Worden-Allen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 155 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

WORDEN-ALLEN COMPANY 155
Worden -Allen Company and Technical Engineers Association
(Independent ), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4459. September 21,
1955
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 Frances P. Dom, 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all class A draftsmen, class B
draftsmen, drafting squad leaders, billers, blueprinters, and drafting
room trainees at the Employer's Milwaukee plant, excluding class A
engineers, class B engineers, engineering trainees, office employees,
salesmen, and production and maintenance employees. The Employer
would include the engineers and engineering trainees. The Petitioner
states that it does not wish to appear on the ballot in any election
directed in a unit that either includes or is limited to such employees.
Bargaining History
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and fabrication of
structural steel and in steel jobbing. It also erects structures of vari-
ous types.
In a consent election held in 1950, the Petitioner was certified as
representative of "all engineering and drafting employees ... ' ex-
cluding office employees and supervisory employees as defined in the
Act, as amended, and further excluding all other employees of the
Company."' At the time of the election, no question was raised as'to
the professional status of any of the employees involved. Thereafter,
the Petitioner represented all the engineering and drafting employees
until January 25, 1952, when a decertification petition was filed with
respect to the previously certified unit. In the decertification case,2 the
union (the Petitioner herein) asserted that there should be a finding
of two appropriate units, one limited to draftsmen and the other lim-
ited to engineers. The Employer opposed this contention. While
Case No. 13-RC-1560 ( not reported ' in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders).
2 Warden-Allen Company, 99 NLRB 410
114 NLRB No. 36
J56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
finding ,that the engineers and engineering trainees, were, ;unlike the
draftsmen,. professional employees,, the,Board,concluded.that,, in view
of the closely related character of the work of the two groups, their
common supervision, similar working conditions, and bargaining his-
tory, a combined unit of draftsmen and -engineers might-be, appropri-
ate. However, as the Board was precluded by Section 9 (c) (1) of
the Act -from including -professional employees in the` same unit with
nonprofessional employees, unless `a majority of the `professional'em" `-
ployees boted, for inclusion in such uiiit; the Board directed separate
elections for the professional and nonprofessional"groups.' The' Board
had no need to,' and did ' not' pass upon- the question; whether, apart
from the requirements of - Secti6i '9 (b) (1);- there was sufficient -di-
vergence between the interests of the 2 groups to warrant separate
self-determination elections on 'thattgroundf'alone- -`'''
In the decertification election held on June 24, 1952, the engineers
voted to be included in the overall unit but the Petitioner herein did
not receive a majority of the votes cast'and the Regional Director
issued a certification of results of election to that effect. There has
been no collective bargaining in behalf of these employees since that
time.
The Unit Contentions
As stated.previously, the Petitioner would represent the nonprofes-
sional unit of draftsmen only, while the Employer, citing the Board's
action on the unit issue in the decertification case, asserts that the unit
should also include the engineering employees.
In the prior case, the Board refused to find that two separate units
of professional and nonprofessional employees were alone appro-
priate, and found instead that the combined unit, in which a decerti-
fication election was requested, might be appropriate. The Board did
not have occasion to consider the further question, which is here pre
sented, whether a separate unit of draftsmen and other technical em-
ployees is an appropriate unit, where there is no petition for an election
in, and no union is seeking to represent, a broader unit.-
The record in the prior case 9 shows that the engineers and engineer-
ing trainees design complete building units, while the draftsmen detail,
check, and interpret engineering drawings, and otherwise process
such drawings with the help of billers and blueprinters. The Board
found that the work of the draftsmen, unlike that of the engineers,
did not. require such knowledge as to constitute them professionals.
In view of the difference in the caliber of the work involved, and in
view of the fact that, as Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act recognizes,
professional employees have special interests which set them apart
Since the hearing in the prior case , there has been no substantial change in the duties
or conditions of employment of the employees involved. The record in that case has
been incorporated in the record of the instant case by agreement of the parties.
MERVIN'WAVE" CLIP: COMPANY , INC: 157
from nonprofessionals, grid as there has been no-bargaini-ng•for eithtir
group during tile' past 3 years, we, find; under the circumstances of
this. case, that there is sufficient divergence between, the interests of
the draftsmen and the other technical- employees,' on the one hand,
and the professional employees, on the other, to warrant establishing
a separate unit of the former. We therefore find that the- following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit -appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
-of the Act : -
- All, class A draftsmen,, class .B draftsmen,, drafting squad-leaders,
-billers;•blueprinters, drafting room trainees, employed in the drafting
'room of the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, including regu=
-lar part-time employees, but excluding class A engineers, class B engi-
neers, engineering trainees, office employees, salesmen, shop employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.4 -
[Text- of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
The unit description conforms substantially to that of the nonprofessional voting
group, designated . by4he Board in the.prior case.
Mervin Wave Clip Company , Inc. and Retail , Wholesale & De-
partme^nt Store Union , C. I. 0., Petitioner . Case No. 3-RC-1565.
September. 20, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition "duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
-Relations Act, a hearing was, held before William J. Cavers, hearing
officer. 'The hearing -officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
•ployees of the Employer. -
Upon the entire record in this case,-the Board-finds that no question
of representation exists 'concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The petition in this. case was filed June 24, 1955. Petitioner on the
same day mailed to the Employer a letter requesting recognition for a
production and maintenance unit.
Earlier, in April or May 1955, the Intervenor, District 50, United
Mine Workers of America, Local 13736, requested recognition of the
114 NLRB No. 39.