Bradley Steel, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 2004

342 N.L.R.B. 215 (N.L.R.B. 2004)

BRADLEY STEEL, INC.
342 NLRB No. 22
215
Southeastern Industrial Services Inc. d/b/a Bradley
Steel, Inc. and Shopmen’s Local Union No. 526
of the International Association of Bridge,
Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron
Workers (AFL–CIO), Petitioner. Case 10–RC–
15285
June 30, 2004
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN BATTISTA AND MEMBERS LIEBMAN
AND SCHAUMBER
On May 14, 2002, the Regional Director issued a De-
cision and Order finding that the detailers and the pur-
chasing agent/expediter must be included in the peti-
tioned-for unit of production and maintenance employ-
ees. Because the Regional Director found that the Peti-
tioner would not proceed to an election in a unit that in-
cluded detailers and the purchasing agent/expediter, he
dismissed the petition. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner filed a timely re-
quest for review of the Regional Director’s Decision and
Order. The Employer filed an opposition to the request
for review. By Order dated October 24, 2002, the Board
granted the Petitioner’s request for review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this matter to a three-member panel.
Having carefully considered the entire record, we find,
contrary to the Regional Director, that the detailers, in-
cluding the purchasing agent/expediter, do not share such
a substantial community of interest with the petitioned-
for production and maintenance employees as to require
their inclusion in the unit.
I. FACTS
The Employer fabricates and erects industrial steel at
its Cleveland, Tennessee facility. The Employer receives
architectural drawings and specifications from its clients.
Detailers take these blueprints and specifications and
generate drawings on computer-aided design machines in
a format that the production workers can use to manufac-
ture the ordered items. The production employees then
fabricate the structural steel items, and the erection crew
assembles the items in the field.
The detailers are not engineers, are not required to
have an engineering and/or technical background, and
receive on-the-job training, although two of the detailers
have a background in drafting. In addition to using com-
puter-aided drafting machines, the detailers also use plot-
ters and printers, and their completed drawings are sub-
mitted to the architect and structural engineer for final
approval.
Detailers work in a separate area from the production
employees. The Employer’s building is partitioned into
four production bays and the detailers’ work area is adja-
cent to production bay four, separated by a partition wall.
Detailers spend approximately 90 percent of their time in
their own area performing specialized detailing func-
tions, and approximately 5–15 percent of their time on
the production floor communicating with “production
employees.” Although a production employee theoreti-
cally can consult directly with a detailer if the employee
has a problem with a blueprint, production employee
Schultz testified that in the 3 months that he had worked
for the Employer, he had never spoken directly with a
detailer regarding a problem. Rather, he brought any
problems to his foreman, who then talked with the de-
tailer.
One of the detailers, Jim Robinson, also acts as the
Employer’s purchasing agent/expediter. He purchases
materials for the production process, ensuring that pro-
duction employees have the necessary materials, and
expediting the shipping of finished products from the
production floor to the jobsites. Robinson is also in-
volved in the purchasing and expediting of materials
from outside vendors. When there are items that cannot
be manufactured at the facility, Robinson will make ad-
ditional sketches or redevelop drawings for the fabrica-
tion of these items by outside vendors. Robinson is also
on the production floor more than the other detailers,
spends more time talking with production employees
about materials, and has work contact with production
employees relating to the delivery of materials.
No production employees currently perform detailing
work, and no detailer currently performs “physical
work.” Further, none of the production employees has
performed Robinson’s functions, although Robinson,
who possesses a commercial driver’s license, has occa-
sionally performed truckdriving duties.
The detailers are hourly paid, and receive similar wage
ranges and fringe benefits to the production employees,
although Robinson receives approximately $3 more per
hour than the next highest paid detailer. Detailers are,
however, separately supervised from the production em-
ployees. Also, they do not eat lunch or take breaks with
the production employees, and they start work 1 hour
later than production workers.
II. ANALYSIS
We find, based on the foregoing, that the detailers per-
form functions similar to those performed by draftsmen.
The Board traditionally excludes draftsmen from produc-
tion and maintenance units where they are separately
supervised, work in a separate location, and have mini-
mal contact with such employees. See, e.g., Container

DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 216
Research Corp., 188 NLRB 586 (1971); Capital Temp-
trol Corp., 243 NLRB 575 (1979). See also Maryland
Cup Corp., 171 NLRB 367 (1968). Here, the detailers
spend the majority of their time performing specialized
functions that are different from those performed by the
production employees. They use different tools, work in
an area separate from the production employees, and are
separately supervised from the production employees.
Further, they do not interchange with unit employees;
production employees do not perform detailing work and
detailers generally do not perform “physical work.” In
addition, the majority of the detailers have only limited
contact with the unit employees, and it appears that pro-
duction employees bring problems to the foremen, who
then resolve the problems with the detailers.
Thus, under these circumstances, we conclude, con-
trary to the Regional Director, that the detailers, includ-
ing Robinson, do not share such a substantial community
of interest with production employees as to require their
inclusion in the unit.1 See Maryland Cup Corp.; Capitol
Temptrol.
Accordingly, we reverse the Regional Director’s deci-
sion requiring the inclusion of the detailers and purchas-
ing agent/expediter and remand this proceeding to the
Regional Director for further appropriate action consis-
tent with this decision.

1 Although Robinson has more regular contact with production em-
ployees than other detailers, he spends the majority of his time perform-
ing distinct functions that are not performed by production employees;
he shares supervision with the detailers; he is located in the same area
as the detailers, which is separate from the production employees; and
receives higher wages than the production employees. Under these
circumstances, we find that Robinson, like the other detailers, does not
share such a substantial community of interest with production employ-
ees as to require his inclusion in the unit.