Continental Can Co., Inc.

762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD engaged in and is engaging in. unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section. 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 2. By engaging in such discrimination, thereby discouraging the formation of or membership in any labor organization, the Respondent Company has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (3) of the Act. 3. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employment of those employees, the strikers, and by refusing to reinstate such employees upon application, the Respondent Company interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) and Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union , AFL-CIO, Local Chapter No. 415, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and during the times material hereto was the representative of the employees of the Respondent Company in an appropriate bargaining unit. 5. By refusing to bargain collectively with International Ladies' Garment Work- ers' Union, AFL-CIO, Local Chapter No. 415, as the representative of its employees in an appropriate bargaining unit , the Respondent Company had engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Continental Can Company, Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7177. August 2L, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert G. Mayberry, 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 Jenkins 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. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all technical and professional em- ployees in the equipment development department of the Employer's metal research and development center. It stated, however, it would accept any unit of professional or technical employees the Board may find appropriate, suggesting as alternative appropriate units a single 128 NLRB No. 102. CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. 763 plantwide unit of technical and professional employees or separate plantwide units of such employees. The Employer contends, inter alia, that the requested departmental unit is not appropriate in view of the integration in the work of, and interchange between, the pro- fessional and technical employees in all five departments at the center. There is no history of bargaining for any of the employees in any of the requested units. There are approximately 300 professional and technical employees working in 5 departments at the Employer's research center. About 107 are employed in the departmental unit which Petitioner seeks. The qualifications required for the various technical and professional job classifications in all departments are similar and work on any given project proceeds simultaneously in two or more of the five depart- ments, with employees of different departments frequently working together at such times. Under these circumstances we find that the interests of the technical and professional employees in the equipment development department are not so distinguishable from those of other such employees in the research and development center as to warrant finding, contrary to established Board policy, that they com- prise an appropriate departmental unit.' As noted the Petitioner alternatively seeks a single plantwide unit of all professional and technical employees or separate plantwide units of such employees. With respect to the former, we cannot include the professional employees in a unit with technical employees unless they express their desire to a self-determination election to be so included 2 However, the Petitioner does not have an adequate show- ing of interest to warrant our conducting an election among such professional employees, either for purposes of determining whether they wish to be represented separately or as part of a unit including technical employees. As for the technical unit the parties do not agree on its composition. The Petitioner contends that employees in the classification of drafts- man I and draftsman II, laboratory assistant I and laboratory as- sistant II, research technician, technical catalog copywriter, equip- ment specifications engineer, checker, designer, and designer jr. are technical employees. The Employer contends that all these classifica- tions are professional except draftsman I and draftsman II, research technician, and laboratory assistant I and laboratory assistant II, as to which it takes no position. The designer and designer j r. conceive and develop ideas for new machinery or devices and design equipment. Part of their work is to prepare layouts, sketches, and drawings for all new equipment. These two classifications differ only in the complexity of work per- ' Ladish Company, 126 NLRB 555. 9 Vickers Incorporated, 124 NLRB 1051. 764 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD formed and no college degree is required if the individual is creative and has mechanical ability. The draftsmen I detail and complete the drawings and layouts which the designers or engineers prepare. Employees without a formal academic degree also do some of this work. Since the work performed by employees in the foregoing classifications does not require knowledge of an advanced type in fields of science or engineering customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction and study in an institu- tion of higher learning, we find that these are not professional em- ployees.' As the work of the employees in these classifications does, however, involve the use of independent judgment and requires the exercise of skills learned from specialized training, we find in agree- ment with the Petitioner, that they are technical employees.' In view of the number of employees throughout the plant in such classifica- tions, the Petitioner would not have an adequate showing of interest in a plantwide technical unit, even if these were the only classifica- tions to be included in such a unit. Accordingly, we need not con- sider whether any of the other classifications in dispute are or are not also technicals. Consequently, as the Petitioner does not have a sufficient showing among the employees in any unit that might be appropriate, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] s Western Electric Company, Incorporated , 126 NLRB 134G. ' Litton Industries of Maryland. Incorporated, 125 NLRB 708 ; Gary Steel Products Corporation, 116 NLRB 1192, 1195 ( draftsmen) ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 118 NLRB 1043, 1045-1046 ( designers). Softexture Yarns, Inc. and Robert Blakely Softexture Yarns, Inc. and Theodore D. Freeman. Cases Nos. 22-CA-356 and 22-CA-359. August 23, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On December 30, 1959, Trial Examiner Ramey Donovan issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' 1 Because in our opinion the record , exceptions , and brief adequately set forth the issues and position of the parties , the Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied. 128 NLRB No. 106.