Western Electric Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 2, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1018 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they are professional employees within the meaning of the Act, hence ineligible
to be included in the production and maintenance unit previously established
by the Board in this case.
In accordance with the Board 's Order dated December 6, 1951 , any party to
this proceeding may, within 10 days from the issue of this report , file with the
Board in Washington , D. C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto.
Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions , the party filing the same shall
serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy with
the Regional Director . If no exceptions are filed thereto , the Board will adopt
the recommendations of the hearing officer.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED and COUNCIL OF WESTERN
ELECTRIC TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES-NATIONAL , PETITIONER . Case No.
2-RC-1753. April 2, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed, 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.'
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 Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
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. The Association contends that a current contract between it and
the Employer, covering a small group of the employees whom the
Petitioner seeks to represent in this proceeding, is a bar to a present
determination of representatives. This contract, limited to some of
the employees at the Employer's Baltimore, Maryland, plant, one of
its many manufacturing locations, was executed on November 3,
1950, as a supplemental extension of an earlier agreement expiring on
December 1, 1950. The petition was filed on October 31, 1949. As
1 The Employer moved for dismissal of the petition on the ground that the unit sought
is inappropriate . Point Breeze Salaried Employees Association , Inc., herein called the
Association , an independent labor organization , and the Point Breeze Committee , a group
of employees affected by this proceeding , both of which were permitted to intervene,
Joined in the Employer ' s motion , and also made several other motions to dismiss the
petition on grounds related to the question of the appropriate unit. For the reasons set
forth in section 4, below, these motions are denied.
The Association also moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner
had not made a sufficient showing of interest . The motion is denied.
98 NLRB No. 154.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1019
the contract was executed after the filing of the petition, it does not
constitute a- bar. The Association's motion to dismiss the petition
on this ground is therefore denied.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of the 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 contentions of the parties:
By this proceeding the Petitioner seeks to establish a single unit
coextensive with the Employer's entire operations, embracing all its
technical-professional employees. Because of the Employer's op-
position. to such a company-wide unit, the Petitioner stated at the hear-
ing that it desires in any event to represent these employees on the basis
of any arrangement of units which the Board might deem appro-
priate. The Petitioner made a sufficient showing of interest to jus-
tify elections at the various plants on the basis of almost any arrange-
ment of units which might be established. However, it suggested
no alternative units.
The Employer contends that the single over-all unit is ' inappro-
priate, and it introduced evidence pointing to certain disadvantages
to the collective bargaining process that would attach to a company-
wide unit. Like the Petitioner, however, it made no explicit pro-
posals as to what alternative unit arrangements would be more feasible.
There is some suggestion in the record, arising primarily from the
Employer's strong reliance upon the past bargaining among other
categories of its employees in its criticism of the over-all unit, that
the Employer believes smaller units-single plant, multiplant, or
division-wide-might be appropriate.
There is no dispute among the parties as to the appropriateness
of joining in one or more units the diversified types of technical-
professional employees involved. They are essentially all profes-
sional employees specializing in the various fields of engineering.
For convenience, they are all hereinafter called engineers. The
Point Breeze Salaried Employees' Association, Inc., herein called
the Association, contends that approximately 20 employees in classi-
fications sought by the Petitioner at the Baltimore plant are not
professional, and should therefore be excluded. The Petitioner would
include them and the Employer takes no position on this issue 2
2 The Association also opposes any company -wide unit. This unit is also opposed by
the Point Breeze Committee , a group of employees who were permitted to intervene for
this sole purpose. This Committee is not a labor organization and made no claim to
represent any employees . As the contentions of htese two groups respecting the company-
wide unit are substantially parallel to those of the Employer , they need not be considered
separately.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company
Western Electric Company, the Employer here, is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, com-
monly known as the Bell Telephone System, with plants throughout
the eastern half of the United States. Thus it is one of several inte-
grated subsidiary organizations which, through the over-all super-
vision and control of A. T. & T., unite to constitute the largest public
utility in the telephone industry in the United States. Western
Electric functions as the manufacturing unit of the wide-spread en-
terprise; it procures, produces, distributes, and installs all the perma-
nent equipment of the telephone system, from simple component parts
to the most complex automatic central exchanges. Most of the re-
search and development required for the telephone system is carried
on by Bell Telephone Laboratories, owned by Western Electric and
A. T. & T. Operation of all this equipment, and therefore the fur-
nishing of direct telephone services to the public, is the responsibility
of 18 telephone operating companies, almost wholly owned subsid-
iaries of the Bell Telephone System.
Western Electric's principal offices and headquarters are located
in New York City. It employs a total of about 70,000 employees,
of whom approximately 3,300 are the technical-professional workers
involved in this proceeding. Its activities are divided into 7 divi-
sions : manufacturing, radio, telephone sales, installation, legal and
patent, purchasing and traffic, and finance. In varying degrees, each
division has employees located both at headquarters and in other
locations. The professional employees are all found in the first four
divisions named.
General Organization
The manufacturing division, with about 83 percent of the engineers,
manufactures all the communication equipment used by the oper-
ating telephone companies. The radio division, with about 12 per-
cent of the engineers, manufactures, radar and other electronic equip-
ment, most of which is sold to the United States Government and
the remainder to the telephone system. This division also carries
on some research and development of radio communication equipment
and produces certain special products. The telephone sales division,
with 3 percent of the engineers, warehouses, sells, and distributes
to the operating telephone companies the various products manu-
factured by the manufacturing and radio divisions. This division
also handles the program planning function in which it works closely
with the operating telephone companies to determine their needs
as much as a year in advance, so that Western Electric's production.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1021
may be planned to satisfy these needs as they arise . Finally, there
is the installation division, with less than 2 percent of the engineers,
which installs the central exchange equipment sold to the telephone
companies and switchboards used by telephone subscribers.
The manufacturing and radio divisions carry on their production
operations at various plant locations. The manufacturing division
has 3 groups of plants called Works, each of which in turn consists of
3 or 4 plants. Its 10 plants are located as follows : The Hawthorne
Works, with a large plant in Chicago and 2 smaller ones at St. Paul,
Minnesota, and at Lincoln, Nebraska; the Kearny Works, with its
principal location at Kearny, New Jersey, and 2 plants at Haverhill,
Massachusetts, and at Middle Village, New York (called Queensboro) ;
the Point Breeze Works, with plants at Baltimore, Maryland, at Allen-
town, Pennsylvania, and at Tonowanda, New York; 1 plant at Indian-
apolis, Indiana, stands alone .3 The radio division operates 3 plants, the
principal one at Winston-Salem, and smaller ones at Burlington and
Greensboro, all in North Carolina. There are engineers stationed at
each of these locations. In addition, both the manufacturing and the
radio divisions have engineers permanently stationed at the company's
New York City headquarters, and the radio division has a group of
field engineers working out of such headquarters and reporting there
only.
The two remaining divisions which employ engineers are not pro-
duction organizations and, therefore, operate no plants. The tele-
phone sales division maintains warehouses at 28 locations from
coast to coast, accessible to the operating telephone companies, where
it also repairs used equipment. The greatest number of its engineers
are located at the New York headquarters; the others work at Haw-
thorne, in Chicago, but report directly to supervisors at New York.
Similarly, all the engineers of the installation division are stationed
in New York. The nonprofessional employees of this division work
all over the country and are grouped into 24 districts.
Although most of the plants manufacture a great variety of products,
they also specialize to a degree 4 Thus the largest plant, Hawthorne,
manufactures approximately 60 types of equipment, but predominately
3 Since the close of the hearing , the Indianapolis plant has become an associated plant
of the Point Breeze Works . Also after the close of the hearing , the installation division
became a part of the telephone sales division under a single vice president. As there is
no evidence that this last change entailed any change in the Company 's method of operation,
no further reference will be made to that fact herein.
, Point Breeze produces , predominantly , cord for switchboards and various types of
wire and cable . Tonawanda produces cable and various wire products , particularly fine
guage wire used in switchboards and for winding coils ; Allentown , vacuum tubes and
other sentitive electronic equipment ; St Paul, dial equipment and various types of
fuses and cable terminals ; Haverhill , various kinds of coil and flat type resistances ;
Queensboro , telephone booths and other wood products ; Indianapolis , telephone hand
sets.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the huge switchboards and other complex equipment required for
central offices using dial equipment,5 while Kearny, the second largest
plant, produces the corresponding equipment for manually operated
central exchanges. Although many of the hundreds of component
items which must be combined at Hawthorne and Kearny to produce
this complex equipment are themselves manufactured at these loca-
tions, many others, such as various types of wire, cable, coil, and
rectifiers, are also primarily manufactured at other plants and shipped
to Kearny and Hawthorne.
To a lesser degree plants other than Hawthorne and Kearny utilize
material and components produced at other plants. Thirteen percent
of the dollar value of the production of the manufacturing division
results from materials and components manufactured at locations
other than the plants turning out the final products. The dollar value,
the only figure made available by the Employer, reflects neither the
great volume of interplant shipment nor the integrated engineering
essential to this method of manufacture 6 Such integration is also
interdivisional, as 10 percent of the dollar value of all products of the
radio division represents products received by it from the manu-
facturing division.
In many instances the same product is made at more than one loca-
tion. Ten percent of the dollar value of the manufacturing division's
total output represents products made at more than one location.
The Employees Involved
All the employees involved in this case are essentially professional
employees. Their classifications include a great variety of job titles
and categories; for purposes of clarity they can be grouped into
eight main classes: quality control engineers, equipment engineers,
manufacturing engineers, piece-rate engineers, wage-practice engi-
neers, tool designers, and test planning engineers. As stated above,
there is no dispute as to the propriety of joining all these categories in
a single bargaining unit'
6 Production of dial central office equipment also predominates at St. Paul and Lincoln,
which are called satellite plants of the Hawthorne Works because their manufacturing
engineers report to higher echelons of authority at Hawthorne , rather than to the resi-
dent managers of the satellite plants.
O For example , one subscriber 's switchboard made at Kearny requires plugs, cords, and
terminal strips made at Point Breeze ; message registers made at Hawthorne ; switchboard
cabling, magnet wire, switchboard wire, and finished cable made at Tonawanda ; varistors
and switchboard lamps made at Allentown ; telephone operator sets made at Indianapolis ;
repeat coils, retard coils , and resistances made at Haverhill ; and fuses and protectors,
made at St. Paul . The switchboard is made so that it may connect with mobile radio
equipment made at Winston -Salem and single side band radio from Burlington.
'The Petitioner identified the employees by job titles , numbering 56; the Employer
identified them by code numbers. Neither party disputed the correctness of the other's
method of Identification
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1023
As their job titles indicate, many of the engineers have specialized
experience and exercise varieties of skills in the engineering field.
Many of them, over the years, have acquired a further special knowl-
edge as to the production of certain types of products manufactured
by Western Electric in great numbers. At each plant are found
many classifications of engineers and, of course, the same type is found
at a number of plants. The over-all variations in their engineering
specialties are no greater between divisions, or between manufacturing'
locations, than they are among the various categories at any single
location. For example, there is far greater similarity between the
skills of wage incentive engineers wherever located than between
wage incentive engineers at Kearny and product engineers at Kearny.
As to the New York headquarters, where engineers from all four
divisions work, a similar diversity of engineers exists. The Company
makes every effort to keep particular engineers working on specific
products in order better to utilize their specialized knowledge. This
is particularly true of the "manufacturing engineers" who for this
reason are frequently referred to as product engineers." Although
manufacturing engineers are the least transferable category, it is con-
ceded that, at least 10 percent of those at Hawthorne-the location
employing the greatest number of engineers in this category-could
be transferred to Kearny with no loss of efficiency. Most other
engineers in this category would require no more than 6 months to
about a year at a new location to compensate for lack of previous
experience with any particular product.
The standard employment requirement for engineers throughout
the country is a Bachelor's Degree in engineering or science.9 The
basic starting pay for all engineers without advanced training is $65
per week. Throughout the company, all engineers earning less than
$350 per month are carried on weekly payrolls and are required to
punch a time clock. All those earning more than $350 are monthly
paid and do not punch time clocks. Lower paid men, receiving less
than $350, receive quarterly increases; all others are subject to semi-
annual rate review from New York headquarters. No engineer,
wherever located, may be paid more than $500 per month, or receive
raises in that higher bracket, without approval of the vice president
of his division. The median monthly salary of engineers in July 1950
In the manufacturing division product engineers are part of an administrative struc-
ture called the engineer of manufacture organization headed by the engineer of manufac-
ture at company headquarters.
9 Such a degree is not an absolute requirement but the Employer prefers graduates of
colleges approved by the Joint Engineering Council, which represents the major engineer-
ing societies , and actively recruits from the graduating classes of such colleges.
As of July 1950 , 36 percent of the engineers were graduates of colleges fully accredited
by this Council ; 14 percent were graduates of colleges not so accredited ; and 21 percent
had some college training but no degree.
1024 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was $445. In contrast to the average pay of production employees,
which is $56 per week, the average weekly earnings of the engineers is
$107. No.engineer who has been employed more than 10 years may
be severed or transferred, regardless of cause, without approval of
New York headquarters. The median service among engineers is
over 10 years. ,
There is some variance in the wages received by engineers at the
various plant locations, the Company attempting to keep the rates in
any particular areas in harmony with prevailing local engineering
rates. The variance in pay is generally slight when allowance is made
for variation in age group, length of service, and similar factors. The
same overtime policy is applied at all locations and all engineers are
governed by the same policy with regard to pensions and other benefits.
Every engineer is required, as a condition of employment, to assign
or release to the Company, all patent rights that may result from his
work. Length of vacations is the_ same, but the number of holidays
and length of the working day vary with locations.
Transfer Among Locations
There has been a considerable amount of transfer of engineers from
location to location. In terms of specific numbers df transfers, the
record shows only that from October 1,•1948, to July 1, 1950, 261 engi-
neers were transferred from one location to another; 108 of these were
caused by the transfer of work, or manufacturing units, as distin-
guished from the transfer of an employee 10 The record also shows,
however, that entire plants, or portions of plants called shops, have
from time to time been transferred from one city to another. Pre-
sumably, at least some of the engineers working in these shops or
plants ordinarily are moved with the plants. It also appears that in
operating its widespread enterprise, the Employer finds it convenient
to open new plants at times and to discontinue others. Each such
incident necessarily means the transfer of engineers, although the
specific number in each instance is not available in the record. Thus
in 1948 the New York tube shops were moved out of the Kearny
Works to Allentown, Pennsylvania, where a new plant was established.
Eighty-six engineers were transferred along with these shops. In
1946, 7 specialty shops were moved from the Kearny area-covering
parts of New Jersey and New York City-to the radio division in
,North Carolina. In this instance about 100 engineers were transferred
to North Carolina plants.
10 As to the earlier period from 1942 to 1948, the Employer stipulated that "there was
a considerable number of transfers of technical-professionals between the various divi-
sions, headquarters , and plant locations of the company."
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1025
The Company asserts, and the evidence shows, that such establish-
ment or shifting around of plants or production units occurs more
frequently in times of national disturbance, as during the last war. It
has, however, occurred also after the war. Moreover, it appears that
with the extensive National. Defense Program now under way, like
changes are contemplated or taking place 11 Such an instance is the
expected transfer of the production of airborne communication sets
from North Carolina to the manufacturing division at Hawthorne.
Another example is the closing of the Archer Avenue plant in Illinois
and the transfer of its units to Indianapolis during the course of the
hearing.
Headquarters Control
Ultimate control of the operations of each division centers at the
New York headquarters in the person of the vice president of the divi-
sion . Here the general policy of the company is formulated, not only
regarding production requirements, allocation of products to particu-
lar plants, and over-all adjustment to changing economic conditions,
but also with respect to production know-how, general harmonizing
of working conditions-wages, hours, pension benefits-and changes,
in personnel and labor relations matters. Below the vice president in
each division are works managers-these are in charge of separate,
groups of plants-and, lower down in the managerial hierarchy,
superintendents and assistant superintendents over the various single
plant locations, depending upon size or importance in other respects.
Headquarters control over all the work carried on in all locations,
is exercised by means of a constant flow. of written instructions to all
organizations of the Company. These instructions are "the official
source of detailed information concerning the various operations and
organizations , of the Company and explain the manner in which
policies and functions are to be carried out." 12 There is a series of
such instructions for each division. Those for the manufacturing
division, called MDI's, are prepared under the direction of the comp-
troller of manufacture by the business methods organization at New
York.13 The New York business methods organization, in turn, re-
ceives its directions from the particular executive or headquarters
committee responsible for that phase of the Company's activities giving
11 Jones, the works engineer of manufacture at Hawthorne , testified that during the
4 or 5 war years , interplant transfer of engineers was abnormally high . In this con-
nection , it is significant that in the year 1950, 10 percent of the Employer's gross volume
of business , $ 74,000 ,000, was for the United States Government ; for the year 1951,
this item grew to $300 ,000,000
11 This quotation appears in the Employer 's reference book for supervisors at the Kearny
Works.
13 For other divisions, the corresponding series are : RDI5 for the radio division, TSIs
for the telephone sales* division , PDIs for the purchasing division , and ICIs for the
installation clerical group.
1026 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rise to the written instruction. Because the affairs of any one division
may have an impact on other divisions, the comptroller of manufac-
ture also receives the divisional instructions of other divisions and
reissues pertinent portions thereof as part of MDI's.
When headquarters MDI's are received at the Works locations, they
are reissued through the local business methods organization over sig-
nature of the Works' manager. The local methods organization also
issue MDI's received from headquarters but which apply only to a
single Works. These MDI's generally cover matters of concern only
to those plants which comprise a Works. If they prove useful, how-
ever, they are issued by New York headquarters to all other manufac-
turing locations.
Centralized control over the manufacturing operations of all loca-
tions, particularly as it affects the work of engineers , is also seen in
the system whereby an engineer of manufacture, located at New York,
determines the location or locations at which each ultimate product
and raw material handled in quantity shall be made or handled. He
establishes for each said product an engineering headquarters, at a
particular manufacturing location, which then is responsible for de-
velopment of necessary manufacturing processes, specifications, anal-
ysis, and planning of apparatus and equipment. Whenever several
manufacturing locations are involved, production proceeds at each
site under advice of the single engineering headquarters.
The New York headquarters further correlates and controls the
operations of all locations through a personnel committee and an em-
ployee benefit committee. The personnel committee, headed by the
personnel director, consists of the vice president in charge of each
division, the head of the installation division (a general manager),
and the, comptroller of the manufacturing division. This committee
formulates and recommends for executive action policies and methods
necessary to insure proper employee relations.'' Among the func-
tions of the personnel committee is the establishment of the company-
wide overtime policy, the formulation each year of the general policy
on increases to be followed in the preparation of the local proposals
for increases in the semiannual rate review of salaries of all unorgan-
ized employees, and the review of these local proposals. The record
shows that this broad function includes all phases of labor relations
including collective bargaining.
By resolution of the board of directors, authority to negotiate and
bargain collectively is initially vested in the president with power to
14 The function of the personnel director is described in the Employer 's MDI No. 1.55
as follows :
"Subject to the approval of the committee policies are formulated and practices are
established and coordinated throughout the Company by the Personnel Director."
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1027
redelegate. There is a chain of formal written redelegations through
vice presidents to the Works' managers . In turn, the Works' managers
redelegate to local labor relations managers . The authority of single
plant officers is often restricted. At the Kearny Works, the Haver-
hill and Queensboro plant officers are authorized to act either severally
or jointly with the Works' manager; in practice they have acted jointly.
The situation is the same at the Hawthorne Works and in the radio
division. The separate contracts for hourly employees at the St.
Paul and Lincoln plants of the Hawthorne Works have been signed by
the Works' labor relations manager. The superintendent at Winston-
Salem is responsible for labor relations at his plant and at the Burling-
ton plant.
The decisions of the personnel committee are regularly transmitted
to local managers or superintendents. Despite the Employer's asser-
tion that local administrative officers are not precluded from using
their own discretion in following the policies laid down in New York,
the entire record contains only a few instances of local deviations,
even in minor details, from the central office policies. The radio,
division recruited in a year when the committee had advised against
recruitment, a minor variation was made in the benefit field at Kearny,
with headquarters, however, advised in advance of the decision to
deviate, and the radio division has at times hired engineers at more
than $65 starting pay. The record shows, rather, that any proposed
deviations from the committee' s decisions or rules must be approvecl
at New York.15 For example, the record shows that if during bar-
gaining negotiations local management advises that it cannot settle
a disputed wage rate for a sum close to what has already been approved
by New York headquarters, the local officers must again resort to New -
York City before committing the Company to the higher rate.
IB A former personnel director of the Company described the relationship between the
personnel committee and the local company officers as follows :
"The local bargaining people, along with the management-just to cite a case at
Hawthorne-if they are in a position , where, in their judgment, their judgment may be
influenced by contract provisions , if they are at a time when there is a wage reopening
clause, for example, in a contract , they take a look at their situation within the plant and
in the area and they make recommendations that come up to their own line of organiza-
tion and up to their own Vice President as to, in general, what they think they should do
and when they should do it."
This witness added that if the vice president feels that the matter Is of sufficient
importance and has an impact on other divisions of the Company , or for any other reason
desires that the personnel committee discuss the matter, he says to the personnel director:
"I think we should have a Personnel Committee Meeting and sit down and take a look
at this situation , be sure that what we are doing makes sense in the light of the general
situation in the other divisions of the company , and he bases this, however , on the recom-
mendations of the local management , who come in and are the basis for the discussion, and,
after looking at it , it may be that certain changes would be suggested or that the local
management is advised by their own Vice President , not by the Personnel Director, but by
their own Vice President that what they are proposing is satisfactory and it Is up to
them to go ahead and bargain the thing out."
1028 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employee benefit committee, appointed by the board of direc-
tors, is responsible for the administration of the Employees pension
plan. It also controls many matters not covered by the plan but re-
lated to it. These include procedures governing application of the
Company's retirement rule and procedures for determining term of em-
ployment. This committee also consists of a number of divisional vice
presidents and several others of the highest ranking officers of the
Company.
Within the framework of this over-all supervision and control from
the New York headquarters, the separate Works, as well as their
satellite or associated plant locations, function with a degree of auton-
omy. Each plant has its own employment office, separate payroll,
personnel department, and freedom to make whatever decisions occur
in the normal day-to-day process of running a manufacturing plant.'(,
For payroll purposes, the engineers of various divisions who work .
at or out of New York headquarters, are treated as a separate entity.
Collective Bargaining History
Collective bargaining among Western Electric's employees dates
back to 1933, when an Employee Representation Plan was in effect.
Up to 1937, when, following judicial affirmation of the Wagner Act,
the plan ceased to function, all employees, wherever located and re-
gardless of category, were thus joined in a single bargaining unit.
Starting in 1937, there grew up a number of independent unions at
various locations representing, for the most part, the hourly paid em-
ployees. Except for various changes in affiliation or union names,
most of these organizations still exist today at various plants or Works.
There also came into existence, during the intervening years, some
single plant craft and guard units.
The only history of collective bargaining among the Company's
engineers , after their participation in the ERP, involved 'a group of
engineers in the general area of the present Kearny Works. Following
a consent \election, the Council of Western Electric Technical Em-
ployees, a predecessor of the Petitioner, was certified in 1945 as bar-
gaining agent for all technical employees at the then Kearny Works."
The scope of the unit there comprised "the main plant at Kearny,
New Jersey, and all of the outlying annexes of that plant that are
1° Much of the testimony regarding local plant autonomy, similarity or differences in
working conditions , and like matters , is very difficult to assess because of the loose use
of the word "plant." Many witnesses so referred to satellite plants, associated plants, or
main plant locations of a works . It is frequently impossible to ascertain which meaning
is intended . Conversely , frequent references to Kearney or Hawthorne are ambiguous
because it is not clear whether or not the related plants are included.
17 Although the certification spoke of technical employees , the record shows, and the par-
ties do not dispute , that the unit embraced a wide range of professional classifications
which are also the subject of this proceeding.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1029
located in Northern New Jersey and New York City." It is clear
that the Haverhill plant, then as now part of the Kearny Works,,was
never a part of that bargaining unit.
Based on that certification, a contract was made which continued
yearly thereafter until terminated in accordance with its terms on
December 31, 1949. Of all the other engineers here involved, none but
about 37 in Baltimore (see discussion below) have been represented
by any union since 1937.
During the 3-year life of that contract, the employees and the plant
units affected by the certification changed radically because of business
changes in the Company's operations. A number of locations origi-
nally included in the unit were transferred in 1946 into the radio
division, located in North Carolina. These were called the specialty
products shops."' The Company's operations resulted in another
change in the character of the certified unit in that groups of employees
covered by the certification were later transferred from the telephone
sales division to the manufacturing division.
As to other employees in the four divisions where engineers are
found, varying arrangements of bargaining units developed in the
years subsequent to the ERP.19 In the manufacturing division, inde-
pendent unions began to represent hourly paid employees at the center
locations of the three then existing Works, these being Kearny, Haw-
thorne, and Point Breeze. Comparable units developed at the then
existing, and later established, smaller plants, Lincoln, St. Paul,
Queensboro, Haverhill, Tonawanda, and Allentown. Some of these
unions subsequently affiliated with larger organizations, such as The
National Federation of Telephone Workers, The National Association
of Telephone Equipment Workers, and later the Communication
Workers of America. In 1949, a number of these unions affiliated with
the CIO. Some few units, such as Allentown, St. Paul, and Indianapo-
lis, have become AFL affiliates. At the Point Breeze plant in Balti-
more, the independent union was disestablished by Board order in
1945 20 The hourly paid employees there are now represented by the
Communication Workers of America. During the past 10 years certain
other plants, which also had single plant units, have been discontinued,
Duluth, Minnesota; Scranton, Pennsylvania; and Eau Claire, Wiscon-
sin. At present all hourly paid employees in the manufacturing divi-
sion are in single plant units. In the radio division, the employees at
18 The specialty products shops had been at the following locations : three at Kearny,
New Jersey ; one at Clifton and Passaic, New Jersey ; one at Jersey City , New Jersey ;
one at 11th Avenue, New York City ; and one at 42nd Street , New York.City.
11 The record contains no evidence as to any organizational activities or collective bar-
gaining among any of the employees in the legal and patent , purchasing and traffic, and
finance divisions.
21 Western Electric Company , Incorporated, 57 NLRB 1177.
998666-vol. 98-53-66
1030 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Winston-Salem and Burlington plants are in a two-plant unit. The
record does not show whether, or in what unit, the hourly employees
of the Greensboro plant, also in the radio division, are represented.
The only other bargaining among employees in the manufacturing
and radio divisions consists of a unit of salaried employees at the
Point Breeze, Baltimore, plant. All employees of these two divisions,
for the most part engineers who are located at the New York City
headquarters, have been unrepresented.
As to the installation and the telephone sales divisions, the hourly
paid employees are now represented in division-wide units. Those in
the installation division (9,620 employees), scattered throughout the
United States in 24 districts, are represented by Division 18, CWA-
CIO. This unit has existed since 1944, with the local organizations
handling grievances only. The hourly paid employees in the tele-
phone sales division at first were represented in separate units for
each of the approximately 28 warehouse locations throughout the coun-
try. In 1944, all were joined in a division-wide unit (5,800 employees),
represented by The National Association of Telephone Equipment
Workers; in 1947, their union become the CWA, and in 1949 it became
Division 6, CWA-CIO. The clerical employees of the telephone
sales division are now represented in a division-wide unit. The only
other bargaining among employees of these two divisions is a unit of
accounting employees of the telephone sales division limited to the
eastern area of the Company's operations.
Between 1939 and 1947, the various independent unions representing
hourly paid employees combined to form The National Committee of
Telephone Equipment Workers for the purposes of negotiating, at
company headquarters, with respect to a number of substantial mat-
ters. The three unions at the principal location of each of the three
Works and the two associations representing the hourly paid em-
ployees of the installation and the telephone sales divisions partici-
pated in The National Committee. The other plant locations were
represented intermittently as the various plants came into existence
or were discontinued. The membership of the committee, therefore,
changed in number and identity of the constituent unions.
The methods and scope of The National Committee's activities re-
mained constant throughout its 8-year life. On behalf of the con-
stituent unions, it bargained with the Company on such matters as
standard works schedules, overtime pay, holiday pay, vacations, ab-
sences, layoff pay, matters affecting employees entering the Armed
Forces, and treatment of union officers. Negotiations were conducted
at headquarters, with many of the negotiators on the part of the Com-
pany being executive officers. The resultant agreements were for-
malized in identical contracts with each of the constituent labor or-
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1031
ganizations and ratified by them. As to matters of a purely local
nature, such as wages, the constituent unions bargained separately and
made separate contracts respecting the subjects not covered by The
National Committee's agreements. In 1947, the Employer ceased to
bargain with The National Committee.
Discussion
We are asked by the Petitioner to view the Western Electric
Company as a public utility and to decide the main issue in this case
by a simple application of the Board's general principle that company-
wide units are the optimum in public utilities.21 Such an approach,
of course, would make it unnecessary to consider the voluminous record,
including both the many facts showing integration in Western Elec-
tric's operations and those showing a degree of autonomy at various
manufacturing locations. It cannot be denied that, as the production
arm for the very specialized equipment requirements of the Bell Tele-
phone System, Western Electric is closely integrated with the opera-
tions of that vast public utility. There is much weight, therefore,
in the Petitioner's argument that in effect Western Electric is compara-
ble to a public utility. It is equally true, however, that the Company's
operations are essentially those of a manufacturer. It does not serve
the public, nor has it any direct relationship with actual operations of
the telephone service. In many respects, its affairs are run much
like those of any other large manufacturing company. Whatever
significance the close working relationship between Western Electric
and the Bell Telephone System may have upon the determination
of the appropriate bargaining unit, or whatever light the public
utility aspect of the telephone service may shed upon Western' Electric's
manufacturing methods, we cannot say that by merely labeling Western
Electric a public utility the principal issue of this case can be decided.
As in all unit determinations, the Board's duty is to consider all the
pertinent facts in each case and be guided accordingly.22 For purposes
of this decision, therefore, we find it unnecessary to decide whether
or not the Employer is a public utility.
At the outset, it is important to note that so far as the contentions
of the parties are concerned and, therefore, so far as the litigated
record shows, the only unit directly examined or explored in the
record is the company-wide one. The appropriateness of any other
n Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257
22 Indeed, the very Board policy in public utility cases which the Petitioner urges here
is not an arbitrary rule existing apart from, or in disregard of, the basic considerations
classically underlying bargaining units ; it rests, rather upon a finding that in that indus-
try the factors pointing to community of interest justify company-wide units whenever
requested by a labor organization. Niagara Hudson Power Corporation, 79 NLRB 1115.
1032 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit arrangement of the engineers, whether into separate divisions
or single locations, was not a clear issue. No affirmative effort was
made, and therefore no affirmative evidence was introduced, to show
that any other particular units were good or bad. In this posture
of the case, it would seem that if we agree with the Employer's
principal contention that the over-all unit is inappropriate, the
petition must be dismissed unless the lengthy record fortuitously
provides sufficient factual evidence upon which the Board can establish
smaller units. Although the Petitioner stated unequivocally that in
any event it wishes to represent the engineers, it made no unit pro-
posal other than the company-wide one.
On its face, the unit requested is appropriate because it is coextensive
with the entire Company. A unit of such scope is the first one called
appropriate in Section 9 (b) of the Act, upon which the Board's
authority to establish collective bargaining units rests.23 Apart from
situations controlled or affected by special statutory requirements, it is
also the basic unit recognized by the Board since its earliest days .24
Indeed, it may be stated as a general rule that, absent any statutory
considerations, the Board does not refuse to grant a company-wide
unit to a labor organization unless it is affirmatively shown that a
smaller one is more appropriate.
In substance, the Employer's attack upon the unit proposed rests
on two facts: The geographical separation of the employees involved
and a certain degree of autonomy at various manufacturing locations
where substantial numbers of the engineers work. The physical sep-
aration of large numbers of employees at points like Chicago, Balti-
more, and Kearny, is a very relevant factor which indicates different
interests in working conditions generally; and which, were there not
other substantial aspects of the engineers' employment to offset it,
might well preclude joining them all in a single unit. Likewise,
what independent functioning of the manufacturing locations was
shown-and it is not negligible-certainly lends support to the Em-
ployer's argument, at least with respect to those engineers in the
manufacturing and in the radio divisions located away from the
New York headquarters. The record as a whole, however, contains
many other facts which point to a community of interest among all
-the engineers sufficient to justify an all inclusive unit of such em-
ployees, even though, under other circumstances, more limited units
might also be appropriate.
23 The pertinent language of Section 9 (b) reads as follows :
"The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to assure to employees the
fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act , the units appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit , craft unit, plant unit,
or sub -division thereof . . . ( Emphasis supplied.)
24 Tovrea Packing Co., 12 NLRB 1003, 1083.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1033
Whatever independence there may be among the groups of hourly
paid employees- at the various manufacturing plants, it is clear that
the engineers located at the plant sites are affected in their work by
that of other engineers , either in the same or other divisions, who
are regularly stationed elsewhere. The correlation in their work-
indicative of an over-all similarity in interests in working con-
ditions-is most forcefully shown by the fact that a substantial num-
ber of the entire professional group works at or out of the New York
headquarters. Not only are engineering problems applicable to indi-
vidual plants within a division worked on by divisional engineers at
headquarters, but engineers from the various divisions, in turn, cor-
relate the work of all divisions by their combined efforts at New
York. The joinder of the manufacturing plants appears, therefore,
both within the division by the presence of divisional engineers at
headquarters, where no production work is done, and among the
divisions by the concentration there of engineers from all four divi-
sions 15 The work of the headquarters engineers, although supervised
by New York management, relates directly to the operations carried
on at the manufacturing plants and at the installation and warehouse
sites. It is, therefore, a direct and very substantial link tying all the
engineers together.
Apart from the cohesiveness that attaches to professional engineers
by virtue of their special function in a large manufacturing company,
the record here also contains much evidence of the usual factors which
ordinarily support a single bargaining unit. All of the engineers are
in the same profession, have comparable educational requirements,
start work at the same pay, progress with the Company at approxi-
mately the same rate, and enjoy the same benefits with respect to
pensions, retirement, insurance, vacation, and other benefits accorded
by the Company.
In addition, their community of interest is shown by the important
element of transfer of engineers among the various` locations. Spe-
cifically, the record shows only the number of direct transfers occur-
ring during the 20-month period preceding the opening of the hearing ;
25 The record also contains a number of instances, too detailed for repetition here, of
exchange of engineering data between the plants, correspondence among engineers at
-different locations in resolving particular production or operational problems , periodic
regional conferences on engineering matters, and widespread dissemination of advice
among the plants of improved methods evolved at a particular location . It is true, as
the Employer explains, that much of the scientific and research data circulated among the
engineers is attributable to the professional character of their calling. However, the
importance of their keeping abreast of developments at other plants, even in those in-
stances which involve theoretical rather than operational ideas , serves to accentuate the
distinctiveness of their common interests as a group apart from all other employees This
special homogeneity among professional employees was emphasized in the 1947 amend-
ments to the Act which prohibit their inclusion in any bargaining unit unless a majority
of their number so desires.
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these were approximately 8 percent of all the engineers. It also
,appears, however, that it is a business practice of the Employer on an
over-all basis to open new plants and discontinue others as changes in
business conditions require, and to shift manufacturing units, some-
times called shops or plant units, from one location to another. This
aspect of the Company's operations also involves the shifting of engi-
neers, and although the precise number involved in all cases was not
shown it does appear that in some instances it was very substan-
tial26 Such changes are no less disruptive of a smaller than plant-
wide unit, than is the transfer of individual workmen. The signifi-
cance of this practice is particularly highlighted in this very case by
the situation which developed after establishment of an engineer
unit limited to the Kearny area in 1945, when, within the next 12
months, no less than seven "plant units" were removed from the
bargaining unit by transfer to North Carolina. In view of the great,
size of the Employer's business and the great diversity in the size of
its many plant units, this shifting about of manufacturing units over
the years appears more as a normal incident of its manner of operating
than as an unusual situation, as the Employer contends. Not all the
changes were caused by wartime or national emergency requirements.
In any event, we cannot ignore the fact that the trend of current history
makes the uncertain conditions of our national life a relevant factor
in industrial relations.
As already stated, integration and centralized control of the pro-
duction process-the work performed by the employees-tends to join
them through a common interest. But, while correlation of the efforts
of engineers at various plants to meet the complex requirements of
some of the Company's products brings them closer together, the prob-
lems arising in that aspect of their work only indirectly relate to
collective bargaining or union activity. More persuasive of the
appropriateness of an over-all unit is the detailed determination
and supervision from headquarters of those aspects of their employ-
ment which are the primary concern of self-organizational activity.
Among these are the wage structure, overtime pay, job retention
rights, retirement or pension benefits, and other conditions or terms
of employment.
We therefore consider the centralized control, primarily through
the personnel committee and the pension committee, as a very per-
suasive element militating in favor of a company-wide unit in this
case. As to pension rights, and precise methods for determining term
ze The Company's rule against the discharge of 10-year men without headquarters
approval strongly supports an inference that when plants are discontinued, the transfer of
such employees is not only of concern and desirable to the Employer, but also a matter of
right to the employees.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1035
of employment, and, necessarily, all applications for retirement, there
is no claim that these matters are decided at the plant or Works level.
As to other aspects of working conditions-including direct and
indirect wages and all other personnel matters-it is true that there are
written delegations of authority from the president through lower
executive officers and down to plant superintendents and managers,
to carry out the policies and the detailed instructions from head-
quarters as they are issued and to bargain with any representative of
employees. The record, however, is replete with evidence that in
fact the central office either sets the pattern for such matters, or when
a leeway is desired, circumscribes the area of discretion granted to
local management so as, in effect, to render the so-called "autonomy"
of little practical significance 27 The contending parties filled a very
lengthy record with unending minutiae of centralized control or
indicia of plant independence, each to support its contention. It is
impossible, therefore, to draw a precise line between local and central
exercise of authority. Significantly, however, the record contains
only few instances in which a plant manager or superintendent
deviated from a headquarters' instruction without prior approval
from New York.
On the record before us, we cannot accept the Employer's assertion
that the function of its central office personnel committee is primarily
advisory to the plant heads; that its purpose is to make available to
all plants the experiences gained at other locations; that that com-
mittee-consisting of the highest operational officers of the Company-
is convened in large measure at the request of the plant managers;
in short, that headquarters control is no more than the minimum
required to hold together any far flung corporate enterprise. No
doubt these purposes are among the objectives of centralized manage-
ment; and it may well be that where there is no bargaining agent in
the picture, directive and advice are interchangeable.
Here, however, we are primarily concerned with the manner in
which the Employer in fact bargains with its employees once they have
selected a representative. Local personnel managers and plant super-
intendents necessarily have less occasion to discuss deviations from the
specific directions laid down by headquarters when no demands are
made upon them which they are legally obligated to consider. The
evidence shows that in such situations, proposed changes at any plant
locations are examined and considered by the personnel committee
in the light of their impact upon all other locations. Local company
77 As to the 15,000 employees in the installation and the telephone sales divisions, on
whose behalf collective bargaining is carried on entirely in New York City, the Employer,
admitting the fact of homogeneity within their respective division, does not dispute their
division -wide community of interest.
1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representatives therefore have awaited headquarters' advice in the
course of bargaining conferences before granting demands or making
counterproposals beyond prior committee advice. The Employer
admits that it makes every effort, when dealing with a union at one
location, to maintain a certain predetermined balance or relationship
blanketing its entire group of plants . The reservation to the central
office of power to decide matters of most critical concern to the engi-
neers is effectively illustrated by its rule that none may be paid over
$500 monthly without their vice president 's approval . The vice presi-
dents are members of the personnel committee . As a large percentage
of the 3,300 engineers must be paid at least $500 monthly ( the median
being $445), collective bargaining on their behalf is significant only
to the extent that it involves negotiations with New York management.
Restated : These engineers have a greater community of interest
.with other engineers earning $500 per month, wherever they may be
located, than with engineers in the same physical location with them.
As usual, the Employer's collective bargaining history is a factor
to be considered in the Board's determination of any bargaining unit.
The bargaining history in this case has followed no fixed pattern,
either among the engineers or among other categories of employees.
The hourly paid workmen in the manufacturing division, greatest
in number, have been represented both on a company-wide basis
through the Employee Representation Plan and, after 1937, mostly on
the basis of single plant units. However, the single plant bargaining
was modified for a 9-year period by multiplant bargaining on many
substantial matters between the National Committee and the
Employer. In two divisions, the hourly paid employees are now
represented, as they have been for the past 8 years, in division-wide
units. In the radio division, they have a multiplant unit. Among
the engineers, there has been only one unit limited to the Kearny area,
and this was substantially dismembered by the transfer to other States
of several of the manufacturing units originally included. Clerical
employees are organized only in the installation division in a unit
coextensive with the division. Apart from some few instances of
single plant craft or guard units, the only other past bargaining has
been in a unit of salaried employees limited to the Point Breeze (Balti-
more) plant. It thus appears that, in addition to the engineers
outside of the Kearny area, there are a considerable number of clerical
or salaried employees who have been unrepresented since 1937.
We do not consider this checkered bargaining history determina-
tive of any particular unit arrangement now, or persuasive towards an
over-all unit or a number of smaller units among the engineers.
Although in its comprehensive brief the Employer proposed no alter-
native unit arrangement for these employees, at certain times during
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1037
the hearing, it seemed to suggest single location or division-wide units.
Certainly past bargaining among the bulk of its employees supports
neither. For while there are single location (plant) units among
the hourly paid employees in the manufacturing divisions, the 9,800
hourly workers in the telephone sales division stationed at 29 loca-
tions throughout the country are represented in a single unit. Even
within the manufacturing division, where plant units exist, the
Employer misconceives the Board's policy respecting the organization
of unrepresented categories of employees. The Board has not held,
as the Employer apparently contends here, that a multiplant unit-
or, as in this case, a company-wide unit-is inappropriate merely be-
cause more limited or single plant units exist among other categories.
Nor do the unit arrangements among employees of other large
electrical equipment manufacturers reveal an industry pattern which
could have any significant bearing here. It is true that single plant
units exist in a great number of manufacturing plants of the General
Electric Corporation and the Westinghouse Electric Company.
Apart from the special element of integration which exists in Western
Electric because of its close cooperation with the Bell Telephone
System, we are not aware that any labor organization has ever sought
to represent employees of those companies on an over-all basis. The
Board decisions which directed single plant elections in those com-
panies did not involve company-wide versus single plant issues.28
Moreover, the service and installation employees of Radio Corpora-
tion of America, like those of the Employer here, are represented on
a Nation-wide basis.29
In conclusion, we have considered all the facts contained in the ex-
tensive record, and after weighing those factors favoring smaller units
against those pointing to the appropriateness of a company-wide unit
of engineers, we find that the over-all unit sought by the Petitioner
is appropriate. This is not to say that-in view of the immense size of
the Employer's operations and the substantial distances separating
certain groups of engineers from others-more limited units could
not also be appropriate if any had been requested by labor organiza-
tions and reasonable delineations and common denominators for them
had been shown.
Certain professional employees at Point Breeze, Baltimore and
Point Breeze, Salaried Employees' Association, Inc., respecting the
inclusion of 20 employees at the Point Breeze plant. These are classi-
fied as follows:1 machine designer (No. 4412) ; 6 chemists (No. 4616) ;
4 tool designers (No. 4413) ; 3 assistant engineers quality control (No.
28 See, for example, General Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 726, and Westinghouse Elec-
tric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8.
2a RCA Service Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1122.
1038 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1696) ; 4 assistant engineers (No. 1628) ; and 2 physicists (No. 4617).
The Petitioner and the Employer apparently agree that at other
locations where these jobs are filled, the incumbents have the requisite
education or training and exercise skills which warrant their inclusion
in an essentially professional employee unit 30 The Association con-
tends that the 20 individuals in these categories at Point Breeze are
not professional employees and urges their exclusion from the over-all
unit on this ground and on the further ground that they have for some
time been represented by the Association in a unit of salaried em-
ployees limited to the Point Breeze plant. The Employer is neutral
and offered no evidence bearing on the work or skill of these employees.
Resolution of this issue requires some comment on the character of
the unit in which the company-wide election is hereinafter directed.
As appears from the facts set forth above and from the record as a
whole, it is essentially a unit of professional employees and the Peti-
tioner expressly so characterized it throughout the proceeding. The
Employer does not dispute the Petitioner's assertion in this respect;
however, it did not expressly stipulate to the professional status of all
the individual employees sought by the Petitioner. No direct evidence
respecting the educational requirements and the scientific quality of
the work performed by the included employees was received from the
Employer. The job descriptions placed in evidence, covering all the
categories included, were prepared by the Petitioner. While the Em-
ployer did not question their substantial accuracy, it stated that the
variances in the education and skill requirements and the work per-
formed by its many engineers, made it impossible for the Company to
prepare any type of job descriptions that could be put in evidence.
For these reasons, • although we are satisfied that the over-all unit
meets the professional employee requirements of Section 2 (12) of the
Act, as to the specific inclusion of the many individuals who now com-
pose it, it is a stipulated unit.
The testimony as to the educational background and the professional
level of the work performed by the disputed individuals at Point
Breeze is largely in the form of expressions of opinion either by fellow
employees, who were not authoritatively informed, or by union officers,
whose knowledge was almost entirely indirect. It does appear, how-
ever, that 9 of the 20 have college degrees; that 3 have had 3 years,
and 3 others, 2 years, of college training; that these and some others
are pursuing engineering courses at night leading to a degree; and that
30A seventh classification-analyst, piece-rate senior (No. 1643)-was also in dispute.
As the only two employees in this classification had been transferred to other classifications
before the close of the hearing and their work assigned to the section chiefs, and as the
record therefore contains very little evidence as to their qualification and work, we shall
treat this classification no differently than all others in the long list of categories involved.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY , INCORPORATED 1039
a number of the group , sometimes designated by name and sometimes
unspecified, do work clearly requiring scientific skill. As to 2 whose
training was not set forth in detail, the record shows that each has 2
patents in the engineering field to his credit.
Some witnesses described the work of these employees as being rou-
tine, only slightly skilled, and standardized . Others characterized it
as being very scientific and requiring a high degree of independent
judgment and originality . Although both groups gave specific in-
stances of chemical , physical , and engineering tests supporting their
conflicting conclusionary statements , their testimony , consistently
couched in the language of the Act, in general is very unpersuasive.
More significant , in the light of the training qualifications possessed
by the employees in question , is the fact that they occupy positions
which throughout the Company 's many locations are undisputedly
professional jobs. In these circumstances , although part of the work
performed by some of them may not measure up to professional stand-
ards , we are satisfied , on the basis of their scholastic training, their
professional classification , and the scientific work which the record
does show they perform , that these employees fall within the definition
of Section 2 (12) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that they are
professional employees.
There is another professional category-piece-rate setter (No.
1624)-which at the Point Breeze plant includes 19 employees. As
to these, although the Employer and the Petitioner agree that the
category as such is professional and should be included in the over-
all unit, the Petitioner asserts that they are misclassified and should
be excluded. The Association agrees. To the contrary, the Em-
ployer stated that it knew of no difference in the work performed by
employees in this classification wherever located. Again, the tenor of
the record evidence supporting the claim of misclassification is no more
than broad generalities that these particular employees are not quite
as skilled or as educated as are their counterparts in other locations.
In a professional unit as large as this one, variances in the degree of
professional expertness among the many individual employees are to
be expected . However, such differences neither require nor justify
exclusion of those individuals who perform less than the full gamut
of the task requirements of their general classification . We therefore
see no persuasive reason for excluding the piece -rate setters at the
Point Breeze plant.
For the past 6 years, the piece -rate setters and the 20 other employees
in dispute at Point Breeze have been represented in collective bargain-
ing by the Association in a unit of salaried employees limited to that
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant. They are covered by a current contract between that labor
organization and the Employer, and the Association desires to con-
tinue to represent them. Because they have been separately repre-
sented, we shall, in accordance with Board policy, not include these
-employees in the company-wide professional unit without first
ascertaining their desire in a separate election 31
Accordingly, we shall direct that separate elections by secret ballot
be conducted among the employees in the following voting groups :
Group 1. All employees of the Employer, wherever located, in the
classifications listed in Appendix A, attached hereto, including those
on loan to the Bell Telephone Laboratories and the Teletype Corpora-
tion, but excluding the specific employees listed in Appendix B, and
in Appendix C, attached hereto, all employees included in voting
group 2, below, and all supervisors as defined ,in the Act 32
Group 2. All employees in the Employer's Point Breeze plant,
Baltimore, Maryland, in the following classifications : rate setter, piece
rates (Code No. 1624) ; chemist (Code No. 4616) ; machine designer
(Code No. 4412) ; tool designer (Code No. 4413) ; engineer, assistant
quality control (Code No. 1696) ; physicist (Code No. 4617), exclud-
ing all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in group 2 vote for the Association
they will be taken to have expressed their desire for continued repre-
sentation by the Association in the unit at the Point Breeze plant which
the Association currently represents, and the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certificate of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Appendix A
Western Electric
Title Code No.
Acting Senior Engineer----------------- Uncoded
Analyst, Piece Rates Junior-------------- 2643
Analyst, Piece Rates Senior --------------- 1643
Chemist-------------------------------- 4616
Chemist, Assistant---------------------- 1618
Designer------------------------------- 4417
Designer , Construction------------------ 4443
Designer , Factory Equipment------------ 4411
81 See , Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109
az Inclusion of employees on loan to other companies, and exclusion of the employees
listed in Appendices B (misclassified employees) & C (confidential employees ) is pursuant
to agreement between the Petitioner and the Employer.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED - 1041
Appendix A-Continued
Western Electric
Title Code No.
Designer, Machine______________________ 4412
Designer, Machine Detailer______________ 4415
Designer, Test Sets_____________________ 4414
Designer, Tool__________________________ 4413
Engineer, Assistant_____________________ 1628
Engineer, Assistant, Quality Control______ 1696
Engineer, Assistant, Staf________________ 1690
Engineer, C. 0. Advance Requirements 4685
Analyst
Engineer, C. 0. Cabling_________________ 1913, 2913, 3913
Engineer, C. 0. Eng. Checker, Analyzer, 4681
Studies, Etc.
Engineer, C. 0. Equipment______________ 1912, 2912, 3912
Engineer, C. 0. Methods_________________ 1916, 2916, 3916
Engineer, C. 0. Power___________________ 1911, 2911, 3911
Engineer, C. 0. Standards Cabling________ 1914, 2914, 3914
Engineer, C. 0. Standards Equipment____ 1919, 2919, 3919
Engineers, C. 0. Standards Framework--- 1915, 2915, 3915
Engineer, C. 0. Standards Power_________ 1917, 2917, 3917
Engineer, C. 0. Verification Equipment___ 1940
Engineer, Ceramics_____________________ 4614
Engineer, Chemical_____________________ 4626
Engineer , Construction, Structural, Civil, 4663
Etc.
Engineer, Development or Methods_______ 1501, 2501, 3,501, 4.)(1
Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical, C. O___ 4651
Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical, Devel- 4621
opment,
Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical, In- 4631
spection.
Engineer Electrical or Mechanical, Manu- 4611
facturing.
Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical, Plan- 4641
ning.
Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical, Plant_ 4661
Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical, Qual- 4671
ity Control.
Engineer, Equipment____________________ 4691
Engineer, Inspection, Quality Control____ 1648
Engineer, Job Evaluation, Senior________ 3952
Engineer, Miscellaneous, Scientists------- 4681
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix A-Continued
Western Electric
Title Code No.
Engineer, Piece Rates___________________ 4625
Engineer, Test__________________________ 1502, 2502, 3502, 4502
Field Engineer_________________________ 4645 and Uncoded
Field Engineer Representative----------- Uncoded
Field Planning Engineer________________ Uncoded
Inspector of Plant______________________ Uncoded
Piece Rate Checker_____________________ 1693
Physicist ----- ------------------------ _- 4617
Quality Control Engineer________________ Uncoded
Rate Setter, Piece Rates_________________ 1624
Sales Engineer_________________________ Uncoded
Senior Engineer________________________ Uncoded
Senior Planning Engineer_______________ Uncoded
'Time Study Man_______________________ 2642
Time Study Man Senior_________________ 1642
Appendix B
Location Name Present occupational title and code No.
Allentown _____________________ C. W. Swenson ---------- Engineer, Elec. or Mech., Mfg.-4611
Hawthorne ____________________ C. Altier-----------------
W. J. Hartman----------
W. 0. Chttendon--------
Engineer, Assistant-1628
Do.
Do.
Hawthorne-- -------- ---------- E. Spousta (Mrs.) -------- Do.
Hawthorne ____________________ J. P. Lynch--------------
A. Q. Ehrhardt ----------
It. W. Buhrmaster___-___
R. A. Peceny._..._.__...
Do.
Engineer, Elee. or Mech., Mfg.-4611
Do.
Engineer , Assistant-1628
Hawthorne -------------------- R. C. Aikens_____________
C. M. Nessel -------------
1. W. Clark--------------
L . K. Coyette__.....__._.
Engineer, Elec. or Mech., Mfg.-4611
Do.
Do.
Do.
Hawthorne ---------- ---------- A. D. Coe---------------- Engineer, Quality Control-4671
Radio Shops ___________________ R. R. Hestwood_._...... Engineer , Assistant-1628
Point Breeze___________________ C. W. Maize ------------- Analyst, Mfg., Engineering, Sr., 4635
Point Breeze ___________________ Rita M. Gilbert_.__.__._.
Alma V. Miller __.______.
Dorothy A . Thompson...
Doris E. Wachter .-..---.
Vivian Whitcomb -.---.-.
Analyst, Mfg ., Engineering-1647
Do.
Do.
Do.
Do.
Hdgtrs.-Radio Division-___._ J. Q. Beard --------------
A. C. Kennyhertz-__.____
R. L. Yuenger .._.._.__._
Senior Engineer
Sr. Planning Engineer
Field Planning Engineer
Hdgtrs.-Radio Division ------ A. Bachman-------------
F. J. Winter -------------
Sales Engineer
Do.
Hawthorne-------------------- P. Q. Lapp-------------- Engineer, Quality Control-4671
Hawthorne -------------------- E. M. Kalinski ___.______ Engineer , Assistant-1628
Hawthorne____________________ R. B. Job---------------- Piece Rate Analyst-2643
MID-WEST REFINERIES, INC.
Appendix C
1043
Name Location Present occupational manufacturing-4611
C. W. Carlisle_____________ Point Breeze _______-_________ Engineer, Electrical or Mechanical Manu-
facturing-4611.
J. L. Winton-------------- Hdqtrs.-Mfg. Div ------- ___ Do.
E. L. Lewis ________________ Hawthorne --_________________ Do.
E. W. Van Nest ___________ Allentown --------____-_____ Do.
R. W. Fuller ------------- -----do.--------------------- Do.
J. E. Armstrong ----------- Point Breeze _________________ Do.
E. H. Flanagan----------- ----- do--------------------- Do.
M. J. Schultz-------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
F. H. Wyatt-------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
P. B. Yohn--------------- ----- do---------------------- Do.
J. W. Lee ___________________ Hdqtrs.-Mfg. Div _-________ Do.
Z. H. Reed --------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
J. L. Seixas ---------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
R. M. Anderson ----------- Indianapolis _________________ Do.
W. P. Hopkins ----------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
H. P. Lane --------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
G. C. Sherman ----------- -----do------------------------ Do.
W. R. Jansen -------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
P.7. Dalton_______________ Hdgtrs.-Mfg. Div __________ Do.
J. J. Perri------------------ ----- do----------------------- Do.
A. L. Sallette------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
J. E. Eaton --------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
J. McGowna_______________ Tonawanda __________________ Rate Setter , Piece Rates-1642 Engineer,
R. B. Dillingham ---------- Hawthorn___________________ Electrical or Mechanical , Manufacturing-
4611.
C. E. Streeter -------------- ----- do------------------------ Do.
F. A. Hajek --------------- ----- do--------------------- --- Do.
J. E. DeWan-------- ------ ----- do------------------------ Do.
A. W. Pond_ ______________ Allentown - ------------------ Do.
MID-WEST REFINERIES, INC. and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
CIO, AND ITS LOCAL No. 540, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1588.
April 2, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before W. M. Otter,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Peterson].
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. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 322, AFL,
hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor, urged its contract as a bar
98 NLRB No. 150.