Case Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1991

304 N.L.R.B. 939 (N.L.R.B. 1991)

939
304 NLRB No. 152
CASE CORP.
1 Originally issued as an unpublished Decision on Review and Order on Au-
gust 27, 1991; now issued as a published Decision on Review and Order for
inclusion in the Board volumes.
2 192 NLRB 1208, 1209 (1971).
Case Corporation and International Union, United
Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple-
ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL–CIO,
Petitioner. Case 33–RC–3532
August 27, 1991
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER1
BY MEMBERS CRACRAFT, DEVANEY, AND OVIATT
On June 21, 1990, the Board granted the Employer’s
request for review of the Acting Regional Director’s
Decision and Direction of Election. The election was
conducted as scheduled on June 22, 1990, and the bal-
lots were impounded.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, includ-
ing the brief on review, the Board has decided to af-
firm the Acting Regional Director’ decision (relevant
portions of which are attached as an appendix). The
Acting Regional Director determined that the peti-
tioned-for engineers are neither managerial nor con-
fidential employees, and that their representation by
the Petitioner would not create a conflict of interest or
adversely affect the performance of their duties with
regard to the Employer’s other employees, who already
are represented by the Petitioner. Thus, the Board, in
agreement with the Acting Regional Director, finds
that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the
Employer’s engineers’ duties are not limited to making
technical production or performance standard deter-
minations, or to making recommendations as to new
product, procedures, or operations, in order to reduce
the Employer’s cost of business. There is no record
evidence that any of the engineers have the discretion
to deviate from the Employer’s established policies, or
that the are privy to information concerning anticipated
changes that may result from collective-bargaining ne-
gotiations. American Radiator Corp., 119 NLRB 1715,
1720 (1958).
In particular, the Board notes that although the Em-
ployer’s industrial engineers participate in the incentive
standards complaint and Grievance procedure, the Em-
ployer has failed to demonstrate that the engineers
have the authority to make any final binding disposi-
tions of grievances. The complaint procedure merely
provides that the industrial engineers review and make
any necessary corrections in the standard hour plan,
and if the complaint is not satisfactorily resolved, the
engineer and the union work standards representative
conduct a joint factfinding review of the standard in
question. If a grievance is filed the engineer and the
union representative participate in the third step by
presenting the joint fact findings. Thus, as in Chrysler
Corp.,2 the grievance procedure does not provide, nor
does the testimony establish, that the industrial engi-
neers decide or resolve grievances.
Further, the industrial engineers are neither manage-
rial nor confidential employees by virtue of their in-
volvement in contract negotiations. Although the engi-
neers critique the Union’s proposals, and some of them
have participated in negotiations and sat at the bargain-
ing table as a member of the Employer’s local nego-
tiating team, or participated as a member of the Em-
ployer’s central negotiating team, the Employer has
failed to demonstrate that the role of these engineers
is other than that of providing personnel or statistical
information upon which the Employer’s labor relations
policy is based. There is no evidence in the record to
show that they know the precise terms to which the
Employer would agree in a collective-bargaining
agreement. Compare Pullman, Inc., 214 NLRB 762,
763 (1974).
Accordingly, the Regional Director is directed to
count the ballots cast by the employees at the election
held on June 22, 1990, prepare a tally of ballots, and
issue the appropriate certification.
MEMBER OVIATT, dissenting in part.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would exclude the in-
dustrial engineers from the unit found appropriate as
conidential employees under the reasoning in Pullman,
Inc., 214 NLRB 762 (1974). I find it clear that the in-
dividuals in this classification must use independent
discretion and judgment in determining whether addi-
tional employees are required. Industrial engineers
were part of the employer’s negotiating team, and in-
volved in strategy meetings to respond to proposals by
the Union. In these circumstances I believe that the in-
dustrial engineers are ‘‘specially aligned with the em-
ployer’s interests in the area of labor relations,’’ who
are properly accorded ‘‘the status of ‘confidential’ em-
ployees’’ whose participation with other employees in
union activities ‘‘would necessarily subject them to a
critical conflict of interests and impair their trust with
the employer.’’ Pullman, supra, 214 NLRB at 763.
APPENDIX
The Employer’s East Moline Facility
The record reveals that the production and maintenance
employees employed by Case at its East Moline facility are
represented by UA Local 1304. The tool makers and other
skilled workers are in a skilled trades bargaining unit also
represented by UA Local 1306. bargaining unit of clerical
and technical employees is similarly represented by UA
Local 1356.
Many of the production workers at the East Moline facility
are incentive workers who work under a standard hour plan.
Under this plan, a normal skilled piece worker is expected
940 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to produce 125 percent of the standard hourly plan at an in-
centive base rate established for his/her job. All of the incen-
tive classifications are based on machines which are operated
in the plant and on standards as to what is expected of an
individual when he is working on that particular machine op-
eration.
The work of the skilled trades involves two types of work,
either construction work or tooling work. The construction
work is performed by such trades as the carpenters, elec-
tricians, ironworkers and millwrights. The tooling work in-
cludes the development and manufacture of fixtures, jigs and
other items that are used on machine tools.
The employees sought by the Petitioner in this proceeding
consist of the following. Twelve industrial engineers are em-
ployed in the industrial engineering department. Their imme-
diate supervisor is industrial engineering manager Steve
Tyler. Eighteen process engineers, who are also referred to
as manufacturing engineers, are employed in the manufactur-
ing engineering department. Their supervisor is manager of
manufacturing engineering R. L. (Bob) Hannah. To advance
planning process engineers are employed in the liaison de-
partment. These advanced planning process engineers are
also sometimes known as pre-production planning engineers.
They are supervised by Vera Cathelyn, product introduction
coordinator in the liaison department. Seven facility engi-
neers are employed in the facility and plant engineering de-
partment and are supervised by facility and plant engineering
manager Walter Dunn. One long-range planning engineer,
who is actually classified as a facility engineer, is employed
in long-range planning and supervised by manager of long-
range planning Stephen Potter. Two metallurgist/quality con-
trol engineers are employed in the metallurgy/quality control
department. The metallurgist/quality control engineers report
to chief metallurgist Martin Plecki.
All of the process engineers, the advance planning process
engineers, the facility engineers, the long-range planning en-
gineers, the metallurgist/quality control engineers, and the in-
dustrial engineers, with the exception of the trainees, are
labor grade four salaried employees. The industrial engineer
trainees are labor grade three. All receive the salaried benefit
package. None receive overtime and none punch a time
clock. With the exception of the metallurgist/quality control
engineers who are located in the plant, all have offices in the
main office. While the supervisors of the various engineering
departments have their own offices, the engineers sought to
be included in the petitioned-unit do not have separate of-
fices but each group has its on large room in which individ-
ual desks and tables are located.
Of the current process engineers, four have college degrees
and two have three years of college. The process engineers
are not certified. Six to nine months ago, a college degree
became a requirement for a process engineer. With regard to
the industrial engineers, five of the 12 industrial engineers
have college degrees. Both of the advanced planning process
engineers have college degrees, and one has a professional
engineering license. Although it appears that approximately
four of the facility engineers have college degrees, the others
do not have college degrees. Long-range planning engineer
Adlfinger does not have a college degree and is not licensed
by any unit of government. It does not appear that any of
the metallurgist/quality control engineers have college de-
grees or hold a license.
Industrial Engineers
Currently, the industrial engineers sought to be included in
the petitioned-for unit include Jim Snyder, Jerry Piper, Marv
Pfau, Dale Nimrick, Tim Vaughn, Bob Maher, Stan Brillhart,
Buz Vallee, Virgil Kain, Mike McCalla, Jim Miller, and J.
Horst. The industrial engineers are classified as trainees or
as senior industrial engineers.
The industrial engineering department provides the meth-
ods, incentive rates and line balances for the incentive piece
work jobs performed by production employees. The indus-
trial engineers establish the method on the production floor,
that is, the order in which movements are to be performed
on the machine operated by the piece worker. It is the objec-
tive of the industrial engineer to make the production em-
ployee as efficient as possible in the movements needed to
perform the job. The industrial engineers provide assembly
line balance by determining how many production employees
are needed to react to a schedule change on the assembly
line. The goal is to make sure that there are enough employ-
ees working to accomplish the jobs necessary to assure pro-
duction is made but not, at the same time, assign too many
employees to the production line so that inefficiencies are
built in.
The standard which is the basis for the incentive system
is the standard hour plan, also referred to as SHP. The SHP
system is based on a work measurement system called
MOST, which is an acronym for the Maynard Operations Se-
quence Technique. MOST is a pre-determined time system.
The SHP determines how much money a production em-
ployee on piece work will make.
When an industrial engineer is given an assignment by de-
partment manager Tyler to evaluate a job under MOST for
purposes of the standard hour plan, the evaluation is done by
work centers encompassing anywhere from 100 to 6000 jobs,
part numbers or operations. The industrial engineer goes to
the work center and gathers pertinent information including
the machine cycles, distances from the source to load the
machines, the types of machines incorporated in the work
center, and what type of work is done across the work cen-
ter, that is, whether it be drills, shears, saws or other work.
After the industrial engineer gathers this information, he en-
ters the data into a works management manual which has all
the information pertaining the machine which is evaluated,
the distances, and what has to be done in this particular work
center. The manual is a guideline for setting future jobs and
contains various information that the industrial engineer is
required to observe on a particular job. The industrial engi-
neer enters the data into the work management manual based
upon his observation.
After the industrial engineer has gathered all of the infor-
mation under MOST, he assigns common movements to
common activities and assigns numbers to the specific move-
ments or pieces of work. At such time as he completes his
observations of the movements of the operator on the plant
floor and notes these movements in his manual, he then goes
to the chart which is part of the manual to find the locaters
which are addresses in the computer that refer to specific
movements or functions and enters that locater into the com-
puter. He takes his list of all the different locaters that have
a work assigned to them and puts together the part numbers
in a systematic order such that he can actually set the incen-
tive rates from his desk. Standard locaters have been devel-
941CASE CORP.
oped that are then used to establish a standard for a particu-
lar operation. There are a large number of general locaters
that are used to pick and choose from to assign for different
work so that an engineer only need build a new locater if
one does not fit the established criteria. After the industrial
engineer has entered the data into the computer, the com-
puter generates a standard for all of the part numbers in the
work center that the industrial engineer has evaluated. The
MOST system program in the computer generates a standard
and gives a time for that standard. The standard or SHP then
goes into the system for the piece worker on the floor to use.
MOST is a measurement system whereby after an indus-
trial engineer determines what the movements are that are re-
quired to perform a particular operation on a machine, the
MOST system gives a time for those movements. The indus-
trial engineer does not decide what work is necessary to do
a job but does decide that order it is to be done in, that is,
the methodology. In determining the methodology, the indus-
trial engineer seeks to make the movements of the piece
worker as efficient as can be devised. Once the industrial en-
gineer decides the method, the time comes out of the MOST
system. Personal and delay allowances are also built into the
computer system.
Case’s headquarters are in Racine, Wisconsin. When cor-
porate headquarters personnel trained the industrial engineers
in MOST after Case acquired the East Moline facility from
International Harvester, they gave the industrial engineers a
couple of work management manual samples for them to use
to make their own manual. The East Moline manual was put
together in the same manner as the samples and is a ref-
erence book which describes how areas are put together
under SHP.
There may be occasions when an industrial engineer has
to generate an alternate or new rate standard for an oper-
ation. An alternate standard may be required if the material
is not of the specified size and the part has to be manufac-
tured out of an alternate piece of stock. The standard is gen-
erated using the same procedure under the MOST system as
for a regular standard except the standard is just for a tem-
porary period of time and for a limited number of pieces.
When the company introduces new products or makes
changes in existing products, an industrial engineer deter-
mines the method of assembly on a prototype. The industrial
engineer will establish labor content on a prototype which
will translate into costs. Higher management will use the cost
information generated by the industrial engineer on the pro-
totype to see if a new product will be profitable. In the plan-
ning stages of new products and yearly changes, advance
planning groups will estimate the costs and the industrial en-
gineer may be consulted. In addition, the industrial engineers
and also the process engineers involved with the prototype
may later train the foreman and hourly employees on the
method of assembly to be used with regard to the new or
changed product.
The industrial engineering department devises approxi-
mately 4,000 SHPs each year. In general, every group of
piece workers that are put on SHP are involved in method
improvements whereby feeds and speeds are increased or op-
erations are combined. Under the planning performance and
evaluation program (PPE) at Case, at the beginning of each
year, performance planning and evaluation goals are estab-
lished for the industrial engineering department and for each
individual engineer. These goals are then used at year-end to
determine their awards and the annual evaluation of the engi-
neers. The planning performance and evaluation goals in-
clude increasing the amount of SHP in the plant to a level
whereby 95 percent of the incentive hourly people are on
SHP and thereby also reducing the direct labor costs by 20
percent. All goals are geared to cut costs.
Case also has eight cost reduction teams which are coordi-
nated by the industrial engineering department. A general
foreman heads up each team and on that team is a production
supervisor, one or two industrial engineers, sometimes a
process engineer and sometimes a facility engineer. These
teams meet once a month to brainstorm for new ideas as to
how they can reduce the costs at the plant. The industrial en-
gineer on each team helps the other members with their
ideas, encouraging them on the ones that the engineer evalu-
ates to have good cost savings potential and discouraging
them on the ideas for which cost savings is not likely.
The function of the industrial engineering department on
the cost reduction teams is to assess the feasibility of cost
reduction suggestions. The industrial engineer assigned to the
task reports his findings, recommendations and suggestions
to department manager Tyler. Frequently before discussing
his suggestions with Tyler he will, out of courtesy, first dis-
cuss the with the foreman who would implement them if the
ideas are given final authorization. Neither Tyler nor any of
the industrial engineers have authority to make a final deci-
sion with regard to the idea.
The East Moline facility has a guaranteed employment
level (GEL) for its production and maintenance bargaining
unit employees. Typically, production schedules are forecast
six months in advance. The schedules are written by material
planning and distribution, which is also responsible for secur-
ing the materials necessary to support that schedule. These
schedules are brought to the industrial engineers who analyze
the manpower necessary in the plant to attain those sched-
ules. The industrial engineers make estimates as to how
many persons it is going to take in each of the product areas
and frequently go back to the people writing the schedules
with recommendations on what could be done differently to
level out the staffing needs. Under the GEL provisions in the
contract, once a person comes under GEL, the Company for
the duration of the contract cannot lay the person off without
a financial penalty. Therefore, staffing leveling is important
so that employees are not hired over whom the Company
will suffer a later penalty if they must be laid off.
In the GEL program, the industrial engineers do not decide
which individual bargaining unit employee to put on the
GEL program. The industrial engineer’s primary role in the
GEL program is the establishment of the SHP standards
which influence the staffing needs. How a job is going to be
performed, that is, the method and the standard that is associ-
ated with the job determine the need for staffing to the ad-
vance schedule.
The guaranteed employment level is also significant to the
staffing requisition requests. When a departmental staffing
request comes to the industrial engineer, the industrial engi-
neer compares that with the guaranteed employment level
number. If the plant already exceeds the guaranteed employ-
ment level number, only corporate headquarters can authorize
additional hiring and the plant must stay within those guide-
lines. The industrial engineer tries to sort out who really
942 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
needs the employees whom corporate headquarters has au-
thorized the plant to hire.
The staffing approval process is initiated by a foreman fill-
ing out a written request. After the department manager ap-
proves the foreman’s request, it is brought to industrial engi-
neering. After industrial engineering receives the request,
manager Tyler assigns an industrial engineer to review the
request and compare it to the manning chart for the depart-
ment. The industrial engineer will use a pre-existing standard
to determine if additional employees are needed. The depart-
mental charts describe the classifications and all incentive
and non-incentive employees in the department. The indus-
trial engineer will look at old staffing charts for the history
to determine if the foreman needs as many additional em-
ployees as he has requested. Each department has a man-
power budget and a goal of the industrial engineer when he
receives a manpower acquisition form is to counsel the fore-
man or manager so the plant will make budget. The indus-
trial engineer will take the manpower requisition form to the
manager of production operations and advise the manager of
production operations if he thinks the request should be re-
jected or accepted. If the departmental foreman disagrees
with the industrial engineer, the manager of production oper-
ations will make a final decision. Approximately 90 percent
of the time, the manager of production operations will accept
the industrial engineers recommendation. The industrial engi-
neer does not have the authority to unilaterally deny a re-
quest for additional staffing. If the industrial engineer accepts
the request of the foreman and his manager, he will discuss
it with Manager of Production Operations Horak. The indus-
trial engineer’s signature on the staffing requisition form in-
dicates he has received the form, not accepted or rejected it.
Manager of Production Operations Horak has the I overall
responsibility for all assembly including the assembly staff-
ing approval process.
Case has a productivity task force to assist departments
having difficulties with productivity and in staying within
their budgets. Industrial engineers are called in as trouble
shooters by the foreman and general foreman of the depart-
ment experiencing these problems. The industrial engineer
who heads up the task force, will spend time reviewing the
operation on the floor and make his recommendations on
what might be done to be more productive and stay within
budget. The industrial engineer in order to improve produc-
tivity will be interested in whether the machines are running
as fast as they should be and whether there are problems in
methodology and material handline. An outcome of the ef-
forts of the productivity team to increase productivity may be
a reduction in overtime and a reduction in down time. Any
decision to make changes within a department must be dis-
cussed with and have the approval of the general foreman
and departmental manager.
Case also has four SMED teams. SMED is an acronym for
single minute exchange of dyes. Typically, a SMED team
will consist of seven or eight employees with more than half
of them from the production floor. A process engineer and
industrial engineer as well as the foreman and unit employ-
ees will constitute a team. The purpose of the SMED team
is to review the method and amount of time required to make
setups. The team will brainstorm new methods.
A new product committee meets weekly. An industrial en-
gineer appointed by manager Tyler sits on that committee on
behalf of Tyler. The plant manager, manager of technical
services, manager of production operations, manager of as-
sembly and chief process engineers are also on the commit-
tee. When new products or major changes to existing prod-
ucts are coming along, this committee evaluates these
changes and lays the ground work to assure that all of the
tools, materials, methods, standards, and processes are ready.
It is the role of the industrial engineer to be sure that when
new changes occur, the methods and tooling have been iden-
tified and the SHPs standards are ready for the new change.
The press guard committee meets once or twice monthly.
Its purpose is to identify problems regarding guarding for
machines to safeguard piece workers. The safety manager,
manager of technical services, manager of human resources,
general foreman from the press departments and an industrial
engineer constitute the press guard committee. A function of
the committee is to identify areas where the machines are not
in compliance with OSHA standards and to reconcile the
guarding with the OSHA requirements. The one industrial
engineer on the committee is appointed by industrial engi-
neering manager Steve Tyler.
The union works standard representative (UWSR) is a
union representative who is trained in the MOST computer
system. While the industrial engineers are located in the
main office, the UWSR also has an office just down the aisle
from the offices of the industrial engineers. The UWSR has
a desk with a computer with success to the same MOST sys-
tems as the industrial engineers have access. The UWSR is
trained to evaluate the SHP standards which have been set
by the industrial engineers.
If a bargaining unit employee has a complaint concerning
the SHP standard determined by the industrial engineer for
the operation which he performs, that bargaining unit em-
ployee can file a complaint with his foreman requesting a re-
view of the SHP. The foreman goes over the standard and
checks for errors. If the foreman finds no errors, he notifies
the industrial engineer responsible for his area and the indus-
trial engineer then goes over the standards and checks for er-
rors in the numbers. If the industrial engineer finds an error,
he corrects it. If he does not find an error, he goes out on
the floor to observe the job and look for errors in methodol-
ogy. If the industrial engineer feels that the standard is cor-
rect, he so informs the employee. At that time, the employee
is entitled to protest the determination of the industrial engi-
neer or have the UWSR come out and look at the SHP as
well. If the UWSR looks over the SHP, he discusses it with
the industrial engineer. In most cases, the bargaining unit
employee’s complaint will be worked out at or before this
stage. If the unit employee is not satisfied with the resolution
of his complaint concerning the SHP, the employee’s com-
plaint then enters the grievance procedure at the second step.
If the grievance goes to a third step meeting, the industrial
engineer and UWSR will sit in on this meeting. The indus-
trial engineer participates to the extent that he explains what
he has done in determining the SHP standard. Although the
Union has the right to arbitrate or strike over the SHP stand-
ards, the third step is the farthest that any grievance concern-
ing an SHP standard has gone.
On one occasion, a foreman called the industrial engineer
who had done a line balance on his line and informed him
that he was not able to run the line with the balance deter-
mined by the industrial engineer. After the foreman identified
943CASE CORP.
the problem to the industrial engineer, the industrial engineer
went to the line, discussed the problem with the foreman,
and observed every man working on the llne. The industrial
engineer then make a recommendation based upon his obser-
vations that one employee on the line was not performing his
task in the right order and should be disqualified from as-
sembly. Although the foreman acted upon the industrial engi-
neers recommendation to disqualify the employee from the
line because he could not make SHP, only the foreman, not
the industrial engineer, had the authority to disqualify the
employee. No industrial engineer has ever presented evidence
on behalf of the Employer in the grievance procedure con-
cerning an employee’s disqualification.
Currently, two industrial engineers, Virgil Kain and Mike
McCalla, are involved in local contract negotiations as part
of the Company’s negotiating team. McCalla is also a mem-
ber of the central negotiating bargaining team for the Com-
pany. Kain and McCalla here selected by industrial engineer-
ing department manager Tyler to sit at the bargaining table.
The industrial engineers assist the Company in cost analyses
of Union proposals and in formulating responses to Union
proposals as they relate to the standard hour plan. In central
negotiations, McCalla is a member of the SHP subcommit-
tee, a joint Company/Union subcommittee. This subcommit-
tee was jointly agreed to by the UAW and Case to explore
and solve issues relative to existing SHP. McCalla is on the
committee due to his expertise and familiarity with the East
Moline plant. The committee has two areas of responsibility,
resolving existing issues under the contract concerning the
administration of SHP and exploring alternatives to SHP. In-
asmuch as work repetition is a factor determining if a job
can be made incentive, the issue of repetitiveness is one
jointly addressed by the Company and UAW on the SHP
subcommittee. Repetitive implies that the same work motion
is performed every time, that the same amount of work is
there every time, and that the work content is the same every
time.
In late March 1990, manager of industrial relations Paul
Nitzel asked industrial engineering manager Tyler to respond
to Union bargaining requests to change four or five areas
currently on day work to piece work SHP activities. Tyler
assigned these areas to industrial engineers working in his
department. The industrial engineers investigated the poten-
tial benefit of the Union’s proposals to the Company and
then recommended to Tyler to deny the Union’s proposals.
Tyler had authority to change the industrial engineers’ analy-
sis and conclusions but did not. The plant manager accepted
Tyler’s subsequent recommendation to deny these proposals.
Process Engineers
Bob Hannah is the manager of the manufacturing engi-
neering department in which the process engineers are em-
ployed. Other supervisors in that department include K. Wil-
liams, R. Ventling, and W. McNalley. The process engineers
include D. Vroman, R. Claerhout, D. Kempt, W. Duncan, W.
Herrington, J. Stribling, J. Hymes, J. Fout, L. Snyder, R.
Hansell, R. Goebel, O. Farrier, R. Young, M. Epperly, R.
Jones, R. Rondau, R. Carlson, and J. Drenter. The respon-
sibility of the department is to review the blueprints for new
and changed products which have been generated by design
engineering and develop processes to manufacture these
parts.
There are three classifications of process engineers. Those
classifications are tool and process engineers, process engi-
neer II, and welding engineer. A difference between the tool
and process engineers and the process engineer II is that the
tool and process engineers are capable of design work and
also writing CNC tapes. The CNC tapes are computer soft-
ware that the tool and process engineer programs to deter-
mine how fast a machine will run. This, in turn, affects how
much employees are putting out and the quality of their
work.
The welding engineer’s function is to insure that welds are
being produced at the least cost in material and labor. Al-
though maintenance welders are given a test by the welding
engineer at the time of their hiring, the decision whether or
not a welder is qualified is made jointly by the foreman, in-
spection department, and welding engineer.
The Company relies on the process engineers to use their
knowledge of the facility and equipment to process parts at
the least cost to the Company. Involved in this is a decision
whether manufacture the parts in-house or to buy the parts
from an outside vendor. All decisions to make the parts in-
house or to outsource the parts ultimately go to the plant
controller. It is company policy that work should not be
outsourced on a permanent basis unless it can be shown to
be more economical to do the work outside. The Company
relies upon the manufacturing engineering department to ana-
lyze in-house costs by assigning standard costs to making the
pieces and comparing whether it is less or more costly to do
the work in-house.
After design engineering sends a blueprint for a new or
changed part to the department of manufacturing engineering,
the manager of that department makes an assignment to a
process engineer to analyze whether it is most cost efficient
to make the part in-house or to buy it from outside. The first
thing that the process engineer does is to locate a part al-
ready being made at the facility which is similar to the new
or changed part. If a new or changed part is similar to one
that is already being made at Case, the process engineer has
access to a data base that is stored in the computer that will
show the existing cost for the similar part. The process engi-
neer sends a cost request to the purchasing department to ob-
tain data to determine whether or not an outside vendor
could make the part as cheaply as Case. If the Company is
already producing a similar part in the plant, the process en-
gineer will establish process for the new part based on the
operations and equipment utilized in the production of the
similar part and either estimate the costs of these operations
or find data that would be close enough to establish a cost
for the part.
When the process engineer issues a cost request to pur-
chasing he does this by inputting information in the com-
puter to the purchasing department describing the part and
the release number of the part. Blueprints are sent to the pur-
chasing department which are in turn sent to outside vendors
by the purchasing department in order for the outside vendor
to give a quote for that part. The purchasing department will
contact the vendors for a quote. When a quote is returned,
the purchasing department inputs the cost of that part in the
system, and the data base will reflect that quotes have been
received. Normally, there is an ‘‘X’’ or some indication as
to which vendor has been chosen by the purchasing depart-
ment. According to process engineer Carroll Kempt, the pur-
944 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chasing department makes a decision as to the ability of the
outside supplier to deliver quality parts in a timely manner
and chooses the outside vendor. Once the process engineer
sees in the data base that the vendor has been selected and
that a quote has been received, he compares the quote to
costs he has generated for the in-house making of the part
and whichever is the lowest determines whether he rec-
ommends to make the part in-house or to outsource the part
According to process engineer Kempt, the process engineers
generally only contact outside vendors if a machine goes
down and the Company needs to get a part immediately.
If the part is dissimilar from parts currently being manu-
factured, the process engineer first establishes what type of
manufacturing process will be required to make the part to
the design engineer’s blueprint specifications. If it is a simple
part, the process could simply consist of a mill, drill or lathe.
If the process engineer knows of a similar operation in the
plant, he will look at the costs already established for that
part. If he is not aware of a similar operation, the process
engineer will estimate the amount of time that it takes to do
the operation. To the time would be added the hourly ma-
chining and labor costs. At that point, the process engineer
then has the in-house costs which he would compare to the
cost of an outside vendor.
When process engineers evaluate in-house costs of new or
changed parts and compare them with the costs of outside
vendors, although existing cost information as to the cost of
producing a part in-house has been developed and is avail-
able to the process engineer, the process engineer may, as
part of his decision, reevaluate and reexamine that cost infor-
mation to make sure it is current and up-to-date. Most of the
data is based upon data available the plant. The answer to
whether or not it would be cost efficient to produce the part
in-house out out-house, more often than not, suggests itself
as a result of the comparison of the figures alone.
Seven thousand to eight thousand changes in parts come
to the manufacturing engineering department each year. One
thousand to fifteen hundred decisions concerning the manu-
facture of new parts must be made.
If the decision is made to keep the production of a part
in-house, the process engineer then writes a process for its
production, that is, what machine and in what world center
the part will be run, what the sequence of operations will be,
what type of tooling will be needed and what the method of
production will be. A tool order will go to the tool and proc-
ess engineer who will then make another determination
whether or not the tooling should be done in-house or wheth-
er it should be done outside. The process engineer will write
a detailed explanation of what is to be done in the world
center and will estimate the piece work price.
The process engineer does I not have the authority to de-
cide whether to buy new machine tools. Except perhaps on
a temporary basis such as when a machine breaks down, nei-
ther does the process engineer have the authority to go to an
outsource supplier when his own study suggests that it is
cheaper to produce the part in-house. The process engineer
can make a decision to outsource a part based upon authority
that the Company has given him dependent upon his com-
pleting a study that shows that it is cheaper to produce the
part with an outside vendor. Although a process engineer
does have authority to keep the production of a part in-house
even though the outsource may be cheaper, there would have
to be reasons such as scheduling, delivery, or quality, and the
process engineer is subject to being asked to explain his rea-
sons to William Horak, manager of production operations.
When a decision to buy a part from an outside vendor has
been made, manager Hannah sends a letter to labor relations
advising them of the plan to outsource the work. Hannah will
also advise the Union steward in the area affected by the
outsourcing of the work. Issues involving outsourcing of new
or changed parts may be the subject of discussions between
the Union and the industrial relations department.
The process engineer has a different role in making deci-
sions concerning outsourcing of tooling than for parts. With
regard to outsourcing parts, the Company simply does not
have the capability to make some parts, such as tires. As to
other parts, the Company may be capable but the costs may
be prohibitive and the time required for setting up inefficient.
With regard to recommendations of the process engineer to
outsource tooling, the recommendations concerning tooling
go to the tooling department, not manufacturing engineering
manager Bob Hannah. Currently, there is no outsourcing of
tooling unless it is something that cannot be made in the tool
room.
An AFE or authority for expenditures must be submitted
for approval for any new tooling and new equipment nec-
essary to achieve labor and material cost savings. Although
the process engineer who prepared the AFE initially signs off
on it and his immediate supervisor and/or manager Hannah
also sign the AFE, the plant controller and plant manager
have to sign the AFE before it is finally approved. The proc-
ess engineer cannot bypass his immediate supervisor and
Hannah and send the AFE for approval without their signa-
tures.
One process engineer is assigned to each of the eight cost
reduction teams as an advisor. The manufacturing engineer-
ing department is also a team in and of itself.
With respect to the planning and performance evaluation,
PP&E, it is a goal of the manufacturing engineering depart-
ment to save $600,000 in labor and material for the year. In
some cases, the department has attempted to reduce product
costs by purchasing tooling and in others by changing their
methods of producing a part. The department may also sug-
gest design changes to design engineering. Cost savings may
be achieved by both recommendations lowering labor costs
and lowering material costs. Process engineers are also mem-
bers of the SMED teams. The rule of the process engineer
is to come up with ways to reduce set-up times, particularly
when tooling is involved. Other members of the SMED
teams are industrial engineers, piece workers that work on
the particular area where the team is working, representatives
from the tool room and foremen.
With regard to the press guard committee that meets con-
cerning safety and compliance with OSHA standards, the
committee’s goal is to come up with methods to protect the
press opertors. Industrial engineering manager Tyler, a fore-
man and process engineer Harrington are on the press guard
team. Harrington was appointed by department manager Han-
nah.
Advance Planning Process Engineers
Two advance planning process engineers, Leonard Cutler
and John Miller, report to product introduction coordinator
Vernon Cathelyn in the liaison department. A proposed de-
945CASE CORP.
sign change request form or PAR may come from the design
engineers or the process engineers to the liaison department
and will be assigned by Cathelyn to an advance planning
process engineer for evaluation. It is the function of the ad-
vance planning process engineer to estimate the savings from
proposed design changes and new products. The purpose of
proposing a design change is to reduce costs involved with
the production of an item. Although Cathelyn must approve
any proposed design changes made by his department, design
engineering must also approve any design changes exceeding
a certain level. Cathelyn can unilaterally approve a change
up to a maximum $2.00 cost increase per product or $2,000
for a given change in tooling.
While the process engineers deal with on-going processes,
the advance planning process engineers deal with advanced
planning of products before they are released for production.
The advanced planning process engineers are product ori-
ented and look at planning that is in an advanced stage from
the point of view of the whole product, not just, for instance,
sheet metal or assembly or machining. The advanced plan-
ning process engineers still do cost analysis, and although the
way they do it is similar to the process engineers, the mag-
nitude of their analysis is greater.
Typically, a request for the liaison department to deter-
mine the feasibility of a new product or design change comes
from the world product committee. The world product com-
mittee includes a design engineer, plant manager Woodward,
a marketing representative, a corporate product planning rep-
resentative, and the vice president. Although Cathelyn at-
tends meetings of the world product committee, he is not a
full member. The world product committee makes future de-
cisions as to what products are to be produced, when they
are going to be produced, how they will be produced, and
when a product is going to be changed. Cathelyn provides
cost estimates to the committee for product changes and new
products and keeps them posted on the implementation of
changes, component costs and start up costs. The advance
planning process engineers are given assignments by
Cathelyn to get information for him concerning these mat-
ters, which Cathelyn then presents to the world product com-
mittee. Some of the future products being discussed are con-
fidential from Case’s competitors.
Whether or not a new product is to be introduced is not
a decision of the advance planning process engineer.
Cathelyn gives assignments to the advanced planning process
engineers and many of their directives come from the world
product committee. The world product committee looks to
Cathelyn for a recommendation as to the feasibility of a new
or changed product, and Cathelyn in turn looks for an analy-
sis from his advance planning process engineers. Cathelyn
tells the advance planning process engineers what he wants
them to gather in order that he may report back to the world
product committee. The advanced planning process engineers
do not decide if a project is to go ahead or not.
The liaison department also determines the schedules for
new products or designs. Inasmuch as some products are sea-
sonal or are scheduled to begin at the start of a new year,
some dates on the schedule are self-evident.
The advance planning process engineers are involved with
pre-production units and pilot projects. The advance planning
process engineer will take the specifications and drawings
from design engineering and determine how to get all of the
parts for the pilot project. The advanced planning process en-
gineer goes by the blueprint and has no authority to make
changes. He must stay within the framework of the blueprint
when he decides to get parts in-house or go outside and has
to request approval to make deviations from the blueprints.
The advanced planning process engineers will convert a bill
of materials into how the Company is going to get the parts
for the pilot units by feeding the bill into tracking document.
By tracking, the advance planning process engineers, as the
determine to make parts or buy parts, put the parts on a com-
puter list. This is the initial entry into the system for the pro-
totype part and the beginning of a data base. When the pro-
totype is actually being built, the advance planning process
engineer may be on the shop floor observing the production
of the unit to verify that it is being built according to plans,
to look for potential problems and also to lend his expertise
to the building of the prototype.
Facility Engineers
Seven facility engineers are currently employed in the fa-
cility and plant engineering department which is managed by
Walter Dunn. The facility engineers include P. J. Allmen, D.
L. Ropp, R. L. Imel, P. L. Imel, K. M. Weiller, S. Stuart
and R. T. Thorsvold. The department is responsible or ana-
lyzing, designing, laying out, procuring, and installing
projects relating to the facilities, the grounds, and the build-
ings at the Company’s East Moline plant. The department is
also responsible for analyzing, designing, laying out, procur-
ing, and installing major systems internal to the building
such as paint systems, machine tools, conveyor systems,
high-rises, waste treatment plants, incinerators, power dis-
tribution systems, and pneumatics and is involved with mate-
rial handling, heating and air conditioning, and compliance
with EPA and OSHA requirements. The manager of produc-
tion operations, William Horak, relies upon the facility engi-
neers to evaluate the most cost effective methods of layouts
of the departments and machine tools. All layouts designed
by the facility engineers must be approved by the manufac-
turing department.
The goal of the facility engineer is to design a cost effi-
cient layout. A rearrangement of machines might eliminate
routings and material handling and thereby reduce the labor
and costs of handling a part or product. The layout of the
facility affects the combination of job classifications possible.
The facility engineer frequently works with the process engi-
neer in connection with the installation of machine tools. The
process engineer may ask the facility engineer for the elec-
trical specifications of a machine to determine where they are
physically able to locate that particular machine within the
plant. The facility engineers evaluate the structural require-
ments of cranes, hoists, and bails which may not only make
a job easier, but also make it safer. To the extent that a facil-
ity engineer might recommend the installation of robotics,
conveyor systems, or automatic storage retrieval systems to
eliminate material handling, the number of jobs required to
perform and operations may be affected.
It is the corporate goal of Case to make the East Moline
facility a world class manufacturing facility. A world class
manufacturing concept includes putting machines closer to-
gether and combining work tasks. The rationalization pro-
gram that is policy of the Company has an objective to com-
pletely cellularize the entire plant by rearranging machines
946 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
into cells to eliminate as much material handling as possible,
to decrease inventories, and to deliver material just in time.
The goal to cellularize the plant is a corporate-wide goal. A
cell takes existing machine tools and puts them together so
that instead of processing a part in a traditional in-line manu-
facturing process, the work is now completed within the cell.
It is a function of the facility engineer in the rationalization
program to look for as many ways to cellularize as possible.
Suggestions to cellularize are not limited to the facility engi-
neers; rank-and-file employees are also encouraged to make
suggestions. When a decision to cellularize is made, it is up
to the facility engineer to do the study and the drawings that
may implement that decision. Most of the drawings and lay-
outs for blueprints are done by the facility engineer on a
computer.
After a facility engineer has evaluated, analyzed, and de-
signed or laid out a project, he must then determine how to
accomplish the task, that is, whether or not the task should
be completed in-house or should be completed by an outside
vendor. The facility engineer will make a recommendation to
do the work in-house or farm it out to manager Dunn who
then approves whether the work is to be done in-house or
by an outside contractor. If the facility engineer makes a de-
termination that in-house is the most cost effective, and his
recommendation to complete the work in-house is approved
by Dunn, the facility engineer then writes an interior order,
which is a work order, directing maintenance employees as
to what has to be done. The facility engineer will then work
with maintenance to develop a schedule of accomplishment
and oversee the job to see that it is installed the way it has
been designed. A facility engineer may recommend to Dunn
that the project be completed by an outside contractor if Case
does not have the proper equipment to install the project in-
house, does not have the right trades or the right trades
trained properly to do the job, if timing is a factor, if it is
a matter of warranty of the equipment to be installed, or if
the outside contractor can do the work most cost effectively.
If the work has been farmed out, the facility engineer will
also oversee the work of the subcontractor to insure that the
work is satisfactory in terms of quality. In either case, the
facility engineer is to keep Dunn posted on the status of the
project to make sure that it is on schedule and to allow Dunn
to respond to questions that he may be asked by his superi-
ors. The procedure at Case requires upper level management
over and above Dunn to sign off on the facility engineers’
suggestions if they deal with an expenditure of money. The
facility engineers do not have the authority to independently
commit the Company’s money or resources.
A farm out report notifies the labor relations manager that
a decision has been made to farm out a particular job and
that the labor relations manager should notify the Union as
to that decision. A farm out form is then presented to the
Union by industrial relations. A farm out committee exists
which consists of three management employees and three
union representatives. The regular management representa-
tives are Dunn, the manager of maintenance and the manager
of industrial relations. The committee meets a minimum of
once per week and when emergencies arise. The committee
reviews all of the farm outs that have been presented to the
Union. The Company’s obligation under the contract is to
present the Union with a copy of the farm out form five days
prior to the meeting. At the farm out committee meeting,
those on the committee go through the details of the form.
Although Dunn is a regular member of the farm out commit-
tee, there have been occasions when he has appointed one
of his facility engineers to attend committee meetings in his
place, particularly when he knows an engineer may be able
to answer the questions pertaining to a particular farm out
and has special knowledge of the project. Manager of Indus-
trial Relations Paul Nitzel calls the meetings and informs
Dunn in advance as to which farm outs are going to be pre-
sented. Dunn will then meet with the facility engineer who
worked on the project before he attends the meeting to make
sure that has all of the facts. The UAW has the right under
the collective bargaining agreement to file grievances con-
cerning subcontracting that cannot be resolved in the farm
out committee meetings. Particularly to the skilled trades and
maintenance personnel represented by UAW Local 1304,
subcontracting is a particularly sensitive issue.
If an expenditure of funds is required as a part of a layout
change, an AFE form or appropriation for expenditure must
be submitted. Although the facility engineer will sign the
AFE expenditures are not approved on his signature alone.
Cost reduction ideas by a facility engineer to go to an out-
side contractor must be approved up the chain of command.
Manager Dunn does not independently investigate the cost
analysis and data in the reports of the facility engineers but
only reviews their reports insofar as whether the conclusions
are properly drawn.
Facility engineers also serve on the cost reduction team
where their role is to assist in the generation and implemen-
tation of ideas. The facility and plant engineering department
as well as each facility engineer has a monetary goal for cost
reductions. The planning and performance evaluation is part
of those goals to achieve cost reductions.
Long-Range Planning Engineers
Brian Adlfinger is classified as a facility engineer but is
employed as a long-range planning engineer in the long-
range planning department. His supervisor is departmental
manager Stephen Potter. The mission of this department over
the next five years is to develop the East Moline action plan,
also referred to as EMAP. The EMAP plan is to convert the
East Moline plant to a world class manufacturing facility
able to meet global competition through training, relocation
in the cell technology, reduction of production costs, and im-
provement in quality. The EMAP program came from the
upper levels of Case corporation including CEO Ashford and
other chief executives of the Company. In implementing cell
technology, the goal is to convert and take operations cur-
rently disjointed or located in remote areas and bring them
closer together to the points of use. The cell technology will
primarily involve the assembly lines to reduce the inventory
and the flow of materials, thereby reducing costs and also,
in some cases, labor. Cross training and job rotation are in-
cluded in the plan. The long-range planning department has
finished the concept phase of the EMAP plan and is cur-
rently completing the funding phase. The department is mak-
ing detailed designs of the concepts that have already been
developed.
The concept phase of the EMAP plan was concluded with
the a acceptance by upper management of one of three con-
cept drawings developed by the long-range planning depart-
ment. Both Adlfinger and Potter worked on the three concept
947CASE CORP.
drawings which were presented for final approval and of
which one was elected by upper management. Neither
Adlfinger nor Potter had the final authority to decide what
was the best concept proposal for the five year plan. The
concept drawing selected is a drawing of the plant as it will
appear in 1994. One of the plans prepared by Potter and
Adlfinger, although it was not accepted ultimately, involved
a location other than the East Moline facility. In developing
the layout proposal, which is essentially the floor plan for the
EMAP program, both Adlfinger and Potter consulted with
the managers of manufacturing engineering, design engineer-
ing, industrial engineering and facility engineering for input.
To prepare the layout for the concept drawings, both Potter
and Adlfinger had advance data for the next five years on
schedules, budgets, job classifications, and manning. Al-
though the long-range planning department prepared the lay-
out, neither Adlfinger nor Potter were involved with the deci-
sion as to what products were to be produced during the five
years of the plan. All proposals of the long-range planning
department have to go through the approval process of higher
management before implementation.
Long-range planning engineer Adlfinger makes his layouts
on computer. The CAD-CAM computer base which
Adlfinger uses has a drawing aided tool. According to
Adlfinger, he ‘‘floats trial balloons’’ on how the plant could
be in future years. Adlfinger makes entries of data into a
tube, and the tube relays the information to a plotter. The
plotter is paper and ink that plots drawings that Adlfinger
makes. Typically, a clerical member of UAW local 1356
takes the drawings off the computer and is the first person
to see the drawings. After a drawing comes off the plotter,
Adlfinger looks for mistakes or changes. If he determines
that the drawing is laid out correctly and there are no mis-
takes or changes, Adlfinger will give the drawing to Potter
who, unless he finds mistakes or wants something changed,
will present it to other management to try to get funding for
a project.
According to Adlfinger, although he knows what products
the Company is producing now, it is privileged information
as to what they are going to produce in the future and he
is not given information as to future products. According to
Adlfinger, he is only told to allot so many square feet vacant.
In fact, the concept drawing for the EMAP plan does indi-
cate areas marked ‘‘future,’’ areas allotted for future opportu-
nities.
After the plan concept ha been approved, the long-range
planning department is involved in detailed drawings and de-
tailed layouts of the facility, section by section. Again, each
of these designs must be approved by an management above
Potter. Adlfinger works closely with manufacturing engineer-
ing, design engineering, and industrial engineering to find
out their requirements in setting up production lines and
other operations in the plant. Adlfinger graphically portrays
what the other engineering groups feel to be the best solution
and adds his experience in the areas of material handling,
layout and facilities
Potter, in approving Adlfinger’s drawings, primarily looks
at how the cells fit in relationship to the overall budget,
schedule and plan. Potter relies upon Adlfinger’s experience
and fact gathering in the details of the layout.
After the design concept is approved, the EMAP plan will
go to the implementation phase. The execution will be car-
ried out either by an outside contractor or an inside mainte-
nance crew. The long-range planning engineer will follow
the project, whether it is being performed by an outside con-
tractor or an inside maintenance crew, making sure that the
project is within the pre-defined specifications and verifying
that the equipment functions as designed and that there are
no safety or other problems. In determining whether a project
is to be performed by an outside contractor or in-house, the
long-range planning engineer will follow a process similar to
the process used by the other facility engineers for compar-
ing costs to make this determination. The long-range plan-
ning department may have an indirect impact on labor costs
by their recommendations in the layout concerning the types
of equipment, types of processes and the nature of the layout
that they have put together. If a machine suggested by the
long-range planning department works more efficiently or the
department devises a more efficient way of routing materials,
this may ultimately impact upon the amount of labor re-
quired to perform an operation. Notwithstanding, neither Pot-
ter nor Adlfinger decides what particular individuals will be
chosen to do a job or the particular individuals who will
have their jobs eliminated or changed by virtue of a new or
changed layout design.
In developing proposals for the future layout of the facility
the long-range planning engineer has access to labor cost
studies and labor cap cost data already in existence within
the Company. The long-range planning engineer does not
make a decision concerning what alternative is the most effi-
cient but merely makes a recommendation subject to review
and approval. In some cases, the decision is obvious but
sometimes there are intangibles and considerations concern-
ing the impact of other departments and the flow of other
materials. Although long-range planning engineer Adlfinger
makes a first level decision as to what he proposes in a lay-
out, his proposals are subject to review by Potter. If a project
is over $400,000, the layouts must be approved by the head
of the production department involved, the plant controller,
manager of technical services, and general plant manager.
From there, the proposal will go through several approval
processes to Case CEO Ashford and then to Tenneco CEO
Kennelson.
Metallurgist/Quality Control Engineer
The four engineers classified as metallurgist/quality control
engineers are Denny Cleair, Jack Minnaert, Ron Correll and
Jerry Blaise. Martin Plecki, chief metallurgist, is their imme-
diate supervisor.
The senior management at Case, realizing that the Com-
pany needed to be more competitive on the world market,
recognized the need to improve the quality of its products.
As a result, it instituted total quality management. The cor-
porate goal is to have a 100 percent perfect supply of prod-
uct. Total quality management consists of several different
aspects relating to quality including supplier quality assur-
ance (SQA), just in time inventory, and statistical process
control. Statistical process control is a quality system used in
the factory to control processes so that the products are as-
sured to conform to their blueprints. Just in time inventory
is an inventory control system whereby the amount of in
process or in storage inventory is reduced. This thereby re-
duces total costs because money is not tied up in excess in-
ventory and the parts get to the manufacturing location where
948 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they are used just when they are needed. Just in time inven-
tory impacts on the quality of parts because in order to im-
plement the just in time inventory system, the quality of the
parts have to be good all the time inasmuch as there is not
a bank of materials that can be drawn from in case some
parts come back bad.
The SQA system involves a metallurgist/quality control
engineer, a person from the purchasing department, and
sometimes a design engineer or manufacturing person to visit
the plant of each supplier being considered by the Company
to evaluate the supplier’s ability to produce and supply qual-
ity parts without defects according to the requirements of the
supplier quality assurance (SQA) manual. This evaluation is
called a supplier quality assurance survey. The SQA manual
was written by chief metallurgist Plecki. After evaluating the
supplier’s capabilities, those involved in the survey meet
with the supplier in an exit interview and highlight its
strengths and opportunities for improvements. At that time,
the metallurgist/quality control engineer and purchasing de-
partment representative try to convince the supplier of the
benefits of providing parts without defects. The system that
Case will ask the supplier to institute includes a statistical
process control system, an employee involvement system,
and a record keeping system that shows that the parts pro-
duced are correct and delivered on time. If new suppliers
supply parts that are timely and free of defect, they are cer-
tified.
The purchasing department not the metallurgical engineer-
ing department, has the final say as to which supplier is se-
lected after the completion of the SQA survey. When a sup-
plier which has been selected receives an order from Case
for parts, the purchase order and drawings generated by the
purchasing department specify the requirements of those
parts. Although the metallurgist/quality control engineers do
not generate these documents they do oversee to make sure
that the supplier follows the purchase order and drawings.
The metallurgist/quality control engineers do not tell the sup-
plier how to make better products, but suggest areas in which
it can improve its quality systems in order that its parts meet
Case’s specifications. They are guided in their suggestions by
the SQA manual.
The metallurgist/quality control engineers also make tests
on and evaluate material properties. In terms of the specifica-
tions regarding those properties, the engineer will counsel
and give advise in the materials field. Materials include met-
als, oils, paints, and plastics. Both Cleair and Menard work
in the laboratory and among their tasks are the testing of
metals.
Conclusion: Re Managerial and Supervisory Status
Industrial Engineers
Managerial employees have long been defined by the
Board as those who formulate and effectuate management
policies by expressing and making operative the decisions of
their employer and who have discretion in the performance
of their jobs independent of their employer’s established
policies. See Palace Laundry Dry Cleaning Corp., 75 NLRB
320, 323 (1947); NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267
(1974). Notwithstanding that work which is based upon tech-
nical and professional competence must necessarily involve
a consistent exercise of discretion and judgment, technical
and professional employees plainly are not the same as man-
agerial employees either by definition or in authority. Tech-
nical and professional employees are not vested with mana-
gerial authority merely by virtue of their status because work
performed in that status may have a bearing on the direction
of the Company. Similarly, technical expertise in administra-
tive functions involving the exercise of judgment and discre-
tion does not confer managerial status upon the performer.
See General Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB 851, 857–58
(1974).
The record discloses that the primary function of the in-
dustrial engineer is to control or reduce production costs
through engineering methods. To this end, they preliminarily
establish incentive rates and determine the number and place-
ment of bargaining unit employees for the most efficient as-
sembly line operations. Certainly, the setting of incentive
rates affects the wages of other employees and formulating
assembly methods affects the overall number of production
employees used. However, there is no evidence that the in-
dustrial engineers make particular employee assignments or
establish the rate of pay for specific employees. Further, the
evidence shows that an engineer does no more than notify
a production foreman of defects caused by unit employees.
Finally, the record shows that the engineers become involved
in the grievance process only to the extent of defending their
technical expertise that was used in setting an appropriate
piece work incentive rate. In Chrysler Corp. (Airtemp Divi-
sion), 192 NLRB 1208, 1209 (1971), the Board held that in-
dustrial engineers, for the reasons stated above, are not man-
agerial employees nor supervisors in the statutory sense. See
also Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 119 NLRB 1391, 1393
1958); Chapman Valve Mfg. Co., 119 NLRB 935, 937
(1957); Timken Detroit Axle Co., 80 NLRB 1075, 1077
(1948). There is no evidence that the industrial engineers do
more than make technical recommendations that must be ap-
proved by upper management or that they have discretion to
deviate from the Company’s established policies. See
Flintkote Co., 217 NLRB 497, 499 (1975).
The basic function of industrial engineers is to ensure that
the operations of the Employer are carried out with maxi-
mum efficiency with a goal of reducing production costs. To
accomplish this objective, they make calculations as to how
long it takes to perform given operations or how many oper-
ations can be completed in a given period of time and make
determinations as to the standard hourly plan incentive base
rate. The industrial engineers then recommend man assign-
ments which may involve additions or cutbacks in the work-
force of a department. The industrial engineers in attempting
to reduce production costs may also analyze whether the pur-
chase of new equipment will reduce operating costs. Their
duties necessarily involve some contact with employees in
other units represented by the Petitioner.
The basic function of industrial engineers is to save money
for the Employer. Whenever they find that work standards
are not being met, that the best methods of performing an
operation are not being used or that the best possible use of
a given piece of equipment is not being made, they make ap-
propriate recommendations to correct the situation. Although
their recommendations may result in changes in man assign-
ments, transfers of employees to different jobs or changes in
a department’s manpower which require hiring, transferring
or laying off employees, the industrial engineers do not as-
sign work to a particular employee or determine his rate of
949CASE CORP.
pay. If an industrial engineer sees that an employee is not
meeting the current work standards, he may inform the fore-
man of this fact but it is the foreman who decides whether
to disqualify the employee from the job. As the Board stated
in Chrysler Corp. (Airtemp Division), 192 NLRB at 1208,
the fact that industrial engineers may suggest method
changes to increase efficiency and reduce costs, establish and
determine production or performance standards, and make
studies which are relied on in resolving grievances does not
indicate that they are managerial employees. See also, Chap-
man Valve Mfg. Co., 119 NLRB at 937; Westinghouse Elec-
tric Corp., 89 NLRB 8, 11 (1950); Westinghouse Air Brake
Co., 119 NLRB at 1393; F. W. Sickles Co., 81 NLRB 390,
400 (1949); Bulldog Electric Products Co., 96 NLRB 642,
644 (1951); Timken Detroit Axle Co., 80 NLRB at 1077. For
the reasons stated above, I find that the industrial engineers
are not managerial or supervisory employees. I further find
that they share a community of interest with the other em-
ployees included in the unit found appropriate herein, and ac-
cordingly, I include them in said unit.
Process Engineers
As discussed earlier, process engineers calculate the costs
involved making parts in-house and in having the parts made
by outside suppliers and preliminarily determine the feasibil-
ity of outsourcing. The process engineers formulate the costs
and study the feasibility of producing new and changed parts.
As with the industrial engineers discussed supra the develop-
ment of changes in production processes affect the conditions
of employment of employees in a bargaining unit already
represented by the UAW. However, again, the record shows
no evidence that the process engineers assign, transfer or lay-
off any specific personnel because of the production proc-
esses developed or changed.
The process engineers calculate costs and present rec-
ommendations to make the parts in-house or purchase them
from outside vendors. However there is no evidence that the
engineers can do more than make recommendations based on
their technical expertise; their recommendations must be ap-
proved by upper management. The record reveals no degree
of discretion accorded the engineers in this area. The process
engineers do not possess discretion in the performance of
their jobs independent of their Employer’s established poli-
cies. See Aeronca, Inc., 221 NLRB 326, 327–28 (1975).
Even assuming, arguendo, that the process engineers nor-
mally solicit estimated from outside suppliers in collecting
their data for cost estimates, I would not find that this made
them managerial employees. See Flintkote Co., 270 NLRB at
498. For all of the reasons stated above, I find the process
engineers are not managerial or supervisory employees. I do
find that they share a community of interest with the others
included in the unit found appropriate herein, and I include
them in said unit.
Advance Planning Process Engineers
The advance planning process engineers estimate the sav-
ings from proposed design changes and new products. They
also calculate the costs and present recommendations to
make in-house or buy from outside suppliers new or changed
parts and are involved in determining the schedules for new
products and designs. While the process engineers deal with
ongoing processes, the advance planning process engineers
deal with advance planning of products before they are re-
leased for production.
The discretion exercised by the advance planning process
engineers is in accordance with their technical abilities and
bottomed on a responsibility for estimating costs and making
recommendations as to the most efficient way to produce
new and changed parts. The instances in which the advance
planning process engineers may direct the work of the hourly
production unit employees with regard to pre-production
units and pilot projects is so limited as to have no bearing
on the issues involved. The function of the advance planning
process engineer on the shop floor during the building of
prototype or pilot projects is to observe the production of the
unit to verify that they are being built according to plans, to
look for potential problems and to lend his expertise to the
building of the prototype. He may do this by giving direction
to the hourly production employees and foremen involved
with the actual building of the prototype. See General Dy-
namics Corp., 213 NLRB at 866. Whether or not a new pro-
duction is to be introduced is not a decision of the advance
planning process engineers. The basic function of the ad-
vance planning process engineers is to ensure that the Em-
ployer’s projected future operations are carried out with max-
imum efficiency.
The technical decisions and judgments of the advance
planning process engineers may ultimately have an influence
on the Company’s industrial relations practices and policies,
but this impact results only after upper management officials
have made the policy decisions to implement particular rec-
ommendations. In short, I conclude that the advance planning
process engineers do not formulate or effectuate management
policies since their recommendations must be approved by
management officials and they do not have discretion in their
job performance independent of their Employer’s established
policies. See Flintkote Co., 217 NLRB at 499; General Dy-
namics Corp., 213 NLRB at 658. Therefore, I find that the
advanced planning process engineers are not managerial or
supervisory employees. I further find that they share a com-
munity of interest with the other employees included in the
unit found appropriate herein, and accordingly, I include
them in said unit.
Facility Engineers
The facility engineers design and evaluate the most cost
effective methods of layout of the departments and machine
tools. A cost efficient layout may involve a rearrangement of
machines that eliminates material handling thereby reducing
the labor related costs of handling a part or product. The lay-
out of the facility may also affect the combinations of job
classifications possible. When it is proposed that new equip-
ment be purchased or a new layout of operations be utilized,
the recommendations of the facility engineers may affect the
conditions of other employees by resulting in changes in man
assignments, transfers of employees to different jobs or
changes in a department’s manpower. However, the facility
engineers do not assign work to particular employees or de-
termine the particular employees to be affected by automa-
tion or other labor saving devices.
The facility engineers were not involved in the Company’s
policy decision to make the East Moline facility a world
class manufacturing facility, a policy decision requiring the
putting of machines closer together, combining work tasks
950 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and cellularizing the entire plant by rearranging machines
into cells to eliminate as much material handling as possible,
decreasing inventories and delivering materials just in time.
The decision of the facility engineers are purely technical de-
cisions which are not discretionary and which comply with
the Company’s stated policy objectives established at many
levels above the facility engineers. There is no evidence that
the facility engineers do more than make technical rec-
ommendations that must be approved by management or that
they have discretion to deviate from the Company’s estab-
lished policy. See Flintkote Co., 217 NLRB at 499. Further-
more, the record shows no evidence that the facility engi-
neers assign, transfer or layoff any specific personnel be-
cause of the layout designs they develop. For all of the rea-
sons above, I find that the facility engineers are not manage-
rial or supervisory employees. I also find that the facility en-
gineers have a community of interest with the other employ-
ees included in the unit found appropriate herein, and I in-
clude the facility engineers in said unit.
Long-Range Planning Engineers
The long-range planning engineer gathers information
from manufacturing engineering, design engineering and in-
dustrial engineering and uses this information to design the
future layout, operation, methodology, job classifications and
manning of the East Moline facility over the next five years.
These future decisions are projected as a result of the Com-
pany’s policy and EMAP plan to convert the East Moline
plant to a world class manufacturing facility able to meet
global competition through training, relocation into cell tech-
nology, reduction of costs to produce a product, and im-
provement in quality. The EMAP program came from the
upper levels of Case Corporation. The long-range forecasts
may address cross training, job rotation, the combination of
jobs, and automation and robotics to decrease material han-
dling. I a machine suggested by the long-range planning en-
gineer worked more efficiently or the department devised a
more efficient way of routing materials, this may ultimately
impact upon the amount of labor required to perform an op-
eration. Notwithstanding, the long-range planning engineer
does not decide the particular individuals to be chosen to do
a job or the particular individuals who will have their jobs
eliminated or changed by virtue of a new or changed layout
design. Although the long-range planning engineer makes a
first level decision as to what he proposes in a layout, his
proposals are subject to review by higher management before
implementation.
I conclude that the long-range planning engineers affects
the working conditions of other employees only in the same
manner and to the same extent as the work of the industrial
engineers, process engineers, and advance planning process
engineers whom I have found to be non-managerial and non-
supervisory. Accordingly, I find that the long-range planning
engineers are not managerial or supervisory employees, share
a community of interest with other employees in the unit
found appropriate herein and should be included in said unit.
Metallurgist/Quality Control Engineers
The metallurgist/quality control engineers are responsible
for the supplier quality assurance program, just in time in-
ventory and statistical process control. The metal-
lurgist/quality control engineers participate in the evaluation
of potential outside suppliers to assure that they will be able
to supply quality parts free of defect. Although the
metallurgist/quality control engineers participate in the sup-
plier quality assurance evaluations, the metallurgical engi-
neering department does not have the final say as to which
supplier is selected.
The job responsibilities and manner in which the
metallurgist/quality control engineers perform their work are
specifically detailed by the supplier quality assurance man-
ual, and they have no discretion to deviate from the stand-
ards in this manual. The metallurgist/quality control engi-
neers have no authority or discretion to alter the acceptance
criteria of the work performed by outside vendors. Their jobs
are primarily technical in nature and covered by preexisting
established policies. See Iowa Electric Light & Power, 261
NLRB 144 (1982), enfd. 717 F.2d 433 (8th Cir. 1983); Bech-
tel, Inc., 225 NLRB 197, 198 (1976). There is no evidence
that the metallurgist/quality control engineers do more than
make technical recommendations that must be approved by
management. I do not find that the concerns of the
metallurgist/quality control engineers with the quality of the
vendor and its product make them managerial employees.
See General Dynamics Corp., 213 NLRB at 867. For the
reasons stated above, I find that the metallurgist/quality con-
trol engineers are not managerial or supervisory employees,
share a community of interest with the other employees in-
cluded in the unit found appropriate herein and should be in-
cluded in said unit along with the industrial engineers, proc-
ess engineers, advance planning process engineers, facility
engineers, and long-range planning engineers.
Conclusion: Re Confidential Status
With respect to the disputed job classifications, particularly
the industrial engineers, process engineers, facility engineers,
and the long-range planning engineer, the Employer contends
that these employees should be excluded from the unit as
confidential employees. The Employer’s argument in all
cases appears to be that the same factors that make them
managerial employees also make them confidential employ-
ees. The Employer argues that because certain of the engi-
neers in issue are involved with setting incentive rates which
affect the other employees’ wages, plan production processes
which may affect how many employees will be used, and/or
decide whether to make or buy parts, the engineers, there-
fore, are confidential employees involved in labor relations.
The Employer also argues, with respect to the industrial en-
gineers, that they are confidential employees because they
may be called upon on behalf of the Company to defend the
standard hourly plan incentive rates which they have set for
the jobs of production employees and because industrial en-
gineers are involved in advising the Company in collective
bargaining negotiations. With respect to the long-range plan-
ning process engineers and the facility engineers, the Em-
ployer a1so argues that they have access to future confiden-
tial data concerning the Employer’s future products, produc-
tion processes and manpower needs.
The Employer’s arguments does not withstand analysis
under the test for confidential employees enunciated in B. F.
Goodrich Co., 115 NLRB 722, 724 (1956), and affirmed by
the Supreme Court in NLRB v. Hendricks County Rural Elec-
tric Membership Corp., 454 U.S. 170 (1981). With respect
to the role of the industrial engineers in the grievance proce-
951CASE CORP.
dure and in collective bargaining, the record does not support
the Employer’s assertions that the industrial engineers furnish
assistance and act in a confidential capacity to employees in
charge of the Company’s collective bargaining or to any per-
son who formulates, determines or effectuates management
policies in the field of labor relations. Rather, these employ-
ees provide technical assistance to management and give ad-
vice in achieving cost reductions and efficient production.
Such assistance is not sufficient to make them confidential
employees. See Flintkote Co., supra, 217 NLRB at 499;
Chrysler Corp. (Airtemp Division), supra, 192 NLRB at
1209. The role of the industrial engineers in collective bar-
gaining is readily distinguishable from the role of the labor
estimators who were found to be confidential employees in
Pullman, Inc., 214 NLRB 762 (1974). The record does not
show, as the Employer urges in its brief, that either the to
industrial engineers involved in local negotiations or the one
industrial engineer who is on the joint Company/Union SHP
subcommittee in central negotiations are privy to labor rela-
tions information of the Employer that, if divulged to the
Union, would clearly prejudice the Employer’s bargaining
strategy in negotiations with the Union.
The industrial engineers are not confidential employees in-
asmuch as their relationship to those managerial employees
who formulate, determine and effectuate labor relations is not
one of furnishing assistance to them in the labor relations
field. Rather, the industrial engineers function as technical
advisors, helping to increase efficiency and to solve various
production problems. Although the industrial engineers may
be called upon in the grievance procedure to explain and de-
fend the incentive rates which they have set under the MOST
system, the Board found in Chrysler Corp. (Airtemp Divi-
sion), supra, 192 NLRB at 1209 that this does not indicate
that they are managerial or supervisory employees. See also
B. F. Goodrich Co., supra, 115 NLRB at 724; Holly Sugar
Corp., 193 NLRB 1024, 1025–26 (1971); Weyerhaeuser Co.,
173 NLRB 1170, 1172–1073 (1968); Westinghouse Electric
Corp., 89 NLRB at 71; Timken Detroit Axle Co., supra, 80
NLRB at 1077.
There is no evidence that the industrial, process, advance
planning process, facility, long-term planning or metal-
lurgist/quality control engineers in question here are in a
confidential relationship with any employee charged with the
formulation, determination and effectuation of labor relations.
See Holly Sugar Corp., 193 NLRB at 1025–1026. Moreover,
access to trade secrets or information concerning the Em-
ployer’s future products does not make an employee con-
fidential. See Flintkote Co., supra, 217 NLRB at fn. 6;
Copperweld Steel Co., 102 NLRB 1229, 1230–1231 (1953).
Accordingly, I find the industrial, process, advance planning
process, facility, long-range planning and metallurgist/quality
control engineers are not confidential employees.