Boeing Vertol Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1977

233 N.L.R.B. 866 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Boeing Vertol Company and International Union,
United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural
Implement Workers of America, Petitioner. Case
4-RC- 12320
December 1, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND MURPHY
On March 31, 1977, the Regional Director for
Region 4 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
that a voting group of currently unrepresented plant
clerical employees in the Employer's facility in and
around Ridley Township, Pennsylvania, may be
appropriately represented by the Petitioner as part of
the established unit of production and maintenance
employees presently represented by the Petitioner.
Thereafter, in accordance with the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision, contend-
ing that the Regional Director departed from
officially reported Board precedent by finding
certain employees to be plant clericals, rather than
office clericals, and thereby including them in the
voting group.
On April 26, 1977, the National Labor Relations
Board, by telegraphic order, granted the Employer's
request for review and stayed the election pending
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review and
makes the following findings: 1
The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged
in the business of manufacturing helicopters, vertical
lift aircraft, and rail cars. It employs nearly 6,000
employees at its Ridley Township location, about
half of which (including about 150 to 200 plant
clericals) are in the production and maintenance unit
represented by the Petitioner's Local 1069. In this
proceeding, the Petitioner seeks to represent all
currently unrepresented plant clericals.
I The Employer requested that the hearings be reopened to admit
evidence relating to changed conditions at its plant. We hereby deny such
request. as the Employer has failed to set forth any facts which, if
established, would persuade us to change any of our findings set forth herein
or any of those findings made by the Regional Director in his decision. See
Sec. 102.65(e I) of the Board's Rules and Regulations.
2 In 1964, the Union filed petitions by which it sought to represent, inter
alia, the same group of employees which it now seeks to represent as a
separate unit or as part of its existing production and maintenance unit. The
Board at that time directed that an election be held among the plant clerical
233 NLRB No. 126
In his decision, the Regional Director concluded
that the Employer's currently unrepresented plant
clerical employees could be represented by the
Petitioner, but only as a part of the Union's
production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, he
directed that an election be held in a voting group
composed of such employees.2 The parties do not
dispute that aspect of the Regional Director's
decision. Rather, the only issue is the classification of
certain employees as office or plant clerical employ-
ees, and hence, their respective exclusion from or
inclusion in the voting group.
The Regional Director found that all but 4 of the
23 clerical employees in the assembly records section
of the Employer's production control services depart-
ment were plant clericals. He also found that a lead
and a senior inspection records clerk in the quality
assurance-configuration management section of the
Employer's quality assurance department were also
plant clericals. The Employer contends that these
employees are office clericals and therefore should
not be included in the plant clerical voting group. We
agree with the Employer.
Assembly records clericals: The assembly records
section performs the function of routing certain types
of paperwork from the planning department to the
production line. This paperwork consists of instruc-
tions for production employees regarding the assem-
bly of the aircraft or rail car being produced. One of
the section's main responsibilities is the maintenance
of so-called "panels," which are metal bulletin
boards that hold the paper instructions. The mainte-
nance of these panels requires the constant assem-
bling, updating, and insertion of the paper instruc-
tions into the panels.
Assembly records is one of four sections which
comprise the production control services department,
which is managed by Carl Oberg. The other sections
under Oberg's overall management are the parts
inventory control system (PICS)-production inven-
tory-reproduction section, the production control
records section, and the detail scheduling-control
file section.
Each of these production control sections performs
clerical functions related to the effectuation of
planning papers into the production process. Among
other duties, the PICS-production inventory-re-
production section maintains processing records and
employees, but the Union failed to prevail in that election. See Decision and
Direction of Election in Cases 4-RC-6010, 4-RC-601I, and 4-RC-6012,
issued August 30, 1965 (not reported in volumes of Board Decisions). The
decision in those cases was received as a joint exhibit in the present
proceeding. Due to the passage of time and the significant intervening
changes in the Employer's operations and job classifications, we agree with
the Regional Director that a redetermination of employee classifications is
now warranted. See Dobbs-Life Savers, Inc., 210 NLRB 51 (1974); N.L.R.B.
v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 465 F.2d 950 (C.A. 5, 1972).
866
THE BOEING VERTOL COMPANY
a control list of parts, and photocopies and files
planning paper; the production control records
section reviews data created by the planning depart-
ment regarding quantities, production requirements,
and schedules; and the detail scheduling-control
file section reviews virtually every piece of planning
paper issued in order to insure proper scheduling and
also controls the inflow of the planning paper by
input into a computerized reporting system. These
sections in many instances interact with one or more
of the others in the performance of their duties. For
example, one of the duties of the assembly records
section involves the record change function, whereby
an assembly records employee effectuates the plan-
ning department's revisions of manufacturing plans
by updating paper instructions already inserted into
a panel. The record change paper which is issued by
the planners is first routed to the production control
records section for processing, then it is sent to detail
scheduling-control file for review, and it finally
arrives at assembly records. After an employee in
that section makes a panel change, a copy of the
completed record change is sent back to the detail
scheduling-control file section, which in turn routes
a copy to production control records, which finally
delivers a copy back to the planning department.
Other types of planning paper, such as "out-of-
sequence" paper and initial manufacturing instruc-
tions, are routed through the various production
control services sections in a similar manner.
The job classifications of the clerical employees in
the assembly records section are as follows: senior
manufacturing services clerk, manufacturing services
clerk, clerk A general, clerk B general, and change
notice analyst. The Regional Director found that
change notice analyst Reisch and clerk B general
Stremil, whose duties are almost exclusively com-
prised of indexing, photocopying, routing, and filing
of paperwork, are office clericals. He also found that
manufacturing services clerk Doohan is a plant
clerical. Doohan performs the record change func-
tion, described above, by going onto the production
floor and making the required changes on the
appropriate panel. He spends up to 70 percent of his
working time on the shop floor. (He devotes the
other 30 percent of his time to general clerical duties
in his office.)
Lastly, the Regional Director found that the senior
manufacturing services clerks,3 the remaining manu-
facturing services clerks, the clerks A general, and
3 The Employer contended that senior manufacturing services clerks
were supervisors within the meaning of Sec. 2(1 I) of the Act. The Regional
Director concluded, and we agree, that these employees are not supervisors,
and thus should not be excluded from the voting group on that basis.
4 The Regional Director was unable to make a determination whether
change notice analysts Rosenkranz and Chorney should be included in the
voting group since there was insufficient evidence in the record upon which
the remaining clerks B general were plant clericals
and thus should be included in the voting group.4
The Regional Director based his conclusion on the
grounds that the assembly records office is located
near the production areas, the assembly records
employees work the same hours as do the production
employees, and various assembly records clerks
spend a substantial amount of their time doing panel
maintenance on the shop floor. In addition, the
Regional Director noted that the function performed
by the assembly records section allows the manufac-
turing operations to run smoothly.
However, despite these factors which appear to
indicate some degree of integration between the
assembly records section and the production process
and hence intimate that the assembly records
employees are plant clericals, a number of other
factors, set forth below, clearly show that the
employees in question should be classified as office
clericals.
First, assembly records employees have a strong
community of interest with the employees in the
three other production control services sections, who
(with one exception) 5 were stipulated by the parties
to be office clericals. For example, assembly records
is one of four sections that comprise the production
control services department, which is under the
overall managerial supervision of Carl Oberg. More-
over, the function of assembly records is but one part
of the overall production control system utilized by
the Employer in order to effectuate its planning for
the manufacture of its products into the actual
production thereof. (As mentioned above, a single
function, such as a record change, involves the
contemporaneous interaction of three of the four
sections of the production control services depart-
ment.) Furthermore, the functional grouping of
production control services employees, apart from
the production and maintenance employees, results
in different wage scales, overtime requirements,
vacation benefits, and promotional opportunities for
those two groups of employees. Overtime and
vacation scheduling for assembly records employees
is determined not by production demands, but rather
by the backlog of paper which emanates from
planning. Additionally, employees have transferred
from assembly records to other sections of the
production control services department, but not to
positions in the actual production process.
to base such a finding. We agree with his assessment of the record evidence
regarding these two employees, and, therefore, we shall permit them to vote
in the election subject to challenge.
I The parties contested the status of the employees in the production
inventory branch of the PICS-production inventory-reproduction sec-
tion. The Regional Director found that these employees were plant clericals.
The Employer did not seek review of the classification of these employees.
867
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Secondly, as the Regional Director noted, all of the
assembly records clerks other than Doohan spend a
majority of their time at their desks checking the
planning papers. Panel maintenance usually con-
sumes no more than 25 to 35 percent of a clerk's
working time. Panel maintenance in fact requires no
functional interaction with production employees,
despite the fact that the panels are on the shop floor.
Finally, the factors relied upon by the Regional
Director in finding that the assembly records
employees are plant clericals do not necessarily
support that conclusion. Thus, while the assembly
records office is indeed located near production
areas, it is also located in the general proximity of the
employees in the other production control services
sections. Moreover, despite the fact that the working
hours of the assembly records employees are identi-
cal to those of the production employees, the former
employees do not take coffeebreaks at certain
prescribed times as do the production workers and
do not "punch" a clock as do the latter employees.
And, although the assembly records employees
perform their panel maintenance in the actual
production areas, this duty, as indicated above, only
comprises approximately a quarter or a third of their
entire working time and does not require contact
with the production employees. Lastly, while the
function performed by the assembly records section
does in fact permit the production process to run
smoothly, that function is actually one part of an
integral role performed by the entire production
control services department, and is generally depen-
dent upon the interaction and cooperation of each of
the four production control services sections.
On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that,
while the function of the assembly records section is
the last step in the control of the production process,
its clerical employees are not so bound up in that
production process itself as to provide them with a
community of interest with the production employ-
ees. On the contrary, the assembly records employees
share a strong community of interest with the other
clerical employees in the production control services
department,6 almost all of whom are classified as
office clericals. Accordingly, we find that the clerical
employees in the assembly records section are office
clericals and we shall exclude them from the plant
clerical voting group.7
0 See Loral Electronics Systems, a division of Loral Corporation, 200
NLRB 1019, 1024(1972).
T However, see fn. 4, supra, wherein we decided to permit two clerical
employees in the assembly records section to vote in the election subject to
challenge.
8 The Regional Director was unable to make a determination whether
inspection records clerk Trexler should be included in the voting group since
there was insufficient evidence in the record upon which to base such a
Inspection records clerks: Inspection records clerks
compile all of the paperwork generated during the
manufacturing process of each aircraft and rail car.
The clerks then assemble reference files for each
product, which are handed to customers at the time
of the delivery of their orders. These files provide the
customers with a complete history of the manufac-
ture of the orders, including the inspections which
have been conducted on all of the parts.
There are 13 inspection records clerks, who are
classified as lead clerk-inspection records, senior
clerk--inspection records, and clerk-inspection
records. They are located in at least seven various
buildings and trailers in the Employer's industrial
complex. These clerks are scattered within the
quality assurance control department, which is
comprised of several sections. One such section is
quality assurance-configuration management, in
which eight inspection records clerks are grouped
under the supervision of Robert Springer.
The Regional Director classified all of the inspec-
tion records clerks as office clerical employees with
the exception of Holmes (lead clerk) and Gladney
(senior clerk), whom he classified as plant clericals.8
The Employer, however, contends that Holmes and
Gladney are office clericals and thus should not be
included in the voting group.9
Holmes and Gladney work together and separate
from other employees in an enclosed office. No other
inspection records clerks work in their building.
Holmes spends about 50 percent of her time in her
office assembling data used to prepare the reference
files, mentioned above. The remaining 50 percent of
her working hours is spent outside the office in the
"Barn," the final staging area for rail cars prior to
delivery to a customer. In the "Barn," she is
responsible for obtaining the signatures of customers
attesting to the completion and quality of the
product. Gladney spends nearly 100 percent of her
time in her office performing support work for
Holmes, including assembly of various data and
typing.
The Regional Director based his finding that
Holmes was a plant clerical on the fact that she
spends half of her time in the "Barn," and, while
there, comes into contact with mechanics and
inspectors, who are represented by the Union in the
production and maintenance unit. The Regional
Director classified Gladney as a plant clerical as well,
finding. We agree with his assessment of the record evidence regarding
Trexler. Therefore, we shall permit Trexler to vote in the election subject to
challenge.
9 The Employer asserts in the alternative that Holmes is a supervisor
within the meaning of Sec. 2(11) of the Act. The Regional Director
concluded, and we agree, that Holmes is not a supervisor, and thus should
not be excluded from the voting group on that basis.
868
THE BOEING VERTOL COMPANY
since her work enables Holmes to carry out her
function in the "Barn."
However, despite this apparent connection be-
tween Holmes and certain production and mainte-
nance employees, both Holmes and Gladney per-
form functions which are office clerical, rather than
plant clerical, in nature. Both employees are under
the overall supervision of Robert Springer, and all of
the other inspection records clerks supervised by him
were found by the Regional Director to be office
clericals. The function Holmes performs, similar to
the function performed by the assembly records
employees discussed earlier, represents the last step
of a functionally integrated role which she accom-
plishes in concert with other clerks in her depart-
ment. The mere fact that she performs a part of her
job in the company of employees in the production
and maintenance unit, as do some of the assembly
records employees, does not detract from her
community of interest with the other inspection
records clerks in the quality assurance control
department. While Holmes is in fact the only such
clerk who spends a substantial amount of time in an
area where production and maintenance unit em-
ployees are located, there is no specific evidence in
the record that she actually works in conjunction
with such employees. On the other hand, she works
closely with Gladney, whose duties are clearly those
of an office clerical employee. Lastly, Holmes herself
performs clerical duties in her office at least half of
her working time.
o1 In describing the voting group in which he directed that an election be
held, the Regional Director inadvertently omitted the words "currently
unrepresented" before the words "plant clerical employees." The record is
clear that the parties intended the voting group to comprise solely plant
clerical employees who are presently unrepresented and to exclude plant
In these circumstances, we find that both Holmes
and Gladney are office clerical employees and,
accordingly, we shall exclude them from the plant
clerical voting group.
The Regional Director found, and we agree, that
an election should be held in the following voting
group:
All currently unrepresented plant clerical employ-
ees located at the Employer's facility in and
around Ridley Township, Pennsylvania, but
excluding all other employees, technical employ-
ees, office clerical employees, managerial employ-
ees, off-site employees, professionals, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.10
As we have found that currently unrepresented plant
clerical employees constitute an appropriate voting
group, we shall remand the case for an election
among the above-described employees, and, if a
majority of such employees vote for the Petitioner,
they shall be deemed to constitute a part of the
existing production and maintenance unit now
represented by the Petitioner and its Local 1069. See
Fisher Controls Company, 192 NLRB 514, 515 (1971);
Weyerhaeuser Company, 173 NLRB 1170, 1171
(1968). Accordingly, this case is remanded to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that ending
immediately before issuance of this Decision on
Review.
clericals currently represented by the Petitioner. In addition, the Regional
Director in his Direction of Election directed that an election be conducted
in the "unit found appropriate," rather than in the "voting group" of
currently unrepresented plant clerical employees.
" [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.l
869