McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 21, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 689 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS CO.
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company-Western
Division, and the Douglas Aircraft Company,
Components of the McDonnell Douglas Corpora-
tion and Southern California Professional Engi-
neering Association , Inc., Petitioner. Case
21-UC-46
December 21, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On March 15, 1971, the Petitioner filed a petition to
clarify a bargaining unit currently recognized by
component companies of McDonnell Douglas
Corporation' by including employees doing scientific
programming and related work for McDonnell
Douglas Automation Company's western location. A
hearing was held on May 21, 1971, before Hearing
Officer Theodore B. Horn. The parties appeared and
participated at the hearing. On June 23 the Regional
Director for Region 21 issued an order transferring
the case to the Board. Briefs were filed by the
Employer and the Petitioner.
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 connection with 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 affirmed.
1 The contracting parties to the current agreement which runs from
November 25, 1968 , to November 14, 1971, are . "McDonnell Douglas
Astronautics Company-Western Division and Douglas Aircraft Compa-
ny, components of the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a Maryland
corporation with its principal place of business in St Louis , Missouri" and
the "Southern California Professional Engineering Association "
2 The contract specifically covers "professional engineers represented by
the Association" and the recognition clause, which appears immediately
after that statement reads
Section I-Employees Represented
The company recognizes the Association as the exclusive collective
bargaining agent for such of its employees as are now or hereafter
classified in the job classifications set forth in Appendix "A" attached
689
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds:
The existing contract unit is based upon a number
of Board certifications dating back to 1945.2 As
stipulated by parties, these "certifications certify only
employees in engineering departments, divisions and
subdivisions of the Company." However recognition
has also been extended by contract to functions not
within engineering departments.3 Also stipulated is
the fact that McDonnell Douglas Automation Com-
pany is a "new Company" of the McDonnell Douglas
Corporation, created to provide computer services to
commercial customers on a national scale, as well as
continuing to make its services available to all
components of McDonnell Douglas Corporation.
The McDonnell Douglas Automation
Company-herein referred to as MCAUTO-was
formed in November 1970 as a result of the merger of
McDonnell Automation Company (St. Louis, Mis-
souri), a company in existence since 1960, and the
computer service organizations of Douglas Aircraft
Company (Long Beach, California) and McDonnell
Douglas Astronautics Company (Huntington Beach
and Santa Monica, California). The latter two
components of McDonnell Douglas Corporation
have a history of collective bargaining with the
Petitioner dating back to 1945. MCAUTO, since
November 1970, is also a component of McDonnell
Douglas Corporation.
On or about December 28, 1970, MCAUTO was
staffed at its western location by more than 500
salaried employees from Douglas Aircraft Company
and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company.
One hundred fourteen of these employees were
represented by the Petitioner; 88 of these were
engaged in scientific programming work and were
transferred to the Scientific Programming branch of
MCAUTO. As a group the 114 previously represented
employees were transferred as follows:
hereto and made a part of this Agreement who are employed in the
following groups (i) those working in locations of the Douglas
Aircraft Company which previously constituted the Aircraft Division
of the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., (u) those working in locations
of the McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company-Western Division
which previously constituted the Missile and Space Systems Division
of the Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., (in) those working in the
Tulsa Division of the Douglas Aircraft Company
Appendix A reads as follows.
In addition , "Field" counterparts for most of these classifications are
listed.
3 Stipulations 3 and 6 of Joint Stipulations , Exhs . 1-33 Removal of
some employees from the unit occurred early in 1970 with respect to those
deemed to have acquired managerial functions Stipulation 32.
194 NLRB No. 116
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From To (,ICAUTO) :
4/
362 Computing Analyst 387 Technical Computing Analyst
363 Computing Engineer 388 Technical Computing Engineer
364 Computing Specialist 389 Technical Computing Specialist
715 Associate Engineer/
Scientist
386 Proudct Engineer-Associate
716 Engineer/Scientist 392 Product Engineer
719 Senior Engineer/
Scientist
377 Product Engineer Senior
The represented employees transferred from Doug-
las Aircraft Company were from its Scientific Pro-
gramming Branch and engineering department; those
from McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
were from its Information Systems Subdivision, also
known as Information Systems Division, and were
engaged in functions which were not within engineer-
ing departments. All were reclassified at MCAUTO
to nonrepresented classifications.5
At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss,
contending that the subject matter was inappropriate
for a UC petition. This motion was referred to the
Board. It also contended that the new classifications
are not covered by Appendix A of the current
agreement6 and belong to a "totally new and
independently operating company" not covered by
certification or agreement, hence "the Corporation
cannot recognize the Association as to this extension
to MCAUTO." In its brief the Employer has renewed
these positions, contending that the only proper
solution is a self-determination election in an
"appropriate unit within MCAUTO." 7,
Petitioner contends that the Employer has vacillat-
ed in its reasons for considering these employees
outside the bargaining unit: as due to their removal
from an engineering department, as due to their
reclassification in classifications not included in
Appendix A of the contract, and as due to their work
since transfer being for a new and different company.
Emphasizing that the reclassifications have entailed
4 Job code 387, "Technical Computing Analyst," was in existence before
these transfers "and populated within the Company" by employees not
represented by the Petitioner At the hearing the parties agreed, by
stipulation 34, that no other Union claims to represent the disputed
classifications
s The parties stipulated that all 114 so transferred were informed that
they would not be within a collective-bargaining unit , and that three
additional employees offered such transfer elected to remain "with the
Company in a represented status "
6 See quotation of Appendix A in fn 2, which confirms the fact that job
code 387 and the five new classifications do not appear in Appendix A
T MCAUTO has 1250 employees at the western location, including "427
nonrepresented salaried employees other than those at issue and their
supervision "
no change in work, location, or supervision-facts
which are also a matter of stipulation 8-Petitioner
seeks to prevent erosion of the bargaining unit by
"arbitrary" reclassification. It views as frivolous the
Employer's contention that accretion is the true
motive of Petitioner.
The problem here resolves itself into one of
organizational transfer of employees from existing
component companies of the basic McDonnell
Douglas Corporation-transfers apparent on paper
only-to job codes of obvious similarity in a "new"
component company, McDonnell Douglas Automa-
tion Company (MCAUTO). Actually the "new"
component is not functionally new, but only a
creature made up of existing scientific programming
facilities from two existing components, who have
long bargained with the Petitioner, and of the
scientific programming operations of McDonnell
Automation Company, a Missouri corporation in this
family of companies. Despite the complete operating
autonomy which each of these companies is said to
have,9 there is nothing on this record which in any
way suggests that the companies involved are not part
of an organization that is an integrated whole with
ultimate common control. In these circumstances the
transfer of employees between component compa-
nies, reflecting no change whatever in their work
location and admittedly no substantial change in their
supervision-certainly none that is ascertainable on
the record before us-cannot be viewed as effectively
8 The stipulations show that all but two transferees do the same work
for MCAUTO, with the only change in actual work of these two being that
they spend 5 to 10 percent of their time doing work for specific clients with
duties no different,-that no transferee has physically moved his place of
work since the transfer and that MCAUTO has no "tangible plans" to
move them or "to utilize or construct or lease or purchase" different
premises to house "the involved classifications", and that supervision of
scientific programmers at MCAUTO is substantially the same as it had
been.
9 The Employer contends that MCAUTO implements its own personnel
and labor relations policies and is a separate and distinct employer just as
Douglas Aircraft Company and McDonnell Douglas Astronautics
Company are each separate, distinct employers , but admits that MCAUTO
comes under the labor relations staff and policies of the Corporation with
respect to contracting for health and insurance benefits
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS ASTRONAUTICS CO.
removing the employees involved from the currently
recognized bargaining unit.10
Accordingly we deny the Employer's motion to
dismiss and shall clarify the currently recognized
bargaining unit by specifically including employees
transferred from job codes 362, 363, 364, 715, 716,
719, to MCAUTO job codes 387, 388, 389, 386, 392,
377.11
10 See S D Warren Company, 164 NLRB 489, where clarification was
granted though work location was changed General Electric Company, 170
NLRB 1272, cited by the Employer, involved employee mergers at a new
location, with major personnel changes as to office clerical employees and
conflicting union claims as to warehouse employees , hence elections were
directed Chrysler Corporation, 140 NLRB 1024, also cited by the
Employer, involved purchase of the automotive assets of Briggs, an
ORDER
691
It is hereby ordered that the currently recognized
bargaining unit be, and it hereby is, clarified by
specifically including in it the employees doing
scientific programming and related work who were
transferred on December 28, 1970 , to MCAUTO job
codes 387 , 388, 389 , 386, 392 , and 377.
apparently unrelated corporation, with an attempt-some 8 years and
several transfers of physical location later-to add a small group of clerical
employees to a technical unit of Chrysler solely on the ground that the
clericals in question had originally been represented as part of a unit of
engineering clericals at Briggs.
11 See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engmemen, 145 NLRB
1521, 1523.
Appendix A reads as follows:
CODE SALARY 40 HOURS
NO. CLASSIFICATION GRADE MIN. MAX.
715 Associate Engineer/ Scientist 2 624 980
362 Computing Analyst 1 551 948
363 Computing Engineer 4 675 1132
364 Computing Specialist 8 990 1513
258 Contract Specifications
Engineer 4 675 1132
904 Contract Specifications
Engineer---Senior 7 898 1418
260 Coordinator 5 727 1190
997 Customer Service Representative 1 551 948
996 Customer Service Representative
---Senior 7 898 1418
264 Development Liaison Engineer 6 793 1288
721 Engineering Drawings Checker 5 727 1190
706 Engineering Research Assistant
(Loc. A52 only ) 1 551 948
716 Engineer/ Scientist 5 727 1190
717 Engineer/ Scientist Specialist 8 990 1513
731 Flight Test Analyst 2 624 980
277 Flight Test Engineer 7 898 1418
995 Industrial Writer 2 624 980
903 Launch/Test Engineer 5 727 1190
902 Launch/Test Engineer--Senior 8 990 1513
284 Liaison Engineer 5 727 1190
718 Principal Engineer/Scientist non-
graded
1634 2338
368 Production Designer 5 727 1190
307 Project Coordinator (Dept.
C1--657 only) 9 1070 1603
993 Publications Editor 8 990 1513
719 Senior Engineer/Scientist 11 1339 1939
994 Staff Writer ' 5 727 1190
366 Tool Design Engineer (Dept.
C1--657 only) 3 639 1046
367 Tool Design Engineer--Senior
(Dept . C1--657 only) 5 727 1190
329 Weight Control Engineer 5 727 1190
In addition , "Field" counterparts for most of these classifi-
cations are listed.