Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 24, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 319 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 319
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
Local 456, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 22-
UC-11
October 24, 1968
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On October 18, 1967, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 22 issued a Decision and Order Clarifying
Bargaining Unit in which he granted the Petitioner's
request to include Systems and Procedures Analysts
"A" and "B" in the existing unit of office, clerical
and technical employees which the Petitioner repre-
sents pursuant to a 1956 Board certification.i There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review. The Board, by telegraphic
Order dated January 3, 1968, granted review with
respect to the Regional Director's inclusion of the
aforementioned classifications in the bargaining unit
by means of the clarification procedure.2 Both parties
filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case including the briefs of the parties with respect to
the issues under review and makes the following
findings.
The Employer's principal argument on review is
that the disputed classifications are but an outgrowth
of a "staff assistant" position in existence at the time
of the certification, which was specifically excluded
from the collective-bargaining unit. The record, how-
ever, does not disclose the duties of the staff assistant
classification. It does disclose that immediately prior
to the Union's certification in 1956 for the unit of
office, clerical and technical employees here involved
the Employer hired a staff assistant for the special
task of conducting a management study of the
feasibility of converting the then existing clerical
procedures to mechanized systems involving the use
of IBM machines. As a result of this survey, the
Employer adopted the new procedures and, in De-
cember 1957, formulated for the first time a job
classification related to those procedures, designated
as "programmer." The former staff assistant was then
made the first occupant of this position. Although
these mechanized procedures were first applied in the
area of inventory control, they have since been
enlarged and expanded to convert the Employer's
various other clerical fields to the use of modern data
processing techniques. Concurrently such techniques
have increased in level of complexity, as evidenced
particularly by the Employer's use, beginning in
1961, of IBM computer equipment. Likewise the
original job title of "programmer" has evolved, first
into "Data Processing Methods and Systems Analyst,"
A and B, and then into the present "Systems and
Procedures Analyst" A and B classifications with
which we are here concerned.
It is evident from the foregoing that the Employ-
er's present computerized procedures are but a
substitute, albeit more sophisticated and complex, for
the work originally performed by the Employer's
clerical unit employees. As to the asserted relation-
ship of the disputed classifications to the staff
assistant classification, the record discloses no more
than that the particular staff assistant to whom
reference is made was hired to conduct a study of the
feasibility of converting clerical procedures to systems
involving the use of IBM machines. Although the
original staff assistant's role in the development of the
Employer's computer system would appear to suggest
that his exclusion was warranted either on profes-
sional or managerial grounds, it does not follow that
this unit should exclude those subsequently hired to
implement the system developed through his effort.
The function of the disputed classifications here is the
initiation of actual procedures utilizing the IBM
equipment. It is thus apparent, and we find from the
entire record, that the Systems and Procedures
Analyst positions are not an outgrowth of the original
staff assistant position but are classifications deriving
from the use of the new data processing techniques
and are, as the Acting Regional Director found, job
classifications which came into existence subsequent
to the 1956 certification.
The Employer further argues on review, as it did to
the Acting Regional Director, that whatever the origin
of the disputed classifications, Petitioner by its
inaction over a lengthy period has waived its right
now to seek their inclusion in the certified unit
through the clarification procedure. We also reject
this contention. The disputed classifications did not
reach a job content approaching their present form
until 1961 and, in fact, the present description of
their duties and the designation of their job classi-
fications were not arrived at until 1965. Further, the
Employer did not on a timely basis reply to the
Petitioner's request, made in the summer of 1965, for
i No request for review has been filed with respect to the Regional 2 The Board denied review of the Employer's contention that the
Director's denial of that part of Petitioner 's request which also sought Regional Director erred in finding the employees in the disputed
to include in its certified unit the Traffic Analysts "A" and "B" classifications to be technical , rather than professional or managerial.
173 NLRB No 43
320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
information concerning the unit placement of these
jobs. When it finally did respond, the Employer
merely asserted its position that these employees were
professional employees, who are excluded from the
certified unit, and did not provide Petitioner with
facts enabling an assessment of the validity of the
Employer's position. In all these circumstances, in-
cluding the fact that 4 of the 7 occupants of the
disputed classifications were formerly employed on
unit positions, we agree with the Acting Regional
Director that Petitioner's failure to claim these
classifications at an earlier date was not fatal to its
right now to invoke the Board's unit clarification
procedure.
Accordingly, and in view of the fact that the
employees in disputed classifications are technical
employees having a close community of interest with
other technical employees of the Employer, all of
whom are represented by the Petitioner in the
existing office, clerical and technical unit, we affirm
the Acting Regional Director's finding that the
Systems and Procedure Analysts "A" and "B" are an
accretion to that certified unit and that unit as
clarified includes the aforesaid two classifications.