Sperry Rand Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner_ - Case No, 3-EC-1951. June 4, 1958
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 Hyman Dishner, hearing
officer. 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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 involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
Among the employees sought to be represented, by the Petitioner in
the instant proceeding are approximately 100 mechanical production
technicians who comprise department 79. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend, as to these technicians, that a contract bar exists.
In December 1956 the Employer and the Intervenor executed a 5-
year contract covering all production and maintenance employees at
Employer's Elmira, New York, plant. Under the terms of the con-
tract, the mechanical production technicians were clearly excluded as
salaried employees, although from time to time after the contract's
execution the Intervenor requested the Employer to include the tech-
nicians in the bargaining unit, which the Employer declined to do.
On January 6, 1958, the Employer sent a letter to the Intervenor, for
the first time indicating its .willingness to include the technicians in
the production and maintenance' unit, and suggesting a meeting to
establish wages, hours, and working conditions.2 The instant petition
was filed 7 days later.
' Lodge 826, District No. 58, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, was
permitted to intervene on the basis of its current contract covering production arid mainte-
nance employees.
2 As will appear infra, in' the interval following execution of the contract, the work of
the technicians had become less technical and more routine. In addition, in July of 1957,
a consent election was held at Employer's Utica, New York, plant in which salaried tech-
nicians doing work identical to that of the technicians in question here were included in
the production and maintenance unit. These were the reasons given by Employer to ex-
plain its later reversal of position in consenting to include the technicians in the produc-
tion and maintenance unit at Elmira.
120 NLRB No. 171.
REMINGTON RAND DIVISION OF SPERRY RAND CORPORATION 1295
As it appears that the 1956 contract did not cover the technicians,
and no formal supplement was executed to include them, we find 3-
there is no contract bar to a present determination as to their
representation 4
4. The Petitioner, in its petition as amended at the hearing, seeks a
unit comprising all mechanical production technicians in department
79, plus eight employees in department 61, who together constitute all
unrepresented employees at the Elmira plant. As noted above, the
Employer and the Intervenor take the position that the department 79
employees were embraced within the existing production and mainte-
nance unit. The Intervenor does not seek to represent the department
61 employees, on the ground they are technicals. The Employer ob-
jects to the inclusion of the department 61 employees, as technicals,,
with any unit of nontechnical employees.
The mechanical production technicians in department 79, under
separate supervision, perform final tests on Employer's products. In
accordance with schematic diagrams prepared by other departments,
they energize the machines and check circuits, wiring, and perform-
ance. The technicians are interspersed throughout the plant, work-
ing in the various areas where machines are produced. The Employer-
requires most technicians to undergo a 3-month training course,
although some are excused because of their prior experience. Wit-
nesses for both the Employer and the Petitioner testified that, while.
technicians possessing a relatively high degree of technical skill were
needed to test Univac and other machines when they were first being-
produced by the Employer, increasing familiarity with these ma-
chines has since enabled the Employer to develop standardized testing-
procedures. As a result, a substantially lower degree of technical-
skill is presently required by the Employer for employment as.
mechanical production technician, and virtually any show of aptitude,
is deemed sufficient. Upon the entire record, we find that the mechani-
cal production technicians are not technical employees as defined by-
the Board.'
The eight employees in department 61, whom only Petitioner seeks-,
to represent, are part of Employer's engineering department. They-
work in a front office, away from production areas. Two of the eight
are liason men, who spend a large part. of their time at Employer's:
laboratories in other cities. A third'is an instructor. The remaining-
five are electronic technicians, who formulate and prepare running-
8 The Employer and the Intervenor urged at the hearing that the mechanical production,
technicians should be considered a normal 'accretion to an already established contract
unit. This contention is without merit in view of the particular terms of the contract
under which salaried employees , such as the technicians , are clearly outside the contract-
coverage
* The Intervenor 's motion to dismiss is denied : See Red Dot Fooda, Inc., 114 NLRB 145,_
14T, The Yale and Towne Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 1268, 1269. -
5 See, e. g., Philco Corporation, 110 NLRB 184.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sheets and schematics based on requests from customers. It is clear
and we find that the eight employees in department 61 are technical
employees.' Under established Board -policy technicals are not
included in a bargaining unit with nontechnicals when any party
objects to their inclusion.' As the Employer has advanced such
objection at the hear-ing,' we shall exclude the eight technicians in
department 61 from the voting group hereinafter described.
Accordingly, we find that the mechanical production technicians
may constitute an appropriate residual unit, or may appropriately be
added to the existing production and maintenance unit.' However,
we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall
ascertain the desires of the employees by directing a self-determina-
tion election in the following voting group :
All mechanical production technicians at Employer's Elmira, New
York, plant, including group leaders, but excluding all other
employees, guards, professionals, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti-
tute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such unit, which the Board under the circumstances finds appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of
the employees vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have
expressed their desire to become part of the existing production and
maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor, and the Intervenor
may bargain for them as part of such unit. If a majority of the
employees vote for neither, they will be deemed to have expressed
their desire to remain unrepresented.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
e The Shefleld Corporation , 108 NLRB 349.
a Pennsalt Chemicals Corporation, 119 NLRB 128.
8 See footnote 7, supra.
Chock Full 0' Nuts and United Bakery, Confectionery, Cannery,
Packing and Food Service Workers Union of New Jersey, Local
262, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-8684. June
4,1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election ,' issued on June
137 1957, the Regional rDirector for the Second Region on July, 9, 1957,
1 118 NLRB 156.
120 NLRB No. 172.