Jet Research Center, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 730 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Fluoro Electric Corporation to assign the work in dispute to members
of the Engineers rather than to members of any other labor organiza-
tion or to nonmembers of any labor organization.
2. Said Local 825 of the Operating Engineers shall, within 10 days
from the date of this Decision and Determination, notify, in writing,
the Regional Director for the Fourth Region whether or not it accepts
the Board's determination of this dispute, and whether or not it will
refrain from forcing or requiring Fluoro Electric Company, by means
proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in
dispute to members of Local 25 rather than to members of any other
labor organization or to nonmembers of any labor organization.
Jet Research Center, Inc. and Lodge 1591, International Associa-
tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC-
2661. August 22, 1960
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 Charles H. Steere, hearing
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, at its plant in Arlington, Texas, is engaged in
research, development, and manufacturing of shaped charges used in
the perforation of oil well casings . The Petitioner seeks to represent
the production and maintenance employees, including the assistant
technicians and helpers in the core laboratory, laboratory assistants in
the research laboratory, inspectors and machinists in the experimental
machine shop. The Employer contends that the latter employees are
technicals and should be excluded.
The plant is organized into separate departments-administration,
patent, research and engineering, and manufacturing. All of the dis-
puted employees herein are employed in the research and engineering
128 NLRB No. 93.
JET RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 731
department. They are separately supervised, and, except for the in-
spectors, are separately located from manufacturing employees.
The inspectors, under the supervision of the manager of the en-
gineering section and his assistant, inspect all incoming material and
spot check finished products. They also test fire charges to isee if the
finished product is in accordance with specifications. They perform
part of their work in the production buildings and part in the ware-
house, where the inspection area is located. They do not direct the
work of production employees. The record does not disclose that
these employees are possessed of any specialized skills or training, or
that they perform tasks of a highly complicated nature that require
independent judgment. As it appears that the interests of the in-
spectors are not sufficiently dissimilar to those of the production and
maintenance employees to justify their exclusion, we shall include
them in the unit.'
The machinists in the experimental machine shop produce metal
parts that are used in the building of models for experimental pur-
poses, and incidentally repair dies used in production work. They
perform their work on lathes, a milling machine, drill press, grinders,
and associated equipment. On this record we are not persuaded that
the machinists, though apparently skilled in a craft, possess the train-
ing and perform the duties necessary to render them technical em-
ployees? Accordingly, we shall include them.
The laboratory assistants in the research laboratory perform the
manual and mechanical work involved in experiments conducted by
the research engineers. They test charges, run performance tests, and
make evaluations. The job requires a minimum of 30 days' training,
though several months are required before an employee is fully effec-
tive. The various tests are not performed on a daily routine basis,
but the same testing techniques are frequently utilized. There is no
showing that the laboratory assistants are required to interpret the
results of their tests or to use their discretion and independent judg-
ment in connection with any of their duties. We find that the record
fails to support the Employer's contention that these employees -are
technical employees. We shall, therefore, include them in the unit.'
The Petitioner would exclude the foreman of the laboratory assist-
ants as a supervisor. This individual lays out the work for the other
employees, but cannot hire, discharge, discipline, or effectively recom-
mend such action. Accordingly we shall include him.
The assistant laboratory technicians and helpers in the core labora-
tory run evaluation and performance tests on equipment under simu-
lated well conditions. They prepare the sandstone core, run the tests,
'Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co ., etc., 127 NLRB 64.
2 Mtinneapolia-Honeywell Regulator Co., 125 NLRB 1283.
s Stein, Hall and Company, 126 NLRB 1078.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and make mathematical calculations to assist the engineers in the re-
search work. They are located in a separate building and utilize
highly specialized equipment to test the material under development.
These employees work under a minimum of instruction and require at
least 6 months' training. We find these employees -are technicals and,
in view of the Employer's objection, we shall exclude them.4
Accordingly, we find the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (-b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees employed at the Em-
ployer's Arlington, Texas, plant, including inspectors, machinists, the
foreman and laboratory assistants in the research laboratory, special-
ists, loaders, shipping and receiving employees, but excluding techni-
cal employees,5 the assistant laboratory technicians and helpers in the
core laboratory, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' Leland Electric Company, et al, 126 NLRB 406. Chairman Leedom would not find on
this record that these helpers exercise independent judgment and utilize the specialized
training of technical employees ; accordingly , he would include the helpers in the unit.
6 The Petitioner alternatively contended that if any of the classifications it sought were
found technicals , it desired to represent such employees in a separate unit. However,
Petitioner would be entitled to an election in a separate technical unit only if it sought
all technicals in the plant and it had an appropriate showing of interest for such em-
ployees. The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243; Westinghouse Air Brake
Company, Union Switch & Signal Division, 119 NLRB 1391 . These requirements have
not been established here to justify a separate unit confined to the laboratory technicians.
Swift and Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and National
Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Party to a Contract..
Case No. 4-CA-20024. August 22, 1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed on October 12, 1959, by Amalgamated
Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO,
herein called Meat Cutters, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region,
issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated November 30, 1959,
against Swift and Company, herein called Respondent, alleging that
the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151,
et seq. ), herein called the Act. On December 7, 1959, the complaint
was amended by the General Counsel. The complaint and amended
128 NLRB No. 87.