E. R. Squibb & Sons

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 792 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of E. R. SQUIBB & SONS, EMPLOYER and UNITED GAS,
COKE AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 138, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 2-RC-1068.-Decided May 24,1919
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Lloyd S.
Greenidge, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent the employees in the Pharmaceu-
tical Development Division in the Employer's Brooklyn, New York,
plant. As its first choice, the Petitioner desires to include these
employees in the unit of production and maintenance employees it
currently represents. The Petitioner indicated, however, that if the
Board should find that these employees. may not appropriately be
included with production and maintenance employees for the purpose
of collective bargaining it desires to represent them as a separate unit.
The Employer contends that these employees are confidential em-
ployees who should not be represented by the same union that repre-
sents production and maintenance employees.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 122.
792
E. R. 'SQUIBB & SONS ,793
The following are employed in the Pharmaceutical Development
Division : two research associates, three research assistants, three tech-
nical aides and a laboratory aide. All of these, with the exception
of the laboratory aide who does only general housekeeping work, have
a college degree in science or its equivalent in experience. Three have
graduate degrees in science. All are engaged in research projects
leading to the development of new products and processes and the
improvement of current processes and products of the Employer.
The research associates conduct research assignments in chemistry and
biology which require the exercise of individual initiative and tech-
nical judgment. The research assistants carry out various assign-
ments in chemistry and biology, engage in research in scientific liter-
ature, test compounds and repair and construct laboratory equipment.
The technical aides assist the research associates in their investigation,
coordinate experimental tests and accumulate scientific data which is
used in research. The laboratory aide cleans and prepares laboratory
equipment for use, handles animals for experimental use, cleans tables
and floors and collects and disposes of waste material. All of these
employees work under the general direction of a professional
supervisor.
The training and background of these employees and the work they
perform constitute them a professional group, with interests clearly
distinguishable from those of the production and maintenance em-
ployees.' There is no interchange of employees between this depart-
ment and other departments of the plant. At the time of the hearing,
testimony indicated that within a period of 2 or 3 weeks an addition
to the plant would be completed in which the employees involved
herein would be entirely segregated from the rest of the plant. The
rate and manner of pay of these employees is unlike that of the
production and maintenance personnel, and they have separate super-
vision by a supervisor of professional education and experience. In
view of the above, we find, contrary to the principal contention of the
Petitioner, that these employees should not be included in the broader
unit of production and maintenance employees it currently represents.
However, as they comprise a readily identifiable and functionally
coherent group, having a community of interest distinguishable from
other employees in the plant, we find they may be represented in a
separate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining as requested
in the alternative by the Petitioner.
1 See Matter of Cutter Laboratories, 80 N. L. R. B 213. The laboratory aide is not a
professional employee. However, as the group is composed predominantly of professional
employees we shall include him in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Matter of Con-
tinental Motors Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 345.
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find no merit in the contention of the Employer that these em-
.ployees are confidential employees. None of them performs,any work
,in connection with labor relations., The mere fact that an employee
does work related to secret designs, patents or formulae does not con-
•stitute him a confidential employee within the Board's definition 2
Not do we agree with the Employer's argument that as the employees
,herein are developing new processes and products that may cause the
lay-off of production employees their interests are in conflict with those
of the production employees, and they should therefore not be repre-
sented by the same union which represents the production employees .3
We find, therefore, that the employees described' below constitute a
.unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Pharmaceutical Development Division in the
Employer's Brooklyn, New York, plant, including all research associ-
ates, research assistants, technical aides, and laboratory aides, but
excluding all office and clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and
,supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
'purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the, Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
-Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately •
-preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
Who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
`or^on vacation or temporarily laid,off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-,
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented,, for purposes
of collective bargaining, -by United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers
of America, Local 138, CIO. -
2 Matter of Line Material Company of Pennsylvania , 73 N L R . B 704; Matter of Fire-
stone Tire and Rubber ,Company, 77 N L. R B . 691; Matter of Lykens Hosiery Mills, Inc.,
82 N L R. B. 981.
? See Matter of Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. of Chicago, 75 N. L . R B 1132, see
also Matter of Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation,,,69 N. L ., R„'B. 536; Matter of The
American Coach & Body Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 946.