Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 22, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 856 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

856 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bell Telephone Laboratories , Incorporated,
Employer and International Union of
Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 13-RC-11010
May 22, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Albert Kleen, hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' The
Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor filed
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of the employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner primarily seeks a unit of watch
engineers at the Employer's new Indian Hill
communications research and development
laboratory at Naperville, Illinois. Alternatively, the
Petitioner seeks a unit of watch engineers, plant
watch operators, and alarm and control board
operators; or will accept a unit of watch engineers,
general plant mechanics, plant maintenance hands,
plant operations mechanics, plant watch operators,
and alarm and control board operators. The
Employer and the Intervenor, Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, contend that the
Petitioner's units are inappropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining, and that the instant petition
should therefore be dismissed.
The Indian Hill laboratory employs 1,048
employees, of whom 393 are professional
engineering personnel engaged in design and
development, 293 are technical employees assisting
them, and 362 are administrative employees,
including the 63 maintenance and plant service
employees which group is alone involved in this
proceeding.'
The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing
L The other administrative employees include managerial or
supervisory employees, engineers, a librarian, general
The maintenance and plant service employees
comprise 25 job classifications, of which 21 were
filled as of the date of the hearing. Under the general
supervision of the head of the shops and plant
operations department, these employees are
attached to four separate departments, called
respectively the shops, plant and building
engineering and maintenance, plant service, and
plant and building operation departments, each with
its own immediate supervision. All maintenance and
plant service employees enjoy the same fringe
benefits, including pension and insurance plans,
vacations, sickness and accident benefits, and
recreational facilities, and all have essentially the
same conditions of employment. Hiring procedures
are the same, as are methods of payment and pay
days. There is little or no employee interchange, due
to differences in job requirements. The maintenance
and plant service employees, engaged in instrument
manufacture and repair and plant operation and
maintenance, act as a support group for the
professional and technical employees engaged in
research and development work. There is no
bargaining history for these employees at the Indian
Hill laboratory. At the Employer's five other
laboratories, in New York and New Jersey, the
Intervenor, as the recognized bargaining
representative, has a single contract covering the
maintenance and plant service employees alone, and
there is no existing bargaining units at these
laboratories of the types sought by the Petitioner.
We shall now consider the employees in the units
sought by the Petitioner.
The five watch engineers, who comprise the
Petitioner's primary unit, are responsible for the
proper operation and maintenance of all mechanical
plant equipment, including low-pressure steam
boilers, compressors, refrigerating, ventilating, and
air-conditioning machines, fire protection equipment,
electrical substation and distribution equipment,
and equipment supplying electricity. They are the
most highly skilled of the maintenance and plant
service group and have the most responsibility.
Their primary function is to assure the continuing
operation of the plant, and for this purpose they are
selected not so much for their knowledge of a
particular machine but for their experience in
operating many different types of machinery. They
are not separately supervised, and their work
requires no special level of education or
apprenticeship and no governmental licensing. They
have five primary work areas. The first of these is
the boilerroom, which contains miscellaneous pieces
of equipment and machinery such as low-pressure
boilers, pumps, water softeners, refrigeration
equipment, a water chlorinating system,
transformers, air compressors, and electro dryers.3
administrators, and clerical employees
' The boilerroom is not the primary source of plant heat, which
is supplied by flourescent lights throughout the plant building
164 NLRB No. 112
BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORIES
They currently spend 1 to 2 hours per shift in the
boilerroom examining and checking this equipment;
however, it is expected that this amount of time will
be reduced to one-half hour or less upon the
installation of an alarm and control board for
monitoring the boilerroom. The other primary work
areas include the mechanical rooms, where the
watch engineers check on the operation of the air-
conditioning fans and other machinery; the service
building and the cooling tower, where they check on
the operation of water pumps and the chemical
water treatment system; and the electric substation,
where they check on the operation of the electrical
power facilities. Additionally, the watch engineers
spend substantial amounts of time in secondary
work areas known as the laboratory service cores,
located throughout the building, which function as
distribution points for various services such as heat,
light, and air-conditioning. They also spend
substantial amounts of time checking on the
operation of the 1,200 air-conditioning mixing boxes
scattered throughout the building. They work three
rotating shifts of 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, with
the result that, for at least one of their number, four
of his five shifts are spent performing the same type
of maintenance work as the mechanics perform. The
watch engineers may turn over the operation of
newly installed or repairable machinery to a
mechanic, and may perform repair work whenever
necessary for the continued maintenance of plant
operations.
The single plant watch operator acts as the plant
watch engineer's assistant, works in the same areas,
and has essentially the same kinds of duties. The
single alarm and control board operator operates a
fire and watchman alarm and control board, and in
so doing acts essentially as a reporter of any
equipment trouble which might show up on the
board. He exercises only rudimentary judgment and
minimal skills in this job and takes no corrective
action. The single plant operations mechanic works
throughout the plant building, repairing, and
maintaining installed mechanical and electrical
plant equipment. The single plant maintenance
hand likewise works throughout the plant building;
his work consists of routine maintenance work, such
as inspecting motors and replacing lamps in the
lighting fixtures. The single general plant mechanic
performs all types of mechanical work, particularly
mechanical work involving the skills of the building
trades. The single instrument and control mechanic
works throughout the plant building wherever there
are electric or automatic controls; his work includes
the inspection, maintenance, and repair of
pneumatic electrical and electronic instruments and
controls on various types of equipment.
The Petitioner contends that its primary unit of
4 Victor Manufacturing & Gasket Company, 133 NLRB 1283
1285-86, Arrowhead & Puritas Waters, Inc , 116 NLRB 1431,
Hughes Aircraft Company, 114 NLRB 504, 507-508, General
857
the five watch engineers constitute an appropriate
craft unit, because the watch engineers alone
exercise the highest degree of skill, judgment, and
responsibility in the performance of their duties, and
that they exercise the full gamut of skills associated
with their craft. We do not agree. As noted above,
the plant watch engineers are hired on the basis of
general experience to operate a variety of
machinery. They require no special level of
education, are not licensed, and work throughout the
plant; engaging in testing , troubleshooting, and
general repair and maintenance work, as needed.
Their work places primary general emphasis on
knowledge of those factors which might affect the
continuous operation of machinery, such as lack of
grease or a worn motor bearing, rather than on a
thorough understanding of any particular piece of
equipment. In these circumstances, we find that
they are not entitled to separate representation as a
craft unit or on any other basis.4
The Petitioner contends that its first alternative
unit of plant watch engineers, the plant watch
operator, and the alarm and control board operator
constitutes an appropriate departmental unit. In
support of its position, the Petitioner argues that
these employees, unlike the other maintenance and
plant service employees, are so-called "shift
supervision employees" a phrase coined by the
Petitioner to reflect the fact that they, unlike most of
the other maintenance and plant service employees
who work day shifts only, work multiple shifts
around the clock. The Petitioner further states that
they are hired on the basis of training and
experience, do not interchange jobs with other
employees, and alone work in the power room. As
such, it contends, they are "comparable to the plant
powerhouse or boiler room employees which the
Board has consistently found to constitute an
appropriate departmental unit ." We disagree. As
noted above, the so-called boilerroom contains a
variety of equipment not customarily associated with
traditional boilerrooms, and lacks high-pressure
boilers requiring the attention of licensed operating
engineers. The equipment is highly automatic,
requiring minimal attention from personnel who
spend most of their time in overlapping maintenance
work elsewhere. Furthermore, the boilerhouse
personnel, attached to different departments, lack
any of the uniformity of skills or continuity of
immediate supervision customarily associated with
departmental units. For these reasons, as well as the
fact that they enjoy the same benefits and conditions
of employment as the other employees, we find that
the so-called "shift supervision employees" sought
in the Petitioner's first alternative unit lack the
requisites for their separate representation as an
appropriate departmental unit.5
Electric Company, 112 NLRB 839.
' See fn 4,supra.
858 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner does not favor its second
alternative unit, but will accept it should the other
units it seeks be found inappropriate. In fact, it
concedes that the employees in this unit lack a
community of interest. For reasons set forth in our
consideration of the Petitioner's first alternative unit
request, we find inappropriate the Petitioner's
second alternative unit.
In these circumstances, we find that all of the
units proposed by the Petitioner are inappropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act. As the Petitioner does not seek an election
in any larger unit, we shall dismiss the instant
petition. 6
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the instant petition
be, and the same hereby is , dismissed.
fi In view of our Decision herein, we find it unnecessary to
consider the other contentions raised by the parties in this
proceeding