Illinois Institute of Technology

In the Matter of ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY INCLUDING ARMOUR RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND INSTITUTE OF GAS TECH- NOLOGY, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT NO. 8, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER Case No. 13-RC-179.-Decided January 18,1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hear- ing, the Employer and the Intervenor 1 each moved to dismiss the peti- tion on various grounds. For the reasons hereinafter stated, these motions are hereby denied.2 The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Illinois Institute of Technology, herein called the College, is a tech- nical educational institution, organized under the laws of the State I College, University and Private School Employees' Union , Local 321, Building Service Employees International Union, A F L. 2In its motion to dismiss, the Intervenor contended , tinter alia, that the Petitioner is not qualified to act as bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer because it does not admit employees to membership and, therefore , the Petitioner must be fronting for a local. The record does not show the existence of a local at the Employer's operations or that the Petitioner contemplates establishing such a local . Nor is there any showing that the Petitioner is incapable of serving as a bargaining agent for the Employer's em- ployees. Accordingly, we find this contention to be without merit. Matter of Mergen- thater Linotype Company, 80 N. L. R. B 132, Matter of McGraw-Curran Lumber Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 705 * Houston, Reynolds , and Murdock. 81 N. L. R. B., No. 31, 201 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Illinois as a non-profit corporation. It conducts courses in engi- neering and liberal studies at undergraduate and graduate levels and at the present time has about 8,500 students. Connected with the Col- lege are 2 research foundations, 1 of which is known as Armour Re- search Foundation, herein called the Foundation, and the other, the Institute of Gas Technology, herein called Gas Technology. The Foundation and Gas Technology are both located on the campus of the College and are separately incorporated as non-profit organiza- tions. The 3 institutions have the same president, treasurer, and as- sistant secretary, and their Boards of Trustees are composed of the same members. Each institution is separately staffed with profes- sional and non-professional employees who are hired by the College. This proceeding is concerned only with employees who are attached to the Foundation and Gas Technology. The Foundation has no educational program except that it grants six fellowships jointly with the College. It is an organization devoted entirely to research in technological fields and it undertakes special research projects for industrial concerns and the Federal Government. All costs engendered in connection with these experiments are charged to the respective sponsors.3 Gas Technology is primarily concerned with problems in the field of gas technology, and like the Founda- tion, it grants some fellowships and conducts experiments for in- dustrial sponsors on a cost basis. The College does not perform spe- cial research projects for particular business concerns although some of its research activities have sponsors. The work it does for sponsors is in the field of fundamental research and is of a type that will benefit an entire industry. The Foundation and Gas Technology use their own chemicals and supplies for their experimental work, although a sponsor may furnish some materials. In the course of each research project, a model or prototype is constructed for the purpose of testing its results. This model or prototype is usually destroyed when the experiment is con- cluded, unless the sponsor of the project is a Government agency. In such cases, the models are submitted to the sponsors. The sponsoring body of each research project is sent a written report which embodies the results of the experiment and contains recommendations for its application. There may be a 2- to 5-year time lag before the recom- mendations of the Foundation are reflected in a sponsor's product be- cause the Foundation does not concern itself with the problem of how its experiments can be adapted to the sponsor's manufacturing processes. About 70 percent of the work of the Foundation is in applied research , the balance being in fundamental research and development research ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 203 During the year ending August 31, 1947, the Foundation's income from research undertakings totaled $2,550,000. It was estimated at the hearing that this income would total $2,900,000 for the year ending August 31, 1948. The industrial sponsors of the Foundation include business concerns whose plants are located outside the State of Illinois and who have interstate outlets. Some of its sponsors in- clude Pullman-Standard Car Company of Chicago, Shell Oil Com- pany of New York, Standard Oil Company of Ohio, Thompson Products Company of Cleveland, Ohio, Inland Steel Company, Ve- suvius Crucible Company, Cudahy Packing Company, Admiral Radio Corporation, Procter and Gamble Company, Parker Pen Company, Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Elgin National Watch, and Good- year Tire and Rubber Company. Among the Government agencies who sponsor projects at the Foundation are the Coast Guard, Army Ordnance, Naval Ordnance, Signal Corps, Bureau of Ships, Bureau of Aeronautics, Bureau of Standards, Atomic Energy Commission, and Department of Commerce. It also appears that the Foundation owns various patents which are licensed on a royalty basis to domestic and foreign industrial enter- prises. Among the licenses are Ansley Radio Corporation, Bendix Aviation Corporation, General Electric Company, Automatic Elec- tric'Company, Stromberg Carlson Company, Indiana Steel Products Company, and Sonora Radio & Television Corporation. The royalties derived from these licenses constitute about 10 percent of the income of the Foundation. In addition to these activities, the Foundation publishes a quarterly scientific journal entitled "Frontier" which it distributes without charge to about 10,000 interested organizations and persons throughout the United States. The journal contains articles on scientific subjects written by various members of the Foundation's staff and it is sent to universities, colleges, laboratories, industrial executives, research directors, and technical personnel. Practically all the experimental work performed at Gas Technology is for industrial sponsors. Its chief sponsor is the American Gas Association whose members are gas and public utilities. Although its sponsors pay for the service rendered on a cost basis, the record does not disclose the income received from these sources. The Foundation purchases and receives all the materials and sup- plies used by the three institutions in question. Annually, it pur- chases approximately $296,000 worth of consumable chemicals and other laboratory equipment, most of which is obtained from local sources but whose original origin may be any section of the country. About 15 percent of these supplies go into models or prototypes which are forwarded to sponsors. During the past year, the three institu- 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions in question together subcontracted a total of about $34.000 worth of machine shop work, of which $5,500 was paid to contractors outside the State of Illinois. • The employer 4 and the Intervenor contend that the Employer is not subject to the Board's jurisdiction because (1) it is an educational institution operating without profit and (2) it uses the channels of interstate commerce to transmit scientific ideas and information and not any commercial product. Whatever its general purposes may be, there can be little doubt that the research features of the Employer's activities as carried out by the Foundation and Gas Technology are operated on a commercial or business basis. These two divisions of the Employer furnish research services to industrial concerns and the Federal Government which have as their purpose the improvement of manufacturing processes. Moreover, their sponsors reimburse them for all cost engendered in connection with these services. In return for research services rendered during the past year, the Foundation is expected to receive from its sponsors approximately $2,900,000. This organization in addition receives a substantial income from man- ufacturing concerns for use of its patents. At least with respect to the Foundation's operations, education appears to be of secondary significance . The facts herein establish that the Employer's spon- sored research projects are of a business nature. We are of the opin- ion and find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.5 This finding is unaffected by the fact that the Employer does not operate for profit or that its activities in inter- state commerce involve the communication of information rather than the transmission of specific products." II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED District No. 8, International Association of Machinists, herein called the Petitioner, and College, University and Private School Employees' Union, Local 321 of the Building Service Employees In- ternational Union, A. F. L., herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as a representa- tive of employees of the Employer until certified by the Board in an 4 We find that the College , the Foundation , and Gas Technology constitute a single Employer within the meaning of the Act. splatter of Henry Ford Trade School, 58 N L R B 1535; Polish National Alliance V. N. L R B , 322 U S 643 , affirming 136 F (2d) 175 (C A 7) 6 Associated Press v N L R. B , 301 U S 103 ; platter of Foster D Snell , Inc, 69 N. L. R B. 764 , Matter of Electrical Testing Laboratories, Inc., 65 N. L. R B 1239 ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 205 appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.7 IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner is in effect seeking a craft unit composed of the machinists assigned to the three machine shops of the Foundation and to the machine shop of Gas Technology, excluding professional em- ployees and supervisors. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate because it includes employees who have a history of bargaining on a more comprehensive basis.8 ' We find no merit to the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that a contract between them is a bar to it present determination of representatives. When the original petition in this case was filed on March 16, 1948. there was in effect a contract between the Employer and the Intervenor dated June 1, 1947, which was to remain in force until May 31, 1948, and from year to year thereafter unless terminated by notice given 60 days before any anniversary date This agreement was superseded by an agreement entered into on June 1, 1948, to be effective from that date to May 31, 1949, and containing a 60-day automatic renewal clause Since the 1947 contract was terminated several months ago it is not a bar to the present proceeding Nor is the 1948 contract a bar because it was executed more than 2 months after the filing of the present petition 8 When the hearing in this case opened, the Petitioner stated that it was seeking a craft unit of all the machinists in the 3 machine shops of the Foundation During the course of the hearing, the Employer adduced evidence to the effect that there were a total of between 25 and 50 machine shops on the campus to the College and that of the number, 3 were in the Foundation, 1 in Gas Technology, and numerous others in the College and that there were machinists in all these shops The Petitioner thereupon moved to amend its unit request to include the machinists in all the machine shops of the Employer The hearing officer allowed this motion and, at the request of the Intervenor and the Employer, adjourned the hearing for a month to afford the pasties time to prepare evidence to meet the issues raised by the amendment The hearing was resumed after a 2-month recess At the resumed hearing, the Employer changed its testimony with respect to the machine shops in the College and stated that none of these shops employed machinists It further testified that the machine shops of the College are operated for instructional purposes by the various academic departments in connection with their courses of study and that the only persons who work in them are members of the teaching staff, students, and certain employees classified as laboratory assistants The laboratory assistants set up and oper- ate machines for the students and, although they do not teach they are considered to be part of the instructional staff because of their paiticipation in teaching procedures Fol- lowing this evidence, the Petitioner again amended its unit request to exclude all employees in the machine shops of the College At the close of the hearing and in their briefs, the Intervenor and the Employer con- tended that the petition should be dismissed because it is not clear which employees in the numerous machine shops of the Employer the Petitioner desires to represent This con- tention is, in our opinion, without merit The Petitioner has at all times indicated that its sole interest is in the Employer's machinists with craft status. When the hearing opened, it was apparently of the view that the three machine shops in the Foundation were the only shops of the Employer employing this classification of employee. It was only after evidence was elicited to the effect that there were machinists attached to Gas Technology and the College, that it broadened its initial unit allegation to include these employees . However, when this evidence subsequently proved to be inaccurate and it ap- peared that the College machine shops did not employ machinists, the Petitioner specifically stated that it would exclude all employees in the machine shops of the College. It thus appears that the Petitioner' s final unit request is the same as that described In the petition except that the machinists in Gas Technology are now added. 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The 3 machine shops in the Foundation to which the requested ma- chinists are assigned are known as the machine shop, the instrument shop, and the model shop, respectively.' They occupy adjoining areas in the northwest corner of the Engineering Research Building and each is under the separate supervision of a foreman who is an- swerable to the shop superintendent. These shops contain the usual machinery and equipment found in such shops and they employ a total of approximately 40 machinists, all of whom possess craft qualifica- tions 10 It is the duty of the machinist to fabricate, assemble, and repair the tools, parts, and experimental units used in the research laboratories by the professional personnel who either sketch, draw, or orally describe their requirements. The machinists in the instru- ment shop work on the fine instruments, parts and tools which require closer tolerances than do the parts processed by the machine shop. The model shop employees make the experimental models. All the ma- chinists in these shops are hourly paid and devote their full time to machine shop work for the Foundation, although the 'College may occasionally use their services. Since 1947, the Intervenor has repre- sented these machinists in a bargaining unit which covers all the Employer's maintenance and service employees with certain excep- tions not here material. The only other employees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent are the three machinists who are assigned to the machine shop in Gas Technology. Like the machinists in the Foundation, these employees are highly skilled craftsmen who make and repair laboratory equip- ment for the research personnel. Their wages are computed at an hourly rate although they are paid monthly. They work under the direction of the scientists in the laboratories and for this reason they are excluded from the bargaining unit which the Intervenor has rep- resented. The record does not show, however, that these machinists participate in teaching procedures as do the laboratory assistants assigned to the machine shops of the College who were also excluded from the coverage of the Intervenor's contract. The employees sought by the Petitioner are all highly skilled craft workers who devote their full time to the duties normally performed by the members of their craft. Moreover, they constitute all the Em- ployer's machinists with craft status. Although the machinists in the 9 There appear to be one or two other small machine shops in the Foundation which have been set up for the use of the engineers and scientists These shops , however, have no machinists or other employees regularly assigned to them and their equipment is used only intermittently. '° These three shops employ only machinists , except that in the machine shop there is also a welder , a metal cut-off man, and a sheet metal worker. The Petitioner has not requested the inclusion of these employees in the proposed unit. ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 207 Foundation have a history of collective bargaining which is not shared by the machinists of Gas Technology, this history did not develop as a result of a determination by the Board. In view of the foregoing, and the entire record of the case, we are of the opinion that the machinists in the 3 machine shops of the Foundation and the machinists in the machine shop of Gas Technology may together function as a separate bargaining unit. However, since all but 3 of the more than 40-odd machinists here sought are part of an existing contract unit which embraces maintenance and service employees, we shall make no final unit determination pending the outcome of the election hereinafter directed. We shall direct that an election be held among all the machinists of the Foundation who are employed in the machine shop, the instru- ment shop, and the model shop and the machinists employed in the machine shop of Gas Technology, excluding all employees in the ma- chine shops of the College, professional employees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors. If in this election, a majority of the employees voting select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses 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 Thirteenth Region, and subject to Sec- tions 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the voting group described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, in- cluding employees who did not work during said pay-roll period be- cause 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 rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate- ment, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by District No. 8, International Association of Machinists, or by College, University and Private School Em- ployees' Union, Building Service Employees International Union, A. F. L., or by neither.