E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Co., 792 (1974)
E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company and Chemical Workers Association, Inc. Case 4-CA-6500 FINDINGS OF FACT
JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD March 19, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On November 30, 1973, Administrative Law Judge George J. Bott issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, General Counsel and the Charging Party filed exceptions and supporting briefs, and Respondent filed a brief supporting the Decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings, and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
GEORGE J. BoTT, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge of unfair labor practices filed by Chemical Workers Association (Union) on July 5, 1973,i agamstE. I. DuPont De Nemours and Company (Respondent or Company), the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint on August 31, 1973, alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, by informing the Union that draftsmen would be assigned more advanced work and granted salary increases if they were excluded from the clerical unit represented by the Union. Respondent filed an answer and a hearing was held before me at Wilmington, Delaware, on October 17, 1973, at which all parties were represented. Briefs have been received from the parties and have been considered.
Upon the entire record in the case and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:
Respondent, a Delaware corporation, with its principal office and place of business at Wilmington, Delaware, is engaged in the manufacture of chemicals at its Chambers Works in Deepwater, New Jersey, the facility involved in this proceeding.
During the year prior to the issuance of the complaint,
Respondent shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 from its Chambers Works directly to customers located outside the State of New Jersey.
Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES The Chambers Works employs approximately 6,800 persons, approximately 4,800 of whom have been represented by the Union for over 30 years in separate production and maintenance and clerical units. There are about 400 employees in the clerical unit, and the draftsmen, although not specifically mentioned by classification, have been represented by the Union and covered by the Union's clerical unit contract for 20 years or more.
The approximately 42 draftsmen in the clerical unit are the highest paid of the 4,800 union-represented employees in the plant, and they are also the only bargaining unit employees under a merit system. Draftsmen are the only employees in the clerical unit who perform nonclerical type work.
According to the uncontradicted and credited testimony of Works Engineer McKay, who is responsible for designing and maintaining the plant, Respondent's design group is principally composed of project engineers, supported by the draftsmen. Draftsmen are the only bargaining unit employees in the design group.2
McKay testified that Respondent has during the last few years restructured the engineering department along product lines in order to create a more efficient work force.
It has also been McKay's goal to have the draftsmen work more closely with the engineers, and recently they have been physically integrated into the design group in an effort to make them a part of a team effort.
The design group at the Chambers Works has the capacity to handle about $12 million worth of work a year, and anything in excess of that amount is normally 'farmed out' to DuPont's central engineering department. McKay said, however, that the forecast for design work to be done at the plant in 1973 was in the $50 million range, and Respondent's central engineering department was not fully available to do all this work because it was overloaded with work from other plants. As a consequence, pressure was 1 The charge was amended on August 8 and again on August 30, 1973. department for preparation of drawings for use by the construction 2 A project engineer is in charge and responsible for an entire project. department Having prepared a 'scope of work order,' he transmits it to the drafting 209 NLRB No. 122
E. I DUPONT DE NEMOURS...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP