E. I. Dupont De Nemours and Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 11, 1954

107 N.L.R.B. 734 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit placement of the office supervisor and the stockroom super-
visor was not considered . Moreover , the parties stipulated to
the exclusion of the confidential office employee. Accordingly,
this decision forms no basis for altering our conclusion, based
upon the record made in the instant proceeding, that the office
and stockroom supervisors are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and that the confidential office employee is
not a "confidential" employee withinthe purview of the Board's
definition of that term. We therefore adhere to our previous
determination with respect to the unit placement of these indi-
viduals and we shall include them in the unit herein found ap-
propriate.
In agreement with the parties, we shall establish a new
eligibility date to precede the date of this amended Decision,
Order, and Direction of Election. We shall also grant the
Culinary Workers' motion to withdraw their petition filed in
Case No. 19-RC-1319.
[The Board granted the request for withdrawal of the petition
in Case No. 19-RC-1319 and amended the Direction of Election.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
s The record does not indicate whether the Retail Clerks desire to proceed to an election
in the unit herein found appropriate . Accordingly , the Retail Clerks may , if they so desire,
withdraw their petition filed in Case No. 19-RC-1313 upon notice to that effect given to
the Regional Director , in writing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this amended Direction
of Election.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., CON-
STRUCTION DIVISION, SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT, and IN-
TERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,-AFL,
LOCAL 470, Petitioner
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., CON-
STRUCTION DIVISION, SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS,
AFL, LOCAL 160, Petitioner
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC., CON-
STRUCTION DIVISION, SAVANNAH RIVER PLANT and OF-
FICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 294,
AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 11-RC-470, 11-RC-490, 11-
RC-531. January 11, 1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act in Case No. 11-RC-470, a hearing was
107 NLRB No. 135.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. 735
held before Jerold B. Sindler, hearing officer. Thereafter,
upon a subsequent petition duly filed in Case No. 11-RC-490,
Case No. 11-RC-470 was remanded to the Regional Director
of the Eleventh Region and consolidated by order of the Board.
A hearing on the consolidated cases was held before Jerold B.
Sindler, hearing officer. Thereafter, a petition was duly filed
in Case No. 11-RC-531, and a hearing was held before Jerold
B. Sindler, hearing officer.' Upon an order of the Board, the
records in Cases Nos. 11-RC-470 and 11-RC-490 were reopened
and the cases remanded to the Regional Director for further
hearing to receive additional evidence. A further hearing was
held before Harold X. Summers, hearing officer.' The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.'
Office Employees International Union, Local 294, AFL, the
Petitioner in Case No. 11-RC-531, herein called the Office
Employees, moved to consolidate its petition with the other
petitions herein. International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL, Local 470, the Petitioner in Case No. 11-RC470, herein
called the Operating Engineers, filed a statement in opposition
to' the consolidation of these cases ." We find no merit in the
objections of the Operating Engineers. As the contentions of
each Petitioner are separately considered by the Board, the
interests of the Operating Engineers can in no way be preju-
diced by consolidation of these cases for decisional purposes.
As all three cases involve the same Employer, and the claims
of the Petitioners in Cases Nos. 11-RC-490 and 11-RC-531 in
some instances overlap, these cases are hereby consolidated
for purposes of decision.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:"
iThe Employer, in a telegram to the Board during the hearing in Case No 11-RC-531,
contended that the hearing officer made prejudicial and biased rulings and was guilty of
high-handed conduct. We have examined the record in this case closely and find nothing in it
to support the Employer's allegations. The hearing officer did not, either through his rulings
or general conduct, deify any party an opportunity to introduce evidence pertinent to all the
issues herein. We find no evidence in the record of bias and prejudice on the part of the
hearing officer, and are ofthe opinion that the Employer received a fair and impartial hearing
In view of the foregoing and the entire record in the case, we find that the contention of the
Employer is lacking in merit.
2 The petitions and other formal papers are amended to show the correct name of the Em-
ployer as it appears in the caption.
3 The hearing officers referred to the Board the Employer's motions to dismiss the peti-
tions on the ground that the requested units are inappropriate. For the reasons stated infra,
the Employer's motions to dismiss the petitions in Cases Nos. 11-RC-470 and 11-RC-531
are granted, and its motion to dismiss the petition in Case No. 11-RC-490 is denied.
4At the reopened hearing in Cases Nos. 11-RC-470 and 490, the Operating Engineers and
the Employer stated that they did not object to the consolidation of these cases if it did not
involve the taking of additional evidence.
'Consolidation is a matter for administrative discretion. Pacific Maritime Association,
et al., 100 NLRB 1259.
6 Operating Engineers objected to the admission of evidence relating to classifications in the
Employer's layout department other than those covered in its petition. The hearing officer
referred this objection to the Board. As this evidence is pertinent to a decision of the issues
in these cases, the Operating Engineers' objection is hereby overruled.
736 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer has various plants located throughout the
United States . Its engineering department is engaged in the
construction of facilities for production of fissionable mate-
rials at the Savannah River Plant , South Carolina , for the
Atomic Energy Commission . The Employer ' s operations at
the Savannah River Project cover an area of approximately
315 square miles . Within a period of approximately 2 years,
materials valued in excess of $ 1,000,000 have been received
from points outside of the State of South Carolina for use at
the project.
. The Employer contends that because its Construction Divi-
sion at the Savannah River project is essentially a local oper-
ation with complete autonomy , and the employees at the project
are segregated from the commercial activities of the Employer,
these operations do not constitute operations substantially
affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act.
As the Employer makes a large amount of out - of-State pur-
chases,and is doing business on an atomic energy reservation,
its operations are so identified with the Government's national
defense program as to warrant the full exercise of the Board's
power to assert jurisdiction .? For these reasons, we find, con-
trary to the Employer ' s contention , that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that the
policies of the Act will be effectuated by the assertion of juris-
diction in this c ;se.
2. At the hearing in Case No . 11-RC-470, the Employer and
the Operating Engineers objected to the intervention of American
Federation of Technical Engineers , AFL, Local 160, herein
called the Technical Engineers .8 The record shows that the
Technical Engineers exists for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with respect to wages, hours , and working conditions of
its members . We find that both the Technical Engineers and
the Operating Engineers are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act , and that both claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer . As the Technical Engineers has
made the necessary administrative showing of interest, we find
that it was entitled to intervene at the hearing.
At the hearing in Case No. 11-RC-490, the Employer moved that certain testimony be
stricken from the record on the ground that it had no relevancy to the issues involved in these
cases. The hearing officer referred the Employer 's motion to strike to the Board. Because
this testimony in no way prejudices the position of any of the parties , the Employer's motion
to strike is hereby denied.
7 Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638; C. & H. Foods, Inc , 100 NLRB 1483; Miller
Electric Company, 101 NLRB 1014.
Member Murdock notes that jurisdiction could be asserted in this case either (1) on the
direct inflow which meets the $500 ,000 standard of the Federal Dairy case under the Board's
jurisdictional plan without regard to any connection with the national defense program; or
(2) because the enterprise is related to the national defense program and without regard to
the size of the inflow.
8 The Technical Engineers , the Intervenor in Case No, 11-RC-470, is the Petitioner in
Case No. 11-RC-490, while the Operating Engineers is the Intervenor ,in Case No . 11-RC-470.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. 737
3. For reasons stated hereinafter , no questions affecting
commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of
the Employer in Cases Nos . 11-RC-470 and 11-RC-531 within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. We do, however , find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer in Case No. ll-RC-490, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In Case No. 11-RC-470, the Operating Engineers seeks a
unit limited to all field survey parties in the Employer's lay-
out department at the Savannah River project , including party
chiefs, instrumentmen , rodmen, and levelmen, but excluding
all other employees , guards, and supervisors . Ili Case No.
11-RC-490, the Technical Engineers seeks a unit of all tech-
nical employees in the Employer 's layout department, including
party chiefs, instrumentmen , levelmen, rodmen , office engi-
neers, estimators , and draftsmen , but excluding clerks, engi-
neer trainees , professional employees , guards, supervisors,
and all other employees . In the alternative , the Technical
Engineers requests a unit of all technical employees working at
the project including party chiefs, instrumentmen , levelmen,
rodmen, office engineers , estimators , draftsmen A and B,
material coordinators , evacuation monitor - safety employees
and planning estimators in central shops and the construction
area offices , but excluding all employees located in area L,
clerks, engineer trainees , professional employees , guards,
supervisors and all other employees . In any event , the Tech-
nical Engineers wishes to go to an election , and will accept any
unit of technical employees the Boards finds appropriate. If the
Board finds its requested unit to be inappropriate , the Oper-
ating Engineers requests that it be placed on the ballot for any
election directed in Case No. 11-RC-490.
In Case No. 11-RC-531, the Office Engineers seeks a unit of
all stenographers , typists, file clerks, cardex clerks, and other
clerks working in the central shops, in the craft offices in the
construction areas, and in the assistant field superintendents'
offices, but excluding all clerical employees working in area
L, principal clerks, senior clerks A, group leaders, telephone
operators , teletype operators , ditto machine operators, sug-
gestion investigators , intermediate clerks, A, B, and C who
are engaged in warehouse work in the excess material section
in central shops, material checkers in the receiving and stores
department in central shops and in the construction areas,
intermediate clerks C who are bin attendants , intermediate
clerks B who are shoe salesmen in the sales store, inter-
mediate clerks A who are unit leaders in central shops and in
the methods and scheduling department ' s field offices , senior
clerks C, senior clerks B in the receiving and stores depart-
ment, all contact clerks in the cost section and in the assistant
field superintendents ' offices in the construction areas, and in
the material control section, all material coordinators and
738 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expediting clerks, all material checkers in the division engi-
neer ' s warehouse , professional employees , and all supervisors.
At the first hearing in Case No . 11-RC-490, the Technical
Engineers sought to include clerks in the layout department in
a unit with the technical employees . The Employer , at this
hearing , contended that clerical employees should not be in-
cluded in a unit with technical employees . At the reopened
hearing, the Technical Engineers stated that it did not wish to
include clerical employees in its requested unit of technical
employees . The Employer , for the first time at this hearing,
took the position that the clerical employees should be included
in a unit with the technical employees.
The Employer contends that all of the proposed units are
based on the extent of union organization because they do not
include all employees in similar job classifications working at
the project. The Employer also contends that the units sought
by the Operating Engineers and the Technical Engineers are
inappropriate because there are employees in the proposed
units who are supervisors , or confidential employees, and
because the units include both professional and nonprofessional
employees . The Employer further contends that if the Board
determines that either of these requested units is appropriate,
certain specific categories of employees should be excluded
from the unit as supervisors or confidential employees. There
is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees
involved in these proceedings.
The Employer's operations at the Savannah River project,
which cover an area of approximately 315 square miles, are
divided into a number of different areas which , for security
reasons, , are designated by the letters A through L. Areas A
through J are called the, permanent construction areas, area K
is referred to as central shops, and area L as the T. C. or
temporary construction area. ' The central administration func -
tions of the construction division of the project are carried on
in area L. The overall departments ,'which represent respective
similar groups in each of the areas , are housed in area L. The
administration offices of the crafts and shops are located in
area K.
The Employer ' s operations are headed by a filed project
manager , under whom is an assistant field project manager.
The latter is assisted by an assistant field project manager--
field , and an assistant field project manager- -office. Also
reporting directly to the assistant field project manager are
the safety superintendent, the security superintendent , and the
salary administration and control supervisor . Directly respon-
sible to the assistant field project manager -- field , are the
methods and scheduling superintendent and the field super-
intendent . Each area is under the supervision of an assistant
9 Area L is also known as the T C. administration area . The T. C administration build-
ings are used as headquarters for the project construction activities.
E. L DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. 739
field superintendent who reports to the field superintendent,
and who is responsible for all of the work in his area. Also
directly responsible to the field superintendent are the super-
intendents of the craft offices, the layout department, the
transportation department, the testing and inspection depart-
ment, and the instrument superintendent . Directly responsible
to the assistant field project manager--office , are the control
superintendent , who has 6 departments under his jurisdiction, w
the engineering office superintendent , who has 6 departments
under his jurisdiction,u and the service superintendent, who
has 4 departments under his jurisdiction.'2
In each area there is an assistant field superintendent's
office. There are also other offices located in the construction
areas . The Employer' s operations are divided into various
divisions, departments and sections. There is uniformity of
organization in all areas. The same departments and sections
that are housed in area L , are represented in all of the assist-
ant field superintendents' offices and in the construction area
offices.
The Employer's operations are conducted in a highly inte-
grated and centralized manner , with uniform personnel policies,
wages , hours, and working conditions for all employees regard-
less of their location at the project. The Employer's industrial
relations plans and policies do not vary in any respect with
reference to the location where the employees work. Employer
benefits, such as vacations, holiday pay, insurance plans, and
hospitalization benefits, apply equally to all employees working
at the project. All hiring is done by the Employer's personnel
department . The personnel department also acts as a clearing
house for the transfer of employees within the project. All
employees receive the sa ne rates of pay for comparable job
classifications , regardles s of their location at the project.
Overall policies for the 9roject are determined in the main
administration offices located in area L, which is the central
group at the project. Although the line of supervision for the
area offices is different from that in area L, the type of work
done in in related sections in the area offices is the same. The
work done in are;. L is on a larger scale , as it encompasses
the entire project, whereas the area offices are concerned only
with work related to their particular area. There is, however,
close coordination between the work done in area L and in the
other areas , as it is essential that the work of all groups at
the project be correlated.
The Employer has a practice of transferring both technical
and clerical employees from area to area, or from department
10Under the control superintendent are the timekeeping , the excess material, the receiving
and stores , the miscellaneous clerical, the purchasing , and the traffic departments.
"Under the engineering office superintendent are the cost, contracts, inspection, mate-
rial control , blueprint , and history departments.
12 Under the service superintendent are the medical, patrol, fire , and personnel departments.
740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to department within an area. There is considerable transfer
of personnel between area L and other area offices, subject to
the requirements of the project at any time. The Employer
gives preference to employees already working at the project,
and employees are transferred from areas which are completing
an assignment to other areas that are in the installing phases of
construction. The number of transfers fluctuates as the work
load tapers off or increases in the areas. Employees are moved
about as circumstances require, and they may be transferred
to any location where their services are required. The trans-
fer lasts as long as the need for the employees' services exist,
after which another transfer may be initiated to some other
area where personnel is needed. Normally, employees perform
the same type of duties in each assignment, and there is no
change in classification or rate of pay.
Case No. 11-RC-470
The layout department, which is headed by a division engi-
neer, is part of the Employer' s engineering department. The
division engineer is assisted by a principal assistant division
engineer, under whom are two assistant division engineers. The
layout department is divided into a number of different areas,
and each assistant division engineer has a group of these dif-
ferent areas under his jurisdiction. Each area is under the
supervision of a layout engineer who reports to one of the
assistant division engineers . Under each layout engineer is an
assistant layout engineer who has supervision of all the em-
ployees working in his particular area, including the survey
parties in the unit sought by the Operating Engineers.
The field survey parties are composed of party chiefs, in-
strumentmen, levelmen, and rodmen. There are also 9 esti-
mators B, 2 estimators C, 2 draftsmen, and 2 office engineers,
who are permanently assigned to the layout department.
On the basis of the entire record we find that the party chiefs,
instrumentmen, levelmen, rodmen, estimators, and draftsmen
are clearly technical employees.13 We do not believe that the
interests of the employees in the field survey parties, whom
the Operating Engineers seeks to represent, are so distinguish-
able from those of the Employer's other technical employees
to warrant establishing them in a separate unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. We find that the unit sought,
limited to a segment of the Employer's technical employees,
is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 14
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition filed by the Operating
Engineers in Case No. 11-RC-470.
13Cf Appalachian Electric Power Company, 91 NLRB 1376. The duties and functions of
these employees are discussed Infra.
lUnited States Steel Company,100 NLRB 1294; The De Laval Separator Company, 97NLRB
544.
E. L DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. 741
Case No. 11 -RC-490
The Employer contends that the broader layout department
unit which the Technical Engineers seeks to represent is in-
appropriate because it includes both professional and non-
professional employees, skilled and unskilled employees.
The educational requirements for an instrumentman are 2
years of college engineering work or its equivalent in ex-
perience. He is responsible for the proficient use of all sur-
veying instruments and must be familiar with the work of the
levelmen and rodmen with whom he works. He must be able
to read and interpret plans, to compute a traverse line and
grade data as required for the job of the particular assignment.
He runs the instrument, and assists in the establishment of line
and grades for all construction as outlined by the party chief.
The levelman must have some formal education including
mathematical training . He must have an understanding of sur-
veying, and must be capable of running a level and making
certain computations as to grade and alignment . Because he
relays signals and information to the rodmen, he must know
the functions of the rodmen. If the levelman shows the proper
aptitude, he is considered as in training for promotion to the
position of instrumentman.
The minimum requirement for a rodman's position is a high
school education and an aptitude for this type of work.15 He is
expected to be proficient in the use of all surveying equipment.
He pulls chains , carries rods, marks lines in grade, and
assists the levelmen and other men in the survey party in
establishing all types of temporary references for construction
facilities. He is given the opportunity to learn the functions and
use of other instruments as part of his training.
Estimators C must have a college degree or its equivalent in
experience.16 They work in the main office of the layout divi-
sion in central shops. Their work consists primarily of
figuring earth quantities from field notes, plotting of cross-
sections , and making preliminary estimates for payment to
subcontractors for their work on the project, or for cost-checks
on work done by the Employer's employees.
The draftsmen must have a minimum of 2 years of college
work, plus a year or more of practical experience. They make
calculations and computations in connection with the layout
work, and work on cross-sections, plans, and profiles. They
,are occasionally required to make sketches with the use of
substantiating reports.
At the hearing the Employer's division engineer testified
that he did not consider estimators to be professional em-
ployees. In its brief, however, the Employer contends that
15 Because of the difficulty in obtaining qualified personnel, the Employer has hired men
for the job of rodmen who have completed only 3 years of high school work.
16 At the hearing on remand , the parties stipulated that all estimators B are professional
employees. They agree that estimators C are technical employees.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
estimators and instrumentmen are professional employees.
It is clear from the above facts and the record as a whole that
the estimators C and instrumentmen do not meet the require-
ments for professional employees set out in Section 2 (12) of the
Act. We have already found that the instrumentmen, levelmen,
rodmen, estimators, and draftsmen are technical employees.
We therefore find, contrary to the contention of the Employer,
that the proposed unit does not include both professional and
nonprofessional, and skilled and unskilled employees.
Each area, when it progresses to acertainpoint in the work,
supports a complete layout organization, including a layout
engineer , assistant layout engineer, and a surveying party.
Representatives of the layout department are then assigned to,
and work in, the areas requiring their services.'1 Such as sign-
ments are for the duration of the needs of the area, which may
be from 2 to 12 months. While working in the areas, the layout
department employees work directly under area supervision.
In addition to the technical employees in the layout depart-
ment, there are other technical employees working in all of the
area and craft offices. They are classified as draftsmen A and
B, estimators C, office engineers, planning estimators, mate-
rial coordinators, and evacuation monitor-safety employees.
There is no dispute as to the technical status of these em-
ployees. All technical employees in the same job classifications
have similar qualifications and duties, and are paid within the
same salary range. We find, therefore, that the proposed unit
limited to technical employees in the layout department does
not constitute an appropriate unit, as they are but a segment
of a larger group of technical employees Working at the
project.18
The evidence shows a close functional relationship between
the technical employees in area L, whom the Technical Engi-
neers would exclude, and those working other areas 19 Area L
personnel are responsible for coordinating the work of area L
with that of the field areas . The record does not support the
Technical Engineers' assertion that there is no contact or inter-
changeability between the technical employees working in area
L and those working,in other areas at the project. Some tech-
nical employees assigned to area L make trips to construction
areas to observe the work and obtain necessary information.
The material coordinators in area L, whose work is similar to
the work of those in the field superintendents' offices, spend
about 25 percent of their time in the field working with the field
personnel.
We find that the interests and functions of the technical em-
ployees in area L are sufficiently related to those of the other
technical employees working at the project, to be included in a
17 Both the Operating Engineers and the Technical Engineers agree that layout department
employees who go to the various areas for temporary assignment, should be included in a
unit of layout department employees.
Is Ladish Co., 100 NLRB 159; The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243.
19 There are approximately 20 technical employees in area L.
E. 1. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. 743
unit with them.20 We therefore reject the Technical Engineers'
alternative unit request. As the Technical Engineers has indi-
cated a willingness to represent all of the technical employees
at the project, and has made an adequate showing of interest in
such a unit, we shall direct an election in the more comprehen-
sive unit.
Under well-established Board policy office clerical employ-
ees may not be grouped with technical employees where any
party objects to such a grouping.2i As the Technical Engineers
objects to a single unit of technical and clerical employees, we
shall direct a separate election for the technical employees.
There remains for consideration specific disputed categories,
all of whom the Employer would exclude from any appropriate
unit either as supervisors, confidential employees, or profes-
sional employees.
Party chiefs: The Employer would exclude the party chiefs
on the ground that they are supervisors, whereas the Operating
Engineers and the Technical Engineers would include them.
The party chiefs are responsible for the work of one or
more survey parties, composed of instrumentmen , rodmen, and
levelmen. They assign work to, and direct the work of, the men
in the survey party. They make up monthly efficiency rating
reports for each man in their survey party, and have authority
effectively to recommend changes in status of these employees.
They have authority to discipline the men working under them,
and effectively to recommend the hiring and discharge of men in
the survey party.
Upon these facts, we find that the party chiefs are super-
visors,22 and we shall exclude them from the unit Y3
Office engineers: At the original hearing in Case No. 11-
RC-480, the Employer asserted that the office engineers in the
layout department are supervisors . The evidence at the hearing
on remand showed that there are additional office engineers
working at the project. The Employer contends that the latter
are not supervisors, and should be included in the unit.
There are two office engineers , each of whom is in charge of
an area layout office.E4 They work under the supervision of the
20 Cf. Western Association of Engineers, Architects and Surveyors, 101 NLRB 64.
21 The Arthur A. Johnson Corporation and Mason Hanger Company, Incorporated, 97 NLRB
1466; Bulldog Electric Products Company, 96 NLRB 642; American Locomotive Company,
Alco Products Division, 92 NLRB 115.
22Cf. The Arthur A Johnson Corporation and Mason and Hunger Company, Incorporated,
97 NLRB 1466; Guy F. Atkinson Company and J. A. Jones Construction Company, 83 NLRB
1004.
23The Employer also contends that instrumentmen should be excluded as supervisors The
instrumentmen sometimes act as substitutes for the party chiefs, whom we have found to be
supervisors. However, their exercise of the functions of a supervisor are so sporadic as not
to be sufficient, in our opinion, to constitute the instrume,ntmen supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unt. Wilson & Co , Inc., 97 NLRB 1388.
24 There is one other office engineer who reports directly to the Employer's principal
assistant division engineer . He is on the same level on the Employer's organizational chart
as the layout engineers. He has overall supervision of the Employer's clerical employees.
He is clearly a supervisor, and we shall exclude him from the unit.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
assistant layout engineer of their respective areas . The major-
ity of their time is spent in assisting the field parties in the
preparation of sketches and clarifying and interpreting plans
or prints for the field men. They spend approximately 40 per-
cent of their time in the field, 40 percent with work related to
the field, and 20 percent with clerical work. They are not gradu-
ate engineers , and a college degree is not required for the job.
The requirements for the job are 2 or 3 years of college work
and/or its equivalent in practical field experience.
Each office engineer assigns work to and directs the work of
one clerk in his area office. They have authority to discipline
and effectively to recommend changes in status and the dis-
charge of these clerks. In view of these facts, we find that the
layout department office engineers are supervisors and shall
exclude them from the unit.25
There are six office engineers assigned to other area
offices. The Employer and the Technical Engineers agree
that they are technical employees. Only 1 of the 6 has any em-
ployees reporting to him. He does not assign work to any em-
ployees and gives only routine instructions to them. He does
not have authority to discipline employees, and does not exer-
cise any supervisory authority over any employees. We find
that these office engineers are not supervisors, and shall in-
clude them in the unit.
Confidential employees: The Employer contends that a number
of employees should be excluded from the unit as confidential
employees on the ground that they have access to data or other
material classified by the Atomic Energy Commission as confi-
dential and restricted for security reasons, cost data on con-
tracts and subcontracts, blueprints, confidential business and
personnel reports, and employee personnel records. None of the
employees whom the Employer contends are confidential em-
ployees assists or acts in a confidential capacity to any person
who exercises managerial functions in the field of labor rela-
tions. It is well settled that the fact that employees have access
to financial and business data, work with costs records, have
access to secret designs, patents or formulae, restricted infor-
mation, or personnel matters, does not render them confidential
employees. 26 Moreover, the Board has often held that there is
no incompatibility between the faithful performance of duty and
the enjoyment of benefits under the Act."
a Phillips Oil Company, 91 NLRB 534. As we are excluding these office engineers from the
unit as supervisors, we find it unnecessary to consider the Employer's contention, raised in
its brief, that they are professional employees.
26 Swift & Company, Technical Products Plant, Hammond, Indiana, 98 NLRB 746; Wilson
& Co., Inc., 97 NLRB 1388; Bulldog Electric Products Company, 96 NLRB 642; Arnold Hoffman
& Co., Incorporated, 95 NLRB 907; East Texas Steel Castings Company, Inc , 95 NLRB 1135;
Pittsburgh Metallurgical Company, Inc., 95 NLRB 1; Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB
211; Cities Service Refining Corporation, 94 NLRB 1634; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft
Corporation: For Worth Division, 92 NLRB 1290; Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co., 92 NLRB
711; Phillips Oil Company, 91 NLRB 534.
n Capital Transit Company, 98 NLRB 141.
E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC. 745
We find that all technical employees at the Employer's
Savannah River Project, South Carolina, including instrument-
men, levelmen, rodmen, estimators C,28 draftsmen A and B,
office engineers, planning estimators,29 evacuation monitor-
safety employees, and material coordinators,90 but excluding
party chief, engineer trainees , office engineers , 31 estimators
B, all other employees, professional employees,92 confiden-
tial employees and supervisors,33 constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Case No . 11-RC-531
The Office Employees wish to exclude all clerical employees
working in area L from its proposed unit. We see no justifica-
tion for excluding these employees from a unit of le Employer's
clerical employees. As noted above, the Employer's operations
are conducted in a highly integrated and centralized manner.
The factors which militate against the exclusion of the technical
employees working in area L from a unit of technical employees,
apply equally to any unit determination for clerical employees.
The Office Employees' proposed unit is predicated upon the
claim that the clericals it seeks to represent are plant-cleri-
cals as distinguished from office-clerical employees.31 It con-
tends that the clerical employees working in area L should be
excluded from the unit because they are office-clericals, with
no contact or community of interest with the Employer's other
clerical employees whom it seeks to represent. The record
does not support these contentions. The record shows that the
work of many clerical employees assigned to area L, brings
them into contact with the employees working in other areas.
28 The record shows that one estimator C in area L exercises supervisory authority. He is
therefore excluded from the unit.
29 The parties stipulated that the following material coordinators were supervisors: One in
area B, one in area C, one in area K, and one reporting to the material control supervisor in
areas F and G They are therefore excluded from the unit.
31 Only the office engineers in the layout department whom we have found to be supervisors
are excluded from the unit.
31 The parties stipulated that all estimators B working at the project are professional em-
ployees.
32 The parties stipulated that the following employees are professionals: engineer contracts,
assistant engineer contracts, safety engineers A and B, methods and suggestions engineers,
assistant safety engineers, planning and scheduling engineers, construction consultants,
design problems engineer A. charts and graphs engineer, cost evaluator, costs engineer,
unit costs engineers , engineer trainees , and engineers areas A, B, and C.
si The parties stipulated that the following employees are supervisors: draftsmen A in
area A, assistant cost supervisors in areas A and B, assistant planning and scheduling
supervisor in area B, material control supervisor in area B, and charts and graphs leaders
in areas C and L.
94Although the Office Employees asserts that it wishes to represent only plant-clerical
employees, it would exclude from the unit material checkers, material taggers, bin attend-
ants, contact clerks, and expediters located in the area offices. The record shows that these
clerks perform duties which the Board has frequently found to be those of plant-clerical
employees.
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It fails to indicate that the clericals in the offices of the assist-
ant field superintendents and in the other area offices, have any
more contact or interests in common with the production and
maintenance workers in the field than do those assigned to area
L.
In some instances the employees whom the Office Employees
seeks to represent work under the same direct or same over-
all supervision as do the employees in area L.$ Most of the
employees in the proposed unit work under the overall super-
vision of the field superintendent. Others, however, work under
the overall supervision of the assistant field project manager--
field or the assistant field project manager- -office, as do the
employees in area L.ss
It is clear that many of the clerical employees are located
in area offices only for convenience, and not because their
duties and working conditions are different from those of the
clericals working in area L. Athough in many cases the line of
supervision for the area offices is different from that for area
L offices, the departments and sections in the area offices which
correspond to those in area L, have the same classifications of
employees. The work of employees in the same job classifica-
tions is substantially the same wherever they may be located,
and in many cases the work functions are interrelated and
interdependent. Not only is there close coordination of the work,
but in some instances work is assigned to the area offices by
offices in area L, or done by area L employees 31 With rela-
tively few exceptions, the nature of the various work tasks in
corresponding departments in area L and in the other areas
is so similar that employees can readily be transferred between
area L and the other areas. Moreover, some of the employees
assigned to area L and other area clericals whom the Office
Employees would exclude from the unit, do work which is more
like that of plant-clericals than do other employees it would
include in its unit.'
$ There are 3 yard clerks located in area E who are supervised directly by the traffic
office in area L There is 1 stenographer and 1 clerk working in area F who report dicectly
to the miscellaneous clerical department in area L. The engineering office superintendent in
charge of the costs, contracts inspection, material control, blueprint, and history depart-
ments in area L, has direct supervision over some of the employees in these departments
located in area K.
36 There are about 275 clerical employees in the receiving and stores department, 43 in the
miscellaneous clerical department, and 28 in the excess material department outside of area
L, who work under the supervision of the control superintendent who is responsible to the
assistant field project manager- -office. There are 140 clericals in the timekeeping depart-
ment, 15 excess material, 5 in receiving and stores, 166 in miscellaneous clerical, 69 in
purchasing, and 36 in the traffic department, all located in area L, who are also under the
jurisdiction of the control superintendent.
37 Safety employees located in area D do work assigned to them by the safety office in area
L. Clerks from area L handle the planning and scheduling work for areas I, J, and K There
are methods and scheduling employees from area L who perform work in all of the areas.
At one time the methods and scheduling employees in the offices of the assistant field super-
intendents worked under the direct supervision of the area L office.
38 There are about 23 clerks in the area L timekeeping department, who spend most of their
time working in areas outside of area L, doing work which the Board has frequently found to
be that of plant-clerical employees Independent Lock Company of Alabama, 106 NLRB 1136;
General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364, Palmer Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB
336
E. L DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Inc. 747
In view of all the foregoing facts, we are persuaded that the
only basis for excluding the employees in area L is the extent
of the Office Employees' organization. Section 9 (c) of the Act
precludes a finding on thatbasis alone- 39 Because the requested
unit constitutes only a segment of the Employer's clerical
employees whether it is considered as an office or a plant-
clerical unit, we find that it is inappropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.4o As the Office Employees do not have
sufficient showing of interest to justify an election in either an
office or plant-clerical unit, we shall dismiss its petition.*'
5. The Employer contends that an election should not be
directed at this project because of the temporary nature of the
activities involved. In support of this contention the Employer
states that the employees covered by these petitions were
hired for the duration of the work on the project, and that they
have no expectation of being transferred to any of the Em-
ployer's other operations. The record shows that peak em-
ployment has already been reached, and the Employer is
beginning to lay off employees because they are no longer re-
quired. The record also shows that the project is not expected
to be completed until January of 1955.
Under all the circumstances, and particularly in view of the
substantial number of employees presently working and the
inconclusiveness of the testimony concerning the completion
date of the Employer' s operations , we believe that the Act will
best be effectuated by the direction of an election at this
time.42
[The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 11-RC-
470 and 11 -RC-531.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
39 Hampton Roads Broadcasting Corporation (WGH), 98 NLRB 1090; Kress Dairy, Inc., 98
NLRB 369.
40 Cf. Hilton Horels International, Inc., 106 NLRB 233; The Crowell Publishing Company
102 NLRB 1236; General Electric Company, 101 NLRB 619. In Miller Electric Company, 103
NLRB 1492, the Board found appropriate a unit of all office-clerical employees working at
the Savannah River pcoject. The petitioner in that case was the same union as in the instant
case.
41 Because of our decision herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the Office Employees'
contention that certain area clerical employees should be excluded from the unit as super-
visors or employees with diverse interests from the other clerical employees. Even if these
employees were excluded from the unit, the Office Employees would not have an adequate
showing of interest.
xt The Brush Beryllium Co., 96 NLRB 1383; The Girdler Corporation, (Dana Project), 96
NLRB 894.