Federal Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 859 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORP. 859
Federal Electric Corporation Western Test Range
Division ' and International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 2182, Petitioner.
Case 31-RC-1623
June 30, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed on December 21, 1970,
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, hearings in this case were held on
January 19 and 20, 1971, before Hearing Officer Alvin
Schwartz. Purusant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the
above-entitled matter was duly transferred by the Re-
gional Director for Region 31 to the Board for consid-
eration. The Petitioner and Employer filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of:
All operation and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer in its Western Test Range Division at the follow-
ing locations: Vandenburg Air Force Base, Santa Ynez
Peak, Port Hueneme, Pillar Point, and Big Sur, Cali-
fornia, including the following classifications: supply
assistant, line assigner, communications controller,
senior communications controller, junior communica-
tions controller, senior air controller, senior telemetry
controller, senior command destruct controller, work-
load controller, stock controller, driver/messenger,
quality control representative, quality control special-
ist, computer operator, senior computer operator, jun-
ior computer operator, instrumentation control opera-
tor, keypunch operator, senior keypunch operator,
machine operator, (maintenance and support), teletype
operator, senior teletype operator, junior teletype oper-
' The Employer's name appears as corrected at the hearing
ator, material identification specialist, operations sep-
cialist, senior operation specialist, junior operation spe-
cialist, property control specialist, technical specialist,
traffic specialist, senior telemetry specialist, telemetry
systems specialist, stockman/storekeeper, technician,
senior technician, junior technician, carpenter, machin-
ist, maintenance helper, maintenance man (A and B),
air-conditioning and heating mechanic, mechanic elec-
trician, painter A and B, antenna rigger A and B, sand-
blaster, sheet metal worker, material control specialist,
welder, and warehousemen, and, "[e]xcluding all other
employees, analysts, analyst aides, coordinators, ex-
peditors, librarians, varitypers, schedulers, scheduling
specialists, technical writers, administrative assistants,
watchmen, guards, professional employees, group lead-
ers, foremen, office clerical employees and supervisors
as defined by the Labor-Management Act of 1947.1
The Employer contends that the only appropriate
unit must also include the operation and maintenance
employees at Hickam Air Force Base and Wheeler Air
Force Base at Hawaii, and on ships operating out of
Port Hueneme, California, and Honolulu. It contends
further that substantial changes in its organizational
structure, its contractual relationship with the Govern-
ment, and the complete integration of its operations
during "real time" or launch situations dictate a divi-
sionwide unit rather than the more limited unit sought
by the Petitioner.'
The Employer (also referred to herein as FEC), a
subsidiary of International Telephone and Telegraph
Company, is under contract with the United States Air
Force to furnish the necessary services, materials, sup-
plies, equipment, and facilities for the technical opera-
tion and maintenance of the Space and Missile Test
Center (SAMTEC) uprange and downrange facilities,
center technical facilities, range operation functions,
and instrumentation, in support of the United States
Missile and Space Programs at its Western Test Range
(Range). Essentially, the Employer's prime mission is
to provide tracking services in connection with the bal-
listic missile and space vehicle program conducted on
1 In its petition, the Petitioner sought a unit of "all maintenance and
operation personnel as defined in case 31-RC-539," excluding "office clen-
cal employees, watchmen, guards, engineers, supervisors as defined by the
Labor Relations Act of 1947." However, at the hearing, the Petitioner
agreed to accept the unit description proposed by the Employer to the
extent stated above The Employer would also include all operation and
maintenance employees based at Hickam Air Force Base and Wheeler Air
Force Base, Hawaii, and employees located on ships operating out of Port
Hueneme, California, and Honolulu, Hawaii In addition, the Employer
would include the classifications of engineering aide, senior engineering
aide, and draftsmen A, B, and C, which were excluded by agreement of the
parties in ITTFederal Electric Corporation, Western Test Range Project, 167
NLRB 350
3 We find no ment in the Employer's contentions that its contractual
relationship with the Government and the complete integration of its opera-
tions during "real time" or launch situations dictate a divisionwide unit. The
record shows no substantial change in these conditions since the previous
case
191 NLRB No. 153
860 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Range and to deliver a data quality product to the
range user on time. The Range now encompasses Van-
denburg Air Force Base (VAFB), Pillar Point, Santa
Ynez Peak, and Big Sur, California; Hickam Air Force
Base and Wheeler Air Force Base, Hawaii; and range
instrumentation ships operating out of Port Hueneme,
California, and Honolulu.
As of December 27, 1969, FEC had some 556 em-
ployees in the unit classifications employed in the
Range. Of these, 419 were assigned to VAFB, 2 to
Santa Ynez Peak, 23 to Pillar Point, 2 to Big Sur, 6 to
Port Hueneme, 4 to Hickam AFB, 26 to Wheeler AFB,
and 74 to the ships, viz. Huntsville-30, Watertown-
31, Sunnyvale-6, and Longview-7.4 The record
shows that Santa Ynez Peak, Big Sur, Port Hueneme,
and Pillar Point are 25, 135, 100, and 275 miles, respec-
tively, from VAFB. Wheeler and Hickam are approxi-
mately 2,700 miles from VAFB.
Since 1967, the Employer has made substantial
changes in the organizational structure of the Range.
Whereas the record in the earlier case showed that the
Range was divided into three divisions-the engineer-
ing division, range operations division, and the mainte-
nance and support division, the record in the instant
case shows that the latter two divisions have apparently
been consolidated into what is now called an operations
directorate.' In late 1969, the operations directorate
was divided into five organizations: the instrumenta-
tion ships organization , launch support organization,
systems software organization, downrange organiza-
tion, and maintenance and support organization. The
instrumentation ships organization is essentially the
same as the old range ships department and the down-
range organization is essentially the same as the old
downrange department. It also appears that the
maintenance and support organization is essentially the
same as the old maintenance and support division. The
launch support organization and the systems software
organization appear to combine what were formerly
the range data, range telementry and mainland depart-
ments. In the latter part of 1970, certain functions were
moved from the launch support organization and
placed in a new technical operations organization. At
the time of the hearing, FEC indicated that effective
February 15, 1971, it was reorganizing its technical
operations, instrumentation ships, launch support, and
downrange organization into three new organizations
-test operations, range data , and communications.
The test operations organization will include most, if
' The record shows a substantial reduction in personnel since the Board's
direction of election in the earlier case . This reduction was made necessary
by the deactivation of Eniwetok and removal from the Range of 4 of the
original 10 Apollo ships and range instrumentation ships As two additional
Apollo ships were removed from the Range in 1970, it appears that further
reductions were effected after December 27, 1969.
' The record does not disclose any changes in what now appears to be
called the engineering and control organization or department
not all, of what was formerly the instrumentation ships
and downrange organization and parts of the technical
operations and launch support organization. The range
data operations appear to incorporate most of the data
processing operation and the communications organi-
zation appears to bring under one group the communi-
cations network, both mainland and downrange.
Notwithstanding the above organizational changes,
which have resulted in all organization managers being
located at VAFB, it appears that the various locations
presently in the Range which existed at the time of our
earlier decision in 1967 perform the same functions as
before. Thus, Pillar Point and Big Sur and the ships, as
well as the later added Santa Ynez Peak, are instrumen-
tation sites. Port Hueneme still performs support, such
as maintanance and the logistics for the ships.6 Wheeler
AFB is still a communications site as before. Moreover,
the various organizational changes have not resulted in
a change in the immediate supervision that existed in
1967. Nor is there any indication that the working
conditions at the various sites and aboard the ships
have undergone any significant changes as a result of
the reorganization.
The Employer testified that, during 1969 and 1970,
there were 583 temporary' and 277 permanent transfers
of unit employees from one site to another within the
Range. However, most of these transfers have little
bearing on our determination of the unit herein as they
were made either to or from ships or sites which are no
longer a part of the Range, or which are outside the
Range entirely, or, while within the Range, between
points entirely within or outside of the unit sought by
the Petitioner.'
As in the previous case, we find no merit in the
Employer's contention that a unit composed solely of
the listed classifications working at the Employer's
Hickam AFB provides similar functions for the downrange ships
Our count, based on documentary evidence adduced by the Employer,
shows that there were 603 temporary transfers
A total of 469 temporary transfers fall within these categories. Thus,
162 of the temporary transfers were to or from ships or landsites which are
no longer a part of the Range (Vanguard 37, Swordknot 32, Range Tracker
8, Mercury 36, Saipan Hitch 1, Redstone 40, Eniwetok 8); 89 were to or
from points outside the Range entirely, 213 were to or from points within
the unit sought by the Petitioner; and another 5 transfers, while within the
Range, were made from one excluded site to another excluded site
Similarly, 209 of the 277 permanent transfers fall into the above catego-
ries 170 were to or from ships or landsties no longer included in the range
(Swordknot-11, Vanguard-19, Redstone-59, Mercury-77, Range
Tracker-4, Eniwetok-23); 4 were to or from locations outside the Range;
3 were between locations included in the unit; and 9 were between locations
within the Range but outside the unit sought. Many of these transfers could
have been disqualified on more than one ground but were tabulated under
a single classification to avoid duplication.
We also consider significant the fact that four employees were involved
in 20 or more temporary transfers and an additional eight had five or more
transfers, or a total of 138 transfers involving only 12 employees Such a
high incidence of transfers among a relatively small percentage of the total
employee complement tends to minimize the impact of transfers on the
community of interest existing between the included and excluded groups
of employees.
FEDERAL ELECTRIC CORP.
mainland locations is inappropriate. In effectuating our
mandate under Section 9(b) of the Act to make appro-
priate unit determinations which will "assure to em-
ployees the fullest freedom in exercising rights guaran-
teed by this Act," the Board has emphasized that the
Act does not compel labor organizations to seek repre-
sentation in the most comprehensive grouping of em-
ployees unless such grouping constitutes the only ap-
propriate unit. Although it is apparent in this case, as
in the previous case, that there are some factors (e.g.,
interchange of personnel and similarity of equipment
operated) to support a finding that a unit encompassing
all locations in the Range is appropriate, it is equally
clear that the employees in unit classifications who
work at VAFB, Pillar Point, Big Sur, Port Heuenme,
and Santa Ynez Peak have a sufficient separate com-
munity of interest to justify their establishment in a
bargaining unit apart from employees who are assigned
to the range ships and downrange locations. In
reaffirming our prior unit determination herein, we rely
on the following factors: (1) The requested employees
still constitute a geographically separate, identifiable
group; (2) they still have separate immediate super-
vision; (3) the shipboard employees receive free room
and board and a sea allowance while the ship is under-
way or in a restricted port and shore leave, but not
receive double time for Sunday work; (4) the shipboard
employees are not subject to the Workmen's Compen-
sation Act of the State of California while underway;
and (5) no labor organization is seeking to represent all
locations on the Range.
The Employer contends that the classifications of
engineering aide, senior engineering aide, and drafts-
men A, B. and C should be included in the unit. There
are approximately 15 draftsmen, 4 senior engineering
aides, and 3 engineering aides. It appears that the
draftsmen are located at VAFB and Pillar Point. All
draftsmen, except one who works in the management
center, work in the engineering and control organiza-
tion or department under an engineering or drafting
supervisor. They have separate offices in a separate
building and, while performing their day-to-day duties,
spend only a minor portion of their time in contact with
other unit employees. There is no interchange between
draftsmen and other employees. They are high school
graduates with some technical school training. They
prepare structural drawings and work with blueprints.
It appears from the record that the draftsmen may
travel to various locations on the Range to make some
of the structural drawings and that they have some
contact with unit employees on such occasions. How-
ever, as the draftsmen are separately located and super-
vised and have little, if any, contact with unit em-
ployees in the performance of their day-to-day duties,
we find that they do not have sufficient community of
interest with the unit employees to require their inclu-
861
sion in the unit. Accordingly, we shall exclude the
draftsmen from the unit.
The engineering aides are scattered throughout the
engineering and control department or organization
and what appears to be the radar optics department,
the quality assurance department, and the systems per-
formance analysis department (S.P.A.D.) and are
supervised in the departments where located. They pro-
vide the supporting effort to the engineering function,
data support to S.P.A.D. and radar optics, and data
evaluation in quality assurance. It appears from the
record that one engineering aide is located in radar
optics and another in quality assurance, two in engi-
neering and control, and three in S.P.A.D. The engi-
neering aides in engineering and control assist the assis-
tant performance analyst in the analysis of radar and
telemetry data. They "smooth" the data and update the
calibration methods on the radar and telemetry equip-
ment. Thereafter, they may go out to the sites and assist
in training the operating personnel in the improved
calibration techniques. It appears further that these
engineering aides, as well as the one in radar optics, act
as legmen for the engineers and go out on the Range
to gather data. The engineering aides in S.P.A.D.
gather data also but they appear to do some data pro-
cessing as well. The engineering aide in quality assur-
ance appears to have nothing to do with engineering
but appears to check the data quality. As the three
engineering aides in S.P.A.D. and the two in engineer-
ing and control are separately supervised and appear to
have minimal contact with unit employees, we shall
exclude them from the unit. However, as the record
evidence is insufficient to make a determination with
respect to the unit placement of the engineering aides
in quality assurance and radar optics, we shall permit
them to vote subject to challenge.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(a) of the Act:
All operation and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer in its Western Test Range Division at the follow-
ing locations: Vandenburg Air Force Base, Santa Ynez
Peak, Port Hueneme, Pillar Point, and Big Sur, Cali-
fornia, including the following classifications: supply
assistant, line assigner, communications controller,
senior communications controller, junior communica-
tions controller, senior air controller, senior telemetry
controller, senior command destruct controller, work-
load controller, stock controller, driver/messenger,
quality control representative, quality control special-
ist, computer operator, senior computer operator, jun-
ior computer operator, instrumentation control opera-
tor, keypunch operator, senior keypunch operator,
machine operator (maintenance and support), teletype
operator, senior teletype operator, junior teletype oper-
862 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ator , material identification specialist , operations spe-
cialist, senior operation specialist , junior operation spe-
cialist , property control specialist , technical specialist,
traffic specialist , senior telemetry systems specialist,
stockman/storekeeper , technician , senior technician,
junior technician , carpenter , machinist , maintenance
helper , maintenance man (A and B), air -conditioning
and heating mechanic , mechanic electrician , painter A
and B , antenna rigger A and B, sandblaster , sheet metal
worker, material control specialist , welder , and ware-
housemen , but excluding all other employees , includ-
ing the engineering aides located in S.P .A.D. and the
engineering and control department or organization,
draftsmen A, B, and C, organization , draftsmen A, B,
and C , analysts, analyst aides , coordinators , expeditors,
librarians , varitypers, schedulers , scheduling special-
ists , technical writers, administrative assistants , watch-
men, guards , professional employees , groupleaders,
foremen, office clerical employees , and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
[Direction of Election9 omitted from publication.]
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear
Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 , N.L R.B. v Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U .S. 759.
Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing
the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the
Employer with the Regional Director for Region 31 within 7 days of the
date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time
to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordi-
nary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be
grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.