Pittsburgh Metallurgical Co, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 3, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

PITTSBURGH METALLURGICAL COMPANY, INC. and UNITED STEEL Wong-
-ERS OF AMERICA, CIO , LOCAL No. 4161, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-
-RC-1341. July 3, 1951
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 Jerold B. Sindler, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 organization involved claims 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 Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, which presently represents the production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Charleston, South Carolina,
plant, seeks to add to its present bargaining unit the laboratory em-
ployees employed at that plant. In the alternative, the Petitioner
seeks to represent the laboratory employees as a separate bargaining
unit. The Employer takes the position that the laboratory workers
should not be in the same bargaining unit as the production and main-
tenance employees, and should not be represented by the same union
which represents the production and maintenance employees, because
the laboratory workers have access to confidential information.
The record reveals that the Employer employs six laboratory em-
ployees who work in a separate laboratory building under the super-
vision of the Employer's chief chemist. They make chemical analyses
of the incoming ore, the ore being processed, and the finished product.
This work requires a chemical background, and most of the laboratory
employees have college degrees in chemistry. Four of the six labora-
tory employees are regular full-time workers; the other two are
college students who work regularly 30 to 35 hours each week, in the
afternoons and on Saturdays and Sundays. All of the work' of the
95 NLRB No. 1.
1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees concerned is performed in the laboratory building, and
there is no evidence of any interchange between the laboratory work-
ers and the Employer's other employees.
In view of the technical nature of the work performed, the physical
separation of the laboratory from the plant, and the absence of evi-
dence-of interchange between the laboratory workers and the Em-
ployer's other employees, we believe that the laboratory, workers
properly constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit.' Ac-
cordingly, and upon the entire record, we find that all of the Em-
ployer's laboratory employees. employed at its Charleston, South
Carolina, plant, including the two part-time students,' but excluding
the metallurgist, the chief chemist, and all other supervisors as de-
fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .3
.[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
`See Phillips Chemical Company , 83 NLRB 612.
' It is the policy of the Board to include in the bargaining unit with full-time employees -
students who do the same type . of work as the full-time employees and work on a regular
part=tine-basis. See Burrows & Sanborn , 'Inc., 84 NLRB 304.
'We reject the Employer ' s contention that the Petitioner should not be allowed to
represent the employees here concerned because they have access to confidential informa-
tion : An''employee 's access to confidential information does not warrant his exclusion
from a , bargaining'unit unless such information pertains to the field of labor relations.
See E. R. Squibb & Sons, 83 NLRB 792.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY and LOCAL 1024, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER 1
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY and LOCAL 134, INTERNATIONAL BROTH-
ERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER .2 Cases Nos.
13-RC-1813 and 13-RC-1827. July 5, 1951
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Ivan C. McLeod, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
'Pusuant 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
' Herein called IDE.
2 Herein called IBEW.
95 NLRB No. 5.