The De Laval Separator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 544 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
partments. The fact that the steam produced in the powerhouse is
indispensable to the production process does not destroy the func-
titonal cohesiveness of the powerhouse group n Upon the entire
record, it appears that the powerhouse employees are a group such
as we have usually held may appropriately be included in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit or be separately represented. 22 How-
ever, because the powerhouse employees are currently represented by
the Firemen, we shall exclude them from the production and mainte-
nance unit, and as the Petitioner has made no showing of interest
.among the powerhouse employees, we shall not direct a separate elec-
tion among these employees 23
We find. that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's West Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, including mill-
rights, sweepers, shipping and receiving department employees, and
electricians, but excluding all powerhouse employees (firemen, oiler
maintenance man, and powerhouse maintenance employees), head
miller, first millers, shipping clerk, bagroom foreman, corn unloading
foreman, packing foreman, adhesive plant foreman, head millwright,
.head electrician, general office and clerical employees, laboratory and
research employees, and all guards, professional employees, and
supervisors within the meaning of the Act,24 constitute a unit appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act. .
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
=Armour and Company, 88 NLRB 309; Industrial Rayon Corporation, Covington, Vir-
ginia, Plant, 87 NLRB 4; Baugh and Sons Company, 82 NLRB 1399.
22 Cadillac Motor Car Division , Cleveland Tank Plant, General Motors Corporation, 94
NLRB 217; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation , 81 NLRB 441.
23 Mullins Lumber Company and Schoolleld Industries, Division of Mullins Lumber
Company, 94 NLRB 28; Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288.
34 The composition of this unit was agreed upon by all parties in the event the Board
excluded the powerhouse employees.
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 112, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. J-RC-
3817. December 13, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National I1abor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd S. Greenidge, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
97 NLRB No. 54.
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 545
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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. In its petition, the Petitioner requested a unit composed of all
employees in the tool design, methods, and time-study departments
(respectively, departments 71, 73, and 74) of the Employer's Pough-
keepsie, New York, plant. In the alternative, it would add to this
'group all employees in the product design and drafting departments
(departments 70 and 72), and the engineering laboratory (department
77). The Employer opposes both of the proposed units on the ground
that each includes professional employees who may not be joined with
technical employees without their consent. It also opposes the larger
unit on the ground that the work performed in departments 70, 72, and
77 is insufficiently related to that performed in the other three depart-
ments?
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of dairy machinery at
its Poughkeepsie plant. The six departments in question are located
on three floors of the Employer's "tower" building. All are subject
to the general supervision of the Employer's chief engineer, who, as
plant superintendent, is also in charge of all production work at the
plant. Employees in all six of these departments are under identical
sick leave, vacation, and insurance plans; pay scales in all six depart-
ments are almost alike.
Employees in the tool design department (No. 71) design fixtures,
jigs, and tools, needed to manufacture the Employer's products.
Drafting department (No. 72) employees translate engineering de-
signs and plans into working drawings showing the exact specifications
of all new parts, products, and tools to be manufactured by the produc-
tion departments. Engineering laboratory (No. 77) employees test
new products and tools designed by the other departments in the engi-
neering division. The Employer concedes, and the Petitioner does
I As to the six-department unit, the Employer also argues that it should not be con-
sidered, ' on the ground that the Petitioner did not formally amend its petition. The
record shows , however , that the Petitioner made a clear request for an alternative six-
department unit. As the Employer had full opportunity to litigate all issues raised by
this request , and in fact did litigate them, we find no 'merit in its argument that we should
consider only ,-the unit proposed-in the original petition . National Cylinder Gas Compatly
of Texas, 95 NLRB 168.
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not deny, that all workers in these three departments , tool design,
drafting , and the engineering laboratory , are technical employees.
The remaining three departments are product design, methods, and
time study . The product designers ( No. 70 ) originate and design the
Employer's new models and products . Methods engineers (No. 73)
prepare descriptions of manufacturing methods to be used by the pro-
duction departments in making those products . Their descriptions
show the sequence in which manufacturing operations are to be per-
-formed, and they specify the tools and materials to be used in produc-
tion. Time-study men, or standards setters (No. 74), as they are
sometimes called , are responsible for compiling standard production
times for all manufacturing processes . Using stop watches, they time
each step and motion in these operations . From their studies, they
compute the time "standards" used by the Employer in fixing wage
incentive scales for production employees.
The Employer 's principal objection to either of the proposed units is
that both would join technical employees with the allegedly profes-
sional employees in the product design , methods, or time-study depart-
ments. The record shows the following facts about the skill and
training of these employees in the latter departments : Of approxi-
mately 30 employees in the 3 departments, only 1 has an engineering
degree. Of the others , one had 2 years of technical school training in
mechanical engineering , and the rest have had high school , and in some
cases, trade school , education . A high proportion came from produc-
tion jobs in the Employer's plant; one was transferred into time-study
work from a clerical job. The Employer stated that if it could, it
would hire only college graduates for these positions . Its failure to do
so is ascribed to a shortage of graduates trained for this type of work.
However, the record shows that of the 3 kinds of work done by the
employees in question , only time study is regularly taught, apparently
in a course comprising part of Cornell University 's general engineering
curriculum . In further support of its claim that they are professional
employees , the Employer asserts that all employees in the 3 depart-
ments do intellectual work, which is not to be standardized in terms of
output in relation to a given period of time. While the record shows
that they dd not do repetitive work, it does appear that the day-to-day
tasks of these employees are substantially the same.
It is clear from the record in,this case that the Employer 's product
,designers , methods . men, and time-study men do not meet the several
criteria by which Section 2 (12) of the Act defines professional employ-
ees. Although the work of some of them requires some originality of
thought , and a degree of initiative and discretion , it does not require
knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning. Ac-
THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 547
cordingly, we find that these product designers, methods men, and time-
study men are not professional employees within the meaning of the
Act.'
The Employer's other ground for opposing the larger unit proposed
by the Petitioner is that the employees in the six departments are not
sufficiently related in functions and interests to be joined. However, it
is clear from the record as a whole that the work performed throughout
those six departments is technical in nature, and that the employees in
question perform a related function for the over-all operations of the
Poughkeepsie plant. In brief, the six departments are responsible for
the design, development, and testing of new products and tools, and for
the establishment of production methods and time standards relating
to the use and actual production of such products and tools. They are
all technical employees.
We find, on the record as a whole, that the three-department unit first
proposed by the Petitioner is too limited in scope, and that the six
departments together constitute ' an appropriate unit of technical
employees.3
The parties agreed to include Merritt, the leader-methods engineer,
a supervisor in the methods department. The record shows that he
directs the other methods department employees in their layout and
planning work, and that he checks and corrects their results. He has
authority to assign and to reject work, and is responsible, to a limited
degree, for discipline within the department. He has power to grant
or refuse time off to the others in the department. His efficiency rec-
ommendations are considered by the Employer, and may affect the
employment status of others in the department. It is clear from those
facts that Merritt responsibly directs others in the performance of their
tasks. Accordingly, contrary to the parties' agreement, we find that he
is a supervisor, and shall exclude him from the unit.
We find that all tool designers, methods engineers, time-study men
(standard setters), product designers, draftsmen, engineering labora-
z Florence Stove Company, 94 NLRB 1434
-I In further support of its assertion that the various categories of technical employees
here involved do unrelated work, the Employer stated in its brief that certain employees
In its engineering shop , another department of the engineering division , do work which
!`stands alone ," and yet is in the "sequence of operations generally attributable to the
Engineering Division ." Presumably this - information is intended to indicate that all
departments in the Engineering Division "stand alone ." Those factual statements respect-
ing the Engineering Shop, made only in the Employer 's brief, are , of course , outside the
record and therefore beyond the scope of this decision . In any event , the engineering
shop -is now 'represented by the International Association of Machinists , which similarly
represents the production and maintenance employees throughout the plant , and the
record contains nothing offsetting the affirmative evidence upon which the unit of tech-
hic&1 employees rests
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tory employees, and coordinators,4 employed in departments 70, 71,
72, 73, 74, and 77 of the Employer's Poughkeepsie, New York, plant,
excluding the leader-methods engineer, all production and mainte-
nance employees, cafeteria employees, office and clerical employees,
executives, guards, professional employees, all other employees at the
plant, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The parties agreed that one coordinator , employed in the tool -design department , should
be included as a technical employee . They disagreed as to the status of the other coordi-
nator , assigned to the time -study department , who the Employer contends is a professional
employee . As the record does not show that the second coordinator diffeis in any respect
from the tool -design coordinator , admittedly a technical employee , or that he has higher
qualifications than other time-study employees found not to be professionals , both coordi-
nators are included in the unit.
PHILADELPHIA ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION and I. RAYMOND KREMER
PHILADELPHIA MUSICAL SOCIETY, LOCAL 77, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
MUSICIANS and I. RAYMOND KREMER. Cases Nos. 4-CA-219 and
4-CB-35. December 14, 1951
Decision and Order
On April 25, 1951 , Chief Trial Examiner William R . Ringer issued
his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that
the Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Re-
spondent Association had not engaged in and was not engaging in the
unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that
the complaint against the Respondent Association be dismissed.
Thereafter I. Raymond Kremer, the charging party, and the General
Counsel filed exceptions and briefs . The Respondent Association filed
a brief opposing the exceptions of the General Counsel and of Kremer.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the
]fearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed . The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed . The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions and briefs , and the entire record in the case."
1 The Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the, record, and
the exceptions and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the pfaition of
the parties.
97 NLRB No. 80.