United States Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
UNITED STATES STEEL COMPANY and LOCAL 152, AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 4-RC-
1514. September 30, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Julius Topol, 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-member
panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a separate unit composed of all surveying
employees, including the engineers-construction regularly acting as
"party chiefs" of surveying crews, transitmen, rodmen-levelmen, and
chainmen, employed by the Employer's construction engineering
bureau at Morrisville, Pennsylvania. The Employer and Intervenor
(United Steelworkers of America, CIO) move to dismiss the petition,
asserting that the unit sought is not sufficiently comprehensive and is
therefore inappropriate. The Employer contends that all employees
of the bureau, employed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as well as in
Morrisville, constitute the only appropriate unit. The Intervenor
contends that an expanding unit of salaried employees working at
Morrisville, employed by the bureau and by Fairless Works, the plant
now under construction, constitute the only appropriate unit.,' There
has been no past collective bargaining respecting any of these
employees.
In 1950, the Employer established in Pittsburgh a construction en-
gineering bureau to direct major construction projects of the Employer
throughout the country. Its first undertaking has been a giant new
plant, named Fairless Works, at Morrisville. Employees of the bu-
reau itself do not engage in actual construction, but plan the projects
and supervise their execution. The 4 classifications of employees
I The Intervenor does not seek an election in the unit it contends is appropriate.
100 NLRB No. 209.
UNITED STATES STEEL COMPANY 1295
whom the Petitioner would represent separately, comprising about 70
employees, are employed by the bureau in its construction department
and are engaged in surveying at the construction site.2 They supply
the outside contractors, who perform the actual construction, with
center lines, elevations, and related data. Their skills range in ascend-
ing order from those of chainman to those of engineer-construction
("party chief"). They are the only employees engaged exclusively in
surveying and the only employees who report into and work out of a
separate building.
The surveying employees sought by the Petitioner are clearly tech-
nical employees.3 However, there are other technical employees at
the construction site, also employed in the bureau's construction
department, whom the Petitioner does not seek.4 Thus, there are
about 45 other engineers-construction engaged in the general direction
of the outside contractors in their respective tasks. Also within the
same department, though not members of surveying crews, are con-
struction inspectors, who examine the work of the outside contractors,
and junior engineers-construction, who are trainees .5 All employees
of the entire bureau are salaried, are on one payroll, and are subject
to the same wage-rate structure and the same vacation, hospitalization,
insurance, and pension plans.
Upon the entire record of the case, we are of the opinion that the
interests of the surveying employees are not so distinguishable from
-those of the other related technical employees as to warrant estab-
lishing them in a separate unit for collective bargaining purposes.
We find that the unit sought, limited to a segment of the Employer's
technical employees, is inappropriate 6 and shall therefore grant the
Employer's and Intervenor's motions to dismiss the petition.7
2 The surveying employees , in the main , were hired at the construction site. Surveying
will be completed in late 1953 . It is not known whether or not the surveying employees
now working for the bureau at Morrisville will become part of the engineering department
to be established at Fairless works, when completed . However , it is certain there will
be surveying employees assigned to the plant , as there are at similar plants of this
Employer , where they are represented as part of over-all units of salaried employees
3 Starrett Brothers & Eken, Incorporated, 77 NLRB 275 ; Appalachian Electric Power
Company , 91 NLRB 1376.
4 The Petitioner asserts that its jurisdiction is limited to the surveying employees.
However, that factor is without controlling significance . S'mith's Transfer Corporation
of Staunton, Va., 97 NLRB 1456.
6 Other technical employees are employed within the bureau, such as engineers -design,
draftsmen , and tracers , who draft the designs that govern the work of the surveyors.
The number of such employees working at the construction site is not clear from the
record. -
3 Cf. The Monarch Machine Tool Co , 98 NLRB 1243; Monsanto Chemical Company,
Mound Laboratory, 89 NLRB 1478 . The case of Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding
Division, 60 NLRB 1245 , on which the Petitioner , relies , is distinguishable on its facts
Unlike the present case, for example , that case does not reveal that there were other
related , unrepresented technical employees of the employer therein . Cf. Appalachian
Electric Power Company, footnote 3, supra.
7 We do not pass on the appropriateness of either the Employer ' s or the Intervenor's
proposed unit.
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
SPARKLETrS DRINKING WATER CORPORATION and JOINT LOCAL EXECU-
TIVE BOARD OF CALIFORNIA, AFL, AFFILIATED WITH INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELP-
ERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC--028. Sep-
tember 30, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Order
On January 24, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direc-
tion of Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-
first Region, among the Employer's production and maintenance em-
ployees at Los Angeles, California, to determine whether or not the
said employees wished the Petitioner to represent them in collective
bargaining. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots
was furnished the parties, in accordance with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board. The tally shows that of approximately 94 eligible
voters, 22 cast ballots in favor of the Petitioner, 58 cast ballots against
it, and 11 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, on January 30, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objec-
tions 2 to the election alleging, inter alia, that the Employer had im-
properly influenced the results of the election because its president,
Burton N. Arnds, had delivered a coercive speech on the day before
the election.
On August 12,1952, after investigating the objections, the Regional
Director issued his report on objections to conduct affecting results of
election. In his report, the Regional Director found that Arnds'
speech did not constitute an express or implied threat that employees
would lose benefits if they voted for the Petitioner, and that the Peti-
tioner's objections raised no substantial or material issues which would
justify setting the election aside. He therefore recommended that
the objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely
197 NLRB 230.
2 We find no merit to the Employer's contention that the objections were not timely,
as they were filed on the sixth day following the election. Section 102.61 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations requires that objections must be filed within 5 days after the tally
of ballots has been furnished the parties. However, Section 102.86 of the Rules, which
states how time "allowed by these rules" shall be computed, states that :
When the period of time prescribed or allowed is less than 7 days, intermediate'
Sundays and holidays shall be excluded in the computation. For the purpose of this
section a Saturday on which the Board' s offices are not open for business shall be
considered as a holiday. . . .
See also Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 79 NLRB 590.
100 NLRB No. 210.