Monsanto Research Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 137 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP
Monsanto Research Corporation , Mound Laboratory
and International Union of Electrical Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC and its Local
682, Petitioners . Case 9-RC-8402
August 26, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer William C.
Mittendorf. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.'
'At the hearing the Employer moved that the record not be closed
until such time as the Employer's counsel could obtain security clearance
so he could examine certain classified work done by the employees
in the proposed unit We are, however, of the opinion that the unclassified
record as well as the briefs submitted by the parties present sufficient
information about the nature of the employees' work to allow us to
make a determination as to the propriety of the unit sought by the
Petitioner Accordingly, we deny the motion
The Employer also moved to correct the transcript That portion
of the transcript at which the change is proposed is not relied on in
making our present determination of the appropriate unit Accordingly,
we deny the Employer's motion
3 The Employer concedes that the international Union of Electrical,
Radio, and Machine Workers is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act but challenges whether Local 682 is a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act The record discloses that Local 682
was chartered by the International Union for the purpose of only represent-
ing employees of this Employer The present members of Local 682
are not dues-paying members since there is no existing collective-bargaining
agreement with this Employer The members are internally governed
by a model constitution supplied by the International and at some later
date the membership will vote on adopting the Local's own constitution
Although meetings are not, as yet, held on a regularly scheduled basis
the Local Union has held several meetings
We find that Local Union 682 of the international Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers is a labor organization within the meaning
137
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer with-
in the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.'
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machine shop
employees employed ?+ the Employer's Miamisburgh,
Ohio plant, but excluding all office clerical employees,
technical employees with diverse Interectc, ' mployees
represented by Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, and professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the
Act. The Employer takes the position that the request-
ed unit is not appropriate on either a craft or depart-
mental basis and is inappropirate as a residual unit
in that the petitioned-for unit does not contain all
the unrepresented employees. The Employer argues
that the machine shop employees do not perform
all of the machining operations at the Employer's
facility and any appropriate unit should include all
of the employees who perform similar work. Further-
more, according to the Employer, the machine shop
employees are not a homogeneous group and their
background, training, type of work, supervision, and
working conditions vary.
The Employer's Mound Laboratory facility consists
of numerous structures located on a 182-acre site
owned by the United States Government. Monsanto
Research Corporation operates the facility under a
contract with the Atomic Energy Commission where-
by it agrees to provide the personnel, management,
and technical skills necessary to achieve the objectives
of the Atomic Energy Commission. Essentially, all
of the activities of the laboratory are directed towards
the defense effort. The laboratory's main function
is to perform research and development work; howev-
er, it also performs a certain amount of production
work for other similar laboratory facilities, such as
Los Alamos Laboratory, and other atomic energy
contractors.
The total work force at the laboratory consists
of approximately 1,800 employees, all of whom are
cleared, for security purposes, through the Atomic
Energy Commission and receive what is known as
a "Q" clearance. A number of these employees are
represented by unions. The Employer presently has
two collective-bargaining agreements. One is with the
of the Act The objectives of the Local Union are the same as the
chartering international, which the Employer has conceded is a labor
organization Further there is evidence in the record to show that the
Local Union has actually begun to function, i e , holding union meetings
' The Employer questioned the adequacy of the showing of interest
The sufficiency of a petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative
matter not subject to litigation OD Jennings and Company, 68 NLRB
516 We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of
interest is adequate
185 NLRB No. 17
138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the OCA-
WU, covering 570 hourly paid employees in a produc-
tion and maintenance unit. The other agreement is
with the United Plant Guard Workers Union covering
the 50 guards at the laboratory. The balance of the
employees, or approximately 1,280, 300 of whom
are supervisors, are all salaried employees and consist
of machine shop employees, technicians, chemists,
mathematicians, physicists, and degree people in all
branches of physical and organic chemistry, as well
as technical degree people in all fields of the physical
sciences.
These employees work in five different departments
at the laboratory: nuclear, explosives, engineering,
administration, and quality and reliability control.
The nuclear and explosives departments are the two
primary operating departments. Nuclear is concerned
primarily with the handling of radioisotopes used
both in weapons and nonweapons work. There are
approximately 300 employees in nuclear operations,
of which total there are 5 hourly paid employees
represented by the OCAWU. All remaining employees
are salaried. The explosives department is concerned
primarily with the development of explosive devices
using radioactive and nonradioactive explosive
sources. There are approximately 539 employees in
the Explosives department, of which 185 are hourly
and the remainder salaried.
The machine shop, the employees of which comprise
the unit requested by the Petitioner, provides to the
two above-mentioned operating departments (nuclear
and explosives) certain services as will be set forth
below. There are approximately 65 employees who
work under the overall supervision of Paul Kleine,
the machine shop superintendent. Under Kleine, there
are six other admitted supervisors: Robert Ackley,
Chester Small, Richard Cooper, Carl Shawhan, Dean
Good, and Tom McCormick. The employees in the
unit, who work under these six supervisors are classi-
fied as modelmakers, precision machinists, machnists,
gage room employees, glassblowers, heat treat techni-
cians, and plating technicians.
The main machine shop area is located in building
M from which all of the employees involved work
in or "out of." All administrative matters relating
to machine shop personnel are performed at this
location. At the main machine shop are located
approximately 42 modelmakers, 11 precision machin-
ists, 3 machinists, 3 glassblowers, 3 plating technicians,
and 1 heat treat technician. There are also seven
employees, three model makers and four precision
machinists, permanently assigned to building T and
doing substantially the same type machine tool work
in that location as is done in the main machine
shop.
Most of the employees sought by the Petitioner
fall into one of three classifications: modelmakers,
precision machinists, and machinists. The modelmaker
classification represents the highest degree of skill
and ability acquired by individuals who began their
training as machinists.
There is some doubt whether there is or is not
a formal training program required of individuals
desiring to upgrade themselves from machinist to
modelmaker. While there are no specific requirements
for hiring an individual into the machinist class,4
it is clear that interviews center on a determination
as to whether the applicant has had high school
mathematics, particularly trigonometry, and also some
mechanical skill. A technical aptitude test was former-
ly given but it has since been abandoned. Once having
been accepted as a machinist, the applicant is notified
that there are correspondence courses available to
him which are provided at company expense and
are required if the applicant intends to move up
in classification. The International Correspondence
School (I.C.S.) courses have been available to the
employees for approximately 4 years. Petitioner's wit-
nesses, George Brown (a modelmaker) and Mitchell
Ballard (a precision machinist), testified that they
took these I.C.S. courses. According to their testimony
the beginning machinist must complete a course con-
sisting of 16 books in machine shop training which
upon completion is returned to the Employer who
mails it to the correspondence school for grading,
after which it is returned to the individual. Upon
satisfactory completion of the courses the machinist
becomes eligible to be promoted to precision machin-
ist. At this point his training through correspondence
continues and his further advancement is dependent
on the successful completion of an additional 34
books. Upon the completion of these books the preci-
sion machinist would become eligible for promotion
to the grade of modelmaker. At the present time,
11 of the 15 precision machinists are taking the
I.C.S. courses, as are all of the machinists.
In addition to correspondence courses, the begin-
ning machinist receives instruction from and works
with either a modelmaker or a precision machinist.
Under the tutelage of these individuals he acquires
skill in the handling and operation of all machine
shop equipment, and he must be skilled on all prior
to becoming a modelmaker.
' The Employer also hires individuals who have experience in the
machine tooling as precision machinists and modelmakers depending
on the extent of prior experience
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP.
The work in all of these three classifications consists
of building fixtures, gauges for use by the inspectors,
jigs, and gadgets for special use, as well as special
items for either development or production. The
degree of complexity involved in the building of such
items is determined and the work assigned accordingly
to one of the three classifications. All three classes
may work from prints, sketches, or verbal orders
which come to them either through their immediate
supervisor or from one of the departmental supervisors
located elsewhere at the laboratory. The latter may
be an engineer, chemist, or physicist who is working
on a particular research or developmental project.
Ordinarily such jobs are received directly from their
own foreman; however, once having been assigned
the job, the employee works independently of his
immediate foreman and may for a substantial period
of time receive all of his instructions from the engineer,
chemist, or group leader on the project involved.'
A substantial amount of the work on any particular
product may be done either in the machine shop
located in buildings M or T or it may be done
on equipment located at the site where work on
the project is being done. Evidence was presented
to show that there are many areas throughout the
laboratory where some machine shop type equipment
is located, but not in the quantity and variety available
at the main machine shop.
The machine shop type equipment located in the
remote areas of the laboratory may frequently be
operated by technicians, chemists, engineers, or physi-
cists, each of whom has specifically assigned work
to be done on a project. However, the record is
clear that, for the most part, the machining work
done by employees other than the machine shop
group is simple in nature, and when complex machin-
ing work is required the services of a machinist,
precision machinist, or modelmaker is sought. As
the machine shop employee completes his project
he will report to his foreman in building M or T,
who then assigns him to his next project.
' The Employer's method of operation in researching a specific problem
revolves around a "research team " A group leader, normally an engineer
in one of the disciplines related to the problem being researched, is
assigned to the particular project He is to supervise other engineers
m' the same or related field as well as technicians having skills to
be utilized on the project Ordinarily, the "research team" consists of
one or more modelmakers who work as an integral part of the team
The assigned project may take as much as 6 months or as little as
a few days, but in either event the modelmaker assigned takes his
day-to-day instructions from the group leader although he remains under
the administrative supervision of Kleine in the machine shop The usual
procedure appears to be for the employee to report in the morning
to the machine shop area and go immediately to the site of the project
work However, if his duties require machining he may spend a day
or several days in the machine shop area In some cases the modelmaker
may be called on, along with other members of the project team, to
consult with potential customers about a projected product
139
Certain modelmakers who have continually worked
in a particular field have developed highly specialized
skills related to that limited field. Some, in fact,
have developed such an expertise in a particular field
that they have coauthored scientific papers along
with other members of the "research team."
On many occasions, the modelmaker is called on
to work closely with technicians working on the
same research project to which the modelmaker has
been assigned. The technicians, lab assistants, and
lab technicians are normally nondegree individuals
who assist the engineers in performing the research
necessary to complete the research project. These
technicians may be called on to perform a wide
variety of duties necessary to complete the project,
including at times a certain amount of machining.
Technicians may eventually become classified as engi-
neers since the Employer does not regard a degree
as a prerequisite to a classification of engineer,
although the record is clear that practically all do
have such degrees.
There are three employees in the glass shop located
in building M adjacent to the main machine shop.
These highly skilled individuals specialize in free from
glassblowing. Of the three glassblowers, two are car-
ried on the exempt payroll and are classified in grade
class 10, whereas modelmakers are in a nonexempt
grade classification of grade class 8. The glassblowers
do a substantial amount of work in the shop area;
however, they, as the modelmakers, may be required
to do a substantial portion of their work in the
laboratories where specially designed glassware is
required. Frequently, components will be manufac-
tured in the glass shop in building M but, because
their interconnection and subsequent transportation
to the remote location in the Laboratory is impractical,
the component will be taken to the location and
there assembled under the supervision of the group
leader or person in charge of that portion of the
project. In this respect the glassblower's position is
similar to that of the modelmaker in that he takes
instructions from the group leader during the time
he works as a part of the "research team." Glassblow-
ers may work for any such group; as in the case
of the modelmaker, their assignments may vary from
a few days to a few weeks, depending on how long
their services are needed. While there is day-to-day
contact between the employees in the glass shop
and the other employees in the machine shop area,
there is no interchange since the skills required are
separate and distinct. While the skills of the glassblow-
er are extremely difficult to master, there is no class-
room training. All training is "on the job."
There are three lab technicians in the plating depart-
ment and one in heat treatment. These individuals
140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
do not require any special knowledge of machining
operations . They have daily contact with the machine
shop employees who bring materials to them to be
plated and heat treated . The skills required in both
of these sections of the machine shop area were
acquired through special training at schools offering
such courses. The individaul presently in charge of
heat treat was formally a machinist whom the Employ-
er discovered to have extensive experience in this
field . Both heat treating and plating require a knowl-
edge of metallurgy in that the content of the metal
being worked must be known so that the extent
of heat applied can be kept within permissible limits,
or the type of acids and plating used will achieve
the desired results.
As already mentioned , modelmakers , as well as
precision machinists and machinists classified as
nonexempt employees , are paid according to the Com-
pany's general pay classification system . According
to this plan, machinists are classed as grade 6, preci-
sion machinists as grade 7, and modelmakers as grade
8. In the glassblowing section there are two senior
glassblowers who are classified as grade 10. In the
plating and heat treat sections there is one employee
classed as s senior lab technician with a rating of
grade 11. Although the Employer ' s wage classification
system may give the impression that the wage rates
are uniform for all employees within a particular
pay grade , such is not the case . According to the
record the Employer , in its most recent wage increase,
revised wages according to the type of work being
performed rather than the employee 's classified pay
scale. Thus, employees within a particular pay grade
are paid different wages depending on the work they
are performing . Fringe benefits are uniform through-
out the Company depending on the numerical grade
classification . The machine shop employees receive
overtime at the rate of time and a half after 40
hours' work.
There is some testimony in the record that the
group herein sought by the Petitioner has been recog-
nized previously by the Employer as a separate group.
According to Petitioner's witness Earl Finke , approxi-
mately 4 years ago the employees in the machine
shop elected a committee of six or seven modelmakers
to meet with the then supervisor of the machine
shop to resolve grievances . The formation of the
committee was encouraged by this supervisor to pro-
mote the interests of the machine shop group. The
committee met regularly about once a month and
in addition to meetings with management also held
employee meetings on the Employer ' s premises. The
committee , it is claimed , was responsible for creating
the present classification of modelmaker . It is also
claimed that all of the employees in the unit herein
sought were represented by this committee and any
benefits resulting therefrom accrued to the machine
shop employees including the heat treat , plating, and
glassblowers . Kleine, however , testified that at the
present time he was unfamiliar with the activities
of the committee although meetings were held with
a group of employees (including Finke) about whether
wage surveys were being conducted by the Employer.
Basically , the Employer contends that it would
be impossible to create any appropriate unit among
the employees in the machine shop . It points out
that the type of work being performed by these
employees is not exclusively performed by them. Other
salaried personnel throughout the plant perform
machining operations of varying degrees of difficulty.
Consequently , it is argued that only a unit comprising
all those who perform these machining functions
would be appropriate . Such a unit should at least
include the nondegreed laboratory assistants and tech-
nicians who normally are called on to perform machin-
ing operations as part of their job . It is further
argued that the proposed unit is also inappropriate
because of the nature of the work and supervision.
Most of the time these employees are not under
the direct supervision of their foreman in the machine
shop but rather under the supervision of group leaders
or other research and production supervisors. More-
over, according to the Employer, the nature of the
machine shop employees' work requires a close
involvement with research employees in the develop-
ment and perfection of components . According to
the Employer, the machine shop employees are consid-
ered to be part of the research team and are expected
to follow all directions of those supervising the
research project . Finally , the Employer argues that
the machine shop employees can hardly be considered
a homogeneous group . The machine shop consists
of a multitude of small groups, which either specialize
in particular types of work or possess specialized
skills which distinguish them from other members
of the machine shop.
The Petitioner , on the other hand , contends that
all the employees in the unit have a community
of interest sufficient to make the proposed unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
In response to the Employer 's arguments , the Petition-
er contends that, although there may be other employ-
ees at the laboratory who do machining from time
to time , it is only secondary to their primary tasks
at the laboratory. Only the machine shop employees
are primarily concerned with performing machining
operations. The Petitioner also points out that,
although the nature of the employees ' work requires
that they be supervised by group leaders and other
research and production supervisors , such supervision
is only of a temporary nature. The machine shop
MONSANTO RESEARCH CORP
foremen are actually the supervisors who have control
of their activities and make evaluations as to their
abilities. Finally, in answer to the Employer's conten-
tions, the Petitioner notes that although there are
some special groups, i.e., the glassblowers and plating
technicians, these groups still have a community of
interest with the modelmakers. All employees in the
machine shop provide a specialized service to the
laboratory's research and production personnel. These
employees possess the requisite skills necessary to
physically create the components which the laborato-
ry's research personnel are seeking to develop. They
are integrated into the research and development
program only to the limited extent to which their
skills are needed.
We agree with the Petitioner that its proposed
unit is an appropriate unit for collective-bargaining
purposes in the special circumstances present here.
Sufficient evidence has been presented in the record
to show that there is a community of interest among
the employees in the machine shop to create a depart-
mental unit.
All employees, regardless of particular skills, are
highly skilled craftsmen. Most of these employees
possess the skills and ability to construct original
component parts and instruments from not only blue-
prints and plans but also verbal instructions given
by those engaged in the research and development.
On occasion, these employees are also called on by
those engaged in research and development to give
advice on how to construct a component part or
instrument to achieve the researcher's intended pur-
pose. But this, except in a few isolated instances,
is the extent of their involvement in the research
and development carried on by the Employer at the
laboratory. The employees engaged in research, profes-
sionals, laboratory assistants, and technicians, on the
other hand, are involved in the whole spectrum of
activities necessary to complete their assigned research
project. True, on occasion, nonmachine shop employ-
ees will use machine tools scattered throughout the
laboratory, but only to the extent necessary to achieve
their primary goal of completing the research project.
In fact, several nonmachine shop witnesses pointed
out that, whenever difficult machining or glassblowing
was required, laboratory research employees always
sought the services of the machine shop employees.
The record is clear that all administrative functions
relating to the employees in the proposed unit are
carried out through the machine shop regardless of
where they are working and at whose direction. The
Employer maintains training programs by which the
bulk of the employees in the unit, machinists, precision
machinists, and modelmakers, are able to improve
their skills. Each employee in the proposed unit is
under the supervision of a machine shop foreman.
141
This foreman determines to which project the employ-
ee is to be assigned and makes the evaluation of
the employee's performance. True, in order properly
to fulfill the machine shop employee's assigned work
he must, on occasion, follow the instructions of "group
leaders" and other laboratory supervisors. But such
direction is only transitory until the project is complet-
ed. Clearly, such periods of transitory supervisory
control are not a controlling factor in determining
the proper unit as compared with the permanent
administration and direct work supervision exercised
through the machine shop.'
We are also of the opinion that there is, contrary
to the Employer's contention, a community of interest
among employees in the machine shop. Whether the
employee is a glassblower or a modelmaker he shares
the same relationship with the research and production
personnel. Each machine shop employee, under the
common supervision of the machine shop superintend-
ent, supplies the skill necessary to physically create
component parts and instruments necessary to com-
plete the research and production projects. In other
words, all these employees in the proposed unit serve
the same function within the laboratory's organization-
al structure.'
We find that the following employees of the Employ-
er constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act:
All machine shop employees employed at the
Employer's Miamisburgh, Ohio plant, but exclud-
ing all office clerical employees, all other employ-
ees, employees represented by Oil, Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO,
and professional employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined by the Act.
[Direction of Election' omitted from publication.]
The situation presented in this case must be distinguished from
those cases involving unit questions of whether there should be separate
production and maintenance units or a single unit composed of both
in those cases the extent of interchangeable supervisory control may
be an important factor in determining the proper unit
' Moreover, even if we did not find a close community of interest
between the modelmakers and the glassblowers, platers and heat treater,
we would still include them in the unit as the residual employees of
the department since these employees are included by the Employer
in the machine shop department for administrative and supervisory purpos-
es
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, NLRB. v Wyman-Gordon
Company, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an
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 9 within 7 days of date of this Decision and Direction
of Election 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