The Drackett Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 646 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE DRACKETT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNA-
TIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-513.-Decided October 19, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William
Naimark, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are herby affirmed.
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 Herzog and Members
Reynolds and Gray].
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 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 limited to laboratory technicians, called
Junior Control Technicians, Junior Research Technicians, Intermedi-
ate Control Technicians. Intermediate Research Technicians, Senior
Control Technicians, and Senior Research Technicians, employed in
the Employer's Sharonville and Cincinnati, Ohio, plants. The Em-
ployer contends that the employees whom the Petitioner requests
are professional employees, like the remaining employees in its
laboratories, and that therefore only a unit embracing all laboratory
employees is appropriate.
The two laboratories are devoted to research and control work, with
employees sometimes interchanged between them and a Chief Control
1 The Employer' s motion to dismiss the petition, on the ground that the Petitioner
does not intend to represent the employees involved , is denied . We are satisfied, upon
the entire record, that the Petitioner is prepared to represent the employees on whose
behalf it filed its petition . In any event , if the Petitioner wins the election hereinafter
directed, the Employer will only be obligated to bargain with the certified labor organiza-
tion.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 90.
646
THE DRACKETT COMPANY 647
Chemist and an Acting Research Director responsible for each type
of work in both laboratories . Junior Research Technicians weigh,
inject, and care for the rats used in the experiments. Junior Control
Technicians prepare samples and make routine control tests involv-
ing limited discretion in determining results. Employees in these
two groups are required to have pursued a basic chemistry course,
with some laboratory experience desired. Intermediate Research
Technicians work on a higher level than Junior Research Technicians
and exercise greater individual discretion. They conduct acidity-
alkalinity reactions and prepare basic chemical solutions. Intermed-
iate Control Technicians do similar , but somewhat more complex work,
than their junior counterparts. All. intermediate technicians are
required to have 2 years of general college education, with a college
course in chemistry for research men and a "knowledge of chemistry"
for control men. Senior Research Technicians work on various re-
search projects; they direct the junior technicians and exercise con-
siderable judgment and discretion in their work. They are required
to have a Bachelor of Science degree or its equivalent in experience.
Senior Control Technicians conduct complicated technical tests.
They exercise a high degree of independent judgment in their work
and must have a Bachelor of. Science degree in chemistry or its equiv-
alent, with a knowledge of laboratory techniques and of organic,
qualitative and quantitative chemistry. The Employer also prefers
that they have from 3 to 5 years' laboratory experience.
The remaining laboratory workers, whose standing as professional
employees is not questioned by the parties , are engineers , consultants,
and chemists, and their work requires a very advanced scientific edu-
cation in the field of chemistry.
Although the Employer does not consider the work of the junior
and intermediate technicians to be standardized , we are satisfied, on
the record as a whole , that these employees are not professional em-
ployees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act.2 As they
are undoubtedly skilled employees, working apart from the regular
production and maintenance employees in the plant proper, it is
clear that they are joined by such a community of interest as to war-
rant their establishment in a separate bargaining unit as requested
by the Petitioner.3
2 Matter of Celanese Corporation of America, 81 N. L . It. B. 1041.
' See Matter of Link -Belt Company , Pacific Division, 71 N. L . It. B. 1376.
We note particularly that the technicians have been excluded from past bargaining
contracts between the Petitioner and the Employer covering production and maintenance
employees , and that no other labor organization seeks to represent them together with the
professional employees in the laboratories . Cf. Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corp.,
80 N. L. It. B. 591.
648 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As set forth above, however, the senior technicians are much more
highly trained than the junior and intermediate technicians, and their
work does require a high degree of individual judgment. As "project
leaders" they direct the work of the lower grade technicians.4 Further,
the senior technicians are paid between $21.5 and $300 per month,
while the lower grades receive between $168 and $215. In view of
the high educational requirements, the degree of skill, and the respon-
sibility incident to the senior technician classifications, we believe
that these employees are professional employees and shall therefore
exclude them from the unit herein found appropriate.5
Accordingly, we find that all Junior Control Technicians, Junior
Research Technicians, Intermediate Control Technicians, and Inter-
mediate Research Technicians employed in the laboratories of the
Employer's Sharonville and Cincinnati, Ohio, plants, excluding
Senior Control Technicians, Senior Research Technicians, all other
laboratory employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute 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
purposes 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
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, among the employees
iri 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 on
vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been re-
hired 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 Chemical Workers Union, A. F. L.
Although theoretically possible, it is only on rare occasions that any of the junior
or intermediate technicians act as "project leaders."
5 Matter of E. R. Squibb & Sons, 83 N . L. R. B. 792.