Hertzka & Knowles

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 923 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

HERTZKA & KNOWLES 923
Hertzka & Knowles and Organization of Architectural
-'Employees, Petitioner. Case 20-RC 9755
August 23, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor - Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Joseph R.
Wirts of the National Labor Relations Board.
Following the, close of the hearing, and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Regional Director transferred this case to the
Board for decision. The Employer and the Petitioner
have filed briefs.' -
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor - Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
ppwers in connection with this: case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs of the parties, the Board finds:
1. Hertzka & Knowles, a California corporation,
stipulated that during the preceding year it per-
formed services valued in excess of $500,000 for
various clients within the State of California. In
excess of $50,000 of these services were performed
for Pacific Gas & Electric Company, a company over
which the Board has asserted jurisdiction in the past.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.2
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act claiming to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. Appropriate unit:
The Employer is engaged in furnishing architectur-
al services primarily in the San Francisco Bay area.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all architectural
employees, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors, and also excluding an
interior designer. The Employer agrees that all
architectural employees should be included, but
'questions whether the Board considers ' all of its
employees as professional architects. It would in-
clude the interior designer.
An architect's responsibility to his client begins
when he is selected and ends with the completion of
the building. During that time, a number of employ-
ees will work on the project, depending on its size
and complexity. In addition to the project architect,
who is in overall charge-from an architectural
standpoint--of the project, there is also a job
captain, who is in charge of the preparation- of the
working drawings and specifications for the project.
On smaller projects these functions may be per-
formed by the same person. The number of, archi-
tects preparing the working drawings under the job
captain will depend on the size, of the project. All of
these jobs are interchangeable, so that the. same
architect is capable of performing in all phases of the
work. The job captain's work is completed, after the
working drawings have been prepared and construc-
tion has started. The project ' architect follows the
construction of the building to its completion.
At the time of the hearing the Employer had
approximately 30 employees performing architectur-
al work, 6 of whom were company officers and as
such were excluded from, the appropriate unit by
stipulation. In addition the Employer employed a
bookkeeper, three secretaries, and an office boy,
none of whom performed architectural duties, and all
of whom were excluded from the appropriate unit by
stipulation.
There remain 24 employees doing architectural
work. No party questions that the 13 of these
employees who are licensed as architects, most of
them by the State of California, are professional
employees and are included in the appropriate unit.
Nor does any party question the inclusion of seven
other employees, all of whom have degrees in
architecture and six of whom are either taking or
planning to take the licensing examination. We will
include all of these as professional employees.
Three employees do not have degrees, nor are they
licensed. At the time of the hearing one of these had
passed six of the seven sections of the licensing
examination; the second has 5 years of advanced
education including architectural courses and has 21
years of experience in architectural work; the third
has 3 years of advanced education including archi-
tectural courses and has 10 years of experience in
architectural work. The Petitioner contends that
these employees should be included in the appropri-
ate unit. It argues that the Act's definition of a
professional employee does not require that the
i The Employer's request for oral argument is denied, since , in our adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
opinion, the record, including the transcript, exhibits, and briefs, 2 See Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons 192 NLRB No. 121.
192 NLRB No. 126
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
individual has completed a course of study, but
merely that customarily a course of study is required;
nor does'it require that one actually hold a degree or
license to practice. The parties are in agreement that
these three employees should be included in the
appropriate unit. Since it appears from the record'
that they are engaged in the performance of the same
architectural work as those employees noted above
who are licensed and/or possess degrees, we will
include them in the unit as professional employees.3
The fourth employee, who the Employer contends
should be included , is classified as an interior
designer . The Petitioner would exclude this employee
on the basis , among other reasons, that he is the son
of a principal owner. Since the record reveals that
this is the case , we will 'exclude him on this basis.4
In addition to the above employees, the record
reveals that the Employer at various times has
engaged in joint ventures with other firms. Since the
Employer is not presently engaged in any such
s See Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons tvpra.
See Foam Rubber City #2 of Florida. Inc., 167 NLRB 623.
See Wurster, Bernardi and Emmons, supra.
e In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
venture, the issue of unit placement of any employees
of such a venture is not before us. The Employer
does have on its payroll a person classified as job
inspector. The record reveals that there are no
particular educational requirements for this job and
that this employee works on the jobsite, having little
or no contact with the Employer's other employees.
We will exclude this employee.5
We find that the following employees of the
Employer have a sufficient community of interest to
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning,of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All professional architectural employees of the
Employer, excluding officers, the interior design-
er, the job inspector, the bookkeeper, secretaries,
the office boy, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of
time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed.