Design Service Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1964

148 N.L.R.B. 1050 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Spring Grove Avenue shop. In view of the foregoing, we find the
Hamilton facility to- be an accretion to the Spring Grove Avenue
facility. We shall, therefore, grant the Petitioner's motion and
amend the certification by including the Hamilton facility therein.
[The Board amended the certification previously issued herein, by
specifically including therein the facility of Saunders System Corp.,
located at Hamilton, Ohio.] -
Design Service Company , Inc. and Architectural & Engineering
Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-13246. September 14,
1964
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On April 21, 1964, the Regional Director for Region 2 issued a
Decision and Order 'in this case, finding that the only appropriate
unit was an overall unit of engineers and draftsmen employed at the
Employer's New York City, New York, plant, and at various field
locations on customers' premises in various parts of the country and
dismissing the petition because the Petitioner had not submitted a
sufficient showing of interest in such unit. Thereafter, the Petitioner,
in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, filed with the Board a timely request for review of such
Decision on the ground that the Regional Director erred in not find-
ing 'that the requested unit limited to the New York City plant is
appropriate, and that his findings of fact were erroneous. On
May 25, 1964, the Board, by telegraphic order, granted the request
for review.
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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins]. '
The Board has considered the entire record in the case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the
following findings:
The Petitioner requests a unit of all engineers and draftsmen and
all employees doing engineering and draftsmen's work at the Em-
ployer's New York City plant, excluding all other employees.' The
Employer contends that the only appropriate unit would also include
similarly classified employees who are administratively attached to
the New York City plant but who are working in the field at the
1 The Employer has other plants, not involved in this proceeding.
148 NLRB No.' 105.
DESIGN- SERVICE COMPANY, INC. 1051
plants of clients of the Employer. There are approximately 200 such
employees in the requested unit and 126 in the field force, working at
some 18 client locations as far separated geographically as New Mex-
ico, Florida, and Massachusetts.2
The employees in the field force, although attached for administra-
tive purposes to the New York City plant office, are generally hired
locally by one of the Employer's three field supervisors for the par-
ticular job to be done at the client's plant. They work exclusively
in the plant of a particular client where they have the same hours
and working conditions as the employees of the client and are under
the day-to-day technical supervision of the client's supervisors. The
field supervisor for their area makes periodic visits to. the client's
plant,and exercises disciplinary control over them upon the client's
request. The field employees have no contact with engineers and
draftsmen located in the New York City plant. Although there have
been some -transfers of New York City plant personnel to handle
specific jobs at a client's plant, there is no interchange between the
field and the plant. There is no operational integration of services
performed in the field with those performed in the plant. There is
no history of collective bargaining and no labor organization seeks
to represent the field force as part of the New York City plant unit.
We find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the e is insufficient
evidence in the record to rebut the presumption thaw unit of engi-
neers and draftsmen confined to those working at the New York
City plant is appropriate.'
There remains for consideration the question whether the engineers
are technical or professional employees. The Petitioner originally re-
quested a unit of all technical engineering employees, including but
not limited to engineers, specification writers, draftsmen, lead engi-
neers, checkers, and other persons doing technical or engineering
work. The parties then stipulated to the composition of the unit as
described below. However, when the Hearing Officer raised the ques-
tion whether some of the employees were professional employees
within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act, the parties stipulated
that draftsmen were not but did not, stipulate as to the status of en-
gineers . At the conclusion of the hearing, the Petitioner contended
that all engineers are professional employees entitled to a separate
2 The 18 client locations involved include the following : Stamford, Connecticut ; Cape
Kennedy, Tampa, and Melbourne, Florida, Bloomington, Illinois ; Framingham, Brookline,
Cambridge, and Waltham, Massachusetts; Newark, Paramus, Morristown, and Livingston.
New Jersey ; St. James, Bethpage, and Tarrytown, New York ; and White Sands, New
Mexico.
3 See Psggly Wiggly California Company, 144 NLRB 708; Sav-On Drugs, Inc, 188 NLRB
1032. These cases, although cited by the Regional Director, do not support his finding
that the presumption was rebutted by the fact that the draftsmen and engineers at the
field locations and those in the New York City plant held the same job classifications,
engaged in substantially the same work, use similar materials and tools, work at some
geographically proximate locations, and have been transferred between locations. See
also P. Ballantine & Sons, 141 NLRB 1103, 1106-1109, and cases cited therein.
1052 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
election under Section 9(b) (1) of the Act. There are 151 engineers
and 47 draftsmen employed in the New York City plant. Of the 151
engineers, approximately 100 are employed as specification writers,
38 as lead engineers, 12 as analysts, and 1 as a telephone engineer. In
atypical jo'b done by the Employer, the client submits•an-outline of a
projected installation. The work is then subdivided by the super-
visors among the load analyzers who then assign parts to teams made
up of one lead engineer and several specification writers. The lead
engineer and the specification writers, working from blueprints and
books of standards, then produce a specification of the necessary mate-
rial and equipment needed to construct the installation involved. The
composition of the teams changes from time to time with a man as-
signed as lead engineer on a particular job being assigned as a specifi-
cation writer on another, depending upon the job and its requirements.
The analyzer is in charge of several teams, coordinating their work
with the outline from the client and supplying their equipment and
data requirements. The vice president in,charge of operations of the
New York City plant, Mr. Dourgarian, testified that none of the en-
gineers in the New York City plant was engaged in work which re-
quired "a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction" or
which "cannot be standardized." The record shows that the Employer
has in its emp oy 24 graduate engineers and 2 individuals who do not
have degrees' ut who have been licensed as engineers by different
State licensing agencies. Of. these, 14 are employed in the New York
City plant, 10 as specification writers, and the balance in other engi-
neer classifications. ' There is no basis from the record for finding any
distinction among the duties of these individuals and other specifica-
tions writers or for finding that their work consistently, requires the
exercise of discretion and judgment predominantly • intellectual in
character.4 Accordingly, we find that the plant engineer's involved in
this proceeding are technical, rather than professional, employees.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All engineers and draftsmen and,all employees doing engineering
and draftsmen work at the Employer's New York City plant, located
at 76 Ninth Avenue, New York; New York, but excluding all such
employees on the payroll who are working in the field at the location
of clients of the Employer, all production and maintenance employees,
truckdrivers, watchmen and guards, office clerical employees, secre-
taries, typists, clerks, plant clerical employees, salesmen, and super-
visors, as defined in the Act. . `
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
See Section 2(12) of the Act which defines "professional employee."