Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 619 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and NEW YORK ENGINEERING AND SERVICE SALARIED EMPLOYEES,1
PETITIONER
Case No. 2RC-247.Decided February 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.2
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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 organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question of representation exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all engineers in the Engi-
neering and Service Department in the New York Office of the West-
inghouse Electric Corporation excluding non-professional employees,
clerks, stenographers, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined
in the Act. There are two groups of engineers in that department (1)
supervising service engineers, and (2) consulting and application
engineers. The New York Society of Westinghouse District Engi-
neers , hereinafter called the Intervenor, seeks to represent only the
' Affiliated with Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions.
s The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion, made by the Employer, to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the Petitioner did not request recognition before filing its
petition . For the reasons stated in the Matter of Advance Pattern Company , 80 N. L. R. B.
29, the motion is denied.
* Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 107. 619
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consulting and application engineers, and contends that a separate
unit comprised only of such employees is appropriate. The Employer
contends that each group constitutes a separate appropriate unit.
All parties are in agreement and we find that all the employees here
involved are professional employees.
The Engineering and Service Department is maintained for the
purpose of furnishing technical assistance to customers and prospec-
tive customers of the Employer. In this respect, the consulting and
application engineers' group, consisting of 12 employees, suggest and
plan with these customers the application of the Employer's motors,
controls, and other equipment, to the operational requirements of the
customer. In some instances, these employees design required equip-
ment to fit the particular needs of the customer. On the other hand,
the supervising service engineers' group, consisting of approximately
68 employees, supervise the installation and erection of company
equipment by employees of the purchaser at the purchasers' plant, and
in some instances actually perform the more difficult details of the
installation work. It appears that the greater part of the time of
"service engineers" is spent in the field, at the customers' plants, and
that some of their time is spent on foreign assignments, whereas the
consulting engineers spend the greater portion of their time in the
office at assigned desks, where they perform a substantial portion of
their work.
While consulting and application engineers perform the greater
portion of their work in the office at assigned desks, and while super-
vising service engineers perform the greater portion of their work in
the field, it appears that both groups are assigned to the main office
and are under the general over-all supervision of the office manager;
that they occasionally consult with one another with respect to diffi-
cult engineering problems; that they are under the same over-all
personnel policy with respect to wages and other conditions of em-
ployment; and that they are alike trained and experienced in the
engineering profession.3
Under all these circumstances, we believe that the employees sought
to be represented by the Petitioner constitute an integrated, readily
identifiable, and functionally coherent group, having a community
of interest sufficient to constitute them an appropriate unit for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. We do not agree with the principal
contention of the Employer that, because consulting and application
engineers, in the course of their employment at times, deliver lectures,
, while all engineers in both groups are not college graduates, all engineers in the normal
course of their duties use to a high degree the academic subjects normally required of such
professional employees, together with technical skill acquired over a period of years.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 621
before student bodies and engineering societies in contrast with the
entirely practical work performed by the supervising service en-
gineers, this circumstance is a sufficiently significant factor to warrant
the segregation of these two similarly skilled groups of professional
employees.4 Accordingly, we shall find appropriate a single unit of
all engineers in the Engineering and Service Department in the New
York office of the Employer.
We find that all engineers in the Engineering and Service Depart-
ment at the New York Office of the Employer, excluding nonpro-
fessional employees, clerks, stenographers, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election 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 super-
vision 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-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement,
to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of
collective bargaining, by New York Engineering and Service Salaried
Employees or by New York Society of Westinghouse District En-
gineers, or by neither.
' See Matter of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Inc ., 78 N. L. R. B. 814.
6 Either participant in the elections directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.