De Leuw, Cather & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 17, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 191 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of DE LEUW, CATHI•.R C COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION Or TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS
AND DRAFTSMEN, LocAL No. 90-A, A. F. or L., PETITIONER
Case No. 13-R-3C 7.Decided January 17, 19417
Rooks and Freeman, by Messrs. Lee A. Freeman and J. Gordon
Henry, of Chicago, Ill., for the Employer.
Daniel Carmell, by Messrs. Lester Asher and Joseph E. Gub bins, of
Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Ursa Stringer, of Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ralph Winkler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Chicago,
Illinois, on September 9 and 13, 1946, before Erwin A. Peterson, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the
Employer renewed a motion previously filed to dismiss the petition.
The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board. For reasons
hereinafter stated, the motion is hereby granted. The Employer's
request for oral argument is denied inasmuch as the record, in our
opinion, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
De Leuw, Cather & Company is an Illinois corporation located in
Chicago, Illinois, where it is engaged in the practice of consulting engi-
neering. Its services include the appraisal of values of industrial and
utility properties; the investigation, survey, and preparation of re-
ports on various types of building and construction projects ; the
72 N.L.R B,No 33.
191
731242-47-vol 72-14
192 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
preparation of plans and specifications and estimates of the cost of
such projects, including in some instances the supervision of construc-
tion ; and the preparation of planning reports for the rearrangement
or supplementation of municipal utilities and services.
In 1945, the Employer received fees totaling $369,500, of which
amount $252,000 was for jobs located outside the State of Illinois.
A substantial portion of the work on the out-of-State jobs was per-
formed in Illinois. The major jobs performed by the Employer dur-
ing the past 5 years areas follows: (a) design and preparation of plans
and specifications for Naval Ammunition Depots in McAlester, Okla-
homa, and Earle, New Jersey; sewer and water facilities of Defense
Plant Corporation, McCook, Illinois, and for the town of Cicero,
Illinois; (b) design, preparation of plans and specifications and man-
agement of construction of shop facilities, C. R. I. & P. R. R., Chicago,
Illinois; Army Ammunition Depot, Sidney, Nebraska; power plants
to service separate institutions of the State of Illinois; (c) prepara-
tion of technical close-out report for Naval Air Station, Brunswick,
Georgia; (d) physical appraisal of properties of Defense Plant Cor-
poration located in Illinois. The total value of the properties in-
volved in these jobs was $154,850,000. The Employer employs
approximately 90 architects, engineers, and draftsmen, in addition to
clerical personnel.
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.'
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree generally that the appropriate unit should
include all architects, draftsmen, engineers, assistant engineers, de-
signers, and estimators, excluding all general office employees, co-
ordinating engineers, and all other employees above the rank of
coordinating engineer. The parties disagree concerning the inclusion
of the categories of employees discussed hereinafter whom the Pe-
titioner would exclude and the Employer would include.
1 Matter of The Austin Company , 70 N. L R. B 851 ; Matter of Electrical Testing Labora-
tories, Inc., 65 N L. It. B 1239 , Matter of Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, 60
N L. R B. 124, Matter of Spalek Engineering Corporation , 45 N. L. It. B 1272 ; Polish
National Alliance of the United States of America v . N. L. R. B., 322 U. S 643.
DE LEUW, CATHER & COMPANY 193
Section chiefs 2 direct staffs which may vary from 3 to 14 employees.
Their principal function is to expedite and coordinate the work of
their staff subordinates.
Staff engineers are engaged primarily in coordinating the work on
larger projects . They have authority to utilize the services of em-
ployees in the different sections as need requires.
Engineers and assistant engineers in Sanitation Hydraulic Depart-
ment ii,et, among other duties, as consultants for municipalities. They
may, as occasion requires , draw on the services of other employees.
Engineers and assistant engineers in Transportation and Traffic
Department make engineering studies of transportation systems.
They consult directly with the Employer's clients and take their
orders from the officials of the Employer. To assist them in their
work, they generally have subordinates.
All these employees are hourly paid like the other technical
employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent although at a higher
rate because of their greater skill and responsibilities . None of them
has the power to change or effectively to recommend a change in the
status of other employees . None of them are "executive employees
who are in a position to formulate , determine and effectuate manage-
ment policies ," the Board 's test of a managerial employee.3 We find
that these employees are not, contrary to the Petitioner 's contention,
either managerial or supervisory employees . Accordingly, we believe
that they should be included in the unit with other technical employees.
There are three clerical employees in the Specification Department
working under the direction of an engineer in the formulation and
description of specifications for engineering projects . We believe that
because of the nature of their work and their supervision their inter-
ests lie with other employees in the unit and they should be included
therein.4
Engineers and clerical employees in the Construction Department.
The engineers in this department spend a substantial fart of their time
in on-the-site supervision of jobs designed by the Employer. They are
assisted by field clerks . Because their work requires them to be away
from the Chicago office a substantial part of their time, we do not
believe that the engineers or clerks in this department have the same
2 This includes the Engineer in charge of the specification department.
3 Matter of Ford Motor Company, 66 N. L. R. B. 1317.
4 Matter of Payson Manufacturing Company of Chicago, 65 N. L it. B. 539: Matter of
Adams-Milhs Corporation, Plant Number 7, 63 N. L. R B. 362, 364; Matter of Kearney &
Trecker Corporation , 60 N. L . R B 148, 151-152; Matter of Chicago Rawhide Manufactur-
ing Company, 59 N. L R B 1234, 1236.
194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
interests and problems as other employees in the unit. They should
be excluded.
Accordingly, we find that all the Employer's architects, draftsmen,
engineers, assistant engineers, designers, and estimators, including
section chiefs, staff engineers, engineers and assistant engineers of the
Sanitation-Hydraulic and Transportation Traffic Department, and all
employees of the Specification Department, but excluding all general
office employees, coordinating engineers, employees above the rank of
coordinating engineers, employees of the Construction Department,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In connection with its petition, the Petitioner submitted designation
cards sighed by some of the employees in the unit sought to be repre-
sented. We have substantially enlarged the unit proposed by the
Petitioner with the result that the showing of interest made by the
Petitioner does not now indicate, on the basis of our experience, a sub-
stantial probability that an election directed at this time would result
in the selection of a statutory bargaining representative. To direct an
election under these circumstances would involve an unwarranted
drain on the Board's limited funds and personnel. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition herein.5
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for
investigation and certification of representatives of employees of De
Leuw, Cather & Company, Chicago, Illinois, filed by International
Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen, Local
No. 90-A, A. F. of L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
CIJAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
5 Matter of Lansing Drop Forge Company, 64 N. L R. B. 617