Rockwell Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1434 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of DELTA MANUFACTURING DIVISION, ROCKWELL MANU-
FACTURING CQMPANY, EMPLOYER and, TECHNICAL ENGINEERS Asso-
CIATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-1020.-Decided May 18, 1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William J.
Scott, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
-t^n of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (e)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent employees in the engineering
department at the Employer's. Milwaukee, Wisconsin, machine tool
plant in a single technical and professional unit. Tl}e Petitioner,
in the alternative expresses its willingness to represent the engineering
department employees in separate professional and technical units,
should the Board find such units appropriate. The Employer objects
to the Petitioner's request for a single unit of professional and tech-
nical employees, but has no objection to the Petitioner' s alternative
request for two separate units.
Of the 425 employees at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin,
punt, 20 are employed intbe. engineering department. situated on the
89 NLRB No. 188.
1434
DELTA MANUFACTURING DIVISION 1435
second floor of the plant, and physically separated from the other
plant departments. There is no history of collective bargaining for
these employees.' The engineering department employees, whose job
functions are more fully described below, are generally engaged in the
performance of professional and technical functions incidental to the
design and development of new machine tool products. We have
previously found that a similar group of technical and professional
employees may constitute a single appropriate unit.2 Section 9 (b)
(1) of the Act, however, precludes the Board from deciding that any
unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining which
contains both professional and nonprofessional employees, unless a
majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in such a
unit. We shall, therefore, establish separate voting groups for the.
professional and the technical employees in the engineering depart-'
ment at the Employer's plant. There remains for consideration the. .
distribution of the engineering department employees between these
two voting groups.
(a) The professional employees
Senior and junior product designers, senior tool designers, senior,
layout draftsmen, and the experimental engineer. The Employer
and the Petitioner agree that of the 20 engineering department em-
ployees, the following 10 employees are professional employees, within,
the meaning of the Act : the 3 senior product designers, 2 junior product.
designers, 2 senior tool designers, 2 senior layout draftsmen.3 and
the experimental engineer. Working under the supervision of the
chief engineer, and from original ideas, they plan, design, produce,
and test new machine tool products, the output of which cannot readily
be standardized, in point of time, because the products are continually
altered or even scrapped in the course of their development, as fluctu-
ations in demand, changes in the Employer's competitive situation,
unforeseen increases in costs, or other contingencies dictate. These
employees receive $325 to $500 a month and possess a high degree of
academic and practical training commensurate with the requirements
of their particular jobs.4 The work they perform requires a consid-
erable amount of discretion and judgment. We find, in accordance,
3 The productidn aiid in hIntenance employees are currently represented by United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft , and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO.
a Ifelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666.
' No other classifications of layout draftsmen are employed at the Employer 's plant.
These employees have had either several years of academic technical training or an
equivalent amount of practical extterience in tool design work.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the agreement of the parties, that they are professional employees'
and shall include them in the voting group of professional employees .5
(b) The technical employees
Junior tool designers . The parties disagree with regard to the pro-
fessional status of the two junior tool designers , who the Employer.
contends . are technical employees and the Petitioner contends are pro-
fessional employees. Whereas senior tool designers design complex
tools from original conceptions , junior tool designers , working under.
their direction , design simple tools and machine parts, using previ-
ously designed samples. Junior tool designers spend all of their time
at drafting boards, and the work they perform is of a more repetitious
and less complicated nature than that of the senior tool designers.
Junior tool designers require 2 years of training , as against 15 years
for senior tool designers , and junior tool designers earn $300 a month,
as compared with $365 to $425 a month for senior tool designers. We
find that the junior tool designers do not perform work which requires
that degree of judgment , discretion , and skill employed by professional
employees . We shall include them in the voting group of technical
employees."
The detailer and tracers . The parties agree that the detailer and
the two tracers are technical employees . The detailer , working in
close collaboration with the product designers , performs the drafting
work for the engineering department . He has 2 years of training
and earns $215 a month . He is essentially a draftsman , an employ-
ment category which we have in the past included in units of technical
employees .7 The tracers remake old drawings , make picture draw-
ings for use in connection with instruction sheets, and do minor detail
work relating to some of the product designs. They have 6 months
of training and earn $150 to $185 a month. We find that the detailer
and the tracers are technical employees and shall include them in the
voting group of technical employees.
The blueprint ' operator and model makers . The parties agree that
the blueprint operator should be included in a unit which includes;
technical employees ; the Employer also agrees to the inclusion therein
of model makers , but the Petitioner contends that model makers should
be excluded from such a units , The blueprint operator, with no . train -
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8, and cases cited in footnote 26 of that
decision.
8 The ' Drackett Company, 86 NLRB 646. '
7 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, supra , and cases cited therein.
8 The Petitioner appears to seek the exclusion of model makers primarily because it
does not admit this employee category td membership . This is not a valid ground for
exclusion . Charles Smith Nash Co., 83 NLRB 511.
DELTA MANUFACFURIN G DIVISION 1437
ing, operates the blueprint machine, a routine function. She earns.
$160 a month. The two model makers, working in the engineering
department laboratory under the direction of the experimental engi-
neer, make various parts used in test samples of new machine prod-,
ucts. Although they are hourly rated employees and appear to have
essentially machinists' skills, they work in close collaboration with
the professional and technical' employees; furthermore, they are spe-
cifically excluded from the contract between the Employer and United
Automobile, Aircraft, and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO, covering the production and maintenance employees. Al-
though the blueprint operator and the model makers do not appear to
be highly skilled technicians, we shall include them in the voting
group of technical employees, in view of their common interests and
duties.9
Stenographers. The Employer contends that the two engineering
department stenographers should be included in a unit which includes
technical employees. The Petitioner seeks their exclusion therefrom.
The two stenographers spend all of their working time performing
clerical work for the engineering department. In accordance with
our established policy of excluding clerical employees from units of
technical employees, whenever a party to a proceeding desires their
exclusion, we shall exclude the stenographers from the voting unit.'°
We shall direct that separate elections be held among the employees
in the engineering department at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin, plant, in the following voting groups, excluding supervisors from
each group and deferring our final determination as to the scope of
the unit until the results of these elections have been ascertained :
(a) All professional employees, including senior and junior product
designers, senior tool designers, senior draftsmen, and the experi-
mental engineer;
(b) All technical employees, including junior tool designers, the
detailer, tracers, the blueprint operator, and model makers, but ex-
cluding the stenographers.
If a majority of the employees in both voting groups select the Peti-
tioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be repre-
sented by the Petitioner in a unit including both groups.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elections
9 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company , supra.
20 Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, supra.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the elections, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by Technical Engineers Association, American Federation
of Labor.