Tyco Electronics

National Labor Relations Board - Unpublished Board Decisions

Nov 16, 2010

05-RC-016471 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 16, 2010)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TYCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Employer
and Case 05-RC-016471

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, & AGRICULTURAL
IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW
Petitioner
ORDER
Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election is denied as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.1 In denying
review, we agree with the Regional Director that the product engineering designers,
material planners, manufacturing and product engineers, and manufacturing and product
engineering technical associates are properly excluded from the unit. We find that these
employees share a community of interest separate and apart from the petitioned-for
production and maintenance employees, and thus that their inclusion in the unit is not
required. See Audiovox Communications Corp., 323 NLRB 647 (1997). In light of these
community of interest factors, summarized below, we find it unnecessary to pass on the
Regional Director’s finding that the disputed employees are technical employees who
should be excluded from the unit on that basis.2
As found by the Regional Director, these employees, unlike the production and
maintenance employees, are salaried and have control over their breaks and lunch
periods. They earn significantly higher wages and work in a separate space from the
production and maintenance employees. They perform different job functions from the
unit employees, and their jobs require a range of education and skill performed mostly in
an office setting. Unlike the petitioned-for employees, who are equally divided among

1 Employer’s Request for Review of the Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Election raises a
substantial issue solely with respect to the unit placement of Product Engineering Parts Clerk Deborah
Rhoads, Materials Associate Anne Thomas, Environmental Safety and Health Coordinator Ronald Lebo,
and Manufacturing Engineer Technical Associate Angela Dodson. We shall accordingly permit these
individuals to vote by challenged ballot. If those ballots are not determinative, the Regional Director shall
issue the appropriate certification. If those ballots are determinative, the Regional Director shall transfer
this proceeding to the Board in Washington, D.C. for resolution of their status.
2 Member Hayes finds that, with the exception of the 4 employees identified in fn. 1 supra, the Employer’s
Request for Review fails to state a basis for granting review of the Regional Director’s findings that the
other employees whose exclusion from the unit is disputed are technical employees. He does not agree
with his colleagues’ alternative rationale for denying review. See, e.g. Wheeling Island Gaming, Inc. 355
NLRB No. 127 at slip op. 1 fn.2 (2010).
2
three shifts, the majority of these disputed employees work on the first shift. The
disputed employees do not share common supervision or managers with the petitioned-
for employees.
Further, as found by the Regional Director, the interchange between the production
and maintenance employees and the employees in dispute is not so frequent and
substantial as to require that they be included in one unit. The evidence of temporary
interchange is minimal, and although many of the disputed employees originally worked
as production employees, evidence of such permanent transfers is a less significant
indication of actual interchange than temporary transfers. Red Lobster, 300 NLRB 908,
911 (1990).
WILMA B. LIEBMAN, CHAIRMAN
CRAIG BECKER, MEMBER
BRIAN E. HAYES, MEMBER

Dated, Washington, D.C., November 16, 2010.