Chrysler Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 1208 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chrysler Corporation (Airtemp Division)' and Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio and-Machine
Workers,,, AFL-CIO-CLC and its Professional,
Technical and Salaried Conference Board, Local
.759, Petitioner: Cases 9-UC=52, 9-RC-8851,
,9-RC-8852, 9-RC-8853, and 9-RC-8854
August 27, 1971
'DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION
OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND
KENNEDY
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officers Daniel J.
Roketenetz, and William A., Molony. Thereafter,
pursuant to- Section 10267 of the National Labor
Relations , Board Rules and Regulations, and- by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 9,
these cases were transferred to the National Labor
Relations Board for, decision. Briefs were timely filed
by the Employer and the Petitioner. , -
On May 14,. 1971, the Board issued an Order
granting the Employer's request to reopen the record
and remanding the proceeding to, the Regional
Director'for a further hearing concerning the status
of industrial- engineers as professional employees.
Pursuant to the Board's Order, a further hearing was
held before Hearing Officer Molorly.
Pursuant to the provisions of -Section "3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has` delegated its
powers in connection with these -cases to a three-
member panel.
. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing
Officers made at the hearings and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to clarify an existing unit
of technical employees at the Employer's Dayton,
Ohio, facilities 2 by including herein the industrial
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner was certified as the bargaining representative for the
employees in this unit on September 26, 1960 , in Case 9-RC-4160 (not
published in NLRB volumes).
192 NLRB No. 177
engineers employed at the Dayton facilities.- Alterna-
tively, it seeks to represent the industrial engineers in
a separate unit.3 ' In addition, the Petitioner ' seeks
either-to represent the clerical employees' in the
industrial engineering department in ,a separate' unit
or, to combine them with the industrial engineers in a
departmental unit. The Employer contends that all of
these units are - inappropriate nsince the clerical
employees are '-confidential and thee industrial engi-
neers are either supervisors or managerial or confi-
dential employees. In any event, it contends, the unit
clarification petition should be dismissed, since the
job classifications in question were in existence at the
time of the Petitioner's certification and were
specifically excluded from the certified, unit ,by
agreement of the parties. The parties have stipulated
that any industrial engineers-whom the Board-finds
not to be supervisors, or managerial or confidential
employees are entitled to a self-determination elec-
tion to determine whether they wish to be included in
the existing technical unit or in any other appropriate
unit. ° -
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture; `of
heating equipment and air conditioners for'automo=
tive, commercial, and residential,use. - Its Dayton
facilities consist of two separate plants. Approxi-
mately 20 industrial engineers work in the main plant
at Webster, Street, which houses' commercial and
automotive air conditioning, and, approximately 4
industrial engineers ' work' in the plant-on T(urtz
Road, which' houses residential air conditioners. The
functions of industrial engineers are essentially the
same in both plants.
The employees in the industrial engineering depart-
ment are classified in the, following order 'of
progression: junior time study man; methods and
standards analyst; methods engineer , B; methods
engineer A; methods and standards engineer senior;
and industrial engineering specialist. The ° basic
function,of industrial engineers is to ensure that the
Employer's operations are carried,out with maximum
efficiency. To accomplish this objective, they make
time studies to determine how long it takes to
perform a given operation or how many operations
can be completed in a given period of time, and they
conduct work samples to determine the number of
employees required to achieve a given level of
production. On the basis, of these studies, the
industrial engineers recommend man assignments
which may involve additions or cutbacks in the work
force of a department. They also determine whether
the purchase of new equipment will reduce operating
3 The petition in Case 9-RC-8853 seeks a unit of industrial engineers
employed in the manufacturing services department. As there is no evidence
that any industrial engineers work in this department , we shall dismiss this
petition.
CHRYSLER CORP. 1209
costs, whether - such equipment is needed to meet
projected output, and whether the best possible use is
being made of, existing equipment. In addition, they
determine the probable cost of launching a new
product.
The duties of industrial engineers necessarily
involve considerable contact with employees in other
units represented by the Petitioner. The junior time
study man and the methods and standards analysts
are on the same payroll as employees in other units.
However, the other ' industrial,, engineers are on the
administrative or management payroll and receive
substantially higher salaries and, greater fringe
benefits'than employees in the existing technical unit.
In general, the function - of industrial engineers is to
save money for the Employer. Accordingly, whenev-
er they find that work-standards are' not being met,
or, that the best possible, use of a given piece of
equipment is not being made, they make appropriate
recommendations to correct the situation . Similarly,
when it is proposed that new equipment be pur-
chased or a new method of operation be utilized, the
industrial engineers may recommend less costly
alternatives. Such recommendations affect the condi-
tions of employment of other employees; they may
result in changes in man assignments , transfer of
employees to different jobs, or changes in a depart-
ment's -manpower which require hiring, transferring,
or laying off employees. However, the industrial
engineers do not assign work to a particular
employee or determine his rate of pay. They
recommend increases or decreases in total manpow-
er, but not the hiring, transfer, or layoff of particular
employees; the personnel department makes that
decision . If an industrial engineer sees that an
employee is not meeting the current work standards,
he may inform the foreman of this fact, but it is the
foreman who decides whether to give the employee a
verbal warning or to transfer him to another job. The
industrial engineers seek to eliminate overtime
whenever possible,' and each week they report which
employees in which departments have worked
emergency overtime because of unforeseen situations
such as a machine breakdown or a material shortage.
However, the industrial engineer- only tells the
foreman of a department how much -overtime he
deems necessary, not which employees should work
overtime.
An employee who feels he cannot meet the
4 E.g., Chapman Valve Manufacturing Co., 119 NLRB 935, 937;
Westinghouse Electric Corp., 89 NLRB 8, 11.
a E.g., Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 119 NLRB 1391 , 1393; Chapman
Valve Manufacturing Ca, supra Timken Detroit Axle Co., 80 NLRB 1075,
1077.
6 -E.g., Westinghouse Air Brake Co., supra F W. Sickles Co., 81 NLRB
390, 400 ; Bulldog Electric Products Co., 96 NLRB 642, 644.
7 E.g., Chapman Valve Manufacturing Co., supra.
production standard may file a grievance. The
dispute usually centers around the rating factor used
in setting the standard. There are' also many
grievances over the classification of employees. At
the first step of either type of grievance, the
responsible industrial engineer seeks to settle the
grievance with the Petitioner's time study representa-
tive. In some such cases , an industrial engineer has
made concessions to settle grievances. A grievance
not settled at this stage may be processed further in
accordance with the contractual grievance procedure
which provides for technical assistance, including
comparison of studies and computations, by industri-
al engineers representing the Employer and the
Petitioner. However, decisions at later stages of the
grievance procedure are not made by the industrial
engineers , but by other representatives of the
Employer and the Petitioner.
We have held in a number of prior cases that
employees with duties similar to those of the
industrial engineers herein were entitled to be
represented for collective-bargaining purposes if they
so desired. Thus, the fact that such employees may
establish and determine production or performance
standards; 4 make time studies which are used to
determine rates of pay; 5 suggest methods changes to
increase efficiency and reduce costs; 6 adjust the
standards to resolve a grievance; 7 and make studies
which are relied on in resolving grievances8 does not
indicate that they are managerial employees or that
they supervise other employees in the statutory sense.
We have likewise rejected the contention that such
employees are confidential employees .9 Accordingly,
we find that the industrial engineers herein are not
supervisors or managerial or confidential employees.
In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we
shall direct a self-determination election to determine
whether these employees wish to be included in the
existing technical unit or to form a separate unit.10
The parties stipulated that the following individu-
als in the Webster Street building are supervisors:
The manager of the industrial engineering depart-
ment, the manager of direct labor standards, the
manager of organizing and operating expense stand-
ards, and four unit supervisors. They further stipulat-
ed that the following individuals at the Kurtz Road
building are supervisors: The industrial - engineering
supervisor for the building, the manager of manufac-
turing services, the manager of the distribution center
8 E.g., Westinghouse Electric Corp., supra: Timken Detroit Axle Co., supra.
9 E.g., Timken Detroit Axle Co., supra, Brown and Sharpe Manufacturing
Co., 68 NLRB 487,489.
10 In view of the parties' stipulation that the industrial engineers- are
entitled to a self-determination election, we shall dismiss the petition in
Case 9-UG52, in which the Petitioner requested that the existing technical
unit be clarified by including the industrial engineers therein. _ - `
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Kurtz Road building, and the supervisor of
service parts. Accordingly, we shall exclude these
individuals from the voting group herein.
The Employer further contends that the industrial
engineering specialist and one methods and stand-
ards engineer A, Gabringer, are supervisors. The
industrial engineering specialist reports directly to
the manager of industrial engineering. He receives a
higher pay rate than any other employee in the
industrial engineering department, including the unit
supervisors whose supervisory status was stipulated.
As chairman of a committee composed of superviso-
ry and managerial personnel from various depart-
ments , he is responsible for implementing a plant-
wide methods improvement program. He also con-
ducts organizational studies of the Employer's
defense operations and recommends restructuring of
the organization, and develops plans for reducing the
inventory in these operations. In carrying out his
functions, he directs a group of 2 to 10 employees
from various departments who have been assigned as
a task team. We find that he is a supervisor and
exclude him from the voting group.
Gabringer's function differs from that of the unit
supervisors, who oversee the work of the industrial
engineers under them, and have authority to transfer
or terminate industrial engineers. He gathers infor-
mation from all of the industrial engineers and uses it
to forecast the Employer's manpower needs over a 5-
month period. These forecasts are used to determine
whether to purchase equipment or authorize over-
time. We conclude that his work affects the working
conditions of other employees only in the same
manner and to the same extent as the work of the
other industrial engineers whom we have found to be
nonsupervisory. Accordingly, we find that Gabringer
is not a supervisor and include him in the voting
group.
The Petitioner contends that the industrial engi-
neering department has three office clerical employ-
ees: a junior time study man, a machine operator B,
and a stenographer. The Employer contends that the
junior time study man is being trained for a position
as an industrial engineer and that the other two
office clerical employees are confidential employees.
The junior time study man makes records of routing
sheets which come in from other departments and
checks the time and figures on routings to make sure
that they correspond with the current work stand-
ards. After the information is typed up, he sends the
routing on to a unit supervisor. By doing this work,
the junior time study man becomes familiar with the
administrative aspects of industrial engineering
work. He has had 2 years of industrial engineering
courses in college and is continuing his studies at the
Employer's expense ; it is expected that he will
eventually qualify as an industrial engineer . At least
one of the methods and standards analysts in the
voting group herein was promoted to that position
from the position of junior time study man. On the
basis of these facts, we conclude that the junior time
study man, as a trainee for a position as an industrial
engineer , has a community of interest with the
industrial engineers rather than with the clerical
employees, and should be included in the voting
group with the industrial engineers.
The stenographer, after passing a test for this
classification, became a secretary to the manager of
organization and operating expense standards. In
this position, she performs the same functions as
other secretaries to managers , whom the parties
agreed to exclude from any unit found appropriate.
Accordingly, we conclude that the stenographer
cannot be included in any bargaining unit. This
leaves the machine operator B as the only employee
in the industrial engineering department who could
be included in a clerical unit. As the Board does not
certify bargaining units composed of only one
employee,1' we shall dismiss the petition in Case
9-RC-8854, which seeks a unit of all clerical
employees in the industrial engineering department.
In addition, since it is clear that the machine
operator B, who performs general typing and filing
duties, does not possess a sufficient community of
interest with the industrial engineers to be included
with them in a departmental unit , we shall dismiss
the petition in Case 9-RC-8851, which seeks a unit
of all employees in the industrial engineering
department.
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determi-
nation at this time, but, as provided below, shall
direct an election among those in the following
voting group:
All industrial engineers employed at the Em-
ployer's Dayton, Ohio , facilities , including meth-
ods and standards engineers senior , methods
engineers A, methods engineers B, methods and
standards analysts, and the junior time study
man, but excluding the industrial engineering
specialist, secretaries to managers , clerical em-
ployees , guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act, and all other employees.
The employees in the voting group will be asked
two questions on the ballot: (1) Do you desire to be
included in a unit with the technical employees at the
Employer's Dayton, Ohio, facilities for the purposes
of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be
represented for the purposes of collective bargaining
11 Luckenbach Steamship Co., 2 NLRB 181, 193.
CHRYSLER CORP. 1211
by International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC and its Profes-
sional , Technical and Salaried Conference Board,
Local758?
If a majority of the employees in the voting group
vote for the Petitioner, and a majority vote for
inclusion in the existing technical unit, we find that a
single unit, including the employees in the voting
group and the employees in the existing unit which
was certified in Case 9-RC-4160, will constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and the Regional Director will issue a
Certification of Representative to the Petitioner for
such unit. If a majority of the employees in the
voting group vote for the Petitioner but do not vote
for inclusion in the existing unit, we find that the
employees in the voting group will constitute a
separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. If a majority of the employees in the
voting group do not vote for the Petitioner, the
employees in the voting group will remain unrepre-
sented irrespective of the outcome of the vote on the
first question.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in Cases
9-UC-52, 9-RC-8851 , 9-RC-8853 , and 9-RC-8854
be, and they hereby are , dismissed.
[Direction of Election12 omitted from publication]
12 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that' an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 9 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of
time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed.