Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 17, 1973

202 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lockheed Aircraft Corporation , for its division,
Lockheed-California Company and Engineers and
Scientists Guild-Lockheed Section, Petitioner.
Case 31-RC-2223
April 17, 1973
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND, MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On November 28, 1972, the Regional Director for
Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, wherein he
found, in accord with the Petitioner's alternative
request, that certain currently unrepresented nonpro-
fessional employees constituted a separate appropri-
ate unit and directed an election therein, rejecting its
primary request that a self-determination election be
held among such employees to ascertain their desires
with respect to inclusion in the Petitioner's existing
engineering unit comprised of both professional and
nonprofessional employees. Thereafter, in accord-
ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision on the
ground that he erred in his conclusion that a self-
determination election for the requested employees is
precluded by Section 9(b)(1) of the Act.
By telegraphic order dated January 18, 1973, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the Peti-
tioner's request for review and stayed the election
pending decision on review. Thereafter, the parties
filed briefs on review. The Petitioner also opposed
the Employer's brief on review, insofar as it requests
review of the Regional Director's finding that the
requested employees share a substantial community
of interest with employees in the existing engineering
unit on the ground that it is untimely.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs on review, and makes the
following findings:
The Petitioner seeks to represent salaried produci-
i From time to time , the composition of the certified engineering unit has
changed , either by agreement of the parties or as a result of Board action
See 72 NLRB 551; 155 NLRB 702, 703 and 713 Other cases resulting in
consent elections or unpublished Board- or Regional Director- directed
elections are referred to below
2 Sec 9(b)(1) provides in pertinent part that the Board "shall not decide"
that a combined unit of professional and nonprofessional employees is
bility cost coordinators, eight in number, and
salaried producibility cost analysts, five in number,
employed at the Employer's airplane and airplane
parts manufacturing facilities located in Los Angeles
County, California, particularly at Burbank and
Palmdale. The Petitioner is and has been, since its
certification in 1944, the representative of an engi-
neering unit, comprised of professional and nonpro-
fessional employees at these facilities.' Although the
parties stipulated that the requested employees
constitute an appropriate unit, the Petitioner seeks to
add them to its engineering unit through a self-
determination election. The Regional Director found
the analysts and coordinators involved not to be
professionals and, despite his finding that they share
a substantial community of interest with engineering
unit employees, he concluded that their addition to
that unit was precluded by Section 9(b)(1) of the
Act.2 The Petitioner contends that the Regional
Director's interpretation of 9(b)(1) is in error. We
agree.
The classifications of producibility cost coordina-
tor and analyst were created by the Employer in
1967. That the employees in these two classifications
share a substantial community of interest with
engineering unit employees, as found by the Region-
al Director, is amply supported by the record. And, if
it were not for the Petitioner's acquiescence in their
exclusion therefrom since 1967, we would find, on
the facts found by the Regional Director,3 that they
are accretions to the engineering unit and we would
grant a request to clarify the unit accordingly.4
However, in view of their exclusion from that unit
since 1967 and as the parties agree that the
coordinators and analysts involved share a commu-
nity of interest apart from any other unrepresented
employees, they may be added to the Petitioner's
engineering unit only through a self-determination
election, unless such an election is precluded by
Section 9(b)(1). Contrary to the Regional Director,
we find no statutory impediment to such an election.
We have held that Congress did not intend the
enactment of Section 9(b)(1) to render inappropriate
previously established units combining professional
and nonprofessional employees and that this section
does not bar parties to such an earlier established
relationship in such a unit from continuing to
maintain their bargaining relationship on the same
unit basis.5 And we said, in A. O. Smith, supra: "The
appropriate "unless a majqrity of such professional employees vote for
inclusion in such unit
3 The Regional Director's findings of fact with respect to the analysts
and coordinators are attached hereto as an appendix
4 See A 0 Smith Corporation, 166 NLRB 845
5 See Retail Clerks Union Local No 324, Retail Clerks International
Association, AFL-CIO (Vincent Drugs, No 3, Inc), 144 NLRB 1247,
202 NLRB No. 168
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1141
sole operative effect of 9(b)(1) is to preclude the
Board from taking any action that would create a
mixed unit of professionals and nonprofessionals
without first according the professionals involved the
opportunity of a self-determination election." [Fn.
omitted.] Here, we are being asked to ascertain the
desires of nonprofessionals for inclusion in a mixed
unit established prior to the enactment of 9(b)(1). In
doing so, we will not be taking action to create a
mixed unit. Contrary to , the contention of the
Employer in its brief on review, the addition of the
coordinators and analysts involved will not create a
mixed unit different in basic character from that
established by the contracting parties: Indeed, as
pointed out in the Petitioner's request for review,
self-determination elections have been held in the
past for certain groups of nonprofessional employees
to ascertain their desires as to inclusion in the
engineering unit represented by the Petitioners For
these reasons, we find that the requested self-deter-
mination election is proper herein.
We find, therefore, that the following employees
constitute an appropriate voting group:
All salaried producibility cost coordinators, code
#2434, and all salaried producibility cost ana-
lysts, code #2435, employed by the Employer in
Los Angeles County; excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in this voting group
vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desires to be included in the existing
engineering unit currently represented by the Peti-
tioner and the Regional Director will issue a
certification to that effect.7
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll
period for determining eligibility shall be that
immediately preceding the date below.8
International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (ITT Federal Federal
Laboratories), 159 NLRB 1757
6 In Case 31-RC-870, on August 9, 1968, the Regional Director for
Region 31 directed an election among salaried manufacturing planners and,
pursuant to the parties' stipulation, provision was made for their inclusion
in the engineering unit in the event a majority of them voted for the
Petitioner In June 1972, the Regional Director for Region 31 approved a
consent election among "salaried publications production analysts" to
determine their desires as to inclusion in the engineering unit and in
October 1972, he approved a similar consent self-determination election for
"editors, job code # 2475 "
7 Such certification shall not be construed as a recertification of the
Petitioner as majority representative of employees in the existing engineer-
ing unit
8 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
addresses 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
769 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a corrected 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 on Review. 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
extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed.
APPENDIX
There are five employees in the classification of
producibility cost coordinator-engineering, job code
#2434, and eight employees in the classification of
producibility cost analyst-engineering, job code
#2435. The duties of the producibility cost analyst
generally are to accumulate cost factors-as they
relate to engineering designs or revisions thereto-of
such elements as manufacturing costs, production
tool and tool design costs, materials and labor rates,
and to submit the results of these analyses in report
form for use by certain members of the engineering
department. In accumulating such data these ana-
lysts obtain cost figures through reference to an
engineering cost handbook, parts lists, time stand-
ards manuals, tool estimating and schedule manuals,
and other related sources. The duties of the produci-
bility cost coordinators generally are to "develop
parameters and premises for costing and engineering
design or redesign . . . [they] coordinate the activi-
ties of analysts . . . work on interface with other
organizations in obtaining cost data." In addition,
they plan the work load and assignments of assigned
employees in preparation of costing data; review in
detail and approve data for incorporation in the
engineering cost handbook, reports, analyses, and
correspondence so as to assure maintenance of
accuracy standards; and they guide and train
analysts to achieve maximum capability growth
within areas of assigned responsibility. Coordinators
obtain data for cost determination from operational
sheets, labor rates, and engineering cost handbooks.
Producibility cost analysts and coordinators work
with blueprints and engineering drawings. Sugges-
tions and recommendations to the analysts and
coordinators may result in a refinement of original
ideas submitted by engineers or in the deletion of
projects that are economically unfeasible.
While the work of the analysts and coordinators
does not require an engineering degree or profession-
al background, and none has a college degree in
engineering,, their employment records indicate that
they took courses sponsored by the Employer. Thus
three of the analysts took courses in value engineer-
ing, one analyst took courses in engineering, another
analyst took a course in human factors engineering,
one coordinator took a course in value engineering,
one coordinator took courses in value engineering
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and system engineering, another coordinator took
courses in value engineering and human factors
engineering, one other coordinator took courses in
value engineering drawing, and still another coordi-
nator took a course in engineering report writing.
Although 10 of the incumbents previously worked
in the cost estimator classification-a classification
the Employer contends the Board has excluded from
the engineering unit-the incumbents since 1967,
when their present classifications came into exist-
ence, have been utilized exclusively in the Employer's
engineering branch and now primarily perform their
work in engineering buildings. The Employer pres-
ently has approximately 90 employees in its estima-
tor classifications , which employees are assigned to
the financial operations branch, manufacturing
branch, quality assurance branch, and the material
branch; they perform no work in the engineering
branch.
The producibility and value engineers, who are
represented by Petitioner in the engineering unit,
perform functions involving the drafting boards,
examining and evaluating designs, and making
proposals for cost reduction and improvements in
designs. There is an apparent line of progression
from the classifications of producibility cost analyst
and producibility cost coordinator to engineering
classifications now represented by the Petitioner.
Thus, since about 1967 approximately I1 cost
analysts progressed to the position of producibility
and value engineer or other engineering positions.
Since 1968, two cost analysts and one cost coordina-
tor performed the work of producibility and value
engineer for periods of time between 9 months and 1
year. Furthermore, one of the present coordinators
and two of the present analysts were formerly
methods and time standards analysts, a classification
also represented by Petitioner in the engineering unit.
At the time of the hearing there were two
coordinators and five analysts who work with the
coordinators working on' the fourth floor of building
90 in Burbank on the L-1011 project. The immediate
supervisor is Jex Coons, a group engineer. Working
in the same room with the coordinators and analysts
and also under the immediate supervision of Coons
are approximately 13 producibility and value engi-
neers (more commonly referred to as PVE's) and two
lead-PVE's. Functionally, the PVE's submit requests
for cost analysis to the coordinators and analysts to
cost a particular design against a current design or an
alternate. On occasion the coordinators and analysts
have initiated requests for value analysis, but more
often the requests are initiated by the PVE's and the
design engineers. The request for cost analysis is then
returned to the PVE for approval before it is
released. In the performance of their work the
coordinators and analysts on this L-1011 project
spend approximately 25 percent of their time in
consultation with the PVE's.
Housed in Building 170 at Burbank , and working
on the S3A project, are one coordinator and three
analysts who work with the coordinator. Working in
the same room with them , and under the same
common supervision of Herman Barish , are six
PVE's. In addition , there are 11 reliability engineers,
who report to group supervisor Leo Pearlin; 14
maintainability engineers who report to group
engineer supervisor Si Seyler ; 2 human factors
engineers ; and 1 materials and processes engineer.
Located within the room which houses the coordina-
tor and analysts and engineers is the separate office
of F. A. Alonso, head of the system assurance
division , who has overall charge of, inter alia, the
PVE's, human factors engineers, reliability engineers,
maintainability engineers , and the incumbents. Sub-
ordinate to Alonso is William Richter , department
head of the design effectiveness department, to
whom supervisors Pearlin , Seyler , and Barish report.
In the same area , there are some thermal engineers
who have responsibility for the design and monitor-
ing of the environmental control system for the S3A
aircraft and there are also some propulsion engineers
whose function relates to engines and engine output.
All or substantially all of the engineering personnel
in this area are represented by the Petitioner in the
established engineering unit. r
On the ground floor of Building 63 at Burbank,
where work on the P3 aircraft project is being
performed , there is one coordinator who works under
the supervision of Stanley Shappell, a group supervi-
sor in the P3 design assurance group . Shappell also
supervises a senior associate engineer , who performs
producibihty functions; maintainability engineers;
and an electromagnetic interference engineer . Also in
this area are structures engineers, reliability engi-
neers, design engineers, and visual aids and commer-
cial artists . Functionally , the coordinator works in
association with the senior associate engineer , struc-
tures engineers , design engineers , reliability engi-
neers, and Group Engineer Shappell , and performs
all of the producibility cost analysis work for the
project and serves the costing needs of everyone on
the project. The coordinator spends about 85 percent
of his time at his desk where his greatest contact is
with engineering personnel and where he compiles
cost figures on various cost reports , obtaining cost
'information from ' an engineering cost handbook,
material catalogues , and operational sheets. In
addition, he spends about 10 hours or more a week
with various engineers on peripheral functions such
as cost reduction programs . The coordinator shares
the services of a typist with other engineering
LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 1143
personnel in his area . Substantially all of the
engineering personnel with whom the coordinator
works on this project , including the visual aids artist
and the commercial artists , are in the engineering
unit represented by Petitioner.
One other coordinator works in the science and
engineering department which is located in either
Building 80 or 85 at Burbank . While this coordinator
primarily performs his work at the Burbank facility,
he apparently performs some functions at the
Employer 's Rye Canyon facility where the supervisor
to whom he reports is located. Functionally, this
coordinator performs work of a nature similar to that
of the coordinator on the P3 project at Building 63.
The salaried coordinators and analysts and the
employees in the engineering unit , most of whom are
salaried , are covered by the same retirement plan,
medical and hospital program , and also use the same
parking areas, restrooms, and lunch facilities availa-
ble for substantially all the employees in their
respective buildings . Lunch hour schedules vary
according to the branch in which the employees
work; thus, the coordinator and analysts take their
lunch hour at the same time as other employees in
the engineering branch. The coordinators and ana-
lysts do not punch timecards, but, as do other
salaried employees, keep a record of their attendance
on salaried rollcards which are turned in weekly to
their supervisors.