Engineering and Research Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 31, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LODGE No . 1140,
PETITIONER
Case No. 5-RC-576.-Decided May 31,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold G. Biermann, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
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 a unit of all toolmakers, machinists, and instru-
ment makers in the Employer's experimental department. In the
alternative, it would enlarge the requested unit by adding all but one
of the remaining classifications in the department; it would not
include, however, a group of electronic technicians, contending that
their work is closely related to that of engineers who are "profes-
sional employees." The Employer urges a unit of all the experi-
mental workers in the experimental department.
The Employer manufactures machinery, metal parts, and various
types of electrical equipment. There are 17 divisions in the plant,
one of which is the experimental department here in question.
Following a consent election, the Petitioner was certified by the
Board on October 27, 1948, as the representative of the production
and maintenance employees? On April 1, 1949, the Petitioner and
I Engineering and Research Corporation , Case No. 5-RC--65 (unpublished).
90 NLRB No. 6.
16
0
ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH CORPORATION 17
the Employer entered into a collective bargaining agreement, for a
period of 1 year, with respect to the production and maintenance
employees. The experimental workers involved in the present pro-
ceeding were specifically excluded from both the certification and the
agreement . The experimental department is, therefore, the only
department at the plant without representation at this time.
The experimental department is devoted to projects looking forward
to the development of new products or to the perfection of existing
products, and is separated physically from the rest of the plant which
is engaged in the manufacture of articles for sale. The employees in
the experimental department are located in two areas. One area is
restricted because it is engaged ' in experimental work in classified
Government projects; the other area is unrestricted. Each is under
separate supervision. A. total of 12 employees, including toolmakers
and machinists, are employed in the restricted area. The non-
restricted area comprises 13 instrument makers, 17 electronic techni-
cians, 1 expediter, 1 patternmaker, 1 machinist, and 1 stock chaser.
Thus, the Petitioner originally sought 22 of the 46 employees in both
areas of the experimental department, and, at the hearing, acquiesced
in including 29 of the employees, i. e., all except the 17 electronic
technicians. '
The record shows that the electronic technicians are engaged in
wiring circuits, assembling the various components that go into an
electronic unit, testing units after completion, and doing work involv-
ing the use of an oscilloscope. All of their work is confined to the
experimental department. They have varying grades of skill; some
have had experience in the service of radios, radar, and other elec-
tronic equipment; others were recruited from among the bench
mechanics . Generally, the electronic technicians are hand workmen,
without formal schooling, who acquired their requisite skills through
normal experience.
The Petitioner does not allege that the electronic technicians are
"professional employees" but nevertheless asserts that their work is
closely related to that of the engineers. The record does not support
this conclusion. Nor is there any persuasive evidence that their work
is comparable to that of the engineers, or, indeed, substantially dis-
similar from that of the other employees in the experimental
department.
All the employees in the experimental department, including the
electronic technicians, are hourly paid, and enjoy similar working
conditions. The record also indicates that all of the experimental
workers work closely together, irrespective of job classification or wage
scale. Substantially all employees in this department, unlike those
903847-51-3
0
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the rest of the plant, are cleared through some Government channel.
Although the electronic technicians have their own immediate super-
visor, as have the instrument makers, they are under the over-all super-
vision of the chief engineer who is in charge of the entire area.
From the foregoing, and on the basis of the entire record in the case,
we find that the electronic technicians are not professional employees; 2
that they function as an integral part of the experimental depart-
ment; 3 and that the failure to include them renders the unit as re-
quested by the Petitioner inappropriate. On the other hand, we find
that all the employees of the experimental department constitute a
cohesive and well-defined residual departmental group with separate
supervision and working space which may properly constitute a sepa-
rate bargaining unit.4 Although this unit is broader than that re-
quested by the Petitioner, the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing
of interest in the broader unit and we shall direct an election in such
unit.5
We find that all employees of the Employer's experimental de-
partment, at Riverdale, Maryland, including toolmakers, machinists,
experimental assemblers, simple sheet metal mechanics, complicated
sheet metal mechanics, janitor, instrument makers, electronic tech-
nicians, expediter, patternmaker, and stock chaser, but excluding
office, clerical, technical, and professional employees, guards, all other
employees, and all supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses 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, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
2 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 89 NLRB 8 (Sunbury Plant).
3 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , supra.
4International Harvester Company, 82 NLRB 185; John Deere Dubuque Company, 72
NLRB 656, 660, 661.
5If the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election for the unit herein found
appropriate , it may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to that
effect given to the Regional Director in writing within ten ( 10) days from the date of the
Direction of Election herein.
ENGINEERING AND RESEARCH COR'POR'ATION 19
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll 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 excluding 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,
International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 1140.