The De Laval Separator Co.

544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD partments. The fact that the steam produced in the powerhouse is indispensable to the production process does not destroy the func- titonal cohesiveness of the powerhouse group n Upon the entire record, it appears that the powerhouse employees are a group such as we have usually held may appropriately be included in the pro- duction and maintenance unit or be separately represented. 22 How- ever, because the powerhouse employees are currently represented by the Firemen, we shall exclude them from the production and mainte- nance unit, and as the Petitioner has made no showing of interest .among the powerhouse employees, we shall not direct a separate elec- tion among these employees 23 We find. that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's West Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, including mill- rights, sweepers, shipping and receiving department employees, and electricians, but excluding all powerhouse employees (firemen, oiler maintenance man, and powerhouse maintenance employees), head miller, first millers, shipping clerk, bagroom foreman, corn unloading foreman, packing foreman, adhesive plant foreman, head millwright, .head electrician, general office and clerical employees, laboratory and research employees, and all guards, professional employees, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act,24 constitute a unit appro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. . [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] =Armour and Company, 88 NLRB 309; Industrial Rayon Corporation, Covington, Vir- ginia, Plant, 87 NLRB 4; Baugh and Sons Company, 82 NLRB 1399. 22 Cadillac Motor Car Division, Cleveland Tank Plant, General Motors Corporation, 94 NLRB 217; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation , 81 NLRB 441. 23 Mullins Lumber Company and Schoolleld Industries, Division of Mullins Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 28; Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288. 34 The composition of this unit was agreed upon by all parties in the event the Board excluded the powerhouse employees. THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTER- NATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 112, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. J-RC- 3817. December 13, 1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National I1abor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd S. Greenidge, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 97 NLRB No. 54. THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 545 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 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. In its petition, the Petitioner requested a unit composed of all employees in the tool design, methods, and time-study departments (respectively, departments 71, 73, and 74) of the Employer's Pough- keepsie, New York, plant. In the alternative, it would add to this 'group all employees in the product design and drafting departments (departments 70 and 72), and the engineering laboratory (department 77). The Employer opposes both of the proposed units on the ground that each includes professional employees who may not be joined with technical employees without their consent. It also opposes the larger unit on the ground that the work performed in departments 70, 72, and 77 is insufficiently related to that performed in the other three depart- ments? The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of dairy machinery at its Poughkeepsie plant. The six departments in question are located on three floors of the Employer's "tower" building. All are subject to the general supervision of the Employer's chief engineer, who, as plant superintendent, is also in charge of all production work at the plant. Employees in all six of these departments are under identical sick leave, vacation, and insurance plans; pay scales in all six depart- ments are almost alike. Employees in the tool design department (No. 71) design fixtures, jigs, and tools, needed to manufacture the Employer's products. Drafting department (No. 72) employees translate engineering de- signs and plans into working drawings showing the exact specifications of all new parts, products, and tools to be manufactured by the produc- tion departments. Engineering laboratory (No. 77) employees test new products and tools designed by the other departments in the engi- neering division. The Employer concedes, and the Petitioner does I As to the six-department unit, the Employer also argues that it should not be con- sidered, ' on the ground that the Petitioner did not formally amend its petition. The record shows , however, that the Petitioner made a clear request for an alternative six- department unit. As the Employer had full opportunity to litigate all issues raised by this request , and in fact did litigate them, we find no 'merit in its argument that we should consider only,-the unit proposed-in the original petition. National Cylinder Gas Compatly of Texas, 95 NLRB 168. 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not deny, that all workers in these three departments , tool design, drafting, and the engineering laboratory , are technical employees. The remaining three departments are product design, methods, and time study. The product designers (No. 70 ) originate and design the Employer's new models and products . Methods engineers (No. 73) prepare descriptions of manufacturing methods to be used by the pro- duction departments in making those products . Their descriptions show the sequence in which manufacturing operations are to be per- -formed, and they specify the tools and materials to be used in produc- tion. Time-study men, or standards setters (No. 74), as they are sometimes called , are responsible for compiling standard production times for all manufacturing processes . Using stop watches, they time each step and motion in these operations. From their studies, they compute the time "standards" used by the Employer in fixing wage incentive scales for production employees. The Employer's principal objection to either of the proposed units is that both would join technical employees with the allegedly profes- sional employees in the product design , methods, or time-study depart- ments. The record shows the following facts about the skill and training of these employees in the latter departments : Of approxi- mately 30 employees in the 3 departments, only 1 has an engineering degree. Of the others, one had 2 years of technical school training in mechanical engineering, and the rest have had high school, and in some cases, trade school, education . A high proportion came from produc- tion jobs in the Employer's plant; one was transferred into time-study work from a clerical job. The Employer stated that if it could, it would hire only college graduates for these positions . Its failure to do so is ascribed to a shortage of graduates trained for this type of work. However, the record shows that of the 3 kinds of work done by the employees in question, only time study is regularly taught, apparently in a course comprising part of Cornell University's general engineering curriculum. In further support of its claim that they are professional employees, the Employer asserts that all employees in the 3 depart- ments do intellectual work, which is not to be standardized in terms of output in relation to a given period of time. While the record shows that they dd not do repetitive work, it does appear that the day-to-day tasks of these employees are substantially the same. It is clear from the record in,this case that the Employer's product ,designers, methods. men, and time-study men do not meet the several criteria by which Section 2 (12) of the Act defines professional employ- ees. Although the work of some of them requires some originality of thought, and a degree of initiative and discretion, it does not require knowledge of an advanced type in a field of science or learning. Ac- THE DE LAVAL SEPARATOR COMPANY 547 cordingly, we find that these product designers, methods men, and time- study men are not professional employees within the meaning of the Act.' The Employer's other ground for opposing the larger unit proposed by the Petitioner is that the employees in the six departments are not sufficiently related in functions and interests to be joined. However, it is clear from the record as a whole that the work performed throughout those six departments is technical in nature, and that the employees in question perform a related function for the over-all operations of the Poughkeepsie plant. In brief, the six departments are responsible for the design, development, and testing of new products and tools, and for the establishment of production methods and time standards relating to the use and actual production of such products and tools. They are all technical employees. We find, on the record as a whole, that the three-department unit first proposed by the Petitioner is too limited in scope, and that the six departments together constitute ' an appropriate unit of technical employees.3 The parties agreed to include Merritt, the leader-methods engineer, a supervisor in the methods department. The record shows that he directs the other methods department employees in their layout and planning work, and that he checks and corrects their results. He has authority to assign and to reject work, and is responsible, to a limited degree, for discipline within the department. He has power to grant or refuse time off to the others in the department. His efficiency rec- ommendations are considered by the Employer, and may affect the employment status of others in the department. It is clear from those facts that Merritt responsibly directs others in the performance of their tasks. Accordingly, contrary to the parties' agreement, we find that he is a supervisor, and shall exclude him from the unit. We find that all tool designers, methods engineers, time-study men (standard setters), product designers, draftsmen, engineering labora- z Florence Stove Company, 94 NLRB 1434 -I In further support of its assertion that the various categories of technical employees here involved do unrelated work, the Employer stated in its brief that certain employees In its engineering shop , another department of the engineering division , do work which !`stands alone," and yet is in the "sequence of operations generally attributable to the Engineering Division." Presumably this - information is intended to indicate that all departments in the Engineering Division "stand alone." Those factual statements respect- ing the Engineering Shop, made only in the Employer's brief, are , of course, outside the record and therefore beyond the scope of this decision . In any event, the engineering shop -is now 'represented by the International Association of Machinists , which similarly represents the production and maintenance employees throughout the plant , and the record contains nothing offsetting the affirmative evidence upon which the unit of tech- hic&1 employees rests 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tory employees, and coordinators,4 employed in departments 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 77 of the Employer's Poughkeepsie, New York, plant, excluding the leader-methods engineer, all production and mainte- nance employees, cafeteria employees, office and clerical employees, executives, guards, professional employees, all other employees at the plant, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 The parties agreed that one coordinator , employed in the tool -design department, should be included as a technical employee . They disagreed as to the status of the other coordi- nator , assigned to the time-study department, who the Employer contends is a professional employee. As the record does not show that the second coordinator diffeis in any respect from the tool -design coordinator , admittedly a technical employee , or that he has higher qualifications than other time-study employees found not to be professionals , both coordi- nators are included in the unit. PHILADELPHIA ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION and I. RAYMOND KREMER PHILADELPHIA MUSICAL SOCIETY, LOCAL 77, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS and I. RAYMOND KREMER. Cases Nos. 4-CA-219 and 4-CB-35. December 14, 1951 Decision and Order On April 25, 1951, Chief Trial Examiner William R . Ringer issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there- from and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also found that the Re- spondent Association had not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that the complaint against the Respondent Association be dismissed. Thereafter I. Raymond Kremer, the charging party, and the General Counsel filed exceptions and briefs . The Respondent Association filed a brief opposing the exceptions of the General Counsel and of Kremer. The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the ]fearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rul- ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case." 1 The Respondent Union's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the, record, and the exceptions and brief, in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the pfaition of the parties. 97 NLRB No. 80.