Loral Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 20, 1972

200 N.L.R.B. 1019 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

LORAL ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS 1019
Loral Electronics Systems , a division of Loral Corpo-
ration i and Local 1922, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Cases
2-RC-15748,2-RC-15749, and 2-RC-15750
December 20, 1972
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section
9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Mary W Taylor of the National
Labor Relations Board Following the close of the
hearing the Regional Director for Region 2 trans-
ferred the case to the Board for decision Thereafter,
the Employer filed a brief 2
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 reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error They are hereby af-
firmed 3
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds
1 The Employer is a New York corporation
engaged in the manufacture of electronics systems
primarily related to national defense, pursuant to
contracts with the United States Government The
parties have stipulated, and we find, that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer 4
3 Questions affecting commerce exist concerning
the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
4 The appropriate units
i As amended at the hearing
2 International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers
AFL-CIO Professional Technical and Salaried Conference Board, was
permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest in
each of the requested units for the limited purpose of appearing on the
ballot in any elections directed herein
3 The Employers request for oral argument is hereby denied since the
record adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties
4 Petitioner declined to stipulate that Intervenor is a labor organization
within the meaning of Sec 2(5) of the Act However the record shows that
Intervenor meets the necessary statutory criteria since it is an affiliate of the
International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers AFL-CIO
and is composed of local unions representing nonproduction employees of
such employers as Sperry Rand
The Petitioner seeks to represent three separate
units comprised as follows (1) all professional
employees, (2) all technical and plant clerical
employees, and (3) all office clerical employees The
Employer, while having no objection to the establish-
ment of an office clerical unit, contends that it has no
unrepresented plant clerical employees It contends
further that notwithstanding Section 9(b)(1) of the
Acts a combined unit of professional and technical
employees is the only unit appropriate for collective
bargaining because engineers and technicians have a
community of interest and the professionals would
constitute a majority of such a combined unit
The Employer has about 750 employees, of whom
about 150 are engaged in production and mainte-
nance activities and are represented by International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO (IUE) About 125 other employees are
alleged by the Employer to be supervisors or to have
managerial status 6 The Employer has submitted
exhibits showing its remaining 484 employees (those
here involved) in three general listings headed
professional (196), technical (130), and clerical?
(158), identifying each employee and his classifica-
tion While the parties agree that a number of job
classifications are professional, technical, or office
clerical, they do not agree about numerous other
classifications hereinafter discussed, particularly
whether the disputed classifications belong in a
professional, technical, or office clencal unit Neither
does Petitioner agree that the job functions and
relative number of the Employer's professional and
technical employees require the establishment of a
combined professional and technical unit as the only
unit appropriate for collective bargaining, or present
a set of circumstances where such a unit can be
found appropriate without a self-determination
election for the professionals, in view of the provi-
sions of Section 9(b)(1) of the Act
At the hearing and in its brief the Employer urged
that two principal factors require a finding that the
combined engineer-technician unit is the only one
appropriate for collective bargaining First, the
Employer argues that the duties of its various
engineers and technicians are so similar and their job
5 In pertinent part Sec 9(b)(1) provides that the Board shall not
decide that any unit is appropnate for such [collective-bargaining I purposes
if such unit contains both professional employees and employees who are
not professional employees unless a majority of such professional employees
vote for inclusion in such unit
6 The Employer did not include the names or classifications of these
individuals on the lists of its professional and technical employees
introduced at the hearing but their status as supervisors or managerial
employees has not been questioned by Petitioner and it is clear from the
record that they manage administrative units of the Employer or bear prime
responsibility for programs or projects undertaken by the Employer
7 The Employer considers all these employees to be office clerical
employees contending that the plant clerical employees it has are in its
production and maintenance unit represented by the IUE
200 NLRB No 153
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
functions are so closely related by virtue of the
integrated nature of the Employer's operations that
only the combined unit can be found appropriate
Secondly, it urges that since engineers would out-
number technicians the professional status of the
former would not be placed in jeopardy by their
placement in the proposed combined unit without a
separate vote for inclusion therein In the Employer's
view this consideration justifies establishment of the
proposed engineer-technician unit, or at least does
not inhibit it
The record contains considerable evidence that the
Employer's professional engineers work closely with
highly skilled technicians on a wide variety of
projects and that the functioning of the former is
generally related to the work activities of the latter
But it does not, in our view, present a situation
permitting the Board to ignore the mandate of
Section 9(b)(1) as to the inclusion of professional
with nonprofessional employees in a single unit 8
Accordingly, we find that separate units of profes-
sional and technical employees are appropriate
We also find, in agreement with the parties, that a
separate unit of office clerical employees is appropri-
ate While those claimed to be plant clerical
employees by Petitioner and sought to be included in
the technical employees unit generally perform
duties which are closely related to its production and
manufacturing operations, such functions are invari-
ably performed in office areas and not in plant
locations where such operations are in process In
any event, these clerical employees have a closer
community of interest with office clerks than with
technical employees We therefore find that these
employees are office clericals and shall include them
in a separate office clerical unit
In evaluating testimony regarding the various
classifications of employees employed in the Em-
ployer's business, we have generally credited the
testimony of Mortimer Miller, the Employer's
personnel manager for about a year and a half, and
an executive with 13 years' experience principally
with job classification and job content problems in
electronics companies developing and manufacturing
military electronics systems for the United States
Government, and further a graduate of the School of
8 Boyd S Leedom v William Kyne President of Buffalo Section
Westinghouse Engineers Association Engineers and Scientists of America 358
U S 184
B We have discounted the importance of employees signing merit
reviews in determining supervisory status since the merit review process
has been utilized only sporadically in recent years according to Personnel
Manager Miller and such reviews have been signed not only by supervisors
but also by individuals with knowledge of the technical expertise of the
employee being reviewed Miller was twice asked whether such reviews were
significant as effective recommendations for or against promotion His first
reply was I wouldn t make any such statement In the period of time I
have been there (2 years ) we have had one review only and I don t know if
Industrial Relations at Cornell University Petitioner
presented certain testimony in this area by a
technical training coordinator and by a former
supervisor whose present classification he himself
was not certain While these employees have held a
number of positions with the Employer in recent
years, their testimony throughout indicates no
comprehensive understanding of the Employer's
classification system or the duties of the various
categories of employees Their testimony was also in
some measure based on casual observation or
contact with other employees and on hearsay 9
I PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
The parties are in dispute about whether a number
of classifications designate professional or technical
employees In addition, Petitioner contends that a
number of individuals within various classifications
are supervisors , managerial employees, or confiden-
tial employees who are to be excluded from any unit
The employees in issue are as follows
Manager of Human Factors
Petitioner contends that this position is a superviso-
ry or managerial one Henry Rock , the employee
currently serving in this classification , has a degree in
psychology His principal duty is to determine how
the various electronic systems can best be utilized
with a minimum of human stress The parties are in
dispute as to whether from time to time Rock is
assisted by other employees whom he responsibly
directs-at the time of the hearing he admittedly was
not exercising supervisory functions Petitioner did
not produce evidence that Rock in any manner
determines or effectuates the Employer 's business
policies We find that he is a professional employee
and not a supervisor or managerial employee and
shall include him in the professional unit
Chief Scientist
Petitioner contends that a chemist , William Miller,
who customarily renders assistance to the Employer's
engineering personnel , is a supervisor or a manageri-
al employee No adequate showing has been made,
however, that Miller determines the Employer's
business policies or that he exercises supervisory
functions We find that Miller is neither a supervisor
that review was indicative of anything that s going on And again The
only thing I can indicate is that when this review was done a year ago it was
an indication of the employees technical existence [sic ] by the person who
reviewed him I would not go further than that In the second quote the
word existence may represent an error by the reporter and possibly
should be read as expertise An overall appraisal of all testimony
regarding the merit review contention of Petitioner namely that it clearly
shows present supervisory status fails in a situation such as the present one,
where job assignments of engineers and technical employees are constantly
in flux and where the last meet review admittedly was made in April
1971
LORAL ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS 1021
nor a managerial employer We shall include him in
the professional unit
Manager Marketing, Manager Marketing Planning,
Manager Product Area, and Manager Product Market-
ing
The Employer contends that employees designated
by a variety of marketing titles are professional
employees, whereas Petitioner contends they are
managerial employees who should be excluded from
any unit Seven of the employees in question,
marketing managers, function as technical liaison
representatives dealing with military representatives
in Washington and other major cities concerning the
Employer's proposals and contracts Two other
employees, a manager of product marketing and a
manager of product areas, prepare technical data in
connection with bids and technically assist Engineer-
ing Division personnel working on bids The work of
the aforementioned representatives is coordinated by
a manager of marketing planning All of the
marketing representatives are responsible for their
activities to Watson, a vice president for business
development While the duties of the 10 marketing
representatives as a group require technical expertise,
their responsibilities do not require knowledge of an
advanced type ordinarily acquired by professional
personnel through a prolonged course of specialized
study in an institution of higher learning or through
experience equivalent to such study Further, the
record does not show that the duties of the various
marketing representatives are such that they deter-
mine or effectuate the Employer's business policies
We find that the employees in these marketing
classifications are technical and not professional
employees 10 We shall include them in the technical
unit
Senior Contract Administrators
The Employer contends that these employees are
professionals, the Petitioner asserts that they are
technical employees These employees negotiate the
terms of the Employer's contracts with military
departments and monitor the contracts for satisfacto-
ry performance They interpret contract terms as
necessary and control costs on contract components
within an overall contract price One administrator
has a degree in business administration, another has
a degree in law Although highly experienced, they
do not meet the statutory requirements for profes-
sional employees 11 We find that they are technical
employees and shall include them in the technical
employees' unit
Senior Estimator
Petitioner contends that senior estimators, who are
considered to be professional employees by the
Employer, are technical employees Petitioner further
contends that they should be excluded from any unit
as confidential employees The estimators, however,
do not deal with matters related to the labor relations
policies of the Employer Their duties consist largely
of the conceptual estimating of how a particular
project will be accomplished, the classifications of
workers who will be needed, the materials required,
and the time needed for completion They check cost
records from similar past projects, as well as data
from a variety of production sources We find that
the senior estimators are technical and not confiden-
tial employees We shall include them in the
technical employees unit
Methods Engineer, Senior Methods Engineer, Prod-
uction Engineer, Quality Assurance Engineer, Senior
Quality Assurance Engineer, Senior Test Engineer
The Petitioner does not agree with the Employer's
contention that employees in these classifications are
professional employees asserting that they are techni-
cal employees The quality assurance engineers and
senior quality assurance engineers work from and
interpret military specifications to determine the
quality criteria the Employer should establish 10
evaluate its manufacture of electronic components
and systems so as to achieve satisfactory contract
performance They determine inspection and sam-
pling procedures and conduct customer liaison
activities Most of the quality assurance engineers
and the senior test engineer do not have college
engineering degrees, although some of the group
have more than 10 years' experience in the electron-
ics industry and are able accurately to judge
manufacturing capabilities and methods from the
standpoint of achieving military contract compli-
ance Methods engineers, senior methods engineers,
and one production engineer have closely related
duties utilizing engineering designs to decide the
most efficient manufacturing procedures, the compo-
nents needed, and the production processes involved
They may change materials and tolerances if
necessary and determine appropriate manufacturing
sequences and man-hours needed to assure contract
performance While methods engineers are generally
highly experienced, none has an engineering degree
Although all of the aforementioned classifications of
employees exercise considerable technical expertise
in assisting the Employer to operate efficiently and
achieve timely contract performance, the character
of the work required of them as a group falls short of
that required of professional employees It does not
clearly require knowledge of an advanced type as
does that ordinarily performed by groups of employ-
ees with professional standing under Section 2(12) of
10 Kearney and Trecker Corporation 121 NLRB 817 818 Titeflex Inc
103 NLRB 223 224-225, Western Electric Company Incorporated 126
NLRB 1346 1348
11 Western Gear Corporation Heavy Machine Division 160 NLRB 272
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Act We find the quality assurance engineer,
senior quality assurance engineer, senior test engi-
neer , methods engineer , senior methods engineer,
and the production engineer to be technical employ-
ees 12 We shall include them in the unit of technical
employees We find no merit in Petitioner's conten-
tion that Feitel, a senior methods engineer, is a
supervisor in the Methods and Tooling Section, there
being no evidence that he has any authority to hire,
fire, or responsibly direct other employees in that
section We find him to be a nonsupervisory
employee
Principal Mechanical Engineer, Principal Electrical
Engineer, Senior Electrical Engineer, Senior Reliabili-
ty Engineer, and Electrical Staff Scientist
The parties agree that the classifications principal
mechanical engineer , principal electrical engineer,
senior electrical engineer, senior reliability engineer,
and electrical staff scientist designate professional
employees, and we so find However, Petitioner
contends that certain named individuals in the
engineer classifications 13 and the seven electrical
staff scientists 14 are supervisors or managerial
employees and therefore should be excluded from
the professional unit
The record shows that the Employer' s engineers
and technicians ordinarily are assigned to and
cooperate in informal team efforts, being reassigned
from time to time by project or program managers to
different undertakings depending upon their nature
and the particular talent and ability of the techni-
cians or engineers assigned In this team effort, basic
design and engineering is the engineer's responsibili-
ty while technicians assist by building subsystems or
units and testing them Further, the individuals
alleged to be supervisors or managerial employees
have the same classification and perform the same
duties as other employees in such classifications who
are conceded to be nonsupervisory and nonmanager-
ial professionals Finally, the record contains no
evidence that any of the named engineers or the
electrical staff scientists determine or effectuate the
Employer's business policies Actual project and day-
to-day supervision of the teams is provided by
project managers
Petitioner would also exclude George Rock from
the professional unit as a managerial employee or
salesman He is a principal electrical engineer who
has been engaged in the technological development
of a warning indicator system for commercial
aircraft in a small administrative unit of the
Employer which is now phased out He has no sales
duties but at present is trying to learn what interest
the Federal Aviation Agency and commercial carri-
ers have in the warning device
We find that none of those individuals is a
supervisor, a managerial employer, or a salesman
and shall include all in the unit of professionals
Senior Programmer, Electronic Data Processing Sys-
tems Analyst, Senior Electronic Data Processing
Systems Analyst, Systems Analyst, Senior Systems
Analyst, Analyst, and Associate Analyst
The parties agree that the data programming and
processing classifications shown immediately above
designate professional employees However, Petition-
er contends that employees in these classifications
are either not employees of the Employer because
they are employed by a separate legal entity, IAC, or,
if they are employees, that they serve the Employer
in a confidential capacity and thus should be
excluded from the professional unit The record
shows that some of the data programmers and
processors mentioned above were employed prior to
1971 by IAC, but that this legal entity was in that
year acquired by the Employer There is no evidence
that employees in any of the aforementioned
classifications deal in any manner with matters
pertaining to the labor policies of the Employer We
therefore find that none of the employees in the
above data programming and processing classifica-
tions are confidential employees Further, we find
them to be employees of the Employer herein
Accordingly, we shall include them in the profession-
al unit
Industrial Nurse
Petitioner would exclude from the professional unit
an industrial nurse on the ground that her interests
are dissimilar from those of the engineers who will
compromise virtually the entire unit The Employer
would include her We find merit in the Petitioner's
contention and shall exclude the industrial nurse
from the professional unit since her interests are
diverse from those of the other professional employ-
ees in that unit 15
II TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES
Associate Electrical Engineer
Petitioner, while agreeing with the Employer that
the associate electrical engineering classification
designates technical employees, contends that the
following employees in that category are actually
professional employees
12 Chrysler Corporation-Space Division Michoud Operations 154 NLRB Reliability Engineer Ronald Nacht
352 14 Electrical staff scientists are among the Employer s top management13 Principal Mechanical Engineer Martin Swickle, Principal Electrical talent
Engineers Moms Cohen Ernest Hartog Alfred Baker Melvin Feller and 15 Westinghouse Electrical Corporation (Elevator Division) 112 NLRB
Donald Lee Senior Electrical Engineer Franklin Merkler and Senior 590 592 Standard Oil Company 107 NLRB 1524, 1528
LORAL ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS
The first, Peter Dignazio, is attending engineering
school but has not as yet earned his engineering
degree Working as a technician he does some
routine designing on a team comprised of engineers
and technicians He has been employed about 4
years and, so far as the record shows, lacks any
extensive engineering experience which would be the
equivalent of a professional degree We find Dignazio
to be a technical and not a professional employee
Edward Yambo also has limited practical engineer-
ing experience However, he has earned his engineer-
ing degree and is currently employed on a project
with responsibility for engineering design work
Under the Employer's system of project and program
supervision it is clear that his engineering duties are
being performed under professional direction Con-
sidering the definition of a professional employee
contained in Section 2(12) of the Act, particularly
Section 2(12)(b), we find Yambo to be a professional
engineer 16 We shall include him in the professional
unit
Hector Miranda's situation is similar to Yambo's
except that at the time of the hearing he had not
earned his professional engineering degree He does
minor design work on two electronic systems We
find him to be a technical employee 17
Electrical Technicians
Petitioner contends that Gary Barbieri, an electri-
cal technician who is attending school and hopes to
earn an engineering degree this year, is a professional
employee Barbieri's regular duties are to assist
professional engineers in building, testing, and
evaluating electronic circuitry, work ordinarily per-
formed by technicians He has, however, also
performed design work on one engineering project
We find Barbieri to be a technical employee
Associate Mechanical Engineer
Petitioner contends that Michael Scott, an associ-
ate mechanical engineer classified by the Employer
as a technical employee, is actually a professional
employee Although Scott has a degree in mechanical
engineering, he was hired as a stock clerk and
performed in that capacity for 6 to 8 months At the
present time he is working in the mechanical
engineering section conducting thermal tests and
making some statistical analyses of thermal prob-
lems This work does not require professional
is The term professional employee means-
(a) any employee engaged in work (i) predominantly intellectual
and varied in character as opposed to routine mental manual
mechanical or physical work (u) involving the consistent exercise of
discretion and judgment in its performance (iii) of such a character
that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be
standardized in relation to a given period of time (iv) requiring
knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning
customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual
instruction and study in an institution of higher learning or a hospital
as distinguished from a general academic education or from an
1023
training As it is not clear that Scott's present duties
are being performed under the supervision of a
professional person in order that he may qualify
himself to become a professional employee, we find
that he is not a professional employee We shall
include him in the unit of technical employees
Spare Parts Administrator and Assistant Test Mainte-
nance Foreman
The parties do not agree whether Spare Parts
Administrator Marchisotto and Assistant Test Main-
tenance Foreman Victor Cuti are supervisors Peti-
tioner contends that they are, the employer that they
are not supervisors Marchisotto's principal responsi-
bility is to prepare lists of replacement parts so that
they will be available to a customer once its contract
has been completed He is assisted in this endeavor
by one other employee, Applebloom However, the
record does not show that Marchisotto has any
supervisory authority with respect to Applebloom
Further, it is evident that Marchisotto and Apple-
bloom are the only employees in the Spare Parts
Department except for a clerk-typist whose services
are shared with another department All three of
these employees are in fact subject to supervision by
Waldenberg, the Parts Department head We find
that Marchisotto is not a supervisor and include him
in the technical employees' unit
Assistant Test Maintenance Foreman Cuti repairs
and maintains test equipment together with several
other test maintenance technicians in the Test
Maintenance Department, under Ramsey, the de-
partment head who has supervisory authority Cuti
spends almost his entire day actually working as a
technician, although he admittedly transmits some
instructions to two or three other technicians He
punches a timeclock and is paid on an hourly basis
like other technicians We find that Cuti is not a
supervisor and include him in the technical employ-
ees' unit
III CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
Petitioner contends that the following classifica-
tions, considered office clerical by the Employer, are
plant clerical or technical employees
Cost Schedule Administrator
Employees in this classification are in the Financial
Management Division and have an office in the
apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental
manual or physical processes or
(b) any employee who (i) has completed the courses of specialized
intellectual instruction and study described in clause (iv) of paragraph
(a) and (u) is performing related work under the supervision of a
professional person to qualify himself to become a professional
employee as defined in paragraph (a)
17 In the event that Miranda has earned his engineering degree he may
now be a professional employee if he satisfies the other requirements of Sec
2(12) of the Act
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engineering building They obtain information from
engineers and manufacturing managers to determine
time schedules, manpower needs, and project costs,
monitoring particular projects to maintain adequate
progress They utilize planning and arithmetical skills
but do not go into the plant
Production Control Coordinator
These employees monitor the planning of work in
both the Operations and Engineering Departments
Utilizing information received from leadmen and
scheduling charts, they keep track of progress on
various aspects of projects and make reports to the
department heads They do not go into plant areas
and are not required to have technical training
Material Clerks
In both the Operations and Engineering Depart-
ment material clerks post data cards showing the
inflow of material arriving at the receiving depart-
ment, and keep track of material as it moves through
the plant
Shipment Control Clerk
A shipment control clerk works as a clerk-typist for
the Material Handling supervisor in an office in the
operations building
Spare Parts Lister
This employee maintains records of parts available
for systems and components in a Business Develop-
ment Division office
Tool Room Clerk
One clerk maintains records of tools used by
employees in an office located off of the production
floor
General Clerk
These employees perform filing and other clerical
duties in office areas for a number of departments
Internal Expediter
These employees work in the Material Control
department keeping track of purchase orders for
material planners, and making sure that orders for
material reach the receiving department and are
properly routed in the plant
Technical Typist
These employees type material for engineers and
quality assurance personnel which is more complex
than that prepared by other typists They have the
same pay scale as other typists and work not in plant
areas but in offices
Employees in all the aforementioned clerical and
typing classifications work in office areas and not in
production or plant locations, although many of the
records they correlate and maintain pertain to
engineering and production activity and progress
We find that the categories of cost schedule adminis-
trator, production control coordinator, material
clerk, shipment control clerk, toolroom clerk, general
clerk, spare parts lister, internal expediter, and
technical typist are office clerical and not plant
clerical or technical employees
Cost Accountant, Junior Accountant, Accountant
Junior, and Cost Accountant Junior
Petitioner speculates that the above classifications
may be professional, supervisory, or managerial The
employees involved work in the Financial Manage-
ment Division under the direction of managers of
general accounting or cost and schedule administra-
tion They perform a routine function, using compu-
terized data from timecards (reflecting the time
charged to particular jobs) to compute dollar cost per
hour and material costs Senior members in the
various categories do not direct others performing
similar work Nor do any of the employees in the
above categories determine or effectuate the Employ-
er's business policies We find that none of the above
classifications is supervisory, managerial, or profes-
sional 18 We shall include these employees in the
office clerical unit
Engineering Administrator
Petitioner would exclude this category as supervi-
sory or managerial Employees in this group are
assigned to work on various engineering projects by
the engineering program manager, their responsibili-
ty being largely to keep accurate records and monitor
schedules, and to ascertain that time is correctly
charged to each task performed When there is a
discrepancy between time expended and job prog-
ress, however, responsibility for taking action rests
with the manager We find that the engineering
administrators are neither supervisors nor manageri-
al employees
Junior Contract Administrator and Contract Coordina-
tor
These categories work with senior contract admin-
istrators Petitioner would exclude them as supervi-
sors, confidential, or managerial employees The
junior contract administrators have authority to
negotiate and sign minor contracts within narrow
limitations established by assistant managers in the
Contract Department Contract coordinators gather
information from applicable government and com-
pany regulations in order to assist senior contract
administrators None of the employees in either
category determines the Employer's labor relations
or general business policies We find that the junior
contract administrators and contractor coordinators
are not supervisors, managerial, or confidential
employees We shall include them in the office
clerical unit
18 Western Gear Corporation Heavy Machine Division 160 NLRB 272
274
LORAL ELECTRONICS SYSTEMS 1025
Material Planner
Petitioner contends that three material planners are
technical employees and that one of the three,
Flannenbaum, is also a supervisor Material planners
determine the kind and amount of material needed
to perform jobs, make out purchase requisitions, get
the material purchased, and see that it is available
when needed They do this from preconceived
schedules and have no discretion They do not need
very much technical training Flannzenbaum's duties
and responsibilities are essentially the same as those
of the other material planners We find that all of the
material planners are office clerical and not technical
employees We further find that Flannzenbaum is
not a supervisor We shall include them in the office
clerical unit
Petitioner contends that office clerical employees
discussed below are supervisors on the basis of their
present duties, although the classifications in which
they serve are not in dispute Keypunch Supervisor
Zagarow, employed in the data processing depart-
ment, has sometimes been called upon to evaluate
the proficiency of nine other keypunch operators, but
she has not made effective recommendations affect-
ing their status Publications Typist Supervisor Gold-
stein works with about 12 technical writers and artists
in the Engineering Service Department under one
supervisor She distributes work to two other employ-
ees and occasionally evaluates their work but does
not make effective recommendations concerning
them Purchasing Records Supervisor Ebert and four
other employees type and maintain purchase orders
under the direction of the Supervisor of Material
Planning, Lee Brown While Ebert sometimes distrib-
utes work to other employees, she has no authority to
hire, fire, or recommend actions with respect to other
employees Print Room Supervisors Blaustem and
Sokoloff work as the senior employees in the print
room which is under the Personnel Department The
print room is under the close supervision of Stammel,
assistant to the personnel manager, who, rather than
either of the print room "supervisors," supervises the
print room employees Property Administrator Mon-
talvo keeps track of all government property used by
the Employer However, he does not work with or
direct other employees We find that none of the
aforementioned individuals are supervisors within
the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act
Petitioner contends that the senior switchboard
operator, Julia Foulks, is a supervisor She has
authority to establish work schedules for and
evaluate the work of three other operators and has
submitted effective recommendations in the past
regarding discharges We find that Foulks is a
supervisor We shall exclude her from the office
clerical unit
Finally, Petitioner claims that two typists in the
personnel department, Edna Plappert and Loraine
Jones, should be excluded from the office clerical
unit as confidential employees No showing has been
made, however, that these typists prepare material
concerning or have access to information about the
Employer's basic labor relations policy Accordingly,
we find Plappert and Jones are not confidential
employees and shall include them in the office
clerical unit
In accordance with our findings herein we shall
direct separate elections in the units of professional,
technical, and office clerical employees set forth
below, each of which we find constitutes a separate
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the
Act
Unit A
All professional employees employed by the
Employer at its plant located at 825 Bronx River
Avenue, Bronx, New York, including all classifica-
tions listed on Schedule A attached hereto, but
excluding all other employees, guards, and supervi-
sors within the meaning of the Act
Unit B
All technical employees employed by the Employer
at its plant located at 825 Bronx River Avenue,
Bronx, New York, including all classifications listed
on Schedule B attached hereto, but excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors within the
meaning of the Act
Unit C
All office clerical employees employed by the
Employer at its plant located at 825 Bronx River
Avenue, Bronx, New York, including all classifica-
tions listed on Schedule C attached hereto, but
excluding all other employees, guards, and supervi-
sors within the meaning of the Act
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication ]
SCHEDULE A
Professional Unit
Manager of Human Factors, Principal Mechanical
Engineer, Principal Electrical Engineer, Chief Scien-
tist, Electrical Engineer, Senior Electrical Engineer,
Electrical Staff Scientist, Senior Mechanical Engi-
neer, Reliability Engineer, Senior Reliability Engi-
neer, Principal Reliability Engineer, Senior Mechan-
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ical Design Engineer , Senior Programmer, EDP
Systems Analyst, Senior EDP Systems Analyst,
Associate Analyst, Analyst, Systems Analyst, Senior
Systems Analyst,
SCHEDULE B
Technical Unit
Assistant Test Maintenance Foreman, Assistant
Drafting Supervisor, Associate Electrical Engineer,
Associate Mechanical Engineer, Field Engineer,
Senior Field Engineer, Spare Parts Administrator,
Plant Engineering Coordinator, Technical Training
Coordinator, Mechanical Vendor Analyst, Senior
Technical Writer, Technical Writer, Senior Techni-
cal Illustrator, Quality Assurance Technician,
Draftsman, Senior Draftsman, Draftsman Layout,
Photographer, Reliability Technician Specialist,
Printing Offset Operator, Printing Supervisor, Com-
puter Operator, Electrical Technician, Electrical
Technician, Senior, Electrical Technician, Specialist,
Mechanical Technician, Mechanical Technician,
Specialist, Micromm Technician, Associate, Proto-
type Technician, Senior Prototype Technician,
Prototype Technician, Specialist, Test Maintenance
Technician, Senior Test Maintenance Technician,
Assistant Test Maintenance Foreman, Quality As-
surance Engineer, Quality Assurance Technician,
Senior Quality Assurance Engineer, Senior Test
Engineer, Methods Engineer, Senior Methods Engi-
neer, Production Engineer, Senior Estimator, Senior
Contract Administrator, Manager-Marketing,
Manager-Marketing Planning, Manager-Product
Area, Manager-Product Marketing
SCHEDULE C
The Office Clerical Unit
Property Administrator, Cost Schedule Administra-
tor, Senior Cost Schedule Administrator, Junior
Contracts Administrator, Contracts Coordinator,
Small Order Estimator, Engineering Administrator,
Buyer-Electrical, Buyer-Electrical, Senior, Buy-
er-Mechanical, Buyer-Mechanical, Senior, Buy-
er-Tools and Equipment, Switchboard Operator,
Flexowriter Operator, NCR Operator, Keypunch
Operator, Senior, Keypunch, Supervisor, Accounts
Payable Clerk, Accounting Clerk, Cost Accounting
Clerk, Petty Cashier, Payroll Clerk/Timekeeper,
Assistant Bookkeeper, Cost Accountant, Junior
Accountant, Account Junior, Cost Accountant
Junior, Typist Clerk, Publications Typist, Publica-
tions Typist Supervisor, Technician Typist, Secre-
tary, Purchasing Records Clerks, Senior, Purchasing
Records Supervisor, Print Room Clerk, Print Room
Supervisor, Mail Clerk, Statistical Clerk, Vendor
Expeditor, Production Control Coordinator, Prod-
uction Control Planner-Scheduler, Material Planner,
Senior Production Control Clerk, Material Clerk,
Senior Material Clerk, Shipment Control Clerk
Senior, General Clerk, Tool Room Clerk, Spare
Parts Lister, Internal Expediter, Reservations Clerk-
Receptionist, Junior Estimator