Jet Research Center, Inc.

730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fluoro Electric Corporation to assign the work in dispute to members of the Engineers rather than to members of any other labor organiza- tion or to nonmembers of any labor organization. 2. Said Local 825 of the Operating Engineers shall, within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination, notify, in writing, the Regional Director for the Fourth Region whether or not it accepts the Board's determination of this dispute, and whether or not it will refrain from forcing or requiring Fluoro Electric Company, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D) of the Act, to assign the work in dispute to members of Local 25 rather than to members of any other labor organization or to nonmembers of any labor organization. Jet Research Center, Inc. and Lodge 1591, International Associa- tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 16-RC- 2661. August 22, 1960 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 Charles H. Steere, hearing officer. 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 represen- tation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, at its plant in Arlington, Texas, is engaged in research, development, and manufacturing of shaped charges used in the perforation of oil well casings. The Petitioner seeks to represent the production and maintenance employees, including the assistant technicians and helpers in the core laboratory, laboratory assistants in the research laboratory, inspectors and machinists in the experimental machine shop. The Employer contends that the latter employees are technicals and should be excluded. The plant is organized into separate departments-administration, patent, research and engineering, and manufacturing. All of the dis- puted employees herein are employed in the research and engineering 128 NLRB No. 93. JET RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 731 department. They are separately supervised, and, except for the in- spectors, are separately located from manufacturing employees. The inspectors, under the supervision of the manager of the en- gineering section and his assistant, inspect all incoming material and spot check finished products. They also test fire charges to isee if the finished product is in accordance with specifications. They perform part of their work in the production buildings and part in the ware- house, where the inspection area is located. They do not direct the work of production employees. The record does not disclose that these employees are possessed of any specialized skills or training, or that they perform tasks of a highly complicated nature that require independent judgment. As it appears that the interests of the in- spectors are not sufficiently dissimilar to those of the production and maintenance employees to justify their exclusion, we shall include them in the unit.' The machinists in the experimental machine shop produce metal parts that are used in the building of models for experimental pur- poses, and incidentally repair dies used in production work. They perform their work on lathes, a milling machine, drill press, grinders, and associated equipment. On this record we are not persuaded that the machinists, though apparently skilled in a craft, possess the train- ing and perform the duties necessary to render them technical em- ployees? Accordingly, we shall include them. The laboratory assistants in the research laboratory perform the manual and mechanical work involved in experiments conducted by the research engineers. They test charges, run performance tests, and make evaluations. The job requires a minimum of 30 days' training, though several months are required before an employee is fully effec- tive. The various tests are not performed on a daily routine basis, but the same testing techniques are frequently utilized. There is no showing that the laboratory assistants are required to interpret the results of their tests or to use their discretion and independent judg- ment in connection with any of their duties. We find that the record fails to support the Employer's contention that these employees -are technical employees. We shall, therefore, include them in the unit.' The Petitioner would exclude the foreman of the laboratory assist- ants as a supervisor. This individual lays out the work for the other employees, but cannot hire, discharge, discipline, or effectively recom- mend such action. Accordingly we shall include him. The assistant laboratory technicians and helpers in the core labora- tory run evaluation and performance tests on equipment under simu- lated well conditions. They prepare the sandstone core, run the tests, 'Kellogg Switchboard & Supply Co., etc., 127 NLRB 64. 2 Mtinneapolia-Honeywell Regulator Co., 125 NLRB 1283. s Stein, Hall and Company, 126 NLRB 1078. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and make mathematical calculations to assist the engineers in the re- search work. They are located in a separate building and utilize highly specialized equipment to test the material under development. These employees work under a minimum of instruction and require at least 6 months' training. We find these employees -are technicals and, in view of the Employer's objection, we shall exclude them.4 Accordingly, we find the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (-b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees employed at the Em- ployer's Arlington, Texas, plant, including inspectors, machinists, the foreman and laboratory assistants in the research laboratory, special- ists, loaders, shipping and receiving employees, but excluding techni- cal employees,5 the assistant laboratory technicians and helpers in the core laboratory, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ' Leland Electric Company, et al, 126 NLRB 406. Chairman Leedom would not find on this record that these helpers exercise independent judgment and utilize the specialized training of technical employees ; accordingly, he would include the helpers in the unit. 6 The Petitioner alternatively contended that if any of the classifications it sought were found technicals, it desired to represent such employees in a separate unit. However, Petitioner would be entitled to an election in a separate technical unit only if it sought all technicals in the plant and it had an appropriate showing of interest for such em- ployees. The Monarch Machine Tool Co., 98 NLRB 1243; Westinghouse Air Brake Company, Union Switch & Signal Division, 119 NLRB 1391 . These requirements have not been established here to justify a separate unit confined to the laboratory technicians. Swift and Company and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO and National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Party to a Contract.. Case No. 4-CA-20024. August 22, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a charge duly filed on October 12, 1959, by Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, herein called Meat Cutters, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated November 30, 1959, against Swift and Company, herein called Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et seq.), herein called the Act. On December 7, 1959, the complaint was amended by the General Counsel. The complaint and amended 128 NLRB No. 87.