General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 21, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1108 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

1108 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
transfer in the revenue accounting section, such action would not be
within the scope of a proceeding under Section 10 (k) of the Act.
A demand for recognition as bargaining representative for employees
doing a particular job, or in a particular department, does not to the
.slightest degree connote a demand for the assignment of work to par-
ticular employees rather than to others.
In these circumstances, that the unit embodied in the request may
not be appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 and the Board's
unit policies 8 is totally irrelevant to the question of whether the
Union's object was one proscribed by the statute.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we are satisfied, and conclude,
that the dispute in this case is not over the assignment of work within
the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D). It is therefore not a dispute
within the meaning of Section 10 (k). Accordingly, we shall quash
the notice of hearing.'
[The Board quashed the notice of hearing.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM and MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Order.
8 As indicated , we are not to be deemed as determining this question affirmatively or
negatively by this decision.
8 In view of our determination that a dispute within the, meaning of Section 10 (k)
does not exist , we find it unnecessary to consider the other contentions of the Union.
General Electric Company and Hanford Atomic Metal Trades
Council, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 19-R0-208. August 01,195 '
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
On February 24, 1949, after an election conducted pursuant to a
stipulation for certification upon consent election, the Board issued
a Decision and Certification of Representatives in the above-entitled
proceeding in which the Council was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the following unit of the Employer's
employees :
All weekly salaried production and maintenance employees
employed in and about the Hanford Works, of General Electric
Company, Richland, Washington, excluding clerical employees;
patrolmen; firemen; medical division employees; health instru-
ment division employees; design and construction division em-
ployees; laboratory assistants; technologists; technical gradu-
ates; electrical division dispatchers; "P" and "S" division chief
operators; glassblowers classified as instrument mechanics; mes
sengers and motor messengers; transitmen, axemen, chain and
118 NLRB No. 150.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1109
rodmen; draftsmen, designers and engineering assistants; all
personnel on the exempt salary roll; and no others constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, as amended.
Thereafter, on November 30, 1956, the Employer and the Council
filed with the Board a joint petition for a decision "as to whether cer-
tain General Electric employees assigned to the 1706 and 1706-KER
Semi-works, 100-K Area, Hanford Atomic Products Operation, are
engaged in research and development work as engineering assistants
or are engaged in production work so as to come within the bargain-
ing unit described in the certification." On April 26, 1957, the Board
remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director for a hearing for
the purpose of taking testimony with respect to the issues raised by the
petition. Such a hearing was held on June 4, 1957, before Robert J.
Wiener, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
The plant here involved manufactures plutonium by means of a
chain reaction process. This process is contained in an atomic pile, or
reactor, which consists in part of a large block of graphite through
which run thousands of process tubes. These tubes carry slugs of
uranium over which water or'some other coolant flows to draw off the
heat generated by the chain reaction process.
The 13 employees here in question are among the approximately 140
employees at the Hanford Works who have the job title of "engineer-
ing assistant," a job classification excluded from the certification.' No
contention is made that any of these 13 "engineering assistants" has
designated the Council as his collective-bargaining representative.
Hereafter in this opinion, wherever the term "engineering assistant"
is enclosed in quotation marks it refers only to the engineering assist-
ants whose inclusion in the unit is here in issue.
The primary duty of these 13 "engineering assistants ," who work
under professional engineers,2 is to operate experiments directed
1 In its brief , the Council also contends that two employees classified as "technical
trainees ," who assist the "engineering assistants" here involved and are being trained to
fill that job classification, are also included in the certified unit. Since the Council makes
no contention that these "technical trainees" are included in the unit even though the
13 "engineering assistants " are excluded , in view of our disposition of this case we find it
unnecessary to determine whether the issue of their placement is properly before us even
though it is not set out in the joint motion.
2 However , only 1 of the 8 engineers in this section has a postgraduate degree, the
Employer accepting experience as a substitute for postgraduate education. Two of the
five engineers assisted by "engineering assistants " were formerly chief operators , apparently
supervising employees in the bargaining unit; at least one came from other production
facilities in the plant . The top grade for engineering assistants overlaps the beginning
grade for engineers , but all the engineers in this particular section are actually paid
more than any of the "engineering assistants " in the section.
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
toward improving the coolant used in the reactor, both by increasing
its cooling ability and by decreasing its corrosive effect. Most of their
work is in support of advanced reactor design, although some of it is
done in support of developmental programs to improve the efficiency
and extend the life of existing reactors. Pursuant to written instruc-
tions from the engineers, they treat and filter the coolant; control its
pressure, its temperature, and its flow in the tubes; take samples of
the coolant; and perform chemical tests on some of these samples to
determine their composition. The coolant may be treated by the addi-
tion of chemicals, or by demineralization, degasification, or deoxy-
genation; these last three operations are performed by the use of con-
trollers, pumps, and valves, operated through a panel board. The
experiments may also be concerned with new types of pumps and in-
strument systems. While the experiments are under way, these "en-
gineering assistants" record the readings on various measuring devices.
"Engineering assistants" do some evaluation of the results of experi-
ments, and on occasion suggest that certain experiments be performed.
About two-thirds of the time of these "engineering assistants" is
spent on experiments in which the coolant is circulated through dummy
tubes not located in a reactor. However, some experiments require the
use of tubes in a reactor actually producing plutonium. During such
experiments, the coolant under test is substituted, in a small propor-
tion of the tubes contained in the reactor located in the group of build-
ings where these "engineering assistants" work, for the coolant
normally used in the production process; the normal production proc-
ess continues in the remaining tubes. Such experimental tubes have
operating characteristics different from those of the remaining tubes.
However, pile operators in the unit "charge" and "discharge" the tubes
in question by inserting or removing uranium slugs. In the majority
of these experiments the chain reaction process is discontinued before
optimum production has been achieved. Although the number of
"engineering assistants" on duty in the buildings during each shift
approximately equals the number of production employees, less than
1 percent of the plutonium produced by the reactor is attributable to
the tubes which can be used for experimental purposes. The existence
of such testing facilities does not affect the number of production em-
ployees needed on the reactor. If the experiments are improperly
conducted in the "in-pile" tubes the entire reactor sometimes shuts
down automatically. Accordingly, the production employees working
in connection with the reactor must be familiar with the "in-pile"
equipment and the effect it can have on continuity of operations.
The pumps and instrumentation used by the "engineering assistants"
whose status is here in issue are similar to, although not identical with,
the instruments used by pile operators in the unit and the pumps
serviced by power operators in the unit. The operations performed by
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1111
the "engineering assistants" are similar to those performed by such
employees in the unit, but they are considerably more varied and
there is no evidence that any individual employee in the unit is re-
quired to perform all the functions of an "engineering assistant." Pile
and power operators in the unit record test data as an incident to their
operating functions. The pile operators spend about a tenth of their
time performing tests and experiments at the request of various re-
search and development sections. Some employees in the unit do
routine quality-control testing, primarily of materials destined for
use in the reactor. "Engineering assistants" perform some work in the
building where the reactor is located and where the power and pile
operators work, and the latter occasionally visit the buildings where
the "engineering assistants" work. "Engineering assistants" receive
about the same pay as power and pile operators, and like them receive
shift differentials and isolation pay. Maintenance employees within
the bargaining unit do maintenance work on all piping, wiring, and
instrumentation, throughout the plant, including the buildings where
these "engineering assistants" work.
Substantially all of these "engineering assistants" had prior tech-
nical job assignments with the Employer. So far as the record shows,
none was transferred from jobs within the bargaining unit. Nine of
these "engineering assistants" have education beyond high school.
However, the characteristics chiefly sought by the Employer are
"initiative and ability"; an elementary knowledge of chemistry and
algebra is "desirable."
At the time of the certification, the Employer was conducting coolant
testing experiments in flow laboratories in the Hanford operation with
the help of employees then classified as "laboratory assistants," ex-
cluded from the bargaining unit. The instrumentation in these flow
laboratories was operated essentially like that in the present facility,
although panel boards were not used and the pumps now used are more
complex. At least one experiment was conducted on an operating re-
actor before the certification. Coolant testing has been regularly
performed on "in-pile" tubes since 1951. When the present testing
facilities were completed, many of the employees who had been work-
ing in the previously used facilities were transferred thereto. At
some time during this period, such employees were given their present
job title of "engineering assistants."
The work performed by the "engineering assistants" sought by the
Council is very similar to work performed by other engineering as-
sistants, not sought by the Council, in a number of other locations.
Nor does the Council seek to include three engineering assistants who
assist in developing the coolant testing program carried out by the
"engineering assistants" whom the Council does seek. Also not in-
cluded in the Council's claim are other engineering assistants who
111.2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work on other components of the experimental facilities involved here
and in other reactors, or engineering assistants who assist engineers
in conducting analytical tests on metals. At the time of the hearing,
one engineering assistant from another section was temporarily as-
signed to the coolant testing facilities here involved.
No contention is made, and there is no evidence, that the 13
"engineering assistants" are a classification whose exclusion from the
unit is required by the Act. Under such circumstances, the issue is
whether the unit stipulation of the parties covered the unit place-
ment of these "engineering assistants." 8 The evidence shows that the
work performed by these "engineering assistants" is essentially the
same as that performed, at the time of the certification, by laboratory
assistants who by stipulation were excluded from the unit. Accord-
ingly, the "engineering assistants" here in question are excluded from
the certified unit. Contrary to the Council's contention, the fact that
the work of the "engineering assistants" now results in the produc-
tion of some plutonium has not effected such a change in their duties
that they now have an entirely different job which is a production job.
The operations and objectives of the "engineering assistants" remain
unchanged, and the plutonium which they now produce is merely inci-
dental to their still primary duty of conducting experiments 4
Furthermore, even assuming that the unit placement of the
"engineering assistants" were not covered by the stipulation, we would
nevertheless exclude them from the unit. The record shows that the
"engineering assistants" whose status is here at issue are essentially
technical employees.' Where, as here, any party makes a timely objec-
tion to the inclusion of such employees in a production and mainte-
nance unit, the Board will exclude them.' Furthermore, the record
shows that a number of other engineering assistants who are not
claimed by the Council are likewise technical employees, some of them
having duties almost indistinguishable from those performed by the
"engineering assistants" whose status is at issue here. The Board
will not include in any bargaining unit only a segment of the technical
employees in the operation 7
8 American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 117 NLRB 542.
4 The Council relies on the fact that the Board will include , in a production and main-
tenance unit , employees who physically build new models and parts being developed for
future production . J. I. Case Company, Bettendorf Works, 105 NLRB 638, 639, 640;
J. I. Case Company, 80 NLRB 223, 224. Neither of these cases involved the scope of a
stipulated unit. Furthermore , the production of such models and parts was the purpose
of the work performed by the employees there involved.
5 International Minerals & Chemical Corporation, 104 NLRB 1069, 11070; Monsanto
Chemical Company , 89 NLRB 1478, 1479-1481; Buckeye Oil Company, Chemical Pulp Di-
vision , 101 NLRB 30, 32; Swift & Company , Technical Products Plant, Hammond, Indiana,
98 NLRB 746, 747; Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, 115 NLRB 512, 513-514.
G American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 117 NLRB 542; Humble Oil and Refining
Company, 115 NLRB 1485, 1487; Indiana & Michigan Electric Company, 115 NLRB 512,
514.
7Solar Aircraft Company, 116 NLRB 200, 202 ; Kearney & Trecker Corporation, 114
NLRB 891, 892.
ITALIA SOCIETA PER AZIONI DI NAVIGAZIONE 1113
For the foregoing reasons, we find that the engineering assistants
and technical trainees working in buildings 1706 KE and 1706 KER,
100-K Area, in the Employer's Hanford Works, are not included in
the unit of which the Council is the certified collective-bargaining
representative .8
B The foregoing is not to be taken as a new certification.
Italia Societa per Azioni di Navigazione 1 and Steamship Office
Workers Union , Local 1809 , International Longshoremen's
Association , Independent , Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8849.
August 21, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. E. Knowlton, hearing
,officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board fords :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer corporation, known in this country as the Italian
Line, is engaged in the transportation of passengers and cargo between
the United States and various European ports. The Petitioner is
seeking to represent the office clerical employees at the Employer's
State Street office in New York and at pier 84 in the North River.
The parties disagree as to -the managerial or supervisory status of
certain employees.
The Employer's New York City operations are functionally divided
into such departments as purchasing, accounting, passenger , freight,
advertising, and claims. It also operates an office at pier 84 with
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
9 We find no merit in the Employer 's contention that the Petitioner is not a proper
bargaining agent because it is dominated by the parent union which represents longshore-
men. We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
seeking to represent separately the Employer's office clerical employees for purposes of
collective bargaining.
118 NLRB No. 158.