Swift & Co.

746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL•,LABOR {RELATIONS BOARD SWIFT & COMPANY, TECHNICAL PRODUCTS PLANT, HAMMOND, INDIANA 3 and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-2393. March 18, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Edward T. Maslanka, hearing officer. The hearing' officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. I Pursuant to.the-provisions of'Secti6n'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 Styles]. 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. The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit composed of the chemists and the technicians in the laboratory at the Employer's Technical Products Plant to determine whether that group should be separately represented •or'-included' within the existing unit of.,production Rand maintenance employees currently represented by the Petitioner. _ The Employer contends that the chemists and technicians are managerial and confidential employees who should not be included in any bargaining unit. In addition, the Employer contends that in any event the appropriate bargaining units should be as follows: (1) A unit composed of laboratory technicians, and (2) a unit determined by vote of the chemists as to whether they shall be in a unit with the technicians, in a unit of their own, or in a unit comprised of chemists and production and maintenance employees. At the present time, seven chemists and six technicians work in the Employer's laboratory. The chemists are required to be college or university graduates, with a degree in chemistry; no specific- academic training is required of technicians. Two general types of work are performed in the laboratory : analysis and research. Both types of work require a knowledge of the principles of organic and inorganic chemistry. The chemists are expected to, and do, conduct independent research projects concerning new analytical methods, methods of 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 98 NLRB No. 117. SWIFT & COMPANY 747 improving products or -better ways of making current products; the technicians are expected to'and do the more routine type of analyses, certain unskilled tasks connected with operating the laboratory, and some analytical work, under the guidance of a chemist. On the basis of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the chemists are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) (a) of the Act, but that the technicians are not professional employees within the meaning of the Act 2 The chemists, assisted by the technicians, perform the basic control operations upon, w,hich•.the competitive standing, of^ the:.EmpJoyer is based and they daily make independent decisions which affect thou- sands of dollars worth of product. The analytical work, the devel- opment and results of the research, are kept in strict confidence to sustain the competitive position of the Employer. From these facts, the Employer argues that these employees are either managerial or confidential employees. As the judgment they use and the data they collect are unrelated to the Employer's labor relations, we find no merit in either contention.' Where, as here, any party objects to the inclusion of technical em= ployees in a production and maintenance unit it is the Board's policy not to include them in such unit 4 In these circumstances, we, do not think it desirable to provide for either the technicians or the$ chemists to be added to the existing production and maintenance unit as re- quested,-as one, alternative; by the Petitioner. However,' as the chem- ists and technicians constitute a separately supervised and segregated group of employees having similar interests and comprising all the technical employees in the plant these employees may together constitute a single unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining.5 As a result of our findings as to the professional status of the chem- ists, however, it appears that the unit as set out above includes seven professional and six nonprofessional employees. The Board is pro- hibited by Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act from including professional employees in a unit with nonprofessional employees, unless a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion in such'a unite Ac- cordingly we must ascertain the desires of the professional employees as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employees. We -shall therefore direct separate elections in the following voting groups excluding in each case confidential employees, guards, and supervisors 2 See Union Oil Company of California, 88 NLRB 937. s S. & L. Co. of Pipe8tone, 96 NLRB 1418. * Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8. See United States Metal Refining Company , 93 NLRB 795. °Me construe , the Petitioner ' s position on the unit issue' as indicating a willingness to represent the chemists and, the technicians in•separate.units. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as defined in the Act : (a) All technicians in the Employer's research laboratory at Hammond, Indiana, and (b) all chemists in the Em- ployer's research laboratory at Hammond, Indiana. The employees in the professional voting group (b) will be asked two questions on their ballot : 7 (1) Do you desire to be included with the technicians in a unit composed of all chemists and technicians in the Employer's research laboratory at Hammond, Indiana, for the purpose of collective bargaining? (2) Do you desire to be repre- sented by the Oil Workers International Union, CIO? If, a majority of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote "Yes" to the first question, indicating their desire to be included in a unit with the nonprofessional employees, they will be so included. Their votes on the second question will then be counted together with the votes of the nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide the representative for the whole research 'unit, and if a majority of the employees in voting groups (a) and (b) together select the Petitioner, the Regional Direc- tor conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for a unit of tech- nicians and chemists which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote against inclusion in a unit with technicians, they will not be included with the nonprofessional employees. In that event the votes in voting groups (a) and (b) will be counted separately to determine whether or not the Union will represent the employees in- volved in separate units. The Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the Petitioner for such of these two units in which a majority of the employees select the Petitioner, which separate units the Board, in these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 7 See Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236. JOHNS-MANVILLE PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL Asso- CIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, L DOE No. 855, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 15-RC--628. 15--RC,-629, 15-RC-6110, 15-RC-681, and 15-RC- 682. March 19, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before Victor H. Hess, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's 98 NLRB No. 111.