The Boeing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 24, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 167 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

THE BOEING CO.
The Boeing Company and Boeing Computer Services,
Inc. and Seattle Professional Engineering Employ-
ees Association, Independent . Case 19-RC-6217
September 24, ,1973
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On October 13, 1972, the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued his Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above matter, wherein he found 8 of 10 job
families on the Employer's general office payroll
sought by the Petitioner to be technical employees
entitled to be represented separately.' Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the Employ-
er filed a request for review on the ground that, in
concluding that the requested employees were techni-
cal employees entitled to separate representation, the
Regional Director made findings of fact which are
clearly erroneous and departed from officially report-
ed precedent.
On February 27, 1973, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board by telegraphic order granted the request
for review and stayed the election pending decision on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings:
The Boeing Company is engaged in various opera-
tions related to the aerospace industry. Boeing Com-
puter Services, Inc. (BCS), is a wholly owned
subsidiary of Boeing established for the purpose of
providing computer support services to Boeing and
other outside users .2 This matter involves Boeing's
operations in the Seattle-Tacoma areas in the State of
Washington and the BCS northwest district. Current-
ly there are approximately 4,800 unrepresented em-
ployees (including approximately 600 BCS
employees) on the Employer's general office payroll.
In February 1972, pursuant to a stipulation for cer-
tification upon consent election in Case 19-RC-5471,
the Petitioner was certified as the representative of
over 4,000 salaried technical employees in slightly less
i International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District
Lodge 751, AFL-CIO , and the Office and Professional Employees Interna-
tional Union, Local 8 , AFL-CIO , were permitted to intervene herein on the
basis of a showing of interest.
2 At the time of the hearing approximately 95 percent of the services
performed by BCS were provided to Boeing.
167
than 200 job classifications? In the instant proceed-
ing, the Petitioner seeks to represent 26 job classifica-
tions grouped into 10 job families on the general
office payroll on the ground that they constitute a
residual unit of technical employees remaining on
that payroll following Case 19-RC-5471. The Re-
gional Director concluded, in ,accord with the Peti-
tioner, that the following eight job families
(designated by name and number) were technical em-
ployees: electronic data processing analyst (330);
computer system technician lead (519); analog com-
puting system technician (522); hybrid computing
system specialist (523); computing scheduler (534);
computer applications technician scientific (535);
computer applications technician business (536); and
test data computer servicer (537). The Employer con-
tends that the employees in the aforementioned job
families do not have a community of interest suffi-
ciently distinct from other employees on the general
office payroll to warrant their separate representation
and, in any event, the record herein does not warrant
the conclusion that the employees involved herein are
technical employees with the possible exception of
those employees at the highest labor grade in three job
families which, the Employer contends, are borderline
cases .4 We find merit in the Employer's position.
In Litton Industries, 125 NLRB 722, the Board held
that technical employees are those employees who do
not meet the strict requirements of the term "profes-
sional employee" as defined in the Act, but whose
work is of a technical nature involving the use of
independent judgment and requiring the exercise of
specialized training usually acquired in colleges or
technical schools or through, special courses. More-
over, the Board also said that, in each case where
technical status is an issue, we will require that the
record affirmatively support the claim for such status.
Where we have been called upon to determine the
technical employee status of various types of employ-
ees engaged in electronic data processing work such
as here involved, we have in some instances found
such status for programmers and systems analysts on
the basis that they had sufficient specialized training
and their work required the exercise of independent
Judgment 5 In other cases where such requirements
were lacking, we concluded that employees in those
categories were not technical .6
3 Following the certification , the Employer established a separate payroll
for those employees . In addition to this payroll and the general office payroll,
the Employer maintains separate salaried employee payrolls for 7,700 profes-
sionals represented by the Petitioner , 519 unrepresented technicals, 1,369
exempt office employees , and 5,424 management employees.
° Those considered borderline by the Employer are the top classifications
in the 522, 523, and 535 job families.
5 Utica Mutual Insurance Company, 165 NLRB 964, 967. See also The Ohio
Casualty Insurance Company, 175 NLRB 860, 861
6 See, e.g., Safeway Stores, Incorporated, 174 NLRB 1274, 1276, and the
cases cited therein.
206 NLRB No. 28
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In this case, systems analysis and programming,is
performed by a variety of employees, including some
of the employees sought herein ,7 some who appar-,
ently are already represented in other professional
and technical units, and still others on the Employer's
exempt office payroll. In some instances, the employ-
ees performing these functions work as teams on giv-
en projects together with other electronic data
processing employees, such as the digital computer
operators (not sought by the Petitioner herein), and
other office clerical employees. Where this occurs, the
record indicates that, at least among those herein
sought, the degree of independent judgment exercised
is circumscribed by the higher level programmers and
analysts. In this same regard, the record also fails to
show with any degree of specificity the complexity of
the work performed by employees sought as com-
pared to that done by other programmers and ana-
lysts. There is, for instance, evidence that employees
in the 330 and 535 job families (EDP analyst and
computer applications technician scientific) are capa-
ble of writing simple programs without receiving any
specialized training other than that acquired during
the Employer's 4- or 5-week course in the COBOL
and FORTRAN computer languages. And, in the
case of the 536 job family (computer applications
technician business), which performs work similar to
the 535 employees, there is evidence that in past sum-
mers the position has been filled by untrained college
students. As to the employees in the 522, 523, and 537
job families (analog computing system technician hy-
brid computing system specialist and the data com-
puter servicer), the record discloses that the 522 and
523 employees operate, respectively, analog and hy-
brid computers, processing programs utilized in engi-
neering design studies, while the 537 employees
operate digital computers that are collecting data di-
rectly from wind-tunnel tests. In all three families, the
highest classification is a lead function which requires
'7 For example, some of the employees in the 330 and 534 job families.
coordination of the work of other employees, and the
remaining classifications are comparable in labor
grade to many of the digital computer operators, con-
cededly not technical employees. In addition, the re-
cord indicates that the employees in these three job
families are more closely associated with professional
and technical employees involved with engineering
design studies and wind-tunnel tests than they are
with other employees sought herein.
The employees in the 519 family lead job (computer
system technician lead) coordinate the work of the
digital computer operators and, to the extent that they
may exercise independent judgment, it relates to their
lead functions rather than to their technical duties.
Finally, employees in the 534 job family (computing
scheduler) schedule the use of the computers so that
the available time is utilized in the most efficient man-
ner. To the extent that they have specialized training
and knowledge, it does not appear to be substantially
greater than the Employer's digital computer opera-
tors.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the employees in
the 519, 534, and 535 families, and those in lower
classifications of most other job families, are not tech-
nical employees. As to others, such as those in the
higher classifications of the 330, 522, 523, 535, and 537
families, the record does not clearly establish that they
are technical employees. However, even if it could be
demonstrated that some of the employees sought by
the Petitioner meet the Board's definition of technical
employees, it is clear that the categories sought are
simply a heterogeneous grouping of employees whose
community of interest does not clearly lie with the
existing technical unit, but rather with other employ-
ees, some of whom are represented and others who are
not. Accordingly, we find that the unit sought herein
is not appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing and, therefore, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.