Electronic & Space Technicians Local 1553 (Hughes Aircraft)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

800
313 NLRB No. 135
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 Formerly Case 31–CD–341.
Electronic and Space Technicians Local 1553, AFL–
CIO and Hughes Aircraft Company and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Local Union No. 2295, AFL–CIO. Case 21–CD–
6061
February 28, 1994
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
DEVANEY AND TRUESDALE
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed on June 29, 1992, by the Employer, Hughes Air-
craft Company, alleging that the Respondent, Elec-
tronic and Space Technicians Local 1553, AFL–CIO
(EAST) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National
Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed activity
with an object of forcing the Employer to assign cer-
tain work to employees it represents rather than em-
ployees represented by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 2295, AFL–CIO
(IBEW). The hearing was held beginning October 6,
1992, and closing on April 21, 1993, before Hearing
Officer Yvette H. Holiday-Curtis.
The National Labor Relations Board affirms the
hearing officer’s rulings, finding them free from preju-
dicial error. On the entire record, the Board makes the
following findings.
I. JURISDICTION
Hughes Aircraft Company, a Delaware corporation,
is engaged in the business of developing and manufac-
turing aerospace electronic equipment, at its Newport
Beach, California facility, where it annually purchases
and receives supplies worth in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Cali-
fornia. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that EAST and
the IBEW are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2(5) of the Act.
II. THE DISPUTE
A. Background and Facts in Dispute
In 1959, the Employer opened its Newport Beach
facility—1 of 10 now located at various places in
southern California—to manufacture high tech semi-
conductors in the Metal Oxide Semiconductor (MOS)
Laboratory (recently renamed the Semiconductor Prod-
uct Center (SPC)). In the mid-1970s, the Employer
began to manufacture Hybrids—groups of semiconduc-
tors, capacitors, and resistors that are wired and sealed
together in a single package—in a Microelectrical Cir-
cuits Department (MCD or hybrid department) at this
facility. The semiconductor laboratory and the hybrid
departments are physically separated for administrative
and managerial purposes. The Employer also maintains
a facilities division (facilities) whose function is to
provide electrical power and general maintenance for
the physical facility.
Both EAST and IBEW secured bargaining rights
with the Employer in the late 1940s, rights that were
extended to facilities such as Newport Beach when
they opened. Employees represented by EAST—classi-
fied as mechanics—historically performed all produc-
tion work as well as mechanical maintenance and re-
pairs of production equipment. Employees represented
by the IBEW—classified as electrical maintenance
journeymen—historically were responsible for provid-
ing the electrical power in the plant, and, where nec-
essary, providing for the electrical maintenance and re-
pairs to production equipment. The IBEW-represented
employees were assigned to the Employer’s facilities
department and were summoned when necessary on a
‘‘squawk box’’ to do the necessary electrical repair
work in the production departments.
In the early 1960s, the production equipment in the
MOS department was electrical and mechanical in na-
ture, rather than electronic. Because the repairs nec-
essary to the production equipment were principally
mechanical, the equipment was maintained and re-
paired almost exclusively by mechanics, an EAST-rep-
resented job classification. The electricians employed
at the Newport Beach facility were assigned exclu-
sively to the facilities division, and skilled in the tradi-
tional electrical maintenance and repairs needed on the
production equipment.
In the mid-1960s, technological advancements cre-
ated an evolution in the semiconductor industry, pro-
ducing new production and processing equipment with
more complex electrical and electronic components.
The historical dividing line between mechanical
(EAST) and electrical (IBEW) maintenance became
obscured as the internal controls on the production
equipment—including controls over the delivery of
electrical power—became electronic. In 1965, the Em-
ployer created a new classification in the IBEW unit—
the industrial electronics and electricians journeymen
(IEEJ)—in which to place employees retrained or
newly hired with the skills necessary for electronic re-
pairs and maintenance. EAST-represented employees
in the production department also performed some of
the electronic tasks, and in the mid-1970s, the Em-
ployer created a new classification within the EAST
unit: the electromechanical technician (EMT).
By the late 1970s and early 1980s, technology
changed and the volume of electronic maintenance and
repair work escalated. Beginning in 1978, because of
the incumbent IEEJ’s and EMT’s skill deficiencies to
801ELECTRONIC & SPACE TECHNICIANS LOCAL 1553 (HUGHES AIRCRAFT)
maintain and repair the new electronically enhanced
equipment, the Employer sent its employees to vendor
training school to learn how to perform repairs on spe-
cific pieces of production equipment. In addition, the
Employer hired several employees classified as IEEJs
and assigned them directly to the MOS and MCD de-
partments. Also, in 1978, the personnel department
issued instructions that ‘‘all electrical/electronic main-
tenance and repair of production equipment’’ should
be performed by IEEJs covered by the IBEW collec-
tive-bargaining agreement (including repair of the
auto-bonders). That instruction generated numerous
grievances filed by both EAST and IBEW over the
next several years.
In 1982, a new type of auto-bonder (a machine that
automatically connects wires) was developed at the
Newport Beach facility and not yet introduced to the
production floor. EAST filed a grievance protesting the
fact that nonbargaining unit employees were working
on the new auto-bonder. The Employer settled this
grievance by agreeing to assign the maintenance and
repair work to the EMTs in the EAST unit when the
new auto-bonders were released. As a result, the EMTs
performed the electronic maintenance and repair work
on the new auto-bonders, although the IEEJs continued
to perform electronic maintenance and repair on all
other auto-bonders.
In response to that agreement, which permitted
EMTs to perform work previously performed by
IEEJs, the IBEW filed numerous grievances. In 1984,
confronted with more than 40 grievances alleging as-
signment of IBEW work to non-IBEW-represented bar-
gaining unit employees, the Employer and the IBEW
entered into a settlement agreement (the ‘‘Prescott
Agreement’’). Under the Prescott Agreement, the Em-
ployer agreed to assign the performance of all ‘‘elec-
tronic maintenance functions on production equip-
ment’’ in both the MOS laboratory and MCD (includ-
ing auto-bonders) to employees represented by the
IBEW. EAST-represented employees would continue
to perform the traditional maintenance function on test
equipment located in any Newport facility department.
From 1984 until 1990, with minor exceptions, the
Prescott Agreement established the parameters for
maintenance work assignments on all production
equipment—including the new MRP-II computer sys-
tems installed at the Newport facility in 1988. It is un-
disputed, however, that EAST-represented employees
(EMTs) performed electronic repairs if no IEEJs were
available.
EAST had not been a party to the Prescott Agree-
ment. In May 1989, EAST filed a grievance regarding
the maintenance and repair of the semiconductor proc-
essing equipment performed in the MOS department.
In October 1990, Arbitrator Bickner ruled that the Em-
ployer had violated the provisions of the EAST collec-
tive-bargaining agreement that barred the use of non-
EAST-represented personnel to perform work ‘‘regu-
larly assigned’’ to EAST job classifications. Arbitrator
Bickner noted that the disputed work was being per-
formed by both EAST-represented EMTs and IBEW-
represented IEEJs. Arbitrator Bickner noted further that
until 1979, there were 14 or 15 EMTs assigned to the
MOS department, but no IEEJs assigned there, and that
the IEEJs were called in to perform ‘‘major electrical’’
or ‘‘high voltage’’ work. Arbitrator Bickner concluded
that although, over the years, IEEJs performed some
work that the EMTs were qualified to do, the evidence
did not demonstrate that such a practice was ‘‘well-es-
tablished, mutually recognized and accepted, and clear-
ly delineated.’’
After the initial Bickner decision, negotiations be-
tween EAST and the Employer resulted in their ulti-
mately agreeing to reclassify the IEEJs assigned to the
MOS department as EMTs, and allowing the incum-
bent EMTs in the department to be upgraded to EMT
senior with a corresponding pay raise. The parties were
unable, however, to reach agreement on the Employ-
er’s backpay obligations to the original EAST/EMTs
or damages to EAST for dues, or decide whether the
journeymen would carry their accumulated seniority
from their IBEW classification into the EAST unit.
These issues were submitted to Arbitrator Bickner
who, following an evidentiary hearing on the matter,
issued a remedial award on February 10, 1992. She de-
nied backpay, but awarded EAST the dues it would
have received had the disputed work been assigned to
the EMTs rather than the IEEJs. Further, over EAST’s
objection, Arbitrator Bickner credited the IEEJs that
were reclassified as EMTs with EAST unit seniority.
Following a meeting among the Employer, the affected
IEEJs, EMTs, and stewards from both Unions, all but
one of the former IEEJs accepted the Employer’s offer
to be reclassified and reemployed as an EMT.
In the hybrids department, the following sequence of
events occurred. EAST won three arbitration awards
involving electronic maintenance work on specific pro-
duction equipment located in that department:
1. In December 1990, Arbitrator Daugherty awarded
the maintenance and repair of the auto-bonders to
EAST-represented employees.
2. In May 1991, Arbitrator Bickner awarded the
maintenance and repair of MRP-II computer terminals
to EAST-represented employees.
3. In July 1991, Arbitrator Knowlton awarded the
maintenance and repair of the electrostatic discharge
boxes to EAST-represented employees.
(The amount of work affected by these three awards
appeared to be small enough as not to materially affect
the jobs of the incumbent IEEJs or EMTs.)
EAST’s arbitration victories came to an end in Oc-
tober 1991, when Arbitrator Block rejected EAST’s
802 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2 A copy of that award, issued after the close of the hearing in this
proceeding, is attached to the posthearing brief filed by the IBEW.
The Employer has filed a response to the IBEW brief noting that
it had no involvement in the art. XX proceeding, that its interests
were not represented in that proceeding, and that it has not been
privy to the outcome of that proceeding. It did not question the au-
thenticity of the copy of the award attached to the IBEW brief.
June 1990 grievance claiming all electronic mainte-
nance and repair work of hybrid production equipment.
Arbitrator Block acknowledged that the record was not
unequivocal, and that ‘‘it would be difficult to seg-
regate the tasks performed by these two [EAST- and
IBEW-represented] groups of employees.’’ However,
he concluded that although some of the disputed work
undoubtedly was performed by EAST-represented em-
ployees for several years after 1982–1983, there was
no clear evidence that it was ‘‘regularly assigned’’ to
EAST-represented employees prior to 1984, within the
meaning of the EAST collective-bargaining agreement.
Arbitrator Block found that the ‘‘stated policy and
overwhelming practice’’ by the Employer was of as-
signing the disputed work to IBEW-represented em-
ployees dating back to 1983. Accordingly, he denied
the EAST grievance.
In accordance with that award, the electrical and
electronic maintenance and repair work on all produc-
tion equipment in the hybrid department, except the
auto-bonders, electrostatic discharge boxes, and the
MPR-II computers, previously awarded to EAST, con-
tinued to be performed by IEEJs.
Thereafter, the IBEW began filing grievances under
comparable language in the IBEW contract and re-
ceived several favorable awards as follows:
1. In March 1992, Arbitrator Adler awarded the
maintenance and repair of the semiconductor process-
ing equipment to IBEW-represented employees. She
found that the work had been assigned to both bargain-
ing units over the years, with an expanding portion
being assigned to IBEW-represented employees as the
equipment became more electronically sophisticated.
Arbitrator Adler expressed sympathy for the Employ-
er’s predicament, but found no basis for relieving the
Employer from its contractual obligations to the IBEW
simply because the same work had been awarded to
EAST under its collective-bargaining agreement.
2. In September 1992, Arbitrator Weiss awarded the
maintenance and repair of the auto-bonders in the
MCD department to IBEW-represented employees. He
acknowledged the decisions by Arbitrators Daugherty
and Bickner awarding the same work to EAST, but
noted that Arbitrator Adler had subsequently held that
the Employer’s compliance with the Bickner award of
work to EAST would violate its collective-bargaining
agreement with the IBEW. Arbitrator Weiss also point-
ed out that each of these arbitration cases was depend-
ent exclusively on the terms of the collective-bargain-
ing agreement of the Union involved, without regard
to the terms of the other Union’s agreement with the
Employer. In response to the Employer’s request to
interplead EAST so as to avoid duplication of the
Bickner/Adler arbitration award conflict, Arbitrator
Weiss stated that he had no such authority and that he
had to rely solely on the IBEW agreement. Arbitrator
Weiss concluded that the reassignment of the mainte-
nance and repair of the auto-bonding equipment from
IEEJs to non-IBEW-represented unit members would
violate the IBEW’s collective-bargaining agreement.
Directing the Employer to cease assigning the disputed
work to EAST-represented employees, Arbitrator
Weiss also ordered the Employer to make the IBEW-
represented employees whole for any loss of pay as a
result of the reassignment of work.
The Employer has not yet complied with that order,
and the EAST-represented unit employees continue to
perform the maintenance and repair work on the pro-
duction equipment, including the auto-bonders, in the
hybrid department.
The IBEW grievances regarding the MRP-II com-
puter and electrostatic discharge boxes in the MCD de-
partment are still pending.
Arbitrator Adler, in her March 1992 ruling, also or-
dered the Company to pay the IBEW the IEEJ rate for
every hour of electronic work performed by EAST unit
members. Faced with this payment penalty, the Em-
ployer wrote to EAST on June 9, 1992, stating its in-
tention to reassign the ‘‘electrical and electronic main-
tenance and repair work’’ in the MOS division to the
IBEW-represented employees, and ‘‘transfer current
EAST-represented employees to the IBEW work unit.’’
EAST responded by letter on June 18, 1992, stating
that it intended to use all possible means—
‘‘includ[ing] engaging in a work stoppage of your
company’’—to prevent the work reassignment from
taking place. That threat prompted the Employer, on
June 24, 1992, to file this 8(b)(4)(D) unfair labor prac-
tice charge against EAST. On July 24, 1992, the Board
notified all affected parties, including the IBEW, that
it would conduct a 10(k) hearing into the underlying
jurisdictional dispute between the two Unions.
On November 23, 1992, the IBEW filed a charge
under the AFL–CIO’s dispute procedure against EAST.
On April 22, 1993, Impartial Umpire Weiler issued his
decision in that proceeding.2 Impartial Umpire Weiler
determined that EAST violated article XX, section 3 of
the AFL–CIO constitution by actively using economic
pressures (via grievance arbitration and the threat of
strike) to displace IBEW from its established work re-
lationship regarding the electronic maintenance work
performed in the MOS and MCD departments. He
found that as of May 1989, when EAST filed its first
MOS department grievance, the IBEW had established
an exclusive relationship regarding the electronic main-
tenance work in both the MOS and MCD departments
803ELECTRONIC & SPACE TECHNICIANS LOCAL 1553 (HUGHES AIRCRAFT)
at the Employer’s Newport Beach facility. Impartial
Umpire Weiler placed one qualification on his decision
with respect to his section 3 findings concerning the
auto-bonders in the MCD department. There he found
that EAST-represented employees had an established
historical claim to that work prior to the ‘‘Prescott
Agreement’’ of 1984, and that EAST’s formal steps to
try to retrieve the work for its employees was not a
violation. The impartial umpire acknowledged that the
criteria applied under article XX is very different from
the criteria used by the Board in deciding a jurisdic-
tional dispute case under Section 10(k) of the Act.
According to documents filed with the Board by the
IBEW, on June 24, 1993, a subcommittee of the AFL–
CIO executive counsel considered an appeal by the
Carpenters of the article XX award and was denied.
(EAST is affiliated with the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America.) On October 1,
1993, AFL–CIO President Lane Kirkland issued a let-
ter ordering the Carpenters to comply with the impar-
tial umpire’s April 22, 1993 decision. President
Kirkland informed EAST that compliance with that de-
cision required it to ‘‘(a) disclaim the categories of
electronic maintenance work performed in the MOS
and MCD Departments of the Hughes Aircraft New-
port Beach, California facility covered by the Umpire’s
decision; (b) inform Hughes of its disclaimer in writing
with a copy to the National Labor Relations Board in
connection with the pending 10(k) case concerning this
work; and (c) void any and all agreements with
Hughes providing that the work in question shall be
done by Hughes employees represented by’’ EAST.
On October 4, 1993, IBEW filed a motion requesting
that the Board hold this case in abeyance until EAST
forwarded its renunciation of the work in dispute. In
a letter, also dated October 4, Hughes reiterated its
strong opposition to the IBEW motion and urged the
Board to render its decision as promptly as possible.
B. Work in Dispute
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the work
in dispute involves the maintenance and repair of semi-
conductor processing work, maintenance and repair to
auto-bonders, maintenance and repair of MRP-II and
personal computers, the maintenance and repair of
electrostatic discharge boxes, and the maintenance and
repair of hybrid production equipment in the Newport
Beach, California facility.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends that it is subject to multiple
conflicting final and binding arbitration awards requir-
ing it to assign the same work exclusively to members
of both EAST and IBEW. The Employer asserts that
it is subject to substantial monetary penalties if it reas-
signs the disputed work to EAST-represented employ-
ees, and EAST has expressly threatened to engage in
a work stoppage if any of the disputed work is reas-
signed to IBEW-represented employees. The Employer
seeks a final determination that one Union will have
the responsibility for the disputed maintenance and re-
pair work at its Newport Beach facility. At the hearing,
the Employer announced that it prefers that the dis-
puted work be awarded to employees represented by
EAST based on company and industry practice, rel-
ative skills, and economy and efficiency of operations.
The Employer further requests that the Board render an
award broad enough to resolve this jurisdictional dis-
pute and address any future work regarding all
electrical/electronic maintenance and repair work on
production equipment. Finally, the Employer requests
that the Board address the seniority issue affecting the
IEEJs, and preclude their losing the seniority that they
acquired while holding their IBEW classification.
In its brief, EAST asserts that the work in dispute
should be awarded to employees it represents on the
basis of, inter alia, skills and work involved; certifi-
cation by the Board; the collective-bargaining agree-
ment; company and industry practice; the assignment
by the Employer; and the efficient operation of the
Employer’s business.
In its brief, the IBEW first asserts that the Board
should stay its decision pending EAST’s disclaimer of
interest in the disputed work. The IBEW asserts that
the decision under the AFL–CIO’s constitution, article
XX, resolving the dispute in favor of the IBEW, is
final and binding on EAST and requires that EAST re-
nounce its claim to the work in dispute and that such
a disclaimer by EAST will require dismissal of the
case. Assuming arguendo that the traditional 10(k)
Board principles apply, IBEW argues that the relevant
factors of collective-bargaining agreements; Employer
preference and past practice; employee skills; and area
and industry practice all support an assignment of the
work in dispute to its employee-members. Finally, the
IBEW asserts that the EAST letter to the Employer
threatening a work stoppage if the disputed work was
reassigned to IBEW-represented employees is a sham.
IBEW argues that the only reason EAST sent the letter
to the Employer was to cause the Employer to file a
charge so that 10(k) jurisdiction would be asserted by
the Board. Therefore, IBEW submits that the threats
by EAST to engage in a work stoppage would violate
the no-strike provisions of its own contract with the
Employer and under these circumstances, there is no
reasonable cause to believe that Section 8(b)(4)(D) of
the Act has been violated. Accordingly, the Board
should not invoke its jurisdiction and should dismiss
this matter.
804 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 NLRB v. Plasterers Local 79 (Texas Tile), 404 U.S. 116 (1971).
4 Stage Employees IATSE (Metromedia), 225 NLRB 785 (1976).
D. Applicability of the Statute
Before the Board may proceed with a determination
of dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act, it must
be established that reasonable cause exists to believe
that Section 8(b)(4)(D) has been violated. This requires
a finding that there is reasonable cause to believe that
a union has threatened to use or has used proscribed
means to force an employer to assign work to one
group of employees rather than to another.
Hughes is a party to separate collective-bargaining
agreements with EAST and IBEW, respectively. The
work in dispute fits within the jurisdictional language
of both collective-bargaining agreements. For the last
10 years, beginning in 1982, EAST and IBEW have
each filed grievances pursuant to their respective
agreements that were processed through to arbitration,
which resulted in conflicting awards.
Most recently, EAST-represented employees were
awarded the work involving the processing equipment,
the repair of auto-bonding equipment, the repair of
MRP-II computer equipment, repair of electrostatic
discharge boxes, and the maintenance and repair of the
hybrid’s production equipment. As a result, the work
was reassigned from IBEW-represented employees to
EAST-represented employees. IBEW grieved the reas-
signment by the Employer and through arbitration pro-
ceedings was awarded the reassigned work for employ-
ees it represents.
On notice from Hughes of IBEW’s arbitration award
and the Employer’s intent to adhere to the award,
EAST forwarded correspondence dated June 18, 1992,
to Hughes, asserting that should work presently per-
formed by EAST unit members be reassigned to IBEW
unit members, EAST would use all means necessary,
including a work stoppage, to deter such reassignment.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find reasonable
cause to believe that a violation of Section 8(b)(4)(D)
has occurred.
At the hearing, IBEW asserted that both IBEW and
EAST, as members of the AFL–CIO affiliated Inter-
nationals, are bound by internal jurisdictional dispute
resolution settlement procedures established under arti-
cle XX of the charter. EAST asserted that article XX
was not applicable in this matter. The Employer stated
that it was not bound by a dispute resolution procedure
concerning this matter. On November 30, 1992, by let-
ter, IBEW informed the hearing officer that it had filed
an internal union charge against EAST under article
XX of the AFL–CIO charter. IBEW also requested that
the 10(k) hearing be continued until resolution of the
internal union procedure. The hearing officer enter-
tained IBEW’s request on December 1, 1992, and de-
nied IBEW’s request for a continuance.
In its brief, the IBEW urges that the Board should
stay its decision pending EAST’s anticipated dis-
claimer of interest. EAST has not filed any response
to the IBEW motion; nor has it disclaimed the work.
We find that there is no basis for holding the case in
abeyance pending any disclaimer by EAST. Therefore,
we deny the IBEW’s motion to stay further action in
this case.
The IBEW also asserts that the decision of the im-
partial umpire, which assigns the work in dispute to
IBEW-represented employees, is final and binding on
the parties. The Employer did not agree to be bound
by the article XX award, which is a necessary pre-
requisite to any finding by this Board that there exists
a voluntary method of adjustment binding on all the
parties.3 Additionally, the impartial umpire’s award
was not decided on the criteria which we rely on in
10(k) proceedings.4 Therefore, we find that the parties
have not agreed on a method for the voluntary adjust-
ment of the dispute.
Accordingly, we find that the dispute is properly be-
fore the Board for determination under Section 10(k)
of the Act.
E. Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an affirm-
ative award of disputed work after considering various
factors. NLRB v. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 1212
(Columbia Broadcasting), 364 U.S. 573 (1961). The
Board has held that its determination in a jurisdictional
dispute is an act of judgment based on common sense
and experience, reached by balancing the factors in-
volved in a particular case. Machinists Lodge 1743
(J. A. Jones Construction), 135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following factors are relevant in making the de-
termination of the dispute.
1. Certifications
EAST was originally certified in 1943 as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative for all production and
maintenance employees of the Employer. In 1949,
EAST was certified again as the exclusive representa-
tive of all ‘‘production [and] maintenance . . . em-
ployees employed in factory areas’’ of the Employer,
but excluding ‘‘maintenance electricians,’’ who were
represented by IBEW.
The IBEW was certified on March 31, 1949, by the
Board as the exclusive representative of the mainte-
nance and construction electricians of the Employer.
This factor does not favor the employees represented
by either Union.
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
EAST and IBEW have long-established collective-
bargaining relationships with the Employer. The most
recent collective-bargaining agreement between EAST
805ELECTRONIC & SPACE TECHNICIANS LOCAL 1553 (HUGHES AIRCRAFT)
and the Employer is effective from November 2, 1991,
through November 5, 1994. The agreement states that
EAST is the ‘‘sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
all production [and] maintenance employees employed
in factory areas, and all employees in the job classi-
fications listed in the Appendices . . . exclud[ing] . . .
maintenance electricians.’’
The most recent collective-bargaining agreement be-
tween IBEW and the Employer is effective from April
25, 1992, to April 22, 1995. The agreement states that
IBEW is the ‘‘sole and exclusive bargaining agent for
employees . . . classified as Industrial Electronics
Electrician Journeymen; Electrician, Maintenance Jour-
neyman; Maintenance Electrician; Maintenance Work-
ing Leader and Fixture Cleaner.’’
Because the Employer currently has collective-bar-
gaining agreements with both EAST and IBEW that
appear to cover the work in dispute, we find that this
factor does not favor the employees represented by ei-
ther Union.
3. Employer preference
At the hearing, the Employer stated that it prefers
that EAST-represented employees be assigned the
work in dispute. We find, therefore, that this factor fa-
vors awarding the work in dispute to EAST-rep-
resented personnel.
4. Company and industry practice
Over the past 10 years, advancements in technology
have caused the Employer to send both EAST- and
IBEW-represented employees to manufacturers’ train-
ing schools. The Employer has consistently assigned
the work in dispute to employees represented by EAST
and IBEW. Representatives of the Employer and the
IBEW testified that there are no other unionized com-
panies in southern California performing the work in
dispute.
An EAST representative testified that work similar
in nature to the work in dispute is performed by em-
ployees it represents at McDonnell-Douglas Helicopter,
an aerospace company located in southern California.
Further, EAST representatives testified that at the Em-
ployer’s Carlsbad facility there is production equip-
ment used which is similar in nature to that utilized at
the Newport Beach facility. Also, in the Carlsbad facil-
ity, EAST-represented employees perform the work
that is similar to the work in dispute.
We find that the factors of company and industry
practice are inconclusive and therefore not helpful in
determining this dispute.
5. Skills, economy, and efficiency
The work in dispute involves maintaining and re-
pairing electrical and electronic portions of production
equipment, as well as the repairing and maintaining
testing computers and personal computers recording
production information. All parties testified about the
extensive training in electronics necessary to perform
the work in dispute. Further, all parties testified that
the skill level necessary to perform the work in dispute
is very high. It is undisputed that EAST-represented as
well as IBEW-represented employees have received
similar training and possess the skills necessary to
maintain and repair the equipment. Accordingly, be-
cause both EAST- and IBEW-represented employees
are qualified to perform the disputed work, this factor
does not favor the employees represented by either
Union.
The Employer’s representatives testified that certain
jobs related to the work in dispute are performed by
EAST-represented employees. It further testified that
the related jobs can be easily combined with the work
in dispute thereby creating a more efficient operation.
However, the Employer asserts that if IBEW-rep-
resented employees perform the work, the Employer
cannot combine IBEW work with EAST work. There-
fore, from an operational and work assignment stand-
point, it is more economical and efficient for the Em-
ployer if the work in dispute is assigned to EAST-rep-
resented employees. We find that the factors of econ-
omy and efficiency of operations favor awarding the
work in dispute to the employees represented by
EAST.
6. Arbitration awards
Both the IBEW and EAST have filed grievances
under their respective collective-bargaining agreements
to obtain the work in dispute. As a result of those
grievances, the Employer is now subject to numerous
conflicting and binding arbitration awards requiring it
to assign the same work to IBEW- and EAST-rep-
resented employees. Furthermore, there are still several
grievances pending, a situation which presents the
prospect of more conflicting arbitration awards. We
therefore find that this factor does not favor the em-
ployees represented by either Union.
Conclusions
After considering all relevant factors, we conclude
that employees represented by Electronic and Space
Technicians, Local 1553, AFL–CIO are entitled to per-
form the work in dispute at the Employer’s Newport
Beach facility. We reach this conclusion relying on the
factors of economy and efficiency of operation, and
Employer preference. In making this determination, we
are awarding the work in dispute to the Employer’s
employees represented by EAST, not to the Union or
its members.
806 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Scope of the Award
The Employer has asked the Board to make an
award determining that the work in dispute—all elec-
trical and electronic maintenance and repair work on
production equipment in the semiconductor and hy-
brids production departments at the Employer’s New-
port Beach facility—be assigned to EAST-represented
employees, with provisions that any IEEJs who be-
come EAST-represented employees as a result of the
Board’s determination will preserve their seniority in
their former IEEJ classification in any new EAST job
classification.
We find that our usual award is appropriate. Specifi-
cally, we decline to address the issue of seniority be-
cause that is a subject of bargaining between the Em-
ployer and the Union.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the fol-
lowing Determination of Dispute. Employees of
Hughes Aircraft Company represented by Electronic
and Space Technicians Local 1553, AFL–CIO are enti-
tled to perform all the work in dispute at the Employ-
er’s Newport Beach, California facility.