General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1233 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

qE^T4L ELECTRIC COMPANY
MEiXBER JFSVKIxS , dissenting in part:
1233
Although I concur in the result reached by my colleagues, I would
dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is inappro-
priate!* For the reasons stated in my dissent in Ives Virginia Pulp
and Papar Company, 118 NLRB 1595, I would refuse to, find as a bar
the contract of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, which is
not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act
so On the basis of the facts stated in the majority opinion, it is clear that an appropriate
unit of truckdrivers in this plant would consist of both over-the-road and local drivers,
in view of their frequent interchange and their common functions , supervision , employee
benefits„ seniority,- and method of payment . General F., leotric Company, Aircraft Gas
T,uL?-Fiine Di$ ten 116 NLIiB 1,396
General Electric ,,Company, Petitioner qnd American Federation
of Technical Engineers , AFL-,IQ, Local 142. Case No. 5 RM-
136. January 2,1958
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On July 19, 1950, after an election conducted pursuant to a Decision
and Direction of Election,' the Board issued a Supplemental De-
cision, Certification of Representatives and Order in the above-entitled
proceeding; in which International Federation of Technical Engi-
neers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, AFL, the predecessor to
the Union named in the caption above,2 was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative- of the following employees :
All draftsmen, draftsmen apprentices, designers, detailers, tracers,
and trainees at the West Lynn apparatus department plants of
General Electric Company, 40 Federal Street, West Lynn, Massa-
chusetts, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended.
On February 26, 1957, the Union requested the Board to clarify
its certification by finding that the classification of engineering de-
signers was included within the certified unit. On March 22, 1957,
the Board notified the parties to show cause why the request should
not 'be granted, and on April 11, 1957, the Employer filed a "Re-
sponse" thereto, contending that the Union's request for clarification
should be dismissed. On May 7, 1957, the Board remanded the
matter to the Regional Director for the First Region for the purpose
of receiving evidence on the issues involved, and pursuant thereto,
a hearing was held on June 10 and 12, 1957, before Robert S. Fuchs,
89 NLRB 726 , 734 (voting group 17).
2 On July 22 , 1953, the Board amended the Certification of Representatives to show
Local 142 , American Federation of Technical Engineers , as the certified bargaining
representative.
119 NL]tB No. 146.
476321-58-vol. 119-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR.- RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings ` made at the hearing
are. rfree from prejudicial error ,and are hereby affirmed.'.
;:Upon:the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
'There are approximately 95 employees presently in, the certified
bargaining 'unit, classified as designers 1, 2, and 3; detailers 1, 2,
and 3 ;. draftsmen, apprentices, trainees, and tracers, all of whom
do sketching and drafting work of. varying degrees of complexity
and responsibility. The classification of engineering designer was
established in 1946 with the transfer of two designers 1. It now.
includes 2 additional individuals who were 'transferred' from the
designer 1 classification in August 1956. Engineering designers are
part of the Employer's administrative organization of drafting per-
sonnel, and are supervised by the sane individuals responsible for
the employees in the certified unit. The projects to which the engi-
neering designers, as well as designers 1, 2, and 3 are assigned originate
in various advance engineering units of the West Lynn plant. Ideas
for new products, and services are proposed by engineers who are
admittedly professional employees. By verbal instruction or through
rough sketches the engineers pass them on to the designers. for
development and drafting.
.Between 1934 and 1946 all employees engaged in designing and
drafting, except professional employees, were included within the
production and maintenance unit which was then represented by
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, referred
to herein as UE. In 1946, just prior to a strike called by UE, the
Employer established the engineering designer classification and
thereafter, so long as UE remained the representative for the produc-
tion and maintenance unit, this classification was not included in the
drafting supplement to the bargaining contract.
In 1950, the predecessor of the American Federation of Technical
Engineers was granted a severance election for the unit of draftsmen
described above. No reference to the existence of any designers not
included in the production and maintenance unit was made at the
1950 hearing, nor did the Board elucidate, in its Decision and Direc-
tion of Election, whether the term "designer" was to be limited to the
8 The hearing officer refused to admit into evidence a document prepared by a company
official summarizing the results of a meeting held shortly before the 1950 election between
company and union officials and a Board representative regarding eligibility lists of
voters which had been prepared by the Company . Lists of those employees considered by
the Employer to be eligible and noneligible to vote in the severance election for the
draftsman 's unit were introduced into evidence at this hearing , and one of the officials
who helped prepare these lists testified that they had been available for inspection by all
the participating unions. As the evidence thus introduced at the hearing confirmed the
Employer 's contention that the Union involved herein could have checked the eligibility
lists had it so desired , we find that the proposed exhibit was cumulative and was properly
rejected by the hearing officer.
' 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 Bean and Jenkins].
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1235
designer classifications then within the production and maintenance
unit. The names of the engineering designers appeared on a, list of
employees prepared by the Employer as not eligible to vote. This
list was made available to the Union. Between 1950 and 1954 there
appears to have been some informal discussions between the Union
and the Employer on the status of the engineering designers, but
none of the contracts entered into during that period -referred to
them. In all such contracts, however, specific rates were established
for designers 1, 2, and 3.
In 1954, the Union filed a grievance with the Employer protesting
the assignment to the engineering designers of work which the Union
alleged had previously been done by employees within its bargaining
unit. Although the record does not show how the grievance was
finally settled it is clear that no change in the status of the engineering
designers was made. In negotiating new contracts in 1954 and 1955,
the Union contended that the engineering designers should be included
within its unit, but eventually withdrew its request upon the
Employer's insistence that they were not properly part of the unit.
The Union concedes that the engineering designers are more skilled
than the most skilled classification within the unit, that of designer 1,
and are therefore generally assigned to the most difficult development
and designing problems. However, the range of skills of these 2
classifications are sufficiently broad and overlapping so that when the
workload requires, a project which would normally be assigned to 1
classification can readily be assigned to the other. There is no differ-
ence in the educational qualifications for engineering designers and
other designers, although 3 of the 4 present engineering designers are
qualified as registered engineers under Massachusetts law.
The Employer contends that the engineering designers are profes-
sional employees as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act because their
work is primarily creative. In view of the disposition below, we do
not find it necessary to decide this question.
There have been no significant changes in the duties, responsibilities,
or working conditions of engineering designers since the classifica-
tion was established 11 years ago. During that period, furthermore,
there was a Board-conducted election in which the status of engineer-
ing designers could have been finally determined. Whether the term
"designers" used in the certification was meant to include "engineering
designers" must be decided not as an abstract problem of definition,
but in the context of what the Board and parties understood was to be
included therein at the time of the 1950 hearing. We note that there
was no dispute at that time as to the job classifications to be included
in a drafting and designing unit, but only as to whether such a unit
was severable from a production and maintenance unit. There seems
to have been implicit agreement on the part of all the unions involved
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the original hearing that a designing and drafting unit, if severable
at all, would consist only of those classifications covered by the exist-
ing contract between UE and the Employer. As the engineering de-
signers were then excluded from the coverage of the contract in force
during 1950, and as the Employer did not in any way conceal the
existence of that job classification, we believe that the Union's failure
to raise any issue as to the status of engineering designers was no
oversight but was rather a deliberate choice on its part to continue the
existing arrangement under which engineering designers were ex-
cluded from the unit. That such was the Union's understanding at
the date of the 1950 election is further indicated by its subsequent
failure to question the exclusion of the engineering designers from its
bargaining unit until the negotiations over the 1954 contract. We
regard, moreover, as significant in determining what the Union con-
sidered the scope of its' certification that as late as 1954, the Union's
grievance over certain work assignments to the engineering designers
was not based on any contention that the engineering designers were
covered by the certification, but only that the Company was trans-
ferring work which had formerly been assigned to its members to
employees who were outside the unit.
We conclude that the engineering designers have been excluded
from the unit which the Union and its predecessor have represented
since 1950. Accordingly, a motion for clarification of the certification
is not the proper method for adding the excluded classification to the
existing unit. Instead, the Union should have filed a representation
petition seeking an election among the engineering designers to deter-
mine whether they desire to be added to the present unit of drafts-
men 5 We shall therefore dismiss the Union's request for clarification
of the certification.
[The Board denied the request of American Federation of Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 142, for clarification of its certification.]
6 General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motors Division, etc., 117 NLRB 750.
Kennametal , Inc. and International Union , United Automobile,
Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
(UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 6-RC-1931. January 3,
1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Board Decision and Direction of Election 1 an election
by secret ballot was conducted on July 24, 1957, under the direction
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
119 NLRB No. 148.