Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
No. 16, as the law requires. The employees about whom we will bargain are
employed in the following jobs:
All truckdrivers and helpers. This does not include office clerical em-
ployees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the rights of our employees guaranteed them in the
National Labor Relations Act by refusing to bargain with the above-named
Union or in any related manner.
All our employees are free to become members of International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local Union
No. 16, or any other union, and they are also free not to become members of
any union unless in the future we shall enter into a valid union-shop contract
with a Union which represents our employees.
W. R. HALL DISTRIBUTOR,
W. R. HALL TRANSPORTATION AND STORAGE
COMPANY,
W. R. HALL MOVING AND STORAGE,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 609
Railway Exchange Building, Denver, Colorado, Telephone No. Keystone 4-4151,
extension 513, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with
its provisions.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Buffalo Section, West-
inghouse Engineers Association , Petitioner . Case No. 3-RC-
1634. October 30, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CLARIFY
AND/OR AMEND CERTIFICATION
On April 17, 1959, the Regional Director for the Third Region
issued a Certification of Representative in the above-entitled pro-
ceeding to the Buffalo Section, Westinghouse Engineers Association,
Engineers and Scientists of America, herein called the Union,' for
a unit of professional engineering employees at the Employer's
Cheektowaga, New York, plant.
Thereafter, on March 22, 1963, the Union filed a motion for clarifi-
cation and/or amendment of unit, and on April 29,1963, the Employer
filed an answer in opposition to this motion.
On July 9, 1963, pursuant to an order of the Board, a hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Henry J. Winters on the issues raised by
the motion. Both parties appeared and participated in the hearing.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing 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
1 The Union has dropped Engineers and Scientists of America from Its name.
144 NLRB No. 118.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1297
this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
Upon the entire record the Board finds :
In the original case, the Board certified the Union for the following
unit :
All professional employees including the categories of engineer
assistant, engineer associate, engineer, engineer senior, engineer
fellow, manufacturing engineer, manufacturing engineer senior,
plant layout engineer, methods engineer (formerly time and
motion analyst), and purchasing engineer, but excluding all other
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The parties disagree concerning the unit placement of (a) production
line administrator-senior and (b) production line administrator-
A, both of which categories the Union would include and the Em-
ployer would exclude as managerial employees.
In October 1962 the Employer created the classification of produc-
tion line administrator. This in turn was subdivided into the follow-
ing grades, senior, A, B, and C. At the time of the hearing there
were 2 employees in the senior grade, 10 in the A grade, 7 in the B
grade, and no employees in the C grade. The Union contends that
the employees in the senior and A grades are essentially design engi-
neers and therefore should be included in the unit. The Employer,
however, contends that these employees are administrative and
managerial personnel and that no distinction exists between the B
and C grades and that of senior and A grades.
The plant is divided functionally into five divisions, each producing
a different product. Each division also has assigned to it a certain
number of design engineers who are represented by the Petitioner.
In this setting, it is the duty of the production line administrator to
negotiate orders with customers, to process them through the plant,
and to compute the transportation cost for the assembled products.
In processing the order, the production line administrator not only
interprets the customers' specifications with or without the aid of
design engineers, depending on the complexity of the order, but also
must see to it that all the components are available for the assembling
of the final product and that the assembled product meets its assigned
deadline. An additional duty of the production line administrator is
to assist in the promotion of the particular products with which he
is concerned. The only apparent distinction between the production
line administrator classifications is that of pay 2 and difficulty of
assignment.
The Petitioner's motion appears to be premised on the fact that
some of the production line administrators transferred from engi-
2 Of the employees involved, only eight have been represented by the Petitioner. While
an engineering degree is desired, some of these employees do not possess it.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
neering classifications, and on the assumption that they perform duties
identical to those of design engineers 80 percent of their working
time. However, at the hearing, the Petitioner offered no evidence to
refute the evidence introduced by the Employer which shows that the
time normally spent by the production line administrator in design
engineering functions, except for the completion of those engineering
projects they were working on at the time.of their transfer into the
production line administrator jobs, is almost minimal 3
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the production line
administrators are not required to have the training or to utilize the
skills of professional engineers in order to perform the functions and
duties assigned to them. Accordingly, we find that they are properly
excluded from the unit of professional engineers represented by the
Petitioner, and, we shall deny Petitioner' s motion.4
[The Board denied the motion to clarify the certification in Case
No. 3-RC-1634.]
3 There is one class A production line administrator in the systems control division who
concededly spends most of his time as a design engineer . Because this is a peculiarly
isolated case , the Board will not make any generalization as to other production line
administrators based on it.
41n view of this determination , we find it unnecessary to reach the Employer's other
contentions why the motion should be dismissed.
Operative Plasterers ' and Cement Masons' International Asso-
ciation, Local Union No . 44, AFL-CIO [Penny Construction
Company, Inc.] and William G. Haynes, an Attorney. Case
No. 17-CP-25. October 31, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 12, 1963, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, in
its entirety , as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. There-
after, the General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Employer
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, with supporting briefs.
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 McCulloch and
Members Leedom and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no, prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
144 NLRB No. 114.