Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 113 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL & ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 113
such unit. If a majority of the employees in only one of the voting
groups votes for the Petitioner or a majority of the employees in either
voting group votes for the Intervenor,17 the employees in each voting
group shall constitute a separate unit, which, under the circumstances,
we likewise find to be appropriate. In the event that a majority of
the employees in either of the voting groups votes for no labor organi-
zation, they shall be unrepresented. The Regional Director is in-
structed to issue the appropriate certification or certifications of rep-
resentatives or results dependent on the outcome of the elections.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
17 The Intervenor has indicated its desire to appear on the ballot in any unit or units
found appropriate.
Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Company, Inc., Petitioner
and Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers Local
Union 631, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case No. gO-RM-368. September 13, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph L. Meagher, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) andSection2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer performs construction work and provides various
services for the Atomic Energy Commission at test sites in Nevada.
The Employer's medical division, a subdivision of its department of
health, welfare and safety, maintains, on one site, a dispensary and
five outlying first-aid stations 30 to 50 miles distant, and on a neigh-
boring site, a sixth first-aid station, 150 miles distant. In addition to
a resident physician, who is head of the medical division, there are in
this division 20 employees, including 2 registered nurses, a pharmacist,
a laboratory technician, an X-ray technician, and 15 first-aid
attendants.
133 NLRB No. 28.
624067-62-vol. 133-9
114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union demanded recognition for the 15 first-aid attendants.
The Employer filed the instant RM petition, specifying all "first-aid
attendants" as the unit. The Union contends that this unit is ap-
propriate as a distinct and homogeneous departmental unit entitled
to be established as a separate unit. The Union also claims that the
first-aid attendants constitute an appropriate craft unit. It would ex-
clude the laboratory technician and the X-ray, technician on the
ground that their work is different and more difficult and could not be
done by the attendants without additional training. Alternatively, in,
case the Board finds they may not constitute a separate unit, the Union
contends that there should be an election to permit the first-aid attend-
ants to be added to a unit of drivers, including drivers of ambulances
and other vehicles, already represented by the Union. The Union
concedes that it has organized only the first-aid attendants in the
medical division.
The Employer actually claims that the unit demanded by the Union
and petitioned for by the Employer is inappropriate. The Employer
contends that the attendants are professional employees, and that the
unit is inappropriate because it excludes the nurses, the pharmacist,
and the technicians in the medical division, who it claims are also pro-
fessional employees. Thus, the Employer requests a finding that the
only appropriate unit is one which includes all of the employees of
the medical division, and that there should be an election in this unit,
or the petition should be dismissed.
We find no merit in the Union's unit contentions. As the training
and duties of the first-aid attendants, more fully described below, are
of a medical nature, rather than of a type ordinarily associated with
journeymen craftsmen or other manual workers, and as they constitute
but a segment of an administrative department, they do not constitute
an appropriate craft or departmental unit. Nor are they eligible for
inclusion in the existing unit of drivers, in view of their diverse
interests and the fact that driving is not a part of their regular duties.
We turn now to the Employer's contention that a unit of all its
medical division employees is alone appropriate. All these employees
work in close collaboration as a team, as evidenced by the fact that the
first-aid attendants rotate in their jobs between the first-aid stations
and the dispensary and refer sick and injured persons from the first-
aid stations to the dispensary whenever necessary. In addition, all
dispensary personnel, including the first-aid attendants, work closely
together as a team in the performance of certain medical duties, under
the supervision of the resident physician. In these circumstances, we
find that the medical division employees constitute a homogeneous,
clearly identifiable group with distinctive work interests, and that
they may constitute an appropriate unit. However, as Section
9(b) (1) of the Act precludes the Board from including professional
REYNOLDS ELECTRICAL & ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. 115
and nonprofessional employees in a single bargaining unit, without
according the former an opportunity of separately expressing their
desires respecting such inclusion, the question remains as to whether
or not the medical division unit herein found appropriate is entirely
composed of professional employees, as the Employer contends.'
The two registered nurses, who are graduates of accredited nursing
schools, assist the resident physician in connection with operations,
give physical examinations, and perform other duties customarily
associated with their calling. We find that they are professional em-
ployees.' We likewise find that the pharmacist, a licensed graduate
of a pharmacy school who performs the customary duties of a pharma-
ceutical chemist, is a professional employee.3 The 15 first-aid attend-
ants, when working at the first-aid stations, perform duties generally
limited to the treatment and application of medicants to patients with
minor complaints, such as upper respiratory ailments, allergies, minor
stomach difficulties, and lacerations. Complaints diagnosed as major,
or as requiring surgery, are referred to the dispensary. The first-aid
attendants also make recommendations as to whether patients should
return to work. In emergencies, they may be called on to give blood
transfusions, tie off blood vessels, immobilize fractures with splints,
apply shock treatment, and administer prescribed drugs in accord
with written instructions from the resident doctor. When working
at the dispensary, they assist the resident doctor and the nurses in
minor surgical operations and physical examinations. They are gen-
erally ex-military personnel who have been trained by the Armed
Forces as medical corpsmen or pharmacist mates. They have no de-
grees from either medical or nursing schools or other institutions of
higher learning, are unlicensed and unregistered, and do not progress
in the Employer's employ beyond their present classifications. The
preferred qualifications for their jobs include the completion of a 12-
week course in basic medical sciences and either 2 years of practical
experience as hospital corpsmen without the direct supervision of a
medical officer, or 3 years of practical training in a service hospital,
or dispensary, as a hospital corpsman under the direct supervision of
a medical officer. However, if applicants with these preferred quali-
fications are unavailable, the Employer will accept applicants whose
only medical background consists of 3 years or less of on-the-job train-
ing in medical treatment at a medical facility. In these circumstances,
'We find, contrary to the Employer , that the medical department personnel in the
voting groups hereinafter established are not managerial employees or supervisors. They
do not formulate , determine , and effectuate management policies American Federation
of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations , 120 NLRB 969 , at 973. Nor do they
have any of the attributes of supervisors , as defined in the Act, with respect to the
employees in their department , or stand in any supervisory relationship to the Employer's
other employees.
2 Westinghouse Air Brake Company, 121 NLRB 636, 638
'Longs Stores, Inc, a California Corporation, 129 NLRB 1495
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
we find that the first-aid attendants do not fall within the definition
of a professional employee, as set forth in Section 2(12) of the Act,
but that they are technical rather than professional employees.' We
likewise find that the laboratory technician and the X-ray technician
who perform laboratory work and who have been trained as hospital
corpsmen with a minimum of 2 years of experience in their respective
fields, are technical employees.'
As the medical division unit herein found appropriate thus includes
both professional and technical employees , we shall direct separate
elections in the following voting groups at the Employer's medical
division at Mercury , Nevada, excluding all other employees , the resi-
dent doctor , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act : ( a) All
professional employees , including the pharmacist and the 2 nurses;
and (b) all technical employees, including the 15 first-aid attendants,
the laboratory technician , and the X-ray technician.
The professional employees in voting group ( a) will be asked two
questions on their ballot:
1. Do you desire to be included with the technical employees in
a unit composed of all employees at the Employer 's medical division
at Mercury , Nevada?
2. Do you desire to be represented for the purposes of collective
bargaining by Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Helpers Local
Union 631 , affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America, or by no
union?
If a majority of the professional employees in voting group (a)
vote "Yes" to the first question , indicating their wish to be included
in a unit with the technical employees , they will be so included. Their
votes on the second question will then be counted together with the
votes of the technical group (b), to decide whether the employees
desire to be represented by the Teamsters in a unit of professional and
technical employees of the Employer 's medical division. If, on the
other hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting group
(a) vote "No" to the question , they will not be included with the tech-
nical employees in voting group (b).
Our unit determination respecting the medical division employees is
based in part , then, upon the results of the elections . However, we
now make the following findings :
(1) If a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion
in a unit with the technical employees, and a majority of the employees
in groups ( a) and ( b) vote for representation , we find that the follow-
ing employees will constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Difco Laboratories , Inc., 129 NLRB 887.
5 Difco Laboratories, Inc., supra.
SHREVEPORT GARMENT MANUFACTURERS 117
All professional and technical employees of the Employer's medical
division at Mercury, Nevada, excluding all other employees, the resi-
dent doctor, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) If a majority of the professional employees do not vote for
inclusion in a unit with the technical employees, we find that the fol-
lowing will constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
All technical employees of the Employer's medical division at Mer-
cury, Nevada, excluding all other employees and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS LEEDOM and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Elections.
Shreveport Garment Manufacturers and Amalgamated Cloth-
ing Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-CA-1853.
September 14, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint and recommending that the complaint herein be dis-
missed, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting brief.
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 McCulloch and Mem-
bers Rodgers and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby (affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
1 In concurring in the result in this case , Chairman McCulloch relies particularly on
the Trial Examiner 's determination ( footnote 2, Intermediate Report ) that the complaint
was not amended to raise the issue of the Respondent 's good faith and this issue was not
litigated at the hearing.
133 NLRB No. 18.