Westinghouse Air Brake Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 636 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these laid-off employees have a reasonable expectancy of recall in the
foreseeable future, and we shall therefore permit those who have been
in laid-off status less than a year at the time of this Decision and
Direction to vote subject to challenge 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting
Upon the record as a whole it has been established to my satisfaction
that a definable multiplant unit, based upon bargaining history, is
presently in existence Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition
Cf General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120
NLRB 1215
4 Compare Hunt Heater Corporation, 113 NLRB 167, where the Employer's manager
testified without contradiction that because of the Employer' s manpower curtailment
program certain laid off employees would not be rehired within the foreseeable future
See also Channel Master Corporation , 114 NLRB 1486, where the Board found eligible to
vote those on the layoff list who had responded to the Employer' s annual check of this
list to ascertain which employees in laid off status were interested in returning to work
Westinghouse Air Brake Company (Air Brake Division) and (In-
dustrial Products Division)' and Engineers Professional Asso-
ciation, Petitioner. Case No 6-RC-2108 August 26, 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 Harvard A Bor-
chardt, 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-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
2 The labor organizations involved herein claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer
3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act
4 The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of the professional
employees at the Employer's Air Brake and Industrial Products
Divisions at Wilmerding, Pennsylvania The Employer and the
% The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing
121 NLRB No 77
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE COMPANY 637
Intervenor, Westinghouse Air Brake Office and Technical Union,2
which has represented some of the employees here sought, dispute the
professional status of certain of the employees and the inclusion of
certain other admittedly professional employees.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of airbrake
equipment and accessories for railroads, subways, and other traction
equipment. Its plants and some of its offices are located in Wilmer-
ding, Pennsylvania, where it employs approximately 4,200 persons.
The parties agree, and we find, that the following classifications of
employees are professional as defined in the Act and are included in
the unit : design engineers A and B, test engineers A and B, staff
engineers, and junior engineers. The parties also stipulate, and we
find, that service engineers A and B, sales engineers A and B, patent
attorneys A and B, and nurses are professional employees. They dis-
agree, however, as to the inclusion of these latter classifications in the
unit sought by the Petitioner.
Sales engineers A and B and service engineers A and B : The Em-
ployer seeks to exclude sales and service engineers; the Petitioner and
the Intervenor would include them. These employees, who are part
of a nationwide system of sales and servicing, report to the Employer's
vice president and sales manager. They are not part of the Air Brake
or Industrial Products Divisions. There are 6 sales engineers A and
B and 25 service engineers A and B attached to the central district
office, which has its headquarters in Wilmerding but covers a large
part of the country. Of these, only 1 sales engineer B and 2 service
engineers B are located in Wilmerding. The others are assigned to
various district sales offices throughout the country. The engineers
assigned to Wilmerding have offices in a downtown office building
away from the buildings where other engineers are located. They
spend 80 percent of their time in the field. We find that the sales and
service engineers lack a community of interest with the employees in
the unit. We shall exclude them.'
Patent attorneys A and B : The Employer would exclude the patent
attorneys A and B, contrary to the Intervenor's contention. The
Petitioner seeks their inclusion only if the Board should determine
that they are attached to the Air Brake or the Industrial Products
Division. The patent attorneys are not part of the Air Brake or In-
dustrial Products Division, but report to the Employer's vice presi-
8 The Intervenor has been certified as the bargaining representative of "all office:
clerical, technical , and inspection employees . ., excluding plant guards , time-study
observers , sales and commercial engineers , buyers, patent attorneys , personnel department
employees except messengers , confidential employees , and supervisors . . . .. Westinghouse
Air Brake Company, 64 NLRB 547; 119 NLRB 1118. However, the Intervenor and the
Employer have bargained for all the employees here sought by the Petitioner except for
the sales and service engineers A and B, patent, attorneys A and B, and nurses, although
the certification covers only inspectors and clerical and technical employees . No conten-
tion is made that an existing collective-bargaining contract is a bar.
8 See Standard Oil Company, 107 NLRB 1524, 1528.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dent and general counsel whose offices are in Pittsburgh They are
engaged in processing the Employer's patent applications as well as
investigating the patents, of other companies They are located in an
office building geographically separated from the plant We find that
the patent attorneys A and B are not part of the Air Brake or Indus-
trial Products Division and that they lack a community of interest
with the employees in the unit Accordingly, we shall exclude them 4
Nurses • The Employer seeks to exclude the nurses, contrary to the
contentions of the Petitioner and the Intervenor The nurses render
first-aid treatment and perform other medical services under the direc-
tion of the medical examiner We find that their interests are dif-
ferent from those of the other professional employees included in the
unit We shall exclude them 5
The Intervenor asserts that the following classifications of em-
ployees are not professional and seeks to exclude them Both the
Petitioner and the Employer seek their inclusion as professionals
Chemist A • There are two chemists who test and evaluate com-
pounds One has a college degree in chemical engineering and the
other has a certificate from the Carnegie Institute of Technology 6
We find that they are professional employees and include them in
the unit 7
Eqwpment planning engineer The equipment planning engineers
keep abreast of new developments in the machine tool industry and
recommend the purchase of, and test, new equipment One of the
two incumbents is a high school graduate who has taken the Employ-
er's apprentice course for machinists and has studied for 1 year at the
Westinghouse Technical Night School The other studied metallur-
gical engineering at the University of Pittsburgh for 3 years and
attended Pittsburgh Technical Institute for 11/2 years, after which
he is indicated as having been graduated as a management engineer
We find that these employees do not satisfy the requirements for pro-
fessional status as defined in the Act We shall exclude them a
Plant E'ngimeer The plant engineers lay out production lines,
design equipment and direct its installation, and formulate the ar-
rangement of equipment for the proper flow of materials Most of
these employees have taken various specialized courses in addition to
high school training, including some who have graduated from the
15-month pneumatic engineering course given by the Employer
Three are graduates of the Westinghouse Technical Night School.
Only 1 of the 10 incumbents has a college degree in engineering We
See Standard Oil Company, s'u a
Westsnghouee Electric Corporation, 112 NLRB 590, 592
$ The record indicates that the certificate signifies that the recipient has completed all
the technical courses necessary, for a degree but has not taken the required humanities
courses
4 Oh.so Ferro Alloys Corporation; 107 NLRB 504
8 See Brady Avsatson Corporation, 104 NLRB 220
WESTINGHOUSE AIR BRAKE COMPANY 639
find that their training does not satisfy the requirements of Section
2 (12) of the Act. We shall exclude them.
Metallurgist A: This employee is engaged in the testing of metals
and plastics. He interprets the results of the tests and makes recom-
mendations based thereon. He is a high school graduate who studied
general engineering at Westinghouse Technical Night School for ,2
years and has been studying metallurgy at night' for 4 years at the
Carnegie Institute of Technology .9 He started with the Employer
as a metallurgist B and has been doing the same type of work since
1953. We find that he is not a professional employee and exclude
him from the unit.'°
Foundry metallurgist: The foundry metallurgists test and check
the materials involved in the casting of metals in the foundry. All
three incumbents are high school graduates who have taken the
Employer's metallurgical trainee course, which involves 4 years of
practical training in the plant along with metallurgical engineering
courses at Carnegie Institute of Technology. This represents only
half the time required for a degree in metallurgical engineering. One
of the three also received a certificate in vocational education follow-
ing 2 years of study at the University of Pittsburgh. We find that
these employees are not professionals. We shall exclude them.ll
Technical writers A and B : These employees write instruction
bulletins, sales literature, and manuals. The technical writer A also
guides and checks the work of the three technical writers B, whose
work'is of the same type as, but less complicated than, that of the
technical writer A. The technical writer A holds a Bachelor of
Science degree in mechanical engineering after 2 years' study at
Pratt Institute.12 He also studied writing and calculus for 2 years
at the University of Pittsburgh night school, and has taken 1 semester
of law and psychology. Of the three technical writers B, 1 holds a
degree in journalism and has done some work as a chemical analyst, 1
holds a degree in "writing," and 1 has studied electrical engineering
at the University of Pittsburgh for 21/2 years. All but 1 of the 4
have completed the Employer's 15-month course in pneumatic engi-
neering. It thus appears that the knowledge required of these em-
ployees, some of whom had little or no prior educational experience
in engineering , may be acquired by the intensive study of pneumatic
engineering, pertinent to the Employer's business, rather than knowl-
edge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily
9 The record reveals that 8 to 9 years of night study would normally be required for a
degree from Carnegie Institute of Technology.
10 See Alptine Trading Co ., et at., 77 NLRB 766, 767-768.
u Ibsd.
12 The record reveals that , although 4 years' study is presently required for a degree
from the Pratt Institute , only 2 years were needed in 1926, when this employee was
graduated.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
0
acquired by a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study
in an institution of higher learning Nor does it appear that the
training or experience required for their work is equivalent to that
required for the attainment of engineering degrees Accordingly,
we find that these employees are not professionals and shall exclude
them from the unit 13
Layout designer • The layout designers make and check layout and
diagrammatic drawings of equipment, devices, and systems from ver-
bal and written directions Their work is quite similar to that per-
formed by the design engineers B None of the four layout designers
has a college degree Two have completed 4 years of study at the
Westinghouse Technical Night School, and 1 has completed 3 semes-
ters there The fourth has a certificate in mechanical drafting from
Carnegie Tech's Evening Division Although these employees are
highly skilled and have had long experience, we find that they are
technical rather than professional employees. Accordingly, we shall
exclude them from the unit 14
Technical Specialist The seven technical specialists work with the
test engineers performing test and developmental work A college
degree is not required for this job, experience, however, is a pre-
requisite Of the 7 employees in this classification, none has a degree
and only 1 has had some college training Most have received their
training above the high school level from the Westinghouse Technical
Night School or from various engineering schools in and around the
Pittsburgh area We find that these employees, like the layout design-
ers, are highly skilled technicians rather than professional employees
We shall exclude them
Artist A: There is one artist A, whose job involves normal com-
mercial art, chiefly the illustration of sales and promotion circulars
After his graduation from high school, he attended 2 art schools, 1
for 22 months and 1 for about 2 years We find that he is not a
professional employee and shall exclude hun from the unit 15
Tool Standards Engineers The tool standards engineers keep
abreast of developments in cutting tools and abrasives, run tests on
tools, and try to standardize tools for interchangeability throughout
the plant The two incumbents have worked for the Employer since
1937. In addition to their high school education, one has taken 1%
years of night school mathematics, the other has studied at the West-
inghouse Technical Night School for 21/2 years and is presently taking
a technical correspondence course We find that they are not pro-
fessional employees and shall exclude them from the unit is
See Westinghouse Eleetr1c Corporation, 89 NLRB, 8, 30
14 Westinghouse Aar Brake Company, Union Switch A Signal Dvvss,on , 119 NLRB 1391
'y Westinghouse Aar Brake Company, Union Switch,& Signal Dsveswon, 119 NLRB 1391,
Koopman Neumer, 88 NLRB 612
16 Brady Aviation Corporatwn, supra
PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION 641
- Accordingly, we find that all professional employees at the Employ-
er's Air Brake Division and Industrial Products Division at Wilmer-
ding, Pennsylvania, including design engineers A and B, test
engineers A and B, staff engineers, junior engineers, and chemists A,
but excluding all other employees," artists A, equipment planning
engineers, plant engineers, tool standards engineers, metallurgist A,
foundry metallurgists, technical writers A and B, layout designers,
technical specialists, service engineers A and B, sales engineers A
and B, patent attorneys A and B, nurses, and supervisors as defined in
the Act constitute a unit appropriate, for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
17 At present , the Employer has no incumbents in the classifications of accountant,
metallurgist B, chemist B, and instrument engineer These positions have been vacant
for some time and it is doubtful if they will be filled in the near future . We therefore do
not make specific findings as to the above four classifications at this time.
Pacific States Steel Corporation and Operating Engineers Local
Union No . 3, IUOE , AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. f0-RC-
8519. August 26, 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 Paul A. Cassady, hear-
ing 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-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1 At the hearing the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the
ease presents a jurisdictional dispute not properly resolvable in a representation proceed-
ing. The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition contending that the General Box
Company doctrine (82 NLRB 678) does not justify directing an election . We find no
merit in either of the motions . The issue in this proceeding relates to the composition of
a unit sought by the Petitioner and is not a jurisdictional dispute in the statutory sense.
The Petitioner has never been certified as bargaining representative although for many
years it has been recognized as the representative of crane operators , locomotive , engineers,
and switchmen . The Petitioner is willing to go to an election for such a unit and the
Employer does not dispute its appropriateness .. In these circumstances , we find that a
question concerning representation exists under the holding in the General ' Box case.
121 NLRB No. 79.
487926-59-vol. 121--42