and
maintenance unit already represented by it. In the
petition, Local 501 sought to include in the unit
approximately 600 laboratory technicians, all of whom
were employed primarily in the research and develop-
ment phase of the Employer's business. The Board
found that the basic production and maintenance
unit was appropriate; however, the Board specifically
excluded the laboratory technicians from the requested
unit. In excluding these technicians, we stated:
[The laboratory technicians'] duties are to
assist engineers, draftsmen, physicists, and
mathematicians on programs of research and
development. . . . This research and develop-
ment program requires continual testing,of plans
and ideas, drawing board work, and testing work
in the laboratories . . . the technicians all work
See 131 NLRB 130, as amended on March 6, 1962
Herein referred to as Local 501
Herein referred to as Local 516
Case 3-RC-1279
185 NLRB No. 61
BELL AEROSYSTEMS COMPANY
in close association with the engineers to translate
theoretical design ideas into practical
form....
We also compared the technicians with employees
in the experimental department, who were included
in the unit found appropriate:
The employees of the experimental department
assemble the ultimate product, test it, and make
final manufacturing drawing. Some of the work
they do is comparable to that of certain techni-
cians in the laboratories, but requires less original-
ity and no research and development
technique [laboratory technicians] exercise
a greater degree of initiative and originality; and
the production or assembly aspect is only a minor
part of laboratory work, whose main function is
development and research 8
Thus, while we noted that there were probably
some technical employees in the included experimental
department, we differentiated between laboratory tech-
nicians and other employees on the basis of skills
and the technicians' function-research and develop-
ment.
In 1960, Petitioner filed with the Board a representa-
tion petition which was the basis for its eventual
certification in the unit in which clarification is now
being sought. The petition requested a unit of all
"technicians" employed in the Avionics and Rockets
Divisions. In our Decision and Direction of Election,
answering a contention of the two UAW locals that
the work performed by the technicians was markedly
similar to that performed by Locals 501 and 516,
we stated:
In an earlier case, Local 501 sought to include
these same technicians in a unit of production
and maintenance employees. The Board . . .
found that, although there were a few employees
represented by Local 501 who were called "tech-
nicians," the work performed by the latter
employees differed materially from the work of
the technicians excluded from the production
and maintenance unit.
*
. . . the contracts of Local 501 and 516 do
not cover the technicians here involved . . .
In the earlier case, supra, the Board specifically
found that the same technicians as involved
herein were technical employees under the Act,
'Bell Aircraft Corporation, 98 NLRB 1277, 1282
215
and excluded them from the production and
maintenance unit.
*
... the work of the technicians is substantially
the same now as it was at the time of the
1952 decision.
In addition , in deciding that the Employer 's Avionics
Division and Rocket Division should be represented
in a single unit , we stated , as a persuasive factor,
that both divisions "are engaged in research and
development."
Although the above references in the two Decisions
thus clearly described , as the employees which Peti-
tioner had requested and which the Board found
appropriate , a unit of research and development "tech-
nicians" not represented by Locals 501 or 516, the
Board formally stated the appropriate unit in which
the election was to be held as "All technical employees
in the Avionics and Rocket Divisions of the Employ-
er." (Emphasis supplied .) This inconsistency resulted
in the filing by all parties of motions for clarification
or remand for further hearing . On June 19, 1961,
the Board remanded the case for further information
on the existence and status of all "technical employ-
ees" throughout the Employer 's two divisions. On
August 14, 1961, the Employer moved that the order
remanding the case be withdrawn and that an election
in a unit of all "technicians ," rather than all "technical
employees ," be directed . This motion was denied.
But, on January 19 , 1962, prior to completion of
the remand hearing , the Employer moved for reconsid-
eration of its motion . In the papers supporting its
motion for reconsideration , the Employer included
a letter to the editor of a local newspaper. The
letter , dated November 28, 1961 , and signed "Louis
Longo , President , Local 205 , AFTE, AFL-CIO,"
protested the 15 -month delay in holding the election
sought by Petitioner, and complained that "the NLRB
has decided that not just technicians , but all technical
employees must vote in the election ." The letter fur-
ther stated that the technicians were a sizeable, well-
defined group , a majority of whom had signed up
with the Union . Although served with the Employer's
motion and asked to respond, the other parties , includ-
ing Petitioner , did not respond. Thereafter , the Board
duly considered the matter and concluded that a
unit of all "technicians" was appropriate. Accordingly,
the Board , on March 6 , 1962, granted the Employer's
motion , and substituted for the words, in the Direction
of Election , "all technical employees ," the words "all
technicians ." The Petitioner won the election and was
certified in the amended unit.
Despite this history , Petitioner now contends "that
all `technicians ' wherever employed in the plant, or
216 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whatever employed at, should be considered as a
part of the originally certified `technicians' unit."
On the other hand, the Employer and Intervenors
contend that only research and development techni-
cians were intended to be included in Petitioner's
1962 certification.
Based on the aforementioned decisional history,
i.e., theJ1952 and 1962 representation cases, we think
it clear that Petitioner was knowingly certified in
1962 to represent a unit of technicians who (1) were
engaged in the research and development phase of
the Employer's business, and (2) were not already
represented by Locals 501 or 516. The repeated refer-
ences in the Decisions to "research and development";
Petitioner's awareness in 1962 of the existence of
the other two bargaining units; and Petitioner's
acquiescence in the Employer's motion to limit the
requested unit to "technicians," thus truncating the
ordered inquiry into the status of the "technical"
employees throughout the plant, all combine to make
it apparent that Petitioner accepted certification in
a unit of technicians engaged in research and develop-
ment not then represented by the Intervenors. We
therefore reject Petitioner's contention that its certifi-
cation extends to all technicians, wherever they may
be, in the plant.
We do agree, however, with Petitioner's alternative
argument that if any of the jobs already represented
in 1962 have since that time been so substantially
modified that they may properly be characterized
as "research and development technician" classifica-
tions, such jobs would deserve consideration for clarifi-
cation into Petitioner's unit. At the hearings, the
parties stipulated that the job descriptions of the
contested job categories are an accurate representation
of the jobs. We have reviewed the job descriptions
and all testimony related thereto, and find that 13
of the contested job categories were in existence and
were represented by the other unions prior to Local
205's election and certification in 1962. Since 1962,
a number of these job descriptions have been revised.
Contrary to Petitioner's contention that these revisions
now warrant the placing of these job categories into
Petitioner's unit, we agree with Mr. William R. Fuller,
the Employer's manager of personnel administration,
that the revised job descriptions did not materially
change the basic nature of the job, but rather merely
indicated a change in the labor grade and/or a more
detailed description of the job. Fuller added that
while the jobs have become increasingly more complex,
due to technological advances and the greater demands
of customers, their primary function remains
unchanged. In our judgment, a distinction still exists
at the plant between research and development work
and production work, and it does not appear that
these jobs have crossed the line so as to be character-
ized as research and development. As there is no
substantial evidence which is contrary to Mr. Fuller's
testimony, and as his testimony is corroborated by
a review of thejob descriptions, we shall deny Petition-
er's request that these 13 jobs be clarified into its
bargaining unit.
Of the other jobs which Petitioner asks to have
clarified into its unit, six jobs existed which were
not represented by any labor organization when Peti-
tioner was certified in 1962. These jobs are: Engineer,
Electronics, Class I; Engineer, Electronics, Class II;
Engineering Assistant (Job Code 655-A13); Engineer-
ing Assistant (Job Code 655-HI); Engineering Aide;
and Engineer, Manufacturing, Research and Develop-
ment. As the employees in these categories work
quite closely with the research and development tech-
nicians, it is reasonable to impute knowledge of their
existence to Petitioner at the time of 1962 election.'
In view of this, and of the fact that it would be
less than fair now to add the unit postitions which
existed at the time of the election and which have
not changed in any substantial way since that time,
we are not disposed to clarify these categories into
Petitioner's unit. 10
The job of research associate was created in 1968
and is not currently represented by any union. A
person in this job must have
Three years completed course work at
college . . . or equivalent . . . with 5 to 10
years of specialized progressive laboratory
training and experience. [He] must be
capable . . . of research experiments . . . with
a minimum of supervision and independently in
the absence of Research Scientist personnel.
His duties are often in the area of pure research,
as he
collaborates with and generally assists Research
Scientists in analytical and experimental research
work directed towards obtaining marked
advances in the state-of-the-art and the
development of techniques, materials or
' Fuller testified that his recollection was that the classifications of
Engineering Aide and Engineering Assistant were produced and exhibited
to Petitioner during the 1962 certification procedure, Petitioner did not
claim the jobs at that time
'° We note also that the two classes of Engineer, Electronics, appear
to qualify as electronics engineers, and, as professionals, these employees
could not be included in the unit without the election provided by
Sec 9(b)(1) of the Act, that the same obstacle to clarification appears
to apply also to some of the persons employed in the classification
of Engineer, Manufacturing, Research and Development, and that some
of the persons in the two Engineering Assistant classifications act in
a supervisory capacity with respect to the technicians and would also
be excluded for that reason
BELL AEROSYSTEMS COMPANY
processes that are several steps in advance of the
engineering or application stages currently in use.
In addition, he "has considerable independent respon-
sibility for the overall accomplishment of the laborato-
ry work and the optimum attainment of the desired
results ." The job description of a Research Associate
further states that, "while not a graduate
engineer . . . [he makes] true professional
engineering decisions," Petitioner submits for
purposes of comparison the category of Technician,
Chemical, Ill, presently included in its unit.
Prerequisites of this job include technical school or 2
years of college and 4 to 5 years of progressive
technical chemical laboratory experience. The job's
duties include selecting a d applying "established"
techniques and methods. In contrast to the
substantially professional nature of the Research
Associate's functions, an employee in this category
performs the type of work which is normally assigned
to technicians-the performance of tests and
construction of assemblies necessary to produce a
working model of an engineer's or scientist's
theoretical concept. On the basis of the above, we find
that the Research Associate is therefore not
appropriately included in Petitioner's unit, as that
unit was defined in 1962.
This leaves for consideration a number of jobs
which have been created since 1962, the representa-
tional rights to which the Employer has accorded
to one or the other of the two UAW locals. Petitioner
contends that Inspector, X-Ray & Eddy Current,
Non-Destructive, All Around, should be included
in the unit. This job category was created on February
16, 1967, and is recognized by the Employer as
represented by Local 516, the inspector's unit. An
employee in this job category "performs various types
of nondestructive acceptance tests . . . to determine
the existence of defects in raw stock, castings, forgings,
weldments, components, subassemblies, assemblies or
systems . . . and has the responsibility to reject any
specimen which fails to meet minimum standards."
X-ray machines are also used by technicians in the
laboratories in conjunction with research and develop-
ment. However, the work of the classification under
discussion is not research and development work.
We find that since employees in this category primarily
do acceptance testing in the production stage, they
may not be clarified into Petitioner's unit.
Inspector, Ultrasonic/Non-Destructive, was created
in 1965, and was included in the unit represented
by Local 516. While this work is similar to work
performed by some employees in Petitioner's unit,
it is done in connection with acceptance testing of
217
helicopter rotor blades rather than in connection with
research and development. This job, therefore, does
not warrant representation by Petitioner's unit.
In 1962, the Employer established a job category
entitled "Data Processing Equipment Operator." The
job description of this category was revised in 1966
and is currently covered by the Local 516 contract.
After reviewing the job description, we find that
this category is not entitled to clarification into Peti-
tioner's unit, as it appears to relate more to the
accounting, financial, and general operations functions
of the Employer than to research and development.
Petitioner also requests that numerous "Field" cate-
gories be clarified into its unit. These classifications
have all been created since 1962. They are simply
extensions of in-plant classifications, activated when
work in such classifications is performed in the field
at customer locations, rather than the Employer's
plant. Most of these field jobs are in the Local 516
unit , and, as to some of them, the Petitioner is
claiming the field job even though it does not claim
the plant job. As the field jobs are substantially
identical to the corresponding in-plant jobs, and, as
Petitioner has demonstrated no basis for its claim
to them, either for reasons discussed above or because
the basic jobs are clearly within the units represented
by the UAW locals, we find that Petitioner is not
entitled to represent these categories by way of clarifi-
cation.
If Petitioner desires to represent other technical
employees in the plant besides those technicians
engaged in research and development work, the unit
to which its certification is limited, a proper procedure
would be the filing of a representation petition. Its
present petition for clarification is inappropriate for
settlement of work assignment disputes or for modifi-
cation of Petitioner's unit description from a unit
of technicians primarily engaged in research and devel-
opment to a unit of all technical employees wherever
located in the plant.
In sum , we conclude that Petitioner is not entitled
to clarification into its unit of any of the aforemen-
tioned jobs.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition for clarification
filed by Niagara Frontier Technical Association, Local
205, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, . dismissed in its
entirety.