Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 391 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 391
Westbrook states another employee, John Farkus, told him he probably would
get a raise if the Union got in; that all employees would probably get one and
that he would also . This can hardly be construed as a promise of benefit, but
even assuming , arguendo , that such a promise was made, no evidence was adduced
during the investigation to establish that Farkus was other than a rank -and-file
employee; there is no evidence that he was even a nominal union representative.
J. E. White, now employed elsewhere , himself denies that he was ever threatened
by any union representative . He states he prepared the affidavit for Westbrook
to sign in advance of the meeting, based on statements Westbrook allegedly made
to him at the store ; all of these statements are, of course, denied by Westbrook
in his affidavit given the Board agent.
White states that John Farkus was a "leader in the Union" but knows of no
official connection he has with the Union. He claims Farkus told him if he did
not vote for the Union , and the store was unionized , that he (White) would not
get any pay increase as a result of the said unionization . While this might be
construed as a threat , in any event, as pointed out above , Farkus lacked the author-
ity to bind the Union, even by any bona fide threat or promise of benefit.
Electric Wheel Company, Division of the Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 120
NLRB 1644.
John Farkus denies under oath that he held any union office and that he was
even a committeeman of some sort as suggested by White. He denies the alleged
threat of loss of pay attributed to him by White, or that he threatened any other
employee.
On September 24, 1958, by letter, the Employer alleged that the Union had
filed a wage assignment with Callahan at New York City involving a debt owed
by a Callahan employee in New York City to the District 65 credit union in that
city; and that this is evidence of coercion . These allegations are untimely filed;
further, they do not involve employees in the unit involved in this proceeding and
cannot therefore be considered.
The Regional Director concludes that the objections are not supported by the
evidence adduced in the course of the investigation , and it is therefore recom-
mended that they be overruled and that the Union be certified.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and United Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers of America, International Union of
Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, et al.'
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Salaried
Employees Association at South Philadelphia , affiliated with
Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 5-RM-64 and 4-RC-1293. December 11,
1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CLARIFICATION
OF UNIT
Pursuant to a Board certification on June 29, 1950,2 Petitioner,
hereinafter called the Association, became the bargaining representa-
tive of a unit of professional employees, including time-study men,
at the Employer's South Philadelphia plant, and thereafter the par-
ties entered into collective-bargaining agreements covering this unit.
In 1957, the Employer created a position entitled "methods analyst,"
and the Association sought to bargain for the employees in that clas-
The name of the Union appears as in the original hearing.
See Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 89 NLRB 8, 11; 98 NLRB 463.
122 NLRB No. 63.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sification. The Employer took the position that methods analysts
were managerial or confidential employees who should not be in-
cluded in the unit.
On April 4, 1958, the Association filed a motion with the Board
for clarification of the certification, contending that the classification
of methods analyst comes within the scope of the term "time-study
men" as used in the Board's certification, and moved the Board to
hold a hearing on the issue. On May 21, 1958, the Board issued a
notice to show cause why the Board should or should not clarify
the certification by including methods analysts within the scope of
the unit. On June 13 and 16 the Employer and the Association filed
responses thereto. On July 18, 1958, the Board issued an order re-
manding the proceeding to the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region for the purpose of holding a hearing, which was held on
August 19 and 20, 1958, before Eugene M. Levine, 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 proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and
Members Jenkins and Fanning].
The job of methods analyst was created for the purpose of making
a study of some 3,000 salaried employees including clerical, tech-
nical, and professional, with the ultimate purpose of reducing costs.
These analysts work under their own supervisors. Their method of
work is to go into a department and through the use of various
timing devices and other means gather data indicating how long it
takes for certain work to flow through that department. On the
basis of this data, the analyst is expected to be able to determine
how many employees it should take to do a given amount of work
and what standard of performance should be required from a given
employee. The analyst also considers the number of supervisors
in the department and whether the supervision is efficient. The
analyst makes his report which may contain recommendations for
eliminating certain jobs, combining others or realigning the duties
of some jobs. The report and recommendations are discussed with
the supervisor of the department studied. If he does not agree with
the analyst, the latter may take up the report with higher echelons
of supervision. It is clear that the methods analyst does not him-
self have the power and authority to put his recommendations into
effect.
The record is uncontradicted that the methods analysts, eight in
number, are all graduate engineers who do not possess outstanding
experience. Two of the eight were taken from the time-study group
which is within the unit, two were graduate students, one came
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 393
from the Employer's student course at another plant, and one was
hired from the Navy.
In the original proceeding,3 the Board held, contrary to the Em-
ployer's contentions, that the time-study employees were not man-
agerial employees. We found that the
... time-study employees make time and motion studies in
the production areas, and then, by applying certain standard
modifying data, set a base rate for the particular operation. In
large part, many operations do not require an actual time study
on the floor, as the accumulated data of the Time-Study Depart-
ment furnishes sufficient information upon which to base a rate.
The time-study employees must have the skill and training nec-
essary to correlate complicated statistical data and the results
of their own observation of the operation under study. The time
values established by these employees are not reviewable by pro-
duction foremen. In actual practice, although the values are
subject to review by the time-study supervisor, such values as
established by the time-study employees are final. When a study
becomes the subject of a grievance, the Employer relies in large
part on the factual data compiled by the time-study employees.
The time-study employees were therefore included in a professional
unit.
We find no material or substantial difference between the time-
study men and the methods analysts except that the former deal with
production employees and the latter with clerical, technical, or pro-
fessional employees. The main function of each is to make a critical
survey of procedures, methods, equipment, and personnel with a view
of recommending efficient operation of office or plant. Both make
recommendations which they themselves may not put into effect with-
out approval by high echelons of managerial authority. The fact that
all professional employees are expected to make recommendations to
management does not mean they are part of management 4 Nor do we
find that time-study employees or methods analysts are confidential
employees, so as to require their exclusion from the unit. It is well-
established Board policy that the Board's definition of the term "con-
fidential" is limited so as to embrace only those employees who, unlike
the methods analysts, assist and act in a confidential capacity to per-
sons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in
the field of labor relations.'
Accordingly, we find that the classification of methods analysts is
included within the term "time-study men" in the certification. Ac-
See footnote 2.
* Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 113 NLRB 337, 339.
5 The B. F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cordingly, we shall amend our certification of representatives with
respect to the classifications of employees included in the unit by
specifically including the methods analysts.
[The Board amended the certification of representatives issued
to the Westinghouse Salaried Employees Association at South Phil-
adelphia, affiliated with Federation of Westinghouse Independent
Salaries Unions, in Case No. 5-RM-64 and . Case No. 4-RC-1293,
specifically to include in the certified unit the methods analysts.]
H P 0 Service, Inc. and Sollie Walker, Petitioner and Chauf-
feurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union 175, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America . Case No. 9-RD-205. December 11, 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 Arthur P. West,
hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the transportation of mail pur-
suant to contracts with the United States Post Office. It transports
mail by bus on regular routes between the city of Charleston, W. Va.
and the cities of Bluefield, Welch, and Buckhannon, all in West Vir-
ginia, and between Buckhannon, W. Va., and Connellsville, Pa. The
mail transported by the Employer originates within and without
the State of West Virginia. During the past year, the Employer's
gross revenues from such operations exceeded $100,000, of which
over $50,000 was received for the transportation of mail which was
destined for delivery in States other than the State of its origin.
Ever since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in
1935 the Board has consistently held to the position that it better
effectuates the policies of the Act and promotes the prompt handling
of cases not to exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest possible extent
under the authority delegated to it by Congress. For the first 15
years the Board exercised its discretion in this area on a case-by-case
basis. In 1950 the Board first adopted certain jurisdictional standards
designed to aid it in determining where to draw the dividing line
between exercised and unexercised jurisdiction. In 1954 the Board
reexamined its jurisdictional policies in the light of its experience
under the 1950 standards and revised its jurisdictional standards. At
I.
The name of the Union appears in the caption as corrected at the hearing . The Union
did not appear at the hearing , although served with adequate notice thereof.
122 NLRB No. 62.