Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 746 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL•,LABOR {RELATIONS BOARD
SWIFT & COMPANY, TECHNICAL PRODUCTS PLANT, HAMMOND, INDIANA 3
and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 13-RC-2393. March 18, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Edward T. Maslanka, hearing
officer. The hearing' officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. I
Pursuant to.the-provisions of'Secti6n'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 Styles].
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 seeks an election in a unit composed of the chemists
and the technicians in the laboratory at the Employer's Technical
Products Plant to determine whether that group should be separately
represented •or'-included' within the existing unit of.,production Rand
maintenance employees currently represented by the Petitioner. _
The Employer contends that the chemists and technicians are
managerial and confidential employees who should not be included
in any bargaining unit. In addition, the Employer contends that in
any event the appropriate bargaining units should be as follows: (1)
A unit composed of laboratory technicians, and (2) a unit determined
by vote of the chemists as to whether they shall be in a unit with the
technicians, in a unit of their own, or in a unit comprised of chemists
and production and maintenance employees.
At the present time, seven chemists and six technicians work in the
Employer's laboratory. The chemists are required to be college or
university graduates, with a degree in chemistry; no specific- academic
training is required of technicians. Two general types of work are
performed in the laboratory : analysis and research. Both types of
work require a knowledge of the principles of organic and inorganic
chemistry. The chemists are expected to, and do, conduct independent
research projects concerning new analytical methods, methods of
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
98 NLRB No. 117.
SWIFT & COMPANY 747
improving products or -better ways of making current products; the
technicians are expected to'and do the more routine type of analyses,
certain unskilled tasks connected with operating the laboratory, and
some analytical work, under the guidance of a chemist. On the basis
of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the chemists
are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) (a)
of the Act, but that the technicians are not professional employees
within the meaning of the Act 2
The chemists, assisted by the technicians, perform the basic control
operations upon, w,hich•.the competitive standing, of^ the:.EmpJoyer is
based and they daily make independent decisions which affect thou-
sands of dollars worth of product. The analytical work, the devel-
opment and results of the research, are kept in strict confidence to
sustain the competitive position of the Employer. From these facts,
the Employer argues that these employees are either managerial or
confidential employees. As the judgment they use and the data
they collect are unrelated to the Employer's labor relations, we find
no merit in either contention.'
Where, as here, any party objects to the inclusion of technical em=
ployees in a production and maintenance unit it is the Board's policy
not to include them in such unit 4 In these circumstances, we, do not
think it desirable to provide for either the technicians or the$ chemists
to be added to the existing production and maintenance unit as re-
quested,-as one, alternative; by the Petitioner. However,' as the chem-
ists and technicians constitute a separately supervised and segregated
group of employees having similar interests and comprising all the
technical employees in the plant these employees may together
constitute a single unit appropriate for the purpose of collective
bargaining.5
As a result of our findings as to the professional status of the chem-
ists, however, it appears that the unit as set out above includes seven
professional and six nonprofessional employees. The Board is pro-
hibited by Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act from including professional
employees in a unit with nonprofessional employees, unless a majority
of the professional employees vote for inclusion in such'a unite Ac-
cordingly we must ascertain the desires of the professional employees
as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employees. We -shall
therefore direct separate elections in the following voting groups
excluding in each case confidential employees, guards, and supervisors
2 See Union Oil Company of California , 88 NLRB 937.
s S. & L. Co. of Pipe8tone, 96 NLRB 1418.
* Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8.
See United States Metal Refining Company , 93 NLRB 795.
°Me construe , the Petitioner ' s position on the unit issue' as indicating a willingness to
represent the chemists and, the technicians in•separate .units.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as defined in the Act : (a) All technicians in the Employer's research
laboratory at Hammond, Indiana, and (b) all chemists in the Em-
ployer's research laboratory at Hammond, Indiana.
The employees in the professional voting group (b) will be asked
two questions on their ballot : 7 (1) Do you desire to be included with
the technicians in a unit composed of all chemists and technicians in
the Employer's research laboratory at Hammond, Indiana, for the
purpose of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be repre-
sented by the Oil Workers International Union, CIO? If, a majority
of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote "Yes" to the
first question, indicating their desire to be included in a unit with the
nonprofessional employees, they will be so included. Their votes on
the second question will then be counted together with the votes of the
nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide the representative for the
whole research 'unit, and if a majority of the employees in voting
groups (a) and (b) together select the Petitioner, the Regional Direc-
tor conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for a unit of tech-
nicians and chemists which the Board under such circumstances finds
to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If, on
the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting
group (b) vote against inclusion in a unit with technicians, they will
not be included with the nonprofessional employees. In that event
the votes in voting groups (a) and (b) will be counted separately to
determine whether or not the Union will represent the employees in-
volved in separate units. The Regional Director conducting the
election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for such of these two units in which a
majority of the employees select the Petitioner, which separate units
the Board, in these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 See Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236.
JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, L DOE No. 855 , PETITIONER . Cases
Nos. 15-RC--628. 15--RC,-629, 15-RC-6110, 15-RC-681, and 15-RC-
682. March 19, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was
held before Victor H. Hess, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's
98 NLRB No. 111.