Electronic Technicians Local 1553 (Hughes Aircraft)

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 26, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 1089 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

ELECTRONIC TECHNICIANS LOCAL 1553 (HUGHES AIRCRAFr)
Electronic and Space Technicians Local 1553 and
Hughes Aircraft Company and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No . 2295, AFL-CIO, "CLC. Case 31-
CD-295
26 May 1987
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF
DISPUTE
BY MEMBERS BABSON, STEPHENS, AND
CRACRAFT
The charge in this Section 10(k) proceeding was
filed 11 February 19871 by the Employer, alleging
that Electronic and Space Technicians Local 1553
(EAST) violated Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National
Labor Relations Act by engaging in proscribed ac-
tivity with an object of forcing the Employer to
assign certain work to employees it represents
rather than to employees represented by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No, 2295, AFL-CIO, CLC (IBEW). The
hearing was held 16 March 1987 before Hearing
Officer Helen M, Spence.
The National Labor_ Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board affirms the hearing officer's rulings,
finding them free from prejudicial error. On the
entire record, the Board makes the following find-
ings.
1. JURISDICTION
Hughes Aircraft Company, a Delaware corpora-
tion, manufactures aerospace and related equipment
at its Hawthorne, California facility, where it sells
and ships goods valued in excess of $50,000 direct-
ly to customers 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 of Dispute
Since 1977 the Employer's Radar Systems Group
advanced manufacturing technology section has
used two types of mechanized assembly equipment
to make electronic modules for radar sets: the HPS
300 and the ALCAS. Employees represented by
' All dates are in 1987 unless otherwise indicated
1089
EAST and the IBEW perform maintenance work
on both machines.2
In 1985 the Employer began designing the
MCAS, another mechanized assembly machine.
Unlike HPS 300 and ALCAS, the MCAS has a
series of computers, has,better optical capability,
uses a programmable robotic arm rather than fixed
automation, and "has a few other devices ... such
as [an] automatic fluxing system; and it also has a
much more sophisticated component verification
system."
The Employer's engineers maintained the MCAS
equipment from 1985 to February 1987.3 In 1987
the Employer's engineers trained an unrepresented
employee "hired from the outside" to maintain the
MCAS.
During negotiations between the :Employer and
IBEW for a successor to their collective-bargaining
agreement, which expired 17 January, the IBEW
requested that the contract's "certification be ex-
panded" to include employees working on all
"automated equipment including robotics equip-
ment," which covered the MCAS machine.'
On 30 January EAST wrote the Employer that
it had learned the IBEW had filed two grievances
claiming the MCAS work and demanded the work
in its current negotiations. EAST stated the assign-
ment, of such work to IBEW-represented employ-
ees would be inappropriate because the work was
already covered in various EAST classifications. It
further told the Employer it would establish picket
lines if the work was assigned to the IBEW-repre-
sented employees. The Employer then filled the
8(b)(4)(D) charge which gave rise to the instant
proceeding.
B. Work in Dispute
The work in dispute involves the maintenance of
the MCAS at the Employer 's Radar Systems
Group, El Segundo , California facility.
C. Contentions of the Parties
The Employer4 contends that reasonable cause
exists to believe that EAST violated Section
8(b)(4)(D). It contends that the work in dispute
should be awarded to the ' unrepresented employee
currently performing the work . In the event the
work in dispute is awarded to bargaining unit em-
ployees , however, the Employer prefers that it be
awarded to employees represented by EAST based
2 Manager Mark Weber testified that each machine has -3 functions
that are performed by EAST [mechanics, plumbers, and computer main-
tenance] and 1 by IBEW [electricians] "
a The engineers were not represented by EAST, IBEW, or any other
union.
4 The Employer and the IBEW did not file briefs in this proceeding
283 NLRB No. 162
,1090 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on ,its collective-bargaining agreement, employer
preference, relative skills, and Board certification.
The Employer further requests that any award of
the disputed work by the, Board, should be ex-
tended to-cover "equipment that is similar to
MCAS or incorporates the technology used in the
MCAS machine .... ." s
The IBEW and EAST argue that employees
they represent should be, awarded the disputed
works
D. Applicability of the Statute
It is undisputed that EAST's representative
Robert Davis in a letter dated 30 January threat-
ened to, establish picket lines if the Employer as-
signed the disputed work to employees represented
by the IBEW.
We, find reasonable cause to believe that a viola-
tion of Section 8(b)(4)(D) has occurred. ' No party
contends that there is an_ agreed method for volun-
tary adjustment of the dispute within the meaning
of Section 10(k) of the, Act. Accordingly, we find
that the dispute is properly before the Board. for
determination.
E.-Merits of the Dispute
Section 10(k) requires the Board to make an af-
firmative 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 bal-
ancing the factors involved in a particular case.
Machinists Lodge 1743 (J. A. Jones Construction),
135 NLRB 1402 (1962).
The following, factors are relevant in making the
determination of this dispute.
1. Certifications
The employee currently performing the disputed
work is not a member of any bargaining unit certi-
fied by the Board. On 31 March 1949 the Board
certified the IBEW to represent all "maintenance
and 'construction electricians, including helpers,
designated as Electricians `A,' `B,' and `C,"' and
also certified Local 1553, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and ' Joiners of America, AFL, now
EAST, to represent all remaining production 'and
5 Weber testified that two MCAS machines are currently in produc-
tion, that another machine will be operating "within the next few days or
a week," and that a fourth MCAS machine "is a month behind it "
Weber further testified'i ,that three more MCAS machines "are budgeted,
or planned to be budgeted" in the future
6 The IBEW withdrew from the hearing but did not disclaim interest
in the work in dispute . EAST seeks all maintenance work on the MCAS
to be awarded to employees it represents
maintenance employees. Certification is not a help-
ful factor in determining this dispute.
2. Collective-bargaining agreements
EAST and the IBEW have long-established col-
lective-bargaining relationships with the Employer.
The collective bargaining agreement that expired
17 January between the IBEW ,and the Employer
states that the IBEW is the sole and exclusive bar-
gaining agent for the following classifications: in-
dustrial electronics electrician journeyman; electri-
cian maintenance journeyman; electronic mainte-
nance journeyman; electrician maintenance man;
electrician, ; maintenance working leader, and fixture
cleaner.7 As noted, the IBEW withdrew from the
hearing' and presented no evidence in support of its
claim for the disputed work.
The Employer's collective-bargaining, agreement
with EAST expiring 5 November 1988 sets forth
EAST's jurisdiction as "all production [and] main-
tenance" employees, including, among other classi-
fications, maintenance mechanic A, plumber.-main-
tenance B, mechanic numerical controls, electrome-
chanical technician A, and electronic service tech-
nician senior. .
The employee currently performing -the work is
not a member of any bargaining unit represented
by a union having a- collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Employer. Weber testified that in
designing the disputed work's job description,
"automated equipment technician," he reviewed
20-30 existing job classifications in both the IBEW
and EAST collective-bargaining agreements. Ac-
cording to Weber, the closest job description was
EAST's "electromechanical technician A," which
played the "largest role" in drafting the new job
description. Glen Hunter, the Employer's head of
compensation for the Radar Systems Group, fur-
ther testified that the Employer primarily used
seven different job `classifications: 'five EAST
(maintenance mechanic A, plumber maintenance B,
mechanic numerical controls, electromechan ical
technician A,' and electronic service technician
senior); one IBEW (industrial electronics electri-
cian journeyman); and a_nonbargaining unit "com-
puter systems" classification. Hunter stated the Em-
ployer found "deficiencies" in the old classifica-
tions and decided it was necessary to create a new
classification that "incorporated all of the require-
ments that the new machinery required from a
maintenance standpoint."
7 Kenneth King, the Employer's manager of labor relations, testified
that although the contract with the IBEW expired 17 January, the parties
have extended it on a day-to-day basis since that date,
ELECTRONIC TECHNICIANS LOCAL 1553 (HUGHES AIRCRAFT)
Finally, in addition to the job classifications dis-
cussed above, EAST also entered into the record
job descriptions of several other classifications it
argues cover the disputed work: instrument techni-
cian A, instrument technician senior, optomechani-
cal technician senior, optomechancial technician A,
test equipment fabrication technician senior, test
equipment fabrication technician A, test technician
micro circuit senior, test technician micro circuit
A, and machinist maintenance.
This evidence indicates that while the IBEW
contract may cover part of the work in dispute, the
description of EAST's jurisdiction in its collective-
bargaining agreement covers most, if not all, of the
work in dispute. In these circumstances, we find
that the factor of collective-bargaining agreements
favors an award to the employees EAST repre-
sents.
3. Employer preference
Since February 1987 the Employer has assigned
the disputed work to a nonbargaining unit employ-
ee and concededly prefers to maintain such an as-
signment. The Employer at the hearing, however,
stated that if the Board believes the work should
be awarded to employees represented by either
EAST or IBEW, it would prefer that the disputed
work be assigned to employees represented by
EAST as they are "more qualified." Although the
Employer favors assignment of the disputed work
to the nonbargaining unit employee, we do not find
this controlling. The Employer by alternatively re-
questing that employees represented by EAST be
assigned the work implies that this assignment
would not adversely affect its operations. Valley
Plate Glass Co., 196 NLRB 1140, 1142 (1972).
4. Employer past practice
The testimony indicates that the MCAS' inte-
grated assembly system is one of the latest techno-
logicall advancements of its kind and that the Em-
ployer has not had a long-standing or consistent
past practice in assigning maintenance of this
system to a particular group of employees. We
therefore find this factor does not favor an award
to any particular group of employees.
5. Employee skills
Employees who perform the tasks involved in
maintaining the MCAS must possess considerable
skills. The record, however, fails to show that any
group of employees is unqualified to perform the
work. Accordingly, this factor is inconclusive.
6. Economy and efficiency of operation
1091
As noted above, Weber testified that a nonbar-
gaining unit employee "hired from the outside" is
currently performing the disputed work. The Em.
ployer's project manager Jeffrey Strong further tes-
tified that having only one employee maintaining
the machine would reduce the Employer's cost, as
there would be no need "to have all this other
interface [between different unions] and have the
machine down, waiting."s
Weber also testified that the Employer plans to
add at least seven more MCAS machines. There-
fore, if the Employer utilizes new employees, it
will continue to hire, and train, additional employ-
ees to perform the disputed work.
On the other hand, the Employer admits that
EAST employees could be trained to perform all
of the maintenance work, and no party seeking the
disputed work has requested a composite crew per-
form the work.9 Thus, rather than increasing the
size of its work force, the Employer could more
economically train its existing employees to per-
form the disputed work. We therefore find the
factor of economy and efficiency of operation
favors an award to employees represented by
EAST.
Conclusions
After considering all the relevant factors, we
conclude that employees represented by EAST are
entitled to perform the work in dispute. We reach
this conclusion relying on the Employer 's collec-
tive -bargaining agreement with EAST, and econo-
my and efficiency of operation . In making this de-
termination , we are awarding the work to employ-
ees represented by EAST , not to that Union or its
members.
Scope of the Determination
The Employer requests that the Board issue a
broad work order award applicable to the mainte-
nance of all "robotic and other integrated" elec-
tronic equipment. The Employer argues such an
award is necessary because the MCAS is merely
the first of a projected long line of equipment in-
corporating this "new type of technology." Be-
fl Weber and Strong both testified that the maintenance on the HPS
300 and ALCAs required two or three technicians because of "different
technologies" in each machine As a result, when a machine has a prob-
lem, an engineer would investigate, determine the problem, and then
assign responsibility for its repair. Weber testified this maintenance ar-
rangement affected the machine's "down time" and slowed repair Strong
further testified that of a machine's 80 percent maintenance downtime, 50
percent was due to union jurisdictional assignment problems.
9 Although Weber and Strong testified to employee "interllice" on the
HPS 300 and ALCAS, no evidence was presented on the employee
"interface," if any, on the MCAS.
1092 DECISIONS ,OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cause , the technology -will be improving "year by
year," the Employer claims a broad award is nec-
essary to avoid further jurisdictional disputes in the
future.
We find that , a broad work order award is un-
warranted . The work in' dispute only concerns the
MCAS ' maintenance
,
and the Employer is seeking a
broad award of work that does not yet exist. Fur-
ther, no group claiming the work has made a con-
tinuing ' demand ' for future similar work, and we
have found that employees represented by the
charged Union are entitled to perform the work in
dispute . Therefore, we find a broad order is not
warranted and limit our present determination to
the particular controversy which gave rise to this
proceeding.
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
The National Labor Relations Board makes the
following Determination of Dispute . Employees of
Hughes Aircraft Company represented by Elec-
tronic and Space Technicians Local 1553 are enti-
tled to maintain the MCAS machine in the Radar
Systems Group, El Segundo , California.