Shell Development Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 3, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 388 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER
and ASSOCIATION OF INDUSTRIAL SCIENTISTS , PETITIONER
Case No. 20-R-1031.-Decided February 3, 1947
McCutchen, Thomas, Matthew, Griffiths ct Greene, by Messrs. F. F.
Thomas, Jr., Morris M. Doyle, and H. H. Fulkerson, all of San Fran-
cisco, Calif., for the Employer.
Messrs. J. Emmet Chapman, and Frederick C. Dewar, of San
Francisco, Calif., for the Petitioner.
Gladstein, Andersen, Resner, Sawyer c Edises, by Mr. Norman
Leonard, of Oakland, Calif., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Gerald P. Leicht, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at San
Francisco, California, on October 7, 8, 9, and 10, 1946, before Robert
E. Tillman, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER 1
Shell Development Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged in research at its Emeryville Laboratories, Emeryville, Cali-
fornia, on new or improved methods of producing oil, petroleum
products, and chemicals. During 1945, the Employer purchased
materials and equipment for use at its Emeryville Laboratories hav-
ing a value of approximately $920,000, of which more than 26 percent
was shipped to it from points outside the State of California. During
the same period the Employer produced at its Emeryville Labora-
tories and sold materials and products having a value of approxi-
mately $125,000, of which more than 80 percent was shipped to points
v
'The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
72 N. L. R. B., No. 74.
388
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 389
outside the State of California. All sales of the materials so pro-
duced by the Employer were made not for the account of the Em-
ployer, but for the account of either Shell Chemical Corporation or
Shell Union Oil Company, 'Incorporated, corporations related to the
Employer.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act 2
H. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner 3 is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.4
Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists & Technicians United
Office & Professional Workers of America, herein called the Inter-
venor, is a labor organization afliliatect with the Congresg of Industrial
Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
A. The position of the parties
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all professional employees employed
by the Employer in all departments of its Emeryville Laboratories,
including chemists, junior chemists, physicists, junior physicists, en-
2 Jurisdiction over the Employer was also asserted by the Board in earlier proceedings,
platter of Shell Development Company , Inc., 38 N. L. It . B 192 and 47 N. L. It. B 507.
3 The name of the Petitioner appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
4 The Intervenor in its brief contended that the petition should be dismissed because
it was not established that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act. The evidence , including the Petitioner's constitution and bylaws , establishes,
however, that the Petitioner exists at present for the purpose of engaging in collective
° bargaining on behalf of employees of the Employer regarding their hours, owages and
other conditions of employment . Contrary to the Intervenor 's contention , we are not
persuaded that the Petitioner intends to subvert the principles of collective bargaining
if it is certified by the Board . Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner is a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. See Matter of Federal Ship-
building and Drydock Company , 65 N. L. It. B. 410 , and cases cited therein , Matter of
Industrial Collieries Corporation, 65 N. L. It. B. 683 ; and Matter of Air Reduction Sales
Company, 58 N. L. It. B. 522.
390 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
gineers, and junior engineers .s In addition, it would include in such
a unit the chief draftsman and design draftsmen in the Engineering
Department,' the head-technical files and technical clerk in the Techni-
cal Files Department, the librarian and assistant librarians in the
Library, and the head-photographic department . It would exclude
from the unit, however, the manager , the associate directors, depart-
ment heads , assistant department heads , the chief engineer and the
assistant chief engineer , and all other supervisory employees.
The Employer and the Intervenor are in general agreement as to
the appropriateness of a unit of professional employees.
The Employer , however , differs with the Petitioner 's position inso-
far as the Petitioner would include in the unit the head -technical files,
librarian , the Bead-photographic department and the chief draftsman,
taking the view that these are supervisory employees who should be
excluded front any unit of nob-supervisory employees . As to the
design draftsmen, whom the Petitioner would also include, the Em-
ployer makes no objection , but points to the fact that the inclusion of
these employees in a unit of professional employees would remove them
from the bargaining unit in which they are presently included.
The Intervenor objects to the inclusion in the unit of any of the em-
ployees in five departments-Analytical Standardization , Coordina-
tion, Market Development , Technical Files and Library-contending
that the employees in the first three of these departments are more
closely connected with management in function, community of inter-
ests and contacts than with the professional employees in the Labora-
tories , and as to the employees in the remaining two departments, that
their work is wholly of a non -professional character in that they en-
gage in no research . In addition, the Intervenor , for reasons herein-
after stated, opposes the inclusion of design draftsmen in the Engineer-
ing Department and an individual employee , M. A. D. Taylor, classi-
fied as a chemist in the Process Development Department. Like the
Employer, the Intervenor would also exclude the head-technical files,
According to the Employer the following departments include professional employees
Analytical Motor Laboratory
Analytical Standardization Organic and Applications
Asphalt Organic Synthesis
Catalytic Refining Physical Chemistry
Coating Materials Physics
Colloid Chemistry Process Development
Coordination Reaction Kinetics
Corrosion Spectroscopic
Experimental Plants Engineering
Instrument and Glassblowing Technical Files
Lubricating Oil and Gasoline Library
Market Development
e The chief draftsman and design draftsmen are presently included in a unit of non-
professional employees represented by the Intervenor. The Petitioner is hereby seeking
to remove them from this unit.
a
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 391
librarian and head-photographic department, on the ground that they
are supervisory employees.
B. The history of collective bargaining
In order to dispose of the issues in the instant case it is necessary
to review the history of collective bargaining at the Employer's
Emeryville Laboratories. In 1941, International Federation of
Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians, the predecessor of
the Intervenor, hereinafter referred to as the International, petitioned
for a unit of all employees of the Employer at the Emeryville Labor-
atories with the exception of those in certain specified departments
(the names of which are not pertinent to the issues herein) and mana-
gerial employees. The Employer and a group of 10 employees who
appeared as intervenors contended that the employees should be sepa-
rated into units of professionals and non-professionals. On January
13, .1942, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elections,'
directing that separate elections be conducted among the following
employees: (1) the non-professional employees who were included in
a group designated as "Group A"; (2) the professional employees who
were included in a group designated as "Group B." The Board made
no final determination as to the appropriate unit, pending elections
to be held in said groups, stating that if the International was selected
by both groups they would together constitute an appropriate unit,
and that if only one of the groups selected the International that
group alone would constitute an appropriate unit. As noted in that
Decision, the Employer's Emeryville Laboratories is primarily con-
cerned with scientific research, and the operations are described
therein in considerable detail. It was noted that the Employer
employed in various departments both professional employees con-
sisting of chemists, physicists, junior physicists, engineers and junior
engineers, or their equivalents, and non-professional employees, such
as laboratory assistants and helpers, technicians, engine operators and
mechanics, experimental plant operators, glassblowers, handymen,
roustabouts, warehousemen, glass washers and janitors. The Board's
separation of the two groups rested mainly in the professional train-
ing of the one group and their being concerned with the theoretical
aspects of research, whereas the other group did not have such pro-
fessional training and was engaged primarily in manipulative and
mechanical work. The record in the instant case indicates that the
operations today, although considerably expanded, are substantially
as previously found. Pursuant to the Direction, elections were con-
' 38 N. L R. B. 192.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ducted on February 11, 1942, the International receiving a majority
vote in only Group A. On March 26, 1942, the International was
certified as collective bargaining representative of these non -profes-
sional employees in a separate appropriate unit .8
In 1943, the International petitioned for a unit of professional
employees. On February 13, 1943, the Board issued a Decision and
Direction of Election , directing an election in the unit sought."
Thereafter , the professional employees involved again voted not to be
represented by the International.
Although no collective bargaining contract or written agreement of
any kind was introduced into evidence in the instant case, the record
indicates that some "relationship" was entered into between the
Employer and the Intervenor , or the International, on May 25, 1943,
covering the employees for whom it was the certified bargaining repre-
sentative. Such "relationship" was apparently for a 1-year term,
subject to automatic renewal from year to year thereafter in the
absence of notice of termination given by either party. It appears
that this "relationship" was last renewed automatically in 1946.
The Petitioner was organized in April 1943 , requested recognition
as collective bargaining representative for the professonal employees
of the Employer in May 1943 , and filed the petition in the instant case
on February 7, 1944.
C. The disputed employees
We turn now to a discussion of the disputed groups and categories
of employees, treating first with departments and then with indi-
viduals.
Analyltical Standardization Department.-This department is not
over 4 or 5 years old. The Board, in its first Decision, included in
Group B the classification of "chemist (standardization)." This
classification no longer exists and the work of this employee, as then
defined, is now performed in the Analytical Standardization Depart-
ment. The function of this department is to select the best laboratory
tests and analyses developed in the Employer 's Emeryville Labora-
tories and other companies and prepare therefrom a series of standard
analytical methods which are to be followed in the Employer's Emery-
ville Laboratories and laboratories of affiliated Shell companies.
In addition to the department head, three professional employees
presently work in the department: two chemists and one junior chem-
ist. All three have Bachelor's degrees in chemistry, which technical
8' 39 N. L R B. 1196.
9 47 N . L. It. B. 507.
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 393
education, or its equivalent, is a prerequisite to their employment.
They read and analyze laboratory reports and aid in the development
of apparatus for use in research. The chemists and junior chemist
do substantially the same work, the latter having somewhat less ex-
perience and general knowledge. While they engage in no actual
laboratory work, their work requires considerable actual contact with
other departments, notably the Analytical Department at Emeryville,
and similar departments at other Shell companies. All three were
transferred from the Analytical Department and are qualified for
transfer to professional work in other departments. Their manner
and schedule of payment is the same as that of other professionals in
the same classification.
We find that the work of these employees is essentially of a pro-
fessional nature and that they are not so identified with management
as to warrant their exclusion from the unit herein found appropriate.
We shall include them.
Coordination Department.-This department is about 3 years old
and did not exist at the time of the first Board Decision. The Board
also included in Group B three employees then classified as assistants
to an assistant director who performed work substantially the same
as that being performed in this department. The functions of the
department are to maintain daily contact between the research being
done at Emeryville and the Employer's Patent Department located
in San Francisco; to edit technical correspondence emanating from
Emeryville; to edit monthly research reports prepared by profes-
sionals employed in the Laboratories ; and to suggest possibilities for
correlation of research work.
In addition to the department head, four professional employees
presently work in the department : three chemists and one junior.chem-
ist. All four have at least an Engineer's degree in chemistry, which
is a prerequisite to the work they perform. While they engage in no
actual laboratory work, their work requires considerable actual con-
tact with other departments. All but one of these employees were
transferred to the department from other departments in the Labora-
tories. The same observations as to the experience, knowledge, and
manner of payment of the chemists and junior chemist in the Ana-
lytical Standardization Department apply with equal force to these
employees. -
We find, as in the case of the professional employees in the Analytical
Standardization Department, that the chemists and junior chemist
in this department should be included in the unit herein found
appropriate.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Market Development Departmenlt.-This department also did not
exist at the time of the first Board Decision. The Board included in
Group B three additional employees then classified as assistants to an
assistant director in charge of the then existing Market Research De-
partment. They performed work essentially the same as that being
performed in this department. The functions of the department are
to find outlets for Shell products; to ascertain by consultation with
technical employees of other companies the needs of such other com-
panies for petroleum products and chemical materials; and to de-
termine by consultation with technical employees in other depart-
ments of the Employer how these needs might best be met.
In addition to the department head, nine professional-employees
presently work in the department: eight chemists and one junior
chemist. All have at least a Bachelor's degree in chemistry, which is
a prerequisite to the work they perform. While they engage in no
actual laboratory work, their work requires considerable actual con-
tact with other professionals. A majority of them were transferred to
the department from other departments in the Laboratories. Work'
requirements of all the chemists is essentially the same, although each
works on a different subject. They receive inquiries for technical
information, help solve technical problems, and draft correspondence
in relation thereto. Although their work involves some travel, most of
their time is spent at the Laboratories. The work of the junior chem-
ist is substantially the same as that of the chemists, and he is occa-
sionally- called upon to substitute for a chemist. He also handles
the general rcutine work. The same observations as to experience,
knowledge and manner of payment of the chemists and junior chemist
in the Analytical Standardization Department also apply with equal
force to the chemists and junior chemist in this department.
We find, as in the case of the professional employees in the Ana-
lytical Standardization Department and Coordination Department,
that the chemists and junior chemist in this department should be
included in the uualit herein found appropriate.
Technical Files Department.-This department was listed as one of
the exclusions from Group A in the first Board Decision. It was not
included in Group B at that time or in the professional unit established
as a result of the International's subsequent petition. The professional
work presently performed in this department is considerably more in
volume now than it was at those times, the department having doubled
in size. The classification of technical clerk has been added to meet
the increased volume of technical material handled. The functions of,
the department are to collect and file technical information in type-
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 395
written form, to prepare abstracts and indices of scientific matter,
and to circulate technical reports and correspondence.
In addition to the head-technical files, the department has but one
alleged professional employee : the technical clerk. While much of
the work performed in the department is clone by clerical employees,
some of the work requires the services of a professional scientist con-
sisting, principally, of making indices of technical reports prepared
in the laboratories by professionals. The technical clerk performs
this work and has a Bachelor's degree in chemistry, which is a pre-
requisite to the work she performs. It is necessary that she consult
and work with the authors of the technical reports. She was hired
for her present position, but if the occasion arose she could be trans-
ferred to the position of junior chemist. Her rate of pay and other
privileges are comparable to those of other professionals, her rate
being appreciably higher than that of the clerks in the department.
She has the privilege of attending technical meetings attended by other
professional employees.
We shall include the technical clerk, because we are of the opinion
that she has a strong community of interest with the other employees
in the unit herein found appropriate.
Library.-This department was also listed as one of the exclusions
from Group A in the first Board Decision and was not included in
Group B at that time. Nor was it included in the professional unit
established as a result of the International's subsequent petition.
The Library has also increased considerably in size with the growth
of the Laboratories and is closely integrated with and a part of the
research being carried on there.
In addition to the librarian, three alleged professional employees
are presently employed in the Library, who are classified as assistant
librarians. All have Bachelor's degrees in chemistry, and this tech-
nical education, rather than library training, is a prerequisite to their
work together with a knowledge of two foreign languages. No such
language requirement is demanded of any other employees. All are
members of professional, technical societies. The assistant librarians
are principally engaged in making literature surveys in scientific
fields for professionals and in translating articles written in foreign
language to English. This work brings them into contact with pro-
fessional laboratory employees. Although they were hired for their
present positions, if the occasion arose they could be transferred to
the position of junior chemist. Their rate of pay and other privileges
are comparable to those of other professionals. Their rate of pay is
appreciably higher than that of clerks in the Library and comparable
to that of junior chemist.
396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We are of the opinion that these employees are professional em-
ployees. As in the case of the technical clerk, we shall include the
assistant librarians in the unit herein found appropriate.
Design draftsmen.-There are seven design draftsmen presently
employed in the Engineering Department, which is made up of both
professional and non-professional employees. The International in
the first Board case sought to exclude from the all-inclusive unit peti-
tioned for, all employees in the Engineering Department, on the
ground that a substantial number of them were subject to the juris-
diction of other unions. The Board, however, included employees
in the Engineering Department, classified as engineer and junior
engineer, in Group B. No other classifications in the Engineering
Department were specifically named in either Group A or Group B.
However, "non-professional" employees in the Engineering Depart-
ment, including those in "the Drafting Room," were placed in Group
A. The term "design draftsman" does not appear in the prior Board
decisions, above noted.
The Employer's associate personnel director testified that in pre-
paring the pay rolls for the first elections design draftsmen were
inadvertently included on the Group A list. He also testified that at
the time of the second election in 1943 the design draftsmen, then two
or three in number, presented themselves at the polls and asked to vote
in Group B. They were challenged by the International, but since
such challenges were not determinative of the outcome, no ruling was
made thereon. The Intervenor has bargained for the design drafts-
men as part of Group A and they are covered by the "relationship"
between the Employer and the Intervenor, above noted.
Two of the seven design draftsmen work in the same room as the
engineers, and the other five occupy an adjoining room with others
of the drafting staff, consisting of senior draftsmen, draftsmen, junior
draftsmen and tracers. The design draftsmen make engineering
calculations required for the designing of special laboratory and pilot
plant equipment; design such equipment; and make complete draw-
ings thereof. In this connection it is to be noted that appended to
the "Terms and Conditions" entered into between the Employer and
the Intervenor, the qualifications of design draftsmen, as contrasted
with those of lower classifications in the drafting room, are "profes-
sional engineer with design experience; minimum of 1 year's experi-
ence as senior draftsman at Emeryville, or its equivalent." All but
two of the seven design draftsmen have Engineer's degrees, and of the
two, one has the educational requirement thereof, having'spent 3 years
in a technical school in Switzerland which did not grant degrees, and
the other has the equivalent in training and experience. In contrast,
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 397
none of the senior draftsmen, the classification immediately below
the design draftsmen, have Engineering degrees, nor does their work
require it. All the design draftsmen are eligible for membership in
an engineering society. There have been some transfers of design
draftsmen to engineering, the professional status of which is undis-
puted, and tlbe present chief draftsman was promoted from the posi-
tion of design draftsman. In their work, the design draftsmen have
frequent contact with engineers, chemists, and other professional em-
ployees, and their work is an integral part of research.
Consequently, we find, on the basis of the entire record herein,
that design draftsmen are professional employees having a strong
community of interests with other employees in the professional unit
and, accordingly, we shall include them.'°
Chief draftsman.-The chief draftsman is in charge of the draft-
ing staff and is responsible to the chief engineer and the assistant
chief engineer who, in turn, are in charge of the Engineering De-
partment. He has a degree in mechanical engineering. As pre-
viously indicated, he formerly worked as a design draftsman. He
spends about 10 percent of his time performing design drafting work,
and the balance of his time is spent overseeing the work of others in
the drafting room, including the assignment, direction and expedit-
ing of work. Every 30 to 60 days he makes efficiency reports to the
assistant chief engineer on the work of drafting room employees. He
looks over the qualifications of new drafting room applicants and,
together with the assistant chief engineer and a senior engineer, makes
recommendations with respect to the hiring of new applicants. No
applicant has been hired who was given an adverse recommendation
by him, and only applicants whose qualifications he has approved
have been hired. His opinion is requested in the matter of promo-
tions, and none have been made which he disapproved.
We are of the opinion that the chief draftsman is a supervisor within
the Board's customary definition of that term, and we shall, therefore,
exclude him from the unit.
Head-Technical Files.-This employee is head of the Technical
Files Department, and is in charge of 1 or 2 stenographers, 8 to 12
clerks, and the technical clerk. She has a degree in chemistry. She
spends 30 percent or more of her time in supervisory functions, such as
assigning and checking work and consulting with and reporting to her
superiors. She interviews applicants for work in her department
ii
'5 Matter of Peter Casller Kohler Swiss Chocolates Company , Inc, 66 N. L. R. B 257.
It is clear that the "relationship" and/or "Terms and Conditions" entered into by the
Employer and the Intervenor is no bar with respect to design draftsmen , because the
petition in the instant case was bled on February 7, 1944, requesting the inclusion of
design diattsmen.
398 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and makes recommendations to the office manager as to hiring, which
are accepted by him. She has authority to discharge employees and to
recommend yearly merit increases. Her rate of pay is appreciably
higher than that of the technical clerk, the classification immediately
below her. She is eligible to attend and always attends meetings of
department heads, where personnel policies are discussed. We shall
exclude the head-technical files as a supervisory employee.
Librarian.-This employee is head of the Library and is in charge
of three or four clerks and stenographers in addition to the assistant
librarians. She has at least a Bachelor's degree in chemistry and
some of her work is similar to the professional work done by the
assistant librarians. However, approximately 35 to 40 percent of her
work is of a supervisory nature such as assigning, directing and check-
ing work, and consulting with and making reports to her superiors.
She has similar authority to the head-teclmical files with respect to
interviewing applicants, recommending hiring and merit increases,
and discharging employees. She also attends meetings of depart-
ment heads . Her rate of pay is appreciably higher than that of the
assistant librarians, the classification immediately below her. We
shall exclude the librarian as a supervisory employee.
Head-Photographic Department.-Mr. Luck, head of the Photo-
graphic Department, is in charge of 12 to 15 employees. In the first
Board Decision, Luck was excluded by agreement of the parties on
the ground that he was in charge of his department. His status,
duties and general functions are substantially the same at present.
His time is divided about equally between photographic work, a con-
siderable amount of which is research photography, and in supervising
the work of the department. His supervisory functions are similar
to those of the head-technical files and librarian. We shall exclude
the head-photographic department as a supervisory employee.
N'. A. D. Taylor.-The Intervenor would exclude this employee on
the ground that lie is in fact a part of management. Dr. Taylor has
ti Doctor's degree and is classified as a chemist in the Process Develop-
ment Department. He has been employed by the Employer since 1932
and has worked in a number of departments. He is thus one of the
Employer's oldest employees, there being only about 20 employees out
of approximately 1,000 senior to him in service. He is what is un-
officially known in the Laboratories as one of the project or section
leaders, heading a small research team of employees. No contention
is made, nor does the record indicate, that project leaders are super-
visory employees." Nor does it appear that he has any more authority
over employees in the Laboratories than any other project leader. He
11 Cf Matter of E. I . do Pont de Nemours & Co , 69 N L R. B 509
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. 399
does not have the authority to hire, discharge, promote, or transfer
employees. He is not invited to attend and does not attend manage-
ment meetings.
The Intervenor's request for exclusion of this employee from the
unit is based primarily upon three grounds : (1) In 1938, Dr. Taylor,
together with. another employee in another department, was selected
to act in conjunction with the Engineering Department and "heads of
laboratories" as organizers of the movement of departments to the
new building and readjustment of the departments in the old building.
Dr. Taylor testified without contradiction that he and the other em-
ployees were selected on the basis of having some knowledge of the
research program in the various departments and being able to assist
in planning the movement so as to cause the least confusion. We
attach no significance to this incident, which in any event occurred so
long ago. (2) Dr. Taylor was a speaker in a series of orientation
lectures sponsored by the Employer during the recent war. The
Intervenor contends that since most of the other speakers were part
of management the impression was created among new employees that
he was also a part of management. There is no showing that Dr.
Taylor was introduced as part of management and, furthermore, it
appears that other non-supervisory employees gave lectures in the
series. The record is undisputed that because Dr. Taylor suggested
the giving of the lectures, lie was permitted to participate extensively.
;Ve are not satisfied from the record that Dr. Taylor's participation in
the lectures demonstrates that he is a managerial, employee. (3) Dr.
Taylor is chairman of the safety committee, which the Intervenor con-
tends is managerial. Dr. Taylor, long a member of this committee,
was made its chairman in 1944. The committee originated several
years ago, and its function was to make safety recommendations to
the manager of the Laboratories. Its membership consisted of super-
visory and non-supervisory employees, but the proportion of the
former has gradually decreased. The committee now has 18 members,
only one of whom is a supervisory employee. In May 1945, a safety
board was appointed by the manager, consisting of supervisory em-
ployees, to relieve the manager of the burden of additional work. The
safety committee now makes recommendations with respect to safety
measures to the safety board, which takes action thereon. We are
not satisfied from the record that the safety committee is a managerial
committee, or that Dr. Taylor's membership therein proves that he is
a managerial employee.
On the basis of the entire record, we shall include Dr. Taylor in
the unit herein found appropriate. -
We find that all professional employees employed by the Employer
in all departments of its Emeryville Laboratories, including chem-
731242-47-vo1.72 97
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ists,12 junior chemists, physicists, junior physicists, engineers, and
junior engineers, the design draftsmen in the Engineering Depart-
ment, the technical clerk in the Technical Files Department, and the
assistant librarians in the Library, but excluding the manager, associ-
ate directors, department heads, assistant department heads, the chief
engineer, the,assistant chief engineer, the chief draftsman, the head-
technical files, the librarian, the head-photographic department, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining w itllni the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECT ION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Shell Development Company,
Inc., Emeryville, California, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted 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 Twentieth Region, acting in this matter
as-agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in per-
son at the polls, 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, to determine whether they desire to be rep-
resented by Association of Industrial Scientists, or by Federation of
Architects, Engineers, Chemists & Technicians, United Office & Pro-
fessional Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
12 Including M A D. Taylor.