The Lummus Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 1424 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of THE LUMMUS COMPANY and METROPOLITAN CHAPTER
31, FEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS, AND TECH-
NICIANS, C. I. O.
In the Matter of THE LUMMUS COMPANY and ARCHITECTURAL & EN-
GINEERING GUILD, LOCAL 66, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF TECH-
NICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS & DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, A. F. or L.
Cases Nos. R-5827 (2-R-4O96) and R-5828 (2-R-4122).-Decided
April 18, 1944
Davies, Auerbach, Cornell c6 Hardy, by Messrs. Christopher W.
Hoey and Quentin A. Young, of New York City, for the Company.
211r. J. Lawrence Raimmist, of New York City, for the A. F. of L.
Hiss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
AMENDED CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 25, 1943, pursuant to the Decision and Direction of
Election issued by the Board herein on September 4, 1943,1 an election
by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City).
Thereafter on October 16, 1943, pursuant to Article III, Section 11 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted a
run-off election. Upon the basis of the results of the run-off election,
the Board on November 5, 1943, certified Architectural & Engineering
Guild, Local 66, International Federation of Technical Engineers,
Architects & Draftsmen's Union, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, herein called the A. F. of L., as the exclusive representa-
tive for all technical engineers and technical employees of the Company
in its New York City office, including, but not limited to technical engi-
neers, draftsmen, designers, checkers, tracers, detailers, bill of material
employees, excluding all clerical employees, squad bosses, head checkers,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
1,52 N L R. B. 428.
55 N L. R B., No. 258.
1424
THE LUMMUS COMPANY 1425
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action. On January 17, 1944,
the Company filed a petition requesting the Board to reopen the rec-
ord in this proceeding for the purpose of introducing additional evi-
dence, and to clarify its finding of the appropriate unit contained in
the Decision of September 4, 1943. The Board granted this petition
by Order dated January 28, 1944, and provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before David H. Werther, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at New York City on February 17, 1944. The
Company and the A. F. of L. appeared, participated,2 and were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file
briefs with the Board. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT
The Company in its petition for rehearing requested that the unit
heretofore found appropriate and set forth in the Certification of
Representatives be restricted by appropriate amendment to include
only employees of the Company in its Main Drafting Room, the draft-
ing room of its Heat Exchanger Department, and the drafting room
of its Oil Heater Department. In support of its request the Company
alleged that during the preliminary discussions and the original hear-
ing in this matter it was the understanding of all parties that only
employees of the departments and divisions named were involved. The
Company at the hearing stated that drafting room employees of its
Planning Department and of a department designated a,s the Secret
Pi oject were also included in the unit pursuant to this understanding,
because drafting room employees of these two departments were on
loan from the Main Drafting Room. The petition further stated that
an amendment was necessary to resolve an ambiguity which had arisen
concerning technical employees and technical engineers of the Com-
pany in the New York office but not contemplated as being within the
appropriate unit. Although the A. F. of L. at the hearing stated that
it had organized only employees in the five named departments of the
Company, and admitted that only employees of these five departments
were in contemplation of the parties during the preliminary discus-
^.ions and the original hearing herein, it requested that the Board deny
the petition, or in the alternative, redefine the unit in terms of the
departments concerned, with a proviso that any employee within the
2 Metropolitan Chapter 31, Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Techni-
cians, CIO, a participating party at the original hearing was also served with notice but
did not appear
573129-44-vol 53-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
departmental unit who should be transferred out of the five depart-
ments should remain in the unit so long as he should continue to per-
form the same or similar work. Since it is clear that the language of
the unit finding and of the Certification herein would include em-
ployees of the Company whom both parties agree are not in the unit,
we shall grant the Company's request that the description of the unit
be clarified and that the Certification be amended.
The parties are in agreement that all of the drafting room em-
ployees 8 of the Company attached to the New York office, whether
working in the five departments named, in other departments of the
New York office, or temporarily in the field, are properly within the
appropriate unit. The only matter in dispute is whether these em-
ployees alone constitute the unit or whether planning engineers., cer-
tain engineering clerks, and the non-drafting, non-supervisory tech-
nical employees of the Heat Exchanger Department of the Company's
New York office also constitute a part of that unit; i. e., whether the
appropriate unit is restricted to drafting room employees or whether
it includes all employees in the five departments.
Engineering clerks.
The parties agree that all clerical employees should be excluded from
the unit. The A. F. of L. alleges that although engineering clerks are
clerical employees, certain of them are performing technical duties and
should be included in the unit. The allegation was not supported by
proof. We find that all of the Company's engineering clerks are cleri-
cal employees and that they are not a part of the unit.
Planning engineers.
The planning engineers direct a group of drafting room employees
within the Planning Department, who make drawings from which
employees in the other drafting rooms work in developing the details
of a design. The A. F. of L. would include planning engineers in the
unit and the Company would exclude them on the grounds that they
are supervisory employees and that they are functionally more closely
related to the technical employees in the unorganized departments
outside the unit than they are to the drafting room employees. The
authority of planning engineers over the drafting employees of their
department is comparable to that of the squad bosses over the em-
ployees in the drafting rooms. We find that planning engineers are
supervisory employees within the meaning of our usual definition and
shall exclude them from the unit.
' At the time of the hearing, all of the drafting room employees of the Company were
attached to the five named departments or were temporarily in the field.
THE LUMMUS COMPANY 1427
Non-supervisory technical employees in the Heat Exchanger Depart-
ment.
The Heat Exchanger Department is divided into two sections, draft-
ing room employees, and "non-drafting room employees." It is the
employees in this latter group, the heat exchanger engineer, three heat
exchanger engineer-raters, and a field and guarantee engineer, who
are included in the unit presently proposed by the A. F. of L. and
defined in the Certification but who would be excluded from the unit
as the Company wishes it defined. The Company employs many tech-
nical employees other than drafting room employees4 According to
the Company, the work of the disputed employees in the Heat Ex-
chtutger Department bears the same relation to the work of the drafting
room employees in their department as the work of the Process Engi-
neering Department and other departments not organized by the
A. F. of L., and not claimed by either party to be in the unit, bears to
the Mail, Drafting Room of the Company. A comparison of the duties
of these employees supports the Company's statement. On a depart-
mental basis as compared to a company-wide basis the function of the
heat exchiaiwer engineer-raters is comparable to that of the process
engineers who are admittedly not within the unit and the function of
the heat exchanger engineer is comparable to that of the job engineers,
also admittedly outside the unit. The field and guarantee engineer is
a "trouble shooter" who checks faulty heat exchangers in operation to
determine why they are not performing properly, and whether the
guarantee has been properly invoked, and sees that the proper adjust-
ments are made. He is also assistant production manager in charge of
the plant which manufactures the heat exchangers.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the heat exchanger engineer-
raters, the heat exchanger engineer, and the field and guarantee engi-
neer in the Heat Exchanger Department are by function, ability, and
responsibility more closely allied with the unorganized employees
outside the unit than with those who are within the unit by agreement
of the parties.5
We find that all drafting room employees of the Company, working
in or attached to its New York office, including but not limited to
technical engineers, draftsmen, designers, checkers, tracers, detailers,
bill of material employees, but excluding squad bosses, head checkers,
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
" Process engineers job engineers, estimators, expediters, et at
For this reason the unit requested by the A F of L. with the proviso that persons
transferring loin the five named departments remain within the unit, might prove im-
practicable because under the requested proviso a heat exchanger engineer-rater who might
be transferred to the Process Engineeung Department would be represented by the A F
of L, whereas all other piocess en,meeis with whom he was working would not be so
represented
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Secton 9 (b) of the Act.
All of the employees within the unit found appropriate herein were
given an opportunity to vote in the elections heretofore conducted in
this proceeding. None of the employees excluded from the unit by
our findings herein participated in the elections. We shall, therefore,
on the basis of the results of the election and the run-off election
heretofore conducted, and the above supplemental findings, amend
the Certification of Representatives herein by restricting it to de-
scribe only the employees herein found to constitute an appropriate
unit.
AMENDED CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 9, 10, and 11, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Architectural & Engineering Guild,
Local 66, International Federation of Technical Engineers, Archi-
tects & Draftsmen's Union, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, has been designated and selected by a majority of all draft-
ing room employees of the Company working in or attached to its
New York office, including but not limited to technical engineers,
draftsmen, designers, checkers, tracers, detailers, bill of material
employees, but excluding squad bosses, head checkers, and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or ef-
fectively recommend such action, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of
the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with re-
spect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other condi-
tions of employment.
CHAIRMAN MILLIs took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Amended Certification of Representa-
tives.