George A. Fuller Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 13, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 207 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the 'Matter of GEORGE A. FULLER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and ARCHI-
TECTl7RAL & ENGINEERING GUILD LOCAI, 66, INTERNATIONAL'FEDERA-
TION• OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS & DRAFTSMEN'S UNIONS,
AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. :?-RC-163.-Decided July 13, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National'Labor Relations Board. 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 National L• abor
Relations Act, the Board had delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within 'the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.'
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question of•representation exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit comprising all technical professional 2
engineering- employees engaged in surveying work on the Employer's
construction job known as Fresh Meadows, New York Life Insurance
Company Project, Flushing, Long Island, New York, including chiefs
*Houston , Reynolds , and Gray.
' See N. L R. -B. v. Austin Co, 165 F. (2d) 592 (C. C. A 7). Matter of Starrett Brothers
& Eken, Incorporated, 77 N. L R B. 275
2 The petitioner contends that the unit it seeks is professional in character , but states
that should the Board find that these employees are not in fact professionals , it requests
the Board to establish the unit as a homogeneous group capable of bargaining in a separate
appropriate unit. We find that none of the employees involved is a professional employee
within the meaning of the amended Act. Matter of Starrett Brothers & Eken, Incorpo-
rated, 77 N. L. R. B. 275.
78 N. L. R. B., No 34.
207
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of party, instrument men, transit men, rodmen, chainmen, computers,
draftsmen, detailers, estimators, the coordinator of utilities, and the
assistant field engineer, but excluding the cost engineer, the assistant
cost engineer, the cost clerk, clerical employees, guards, teamsters,
watchmen, supervisors, and building trades craftsmen.., Although the
Employer does not generally object to the requested unit, it apparently
wishes a Board determination with respect to the appropriateness
of the unit sought. The Employer, however, would exclude the
coordinator of utilities and the assistant field engineer from the unit.
The Employer's construction activities, insofar as the Fresh Mead-
ows project is concerned, are divided into four subprojects, all of
which are supervised by a chief field engineer. Project No. 1 consists
of 2 large 13-story buildings and the area in the vicinity; Project No. 2
consists of buildings 3 to 92 inclusive; Project No. 3 consists of
buildings 93 to 140 inclusive; and Project No. 4 consists of the stores,
theater, and department store. As of the date, of the he^ring, Project
No. 1 had been completed and there were no employees within the
requested unit assigned thereto; and Project No. 2 had approximately
32 men, Project No. 3 had approximately 20 men and Project No. 4
had 4 men within the proposed unit. These last 3 projects, therefore,
embrace the unit sought by the Petitioner.
With respect to the appropriate unit for these employees, the Em-
ployer wishes the Board to consider the association type of bargaining
which has prevailed in the construction industry. There has been,
however, no attempt to bargain for the employees concerned herein
pursuant to association bargaining, nor is there any evidence that
association type bargaining embraces similar employees in the New
York City area. Accordingly, under all the circumstances, and in the
absence'of a collective bargaining history on a more comprehensive
basis as to the employees involved herein, we find that the requested
employees who have similarity of interests, functions, and identity,
may function together for collective bargaining purposes.,,
The coordinator of utilities receives his instructions from the chief
field engineer, and coordinates the installation of utilities on Project
No. 2. When the chief field engineer decides to put a sewer in a par-
ticular street, he notifies the coordinator of utilities accordingly.
The coordinator then tells the chief of party, who is in charge of giving
lines and grades, to lay it out in accordance with plans provided.
Similarly, he instructs the supervisor in charge of each subsequent
operation-such as excavating, carpentry work, concrete work, etc.,
when their respective operations are to commence. His work in many
3 Matter of Starrett Brothers cE Eken, Incorporated, supra.
GEORGE A. FULLER COMPANY - 209
respects is analogous to that of an expediter. The record discloses
that the coordinator of utilities does not direct personnel in the per-
formance of their work, nor does he inspect work for defects in work-
manship. Under these circumstances, we are persuaded that the
coordinator of utilities is not a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act. _ We shall, therefore, include the coordinator of utilities in the
appropriate unit.
The assistant field engineer is in direct charge of Project No. 3. He
is in charge of all the chiefs of party in that area, and he instructs them
accordingly. All orders concerning that project are transmitted to
the supervisors of, various crafts through the assistant field engineer.
The record discloses that he may, and has in fact, effectively recom-
mended the discharge of subordinate employees working on the proj-
ect. His rate of pay is comparable to that of the coordinator of util-
ities and is higher than any other employees working on the project.
We find that the assistant field engineer is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the
appropriate unit.
We find that all technical engineering employees engaged in survey-
ing work on the Employer's construction job known as Fresh Meadows,
New York Life Insurance Company Project, Flushing, Long Island,
New York, including chiefs of party, instrument men, transit men,
rodmen, chainmen, computers, draftsmen, detailers, estimators, and
the coordinator of utilities, but excluding the assistant field engineer,
the cost engineer, the assistant cost engineer, the cost clerk, clerical
employees, guards, teamsters, watchmen, supervisors, and building
trades craftsmen, 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 thirty
(30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision 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, 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
210' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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:em-
ployees on strike who are-not' entitled to reinstatement, to idetermine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Architectural and En-
gineering Guild Local 66, International Federation of Technical En-
gineers, Architects & Draftsmen's Unions, AFL, for the- purposes of
collective- bargaining.