Western Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 1346 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Western Electric Company, Incorporated and Council of West-
ern Electric Professional Employees-National , Petitioner.
Case No. 2-RC-8877. March 29, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and 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.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Employer are in agreement that a unit of
all professional engineering employees in the Employer's employ is
appropriate.' The Employer's professional engineering force is
organized into 10 basic occupational fields, each of which has an
occupational code number and job description. These basic "hori-
zontal" classifications and their code numbers are as follows : defense
projects communications engineer-1901; development engineer-1910;
planning engineer-1920; plant engineer-1930; equipment engineer-
1940; designer engineer-1950; industrial engineer-1960; field engi-
neer-1970; quality control engineer-1980; and technical publications
engineer-1990.
Employees performing nonprofessional job tours associated with
the above horizontal occupational fields have been classified as engi-
neering associates with an occupational code No. 2900 and are assigned
a work code number covering nonprofessional job tours within the
related horizontal field.
The Petitioner seeks to include in the unit 5,646 employees in the
10 basic horizontal classifications who, it asserts, individually engage
in professional work and individually exhibit in their work fulfill-
ment of all four criteria set forth in Section 2(12) (a) of the Act.'
i Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied, as the record, including the briefs,
adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties Arncus curiae briefs were
filed by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW), American Fedeiation of Technical Engineers, and National
Society of Professional Engineers
2 In 1952 Petitioner was certified as the bargaining representative of a unit which was
"essentially professional" in character. 98 NLRB 1018
3 Section 2(12) (a) defines a "professional employee" as:
(a) any employee engaged in work ( i) predominantly intellectual and varied in
character as opposed to routine mental, manual, mechanical , or physical work ;
126 NLRB No. 166.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1347
Petitioner would also include 95 wage practices specialists (code No.
2750), 35 section chief, instructors, and 270 of the engineering asso-
ciates as professional engineers.
The Employer agrees with the Petitioner as to the professional
status of the 5,646 employees in the basic horizontal classifications but
it contends that 15 of the industrial engineers, code No. 1960, are con-
fidential and/or managerial employees. Contrary to the Petitioner,
it would also include in the unit another 180 employees who fall within
the basic horizontal classifications. However, it would exclude the
wage practices specialists and section chief, instructors. It regards
the former group as not engaged in engineering, or at least as not
being professional engineers , and it contends that 40 of them are con-
fidential and/or managerial employees. As for the section chief,
instructors, the Employer claims they are supervisors and/or man-
agerial employees. Both parties would exclude the engineering asso-
ciates, code No. 2900, except for the 270 employees whom the Petitioner
would include, contrary to Employer, on the ground that they have
been misclassified.
Before turning to the unit placement of the disputed categories of
employees, there must be resolved the primary dispute between the
parties out of which arose this protracted proceeding. The basic
dispute in the case is as to whether the Board should adopt, as urged
by Petitioner, a specific formula containing educational and ex-
perience requirements, the individual fulfillment of which would be
a prerequisite to inclusion in the unit, in order to satisfy Section
2(12) (a) (iv) of the Act. Asserting that the job descriptions of the
above-mentioned 5,646 employees are deficient in that they do not
specify education and experience attributes, the Petitioner has pre-
pared an analysis of the education and experience of those employees.
On the basis of this analysis, and upon consideration of requirements
of various professional engineering societies and State licensing
boards, the Petitioner has devised a formula which it believes "repre-
sents a reasonable evaluation of the advanced knowledge standard of
Subdivision (iv) of Section 2(12) (a) in lieu of the `knowledge of an
advanced type . . . customarily acquired' by completed technical
education." 4 Petitioner seeks recognition by the Board of such a
(n) involving the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment in its performance,
(iii) of such a character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot
be standardized in relation to a given period of time, ( iv) requiring knowledge of
an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by a pro-
longed course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institution of
higher learning or a hospital , as distinguished from a general academic education or
from an apprenticeship or from training in the performance of routine mental,
manual , or physical processes , . . .
4 The formula is as follows A ininunum advanced knowledge requirement of a tech-
nical degree or in lieu thereof, the minimum equivalent as represented in several alteina-
tihe modes of advanced knowledge as follows (a) a minimum of 3 years of technical
education and 2 year,, of engineering experience , ( b) a minimum of 2 years but less
1348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
standard or formula based upon work characteristics and, with respect
to the employees covered by the 10 horizontal classifications, would
include only those engaged in the prescribed work tasks who meet the
standard. As indicated, Petitioner's analysis of the individual back-
grounds of employees in the basic horizontal classifications has sat-
isfied it that 5,646 of those employees are professional employees under
the Act.
The Employer contends that no predetermined, inflexible formula
such as suggested by Petitioner is justified. It asserts that, under
Section 2(12) (a), it is the character of the work itself which deter-
mines whether the employees performing it are professionals; that all
employees performing the same work must be classified as professional
or nonprofessional as a group and not treated dissimilarly because of
individual distinctions in background and experience; that the educa-
tion and experience of any individual or group of employees are
relevant and may be used by the Board where necessary as an aid in
determining the nature of the work ; and that work satisfying the
requirements of Section 2(12) (a) can be performed by individuals
with varying degrees of education and/or experience. Like Peti-
tioner, the Employer contends that the aforementioned 5,646 em-
ployees are professionals, but it maintains that the other 180 em-
ployees in the basic horizontal classifications are also professional
employees.
We have carefully considered the positions of the parties to this
proceeding, including the positions taken in the amicus curiae briefs,
and have concluded that the Petitioner's formula approach for deter-
mining whether professional work "is being engaged in by profes-
sional employees" is not warranted. Section 2(12) (a) defines a pro-
fessional employee in terms of the work he performs. And Board
decisions make it clear that it is the work and not individual qualifica-
tions which is controlling under Section 2(12) (a).' Therefore, if the
work satisfies the Act's criteria, the employees who engage in it are
professional employees; if the work does not meet the specified re-
quirements, the employees performing it are not professional em-
ployees. This is not to say that the background of individuals within
a disputed group is an irrelevant consideration, for background is
than 3 years of technical education and 4 years of engineering experience ; ( c) a minimum
of 1 year but less than 2 years of technical education and 6 years of engineering ex-
perience ; ( d) 8 years or more of engineering experience commensurate to the advance
knowledge required in a formal professional education; and (e ) a combination of tech-
nical education as covered by (b) or ( c) respectively , and 2 years of engineering and
5 years of experience in advanced technical or highly skilled job in a field closely related
to professional engineering.
5 See , for example , Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, 79 NLRB 549, 552, where
the Board said , "In finding the plant engineers to be professional employees , we are not
passing on the individual qualifications of each engineer , but rather upon the character of
the work required of them as a group. This work we find meets the requirements of
Section 2(12) (a ) of the amended Act"
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1349
examined for the purpose of deciding whether the work of the group
satisfies the "knowledge of an advanced type" requirement of Section
2(12) (a).6 If, as appears in this case with respect to those in basic
horizontal classifications, a group of employees is predominantly com-
posed of individuals possessing a degree in the field to which the pro-
fession is devoted, it may logically be presumed that the work requires
"knowledge of an advanced type." Conversely, if few in the group
possess the appropriate degree, it logically follows that the education
characteristics of the work are not those requiring the utilization of
advanced knowledge. This approach, unlike the Petitioner's, does not
emphasize personal qualifications at the expense of the statutory man-
date to make a determination of professionality on the basis of work
performed.
Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we find, in agree-
ment with the parties, that the group of 5,646 employees in the 10 basic
horizontal classifications referred to above are professional employees
under the Act. We shall include them in the unit.' As for the 180
employees whom the Employer has assigned to the same professional
classifications, and whom the Petitioner would exclude from the unit
as nonprofessionals, their work tasks, which Petitioner concedes fulfill
the first three criteria of Section 2(12) (a), are the same as those of the
aforementioned employees who we find, in agreement with the parties,
are professional employees. Since these 180 employees are part of
the much larger group of employees which is composed predominantly
of employees who hold the appropriate technical degrees, we conclude
that their work also satisfies all the requirements of Section 2(12) (a)
and that they belong in the unit as professional employees.
Regarding the 270 engineering associates whom the Petitioner,
contrary to the Employer, would include as professionals, the Peti-
tioner and Employer have entered into a stipulation pertaining to all
except those in the equipment engineering classifications. The stipu-
lation is that the testimony of certain witnesses be considered as repre-
sentative testimony upon which the Board may rely for a determi-
nation of the professional status of all employees covered by the
stipulation. The classifications involved are as follows :
Engineer , Planning (Work Codes 21-28)
Sixty-one employees in this group are in dispute . The "composite"
testimony was given by L. A. McCool , K. S. Johnson , and J. E.
Huntley.
6 Cf. Section 2(12) (b ) which makes personal qualifications a determinative factor by
defining a professional employee as "any employee , who (1 ) has completed the courses of
specialized intellectual instruction and study described in clause ( iv) of paragraph (a),
and (ii ) is performing related work under the supervision of a professional person to
qualify himself to become a professional employee as defined in paragraph (a)."
'' The Employer 's contention that 15 of the industrial engineers are confidential and/or
managerial employees is rejected below.
1350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McCool is assigned to a planning tour associated with the pro-
fessional planning engineering classification; he is classified as a non-
professional engineering associate (code No. 2900). His work consists
primarily of preparing manufacturing layouts for use by the shop,
in manufacturing mounting plates which are utilized to mount equip-
ment in the various telephone exchanges. McCool's assignments,,
which originate from the engineer of manufacture, inform him as to
the type of mounting plate that is going to be manufactured, the
size of the mounting plate, the type of equipment which is going on
the mounting plate, and where the equipment is to go. The informa-
tion which McCool receives also indicates where the perforations are
to be made on the mounting plate. A designer determines the thick-
ness and size of the mounting plate. From this information, McCool
determines where the plate is to be fabricated and what equipment
and operations are required to perforate the plate. His layouts con-
sist of instructions to the shop as to where the perforations are to
be made on the plate in order for the equipment to be attached.
McCool's work requires him to have a knowledge of steel which is
used in forming the plate. This knowledge he has acquired from
working with engineers. He also may be called in to discuss forming
problems which arise in the shop and lie may have to determine
whether or not new tools are required for particular work; however,
the tools are designed by a tool designer. McCool indicated that the
only advanced knowledge in a field of science he utilizes in perform-
ing his tasks is the knowledge he has acquired from mechanical
handbooks while working with engineers. McCool and the remaining
10 employees in his department claimed by the Petitioner to be pro-
fessionals have had no college education. All have years of experi-
ence with the Company.
Johnson is assigned to a planning tour associated with the pro-
fessional planning engineer classification; he is classified as a non-
professional engineering associate (code No. 2900). Johnson is pri-
marily involved in the procurement of special, company-designed
machinery which is not readily available in standard machinery
form. Johnson's work is the third step in a three-part sequence
through which the special machinery is originated, designed, and
manufactured. The idea for the special machinery is originated by
planning engineer who, with a machine designer, produces the design
for the particular machine. Johnson receives the drawings and speci-
fications from the planning engineer and it is Johnson's function to
form an estimate as to all costs connected with the manufacture of
the machinery, i.e., cost of the machinery, engineering and design
effort, inspection, and installation charges. After breaking down
cost per unit from the detailed drawings, Johnson compiles figures
for labor and material. If the machinery is to be manufactured by
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1351
the Company , Johnson prepares a "shop order" specifying which par-
ticular shop is to do the work. His principal function in this respect
is to furnish a cost figure that would be available to carry out each
of the steps in the manufacture of the machinery . If the special
machinery is to be procured from an outside supplier, Johnson will
ask for bids from the contractors . He may then make a recommenda-
tion, based upon his knowledge of the contractors ' facilities as to
which contractor should receive the contract for the manufacture of
the machinery; the decision as to where to place the contract rests
with the company buyer. Johnson has had 3 years of technical college
training . In addition , he has a diploma from the company tool-
making school, attesting to his completion of a toolmaking apprentice-
ship. Prior to his present assignment, Johnson had been employed
as a toolmaker and tool designer. In his present assignment, Johnson
utilizes his knowledge of how the various parts of the special ma-
chinery are to be made in order to arrive at his cost analysis. This
knowledge of machinery was acquired, to a large extent, as a result of
Johnson's toolmaking course and practical shopwork . All of John-
son's cost assignments are checked for their accuracy by a concededly
professional engineer who works in the same department as Johnson.
Huntley is assigned to a planning tour associated with the profes-
sional planning engineer classification ; he is classified as a nonpro-
fessional engineering associate (code No. 2900). Since 1952, Huntley's
duties have been primarily concerned with preparing manufacturing
layouts for the production of relays. In April 1958 Huntley 's assign-
ment was expanded to include the responsibility for the preparation
of manufacturing layouts for relay covers and coil winding on flat
type relays . A relay is an electromagnet consisting of a soft iron
core around which are numerous turns of wire, consisting of one
or more windings. By energizing the winding, the core of the relay
is energized ; the resulting magnetic sources open and close contacts
which control other electric circuits . Relays are used in various types
of equipment in the telephonic industry . The coil, which is built
into the structure of the relay, consists essentially of turns of wire
over a magnetic iron core . The function of the coil is to energize the
electromagnet which it forms. When a new type of coil is to be
manufactured , Huntley receives the specifications of the coil , analyzes
them, and prepares a new manufacturing layout for the coil . Essen-
tially, the layout is the directive to the shop indicating the various
manufacturing processes and operations necessary to produce the coil.
It is also Huntley's responsibility to handle complaints from the shop
concerning manufacturing difficulties . On occasion , it has been neces-
sary for Huntley to modify certain coil winding machinery in the
shop in order to resolve the difficulty which had arisen during the
manufacturing process. Since 1946 Huntley has been employed in
1352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a "planning" classification. For 20 years prior thereto, Huntley was
employed as a draftsman by the Company. Huntley's formal educa-
tion terminated with 1 year of high school. Since joining the Com-
pany, Huntley supplemented his education with evening school
courses in high school algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. Subse-
quently, at a junior college, Huntley pursued college level mathe-
matics and some physical science survey courses which were a require-
ment in order to gain admission to the college. Huntley testified
that his education coupled with his experience in drafting, which put
him "in close proximity with the engineers and their problems," qual-
ified him to do the work to which he is presently assigned.
While the composite picture presented above shows work requiring
considerable technical skill, we are not persuaded that it requires
"knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning cus-
tomarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual
instruction and study in an institution of higher learning." Its
essential attribute appears to be experience rather than a college
education. In the circumstances, including the parties' stipulation,
we find that all disputed employees in these work codes are not pro-
fessional employees, and shall exclude them from the unit.'
Engineer, Plant (Work Codes 31-32)
Eight employees in this group are in dispute. J. A. W. Bennett's
testimony was stipulated as determinative here.
Bennett is assigned to a nonprofessional "plant" tour; he is classified
as a nonprofessional engineering associate (code No. 2900) and is
employed in the telephone sales division of the Company. His depart-
ment is responsible for the installation of new distributing houses
or building additions to existing distributing houses. Distributing
houses are responsible for repair of telephone sets and are located in
various sections of the country.
In working on a distributing house installation or addition thereto,
Bennett is provided with an equipment list prepared by planning
engineers. Bennett reviews the equipment list and associated draw-
ings to insure that all proper equipment necessary for the installation
is contained therein as well as any associated equipment which would
be required. Bennett discusses any additions to the equipment list
with a planning engineer.
Bennett and others in his department also prepare preliminary cost
estimates of equipment to be used by the Company in allocating funds
for an installation or project. After the Company has approved a
project, Bennett must prepare a detailed cost estimate which is used
to check bids by contractors. Bennett is supplied with the cost data
8 Westinghouse Air Brake Company, etc , 121 NLRB 636 , 638; Combustion Engineering,
Inc., 117 NLRB 1589 ; S. S. White Dental Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 1117;
E. W. Bliss Company, Toledo Machine Tools Division , 81 NLRB 428.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1353
and "standards" used in preparing the cost estimates. He then sub-
mits a recommendation as to choice of contracts. However, assuming
the contractors' reliability, the low bidder would generally receive
the contract. Bennett must also insure that, in scheduling an installa-
tion of equipment, there will be no interference with current
operations.
Bennett, a graduate of a technical high school, has had 1 year of
college. In performing his tasks, Bennett utilizes his knowledge
gained from his prior experience in the shop and his knowledge of
the Company's equipment. This knowledge enables him to "do the
work without the benefit of taking science or anything of that nature."
Bennett employs some physics in his equipment installation work
and simple arithmetic in cost estimating.
We find that Bennett's work also does not require "knowledge of
an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired
by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study
in an institution of higher learning." Accordingly, we find that the
disputed employees in the above work codes are not professional
employees within the meaning of the Act.' Therefore, we shall ex-
clude them from the unit.
Engineer, Designer (Work Codes 51-55)
Twenty-five employees in this group are in dispute. The composite
testimony here was given by G. F. Pyde, F. W. Murphy, and R. L.
Self.
Each of the above-named tool designers is assigned to a nonprofes-
sional "designer" tour and is classified as a nonprofessional engineer-
ing associate (code No. 2900). Although each is qualified to design
various types of tools and gauges, Murphy spends most of his time
designing gauges; Pyde spends a majority of his time designing jigs
and fixtures; and Self designs tools, dies, gauges, and machine tools.
The tool designer's assignment is initiated by a planning engineer and
the latter must approve the completed design. Pyde has received a
tool design certificate from Newark College of Engineering; Murphy
has less than 1 year of college education; and Self has had 1 year of
nontechnical college education. Each has had an extensive background
as a toolmaker or tool and gauge inspector. The record discloses that
the work of the tool designer is highly skilled and technical, requiring
a high degree of creativity. However, it is also clear that the essen-
tial attribute of the work is practical experience in the tool- and die-
making field rather than a college degree or the equivalent thereof.
In view thereof, we find that the work does not satisfy the require-
ments for professional status under the Act.10 Accordingly, we shall
exclude the disputed employees in the above work codes from the unit.
° Westinghouse Air Brake Company, etc , supra.
10 F. W. Sickles Company, 81 NLRB 390.
1354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Engineer, Industrial (Work Codes 61-62)
Seventy-three employees are in dispute here. The testimony which
is determinative as to them was given by F. M. Kennedy, C. M.
Waltons, and F. J. Vrona.
Each of the above-named employees is assigned to a nonprofessional
"industrial tour" and is classified as a nonprofessional engineering
associate (code No. 2900). The primary function of these essentially
time-study employees is to set rates on production or inspection jobs.
A rate is "the result of a time study compiled, adjusted, and issued to
the shop informing them that they have to perform a certain amount
of work in an allotted time." It is oftentimes necessary for the time-
study employee to make numerous time studies of the job under con-
sideration in order to develop standards for each operation from
which are derived the ultimate rate for the job. He must, in making
his studies, give consideration to such elements as fatigue, skill, and
effort of the operator or inspector. On occasion, it is possible to set
rates without making a time study by using predetermined time
standards. As a result of their work, time-study employees are able
to make valuable suggestions as to cost reduction.
Kennedy has a B.S. degree in economics; Vrona has B.A. and B.S.
degrees in business and economics; and Walters has a B.S. degree in
business administration. Walters testified that a good student could
learn to do time-study work in a minimum of 12 weeks.
In accord with the Board's recent decisions involving time-study
men doing essentially similar work as the employees involved herein,
we find the disputed time-study employees to be technical, rather than
professional, employees. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the unit."
Engineer, Quality Control (Work Codes 21-28)
Twelve employees are in dispute in these work codes. The parties'
stipulation provides that the work of J. W. Iler is representative and
may be relied upon for a unit determination for all the employees.
her is assigned to a quality control tour associated with the profes-
sional quality control classification and is classified as a nonprofes-
sional engineering associate (code No. 2900). His primary function
is to assure the quality of products manufactured at the Employer's
Kearny Works and shipped to customers. He also assures quality of
products purchased from various outside suppliers of the Company.
In assuring quality of products made for the Company at plants of
outside suppliers, Iler conducts surveys at these plants on a periodic
basis. For example, on one assignment it was necessary for Iler to
determine whether the outside supplier had sufficient facilities to
manufacture coils in accordance with the Company's engineering re-
"Vickers, Incorporated, 124 NLRB 1051.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1355
quirements and to determine whether the supplier was producing ac-
cording to these requirements. The engineering requirements with
which conformance was demanded and the degree of sampling to in-
sure conformance were developed by a department other than Iler's
own. Essentially, Iler recorded in the survey what he observed at the
supplier's plant. Iler can recommend rejection of products which do
not meet specification or have been damaged. He also develops sta-
tistical quality control data.
With regard to intraplant quality assurance, Iler has prepared sur-
veys covering cable production at the Kearny plant. In handling a
complaint concerning the coiling of cable, Iler recommended changing
the coiling method which recommendation, after discussion with the
responsible engineer, was incorporated into a shop practice handbook.
In performing his duties, Iler utilizes a full knowledge of the
Company's manufacturing processes. He has had 2 years of college
courses in engineering and experience as a quality checker, supervisor,
and inspector prior to undertaking his present assignment.
We are not satisfied that Iler's work meets the requirements for
professional status under the Act." Accordingly, we shall exclude
Iler and the other disputed employees from the unit.
Engineer, Equipment (Work Codes 41-45)
Ninety-one employees in this classification are in issue. As already
noted, there is no stipulation of the parties affecting this group. And
the posture of the evidence in the record concerning the employees'
work is such that it affords an inadequate basis for determining their
unit placement. For example, Employer's Exhibit No. 21 which was
admitted in this connection contains merely conclusions concerning
the work of 46 of the disputed employees as observed by supervisors,
and was introduced through a superintendent who had nothing to do
with the preparation of the exhibit and who had no actual knowledge
of the work involved. On the other hand, the witnesses testifying in
favor of the Petitioner's unit position indicated only a lack of famili-
arity with the actual work. In these circumstances, we shall permit
these 91 disputed employees to vote subject to challenge.
As indicated above, the parties are in disagreement as to the unit
placement of 95 wage practices specialists. The Petitioner seeks their
inclusion in the unit as professional engineers whereas the Employer
maintains that the work is not professional engineering. The parties
have stipulated that the testimony of R. W. Howland and H. Clark
should be considered representative and dispositive of the status of
all the disputed employees.
Howland and Clark are engaged in the job evaluation of hourly
rated and salary rated jobs. Job evaluation consists of determining
12 F. W. Sickles Company, supra.
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the relative worth of jobs in order to avoid disproportionate wages
and salaries for comparable duties. The assignment of a wage prac-
tices specialist is initiated when a line organization requests grading
service on a particular job. The wage practices specialist observes
the job under study, writes a job description and determines the rela-
tive value of the job by analyzing its various attributes in terms of
education, experience, analytical ability, judgment, etc. Point values
are assigned in accordance with the Company's job grading plan.
The job is then "slotted" into a grade according to its point value and
a pay rate assigned in accordance with the classification. The wage
practices specialist must insure that the job evaluation determination
is not inconsistent with the comparable jobs. In evaluating jobs it
is necessary for the wage practices specialist to be conversant with the
operations of the job he is evaluating. The record discloses that the
essential attributes of wage practices work is a high degree of intelli-
gence, ability to handle and evaluate facts, and a knowledge of the
Company's operations. We find that the work does not satisfy the
Act's requirements for professional status. Accordingly, we shall
exclude the employees in this classification from the unit.
There remains for consideration the status of certain allegedly
supervisory, confidential, or managerial personnel:
Petitioner would include section chief, instructors, in the unit
whereas the Employer contends that they should be excluded from the
unit because they are supervisors or have interests allied to manage-
ment. These section chief, instructors, are graduate engineers who
teach in the Company's engineering training program. The training
program offers courses to graduate engineers at training centers
located in Chicago, New York City, and Winston-Salem. These
training centers are located in leased premises, unconnected with the
Employer's manufacturing facilities. The relationship between the
section chief, instructor, and the engineer undergoing training is one
of instructor-student. While it does not appear from these facts and
the entire record that the section chief, instructors, are supervisors
under the Act, we find that they lack a community of interest with
those in the unit." We shall exclude them.
Of those in the industrial engineering classification, code No. 1960,
all of whom were found to be professional employees above, the
Employer contends that 15 are confidential and/or managerial
employees and that they therefore should be excluded from the unit."
We agree with Petitioner that this contention has no merit.
The industrial engineers in question engage in auditing the wage
incentive structure of various company factory locations. The pur-
13 Cf . Westinghouse Air Brake Company , etc, supra.
14 As we are excluding wage practices specialists from the unit for reasons given above,
we find it unnecessary to pass upon Employer 's contention that those employees also are
confidential and/or managerial employees.
TENNESSEE CHAIR COMPANY, INC. 1357
pose of the audit is to ascertain the degree of efficiency in administra-
tion of the wage incentive programs by local supervision. After an
audit is completed at a particular location, a "closing conference" is
held where the auditor discusses and recommends improvements in the
administration of the wage incentive program. He may also make
suggestions concerning the resolution of a grievance involving wage
incentives. In addition to these duties, the employees in question also
participate in annual engineering surveys, which is a confidential
exchange of information between many major companies concerning
salaries and classification of engineering employees. The function
of the industrial engineers is limited to summarizing returns from
other companies in graph or chart form for use by the Company.
Also, the industrial engineers may be asked for their views concern-
ing a wage incentive clause proposed for inclusion in a collective-
bargaining agreement. None of these industrial engineers is employed
in the labor relations division of the Company through which is chan-
neled the information obtained from these engineers for use by highly
placed executives of the Company, including a vice president who
formulates and effectuates management policies in the field of labor
relations.
We find that the above industrial engineers are neither confidential
nor managerial employees as the Board defines these terms.15 As
already indicated, they are included in the unit.
Accordingly, on the basis of the entire record, we find that the fol-
lowing employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act: All professional engineering employees employed by
the Employer, including these in the 10 basic horizontal classifica-
tions, but excluding engineering associates , wage practices specialists,
section chief, instructors, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
u: Chapman Valve Manufacturing Co., 119 NLRB 935; The B. F. Goodrich Co., 116
NLRB 722.
Tennessee Chair Company , Inc. and United Textile Workers
of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 10-CA-41$8. March 10, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 27, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Libbin issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, ahd recommending that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the
126 NLRB No. 160.