gineering chemistry - ACS Publications - American Chemical Society

---

GINEERING CHEMISTRY S H E D 6Y THE A M E R I C A N C H E M I C A L S O C I E T Y ALTER J. M U R P H Y , EDITOR

Collective Bargaining Unit Recognized HAT appears to be one of the first organizations

,.

W

of employees with strictly professional status recognized by the National Labor Relations Board is the Research and Engineering Professional Employees Association, collective bargaining agent for the professional research and engineering personnel a t the Whiting, Ind., refinery of the Standard Oil Company of Indiana. Official recognition was granted this independent local unit by NLRB on February 29, 1944. It is reported to include nearly all of the 200 nonsupervisory professional employees a t the refinery The history of this movement is extremely interesting. Previous to the formation and recognition by NLRB of the Research and Engineering Professional Employees Association, the professional employeeswere represented by the local (unaffiliated) union of refinery workers, a heterogeneous group of some 5000 refinery employees. This situation developed through recognition of the union in 1937 by the company as the sole collective bargaining agent for all employees. The professional employees failed to contest such action a t that time, but later determined to assume control of their own.collective bargaining privileges. This newly formed collective bargaining unit is not diliated with any outside group. It will be watched closely by others sympathetic and antagonistic to its aims and purposes. The responsibilities of those who are members and especially those who have been chosen as leaders should not be taken lightly; these responsibilities transcend their own individual professional status and well-being. What is done a t Whiting may favorably or adversely affect the trend of thought in all parts of the country on the subject of collective bargaining. We believe that much more can be accomplished of a constructive nature through local bargaining units, such as approved by NLRB a t Whiting, rather than by the formation of any agency national in its scope. We hope no attempt will be made to form a national organization with the attending hazard of attracting labor leaders who will be more interested in personal aggrandizement than in unselfishly serving the best interests of the professional employees of America, including the maintenance and improvement of professional status. Domination by labor leaders is just as bad as domination by management.

.

.. r

.

The record in this case shows that seven control chemists worked a 6-day, 48-hour week and were under the supervision of the chief control chemist. They performed routine tests on and analyses of raw materials coming t o the plant and made frequent checks of the chemical composition of products during the processes of manufacture in order to determine if they complied with standards set by the company and governmental agencies. The company contended that the control chemists were craftsmen with skills comparable to those of draftsmen, yet it was shown that one control chemist was a university graduate with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry and further, that some of his fellow workers had similar educational backgrounds. I n its comments the NLRB stated “the record persuades us that control chemists are more than technicians”. The decision also clears up an important point raised by the company on the matter of the confidential nature of a chemist’s work. Said the board: We agree that research chemists may possess information of a coddentid nature, but it does not appear that thie information concerns labor relations and hence does not require the exclusion of research chemists from the unit. The company cites our decision in the Shell Development Company case in sup ort of ita contention that research chemists should not be inclugd in a unit with control chemists. Our decision in that case i s misconstrued. There we permitted professional employees to indicate whether or not they desired to be included in a bargaining unit with nonprofessional technical employees. We do not regard the two groups we have discussed here to be analogous.

Although the NLRB decision in this case does not discuss the confidential nature of the work of control chemists, it should be pointed out that much of the work of control chemists in industry is of a confidential nature. Very often individuals designated as control chemists are entrusted with secret formulas and are thoroughly familiar with quality standards. The California Spray-Chemical case, like the preceding Shell Development and Monsanto (Everett) cases, enunciates the principle that professional employees have the right to form collective bargaining units of a homogeneous rather than a heterogeneous make-up ; they cannot be included in a heterogeneous group except by their own free choice. “We find, then,” says the board, “that all research chemists, the entomologist, and control chemists, employed a t the Richmond plant of the Company, excluding the chief control chemist, the chief research chemist, and any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.’’

Professional Status for Control Chemists DECISION by the National Labor Relations Board on February 16, 1944 (Case No. 20-R-970) is highly significant in that it clarifies the position of the control chemist in the matter of professional status.

A

289

\

290

INDUSTRIAL A N D E N G I N E E R I N G CHEMISTRY

Why Defer 10,000 Students? N DISCUSSIONS, official and otherwise, conducted

I

in the past few weeks on occupational deferment of chemists and chemical engineers between the ages of 18 and 26, most of the emphasis has centered on the immediate adverse effect on industrial output if such men are drafted en masse into the Combat Army. Very little has been said about students and the teadhing staffs of our technical schools. S o one has attempted to explain why so ridiculously small a quota as 10,000 was selected as a total for students in technical courses who will be deferred. Indeed, not all of this quota has been filled, and no logical explanation of this phenomenon has been forthcoming in face of the fact that most schools had eligible men in excess of their respective quotas. Wholly illogical is a plan, if the present hodge-podge can be dignified by the use of the term “plan”, t o defer a very limited number of students in technical schools, only to funnel them into the Combat Army a t the completion of their scholastic work. If these men are not to be reserved for future industrial production and research, why defer thern a t all? Surely 10,000 students will not provide important financial support to our technical schools and colleges. Indeed, the question of financial support for our private schools can be dealt R ith in much more satisfactory ways. In a great many instances, quotas granted schools have been so small as to force discontinuance of instruction. Where this has happened or shortly will occur, quotas not used should be reassigned. Unless this is done the number actually deferred will be much less than the total agreed upon-namely, 10,000 students. We are advised that such procedure is contemplated. Nothing should be permitted t o prevent the schools from holding the minimum of 10,000 men. Public opinion in the course of time will thoroughly condemn the ineptitude exhibited to date in handling deferment of bona fide technical students. Anything other than a very short war will see industry faced with a complete lack of young technologists and our colleges and universities with teaching personnel greatly depleted and demoralized. Some 100,000 t o 150,000 deferments for technical men in industry, students, and teaching staffs in our science schools will go a long way toward guaranteeing not only military victory, but a postwar era worth waging a global war t o achieve. Do our military authorities actually believe that, with an Army now in excess of 7,000,000, an additional 100,000 to 150,000 young men are absolutely essential to victory? We do not envy those military commanders who must make the decisions in the next few months. Theirs is a grave responsibility. Nevertheless, they must be willing to choose openly between maintaining a high rate of production now and in the next few years, and an immediate increase of 150,000 men in the Armed Forces. Industry, i t is true, has performed production miracles, but it does need highly skilled personnel to accomplish these-not a wand! The issue now is squarely up to the military authorities. Would it not be wiser,

Vol. 36, No. 4

aside from the usual problem of political expediency, for the Armed Forces t o find at least a major portion of the additional young men they claim are vital to winning the war from 900,000 odd between 18 and 26 who are on occupational deferments as farmers3

Industrial and Health Hazards HE Second “War Conference” on Industrial

T

Medicine, Hygiene, and Nursing, to be held in St. Louis, &lay 8 to 14, will examine, according to an advance publicity release, the health hazards presented by the new synthetic rubber industry; radium; solvents; the toxicology of TNT; the possibilities of ari excessive silica dust hazard from the extensive quartz crystal industry which has risen in many areas of the country ; techniques of air sampling in specific reference to the collection of cutting oil mists and of lead fumes; the hazards of exposure to cadmium, etc. One does not need to be a graduate chemist to recognize that such a program is concerned largely with industrial chemicals and their relationship to industria1 health problems. Just how far should h e cliernical manufacturing industry concern itself \T.itli the industrial health angle of its products? Is it a problem that should be dealt with strictly on an all-over industry basis, or should each producer concern liimself only with the immediate problems attending the usc of his particular products of manufacture? Obviously, greater attention must be given to this problem by chemical manufacturers, not only for humanitarian reasons, but for purely selfish reason6 as well. Governmental agencies, federal, state, and local, are becoming increasingly active in formulating regulations covering the sale and use of industrial chemicals and so-called chemical specialties sold directly to the general public. It is of more than passing interest to note that several unions are actively concerning themselves with the question of industrial hazards, and indicate that they will finance research work to determine what is and what is not dangerous to the health of plant workers. A few chemical companies have initiated extensive research programs dealing with industrial health in relationship to the products they manufacture, notably Du Pont’s Haskell Laboratory of Industrial Toxicology. Quite a number of chemical manufacturers, several insurance companies, and manufacturers of safety devices employ highly competent authorities, and the chemical section of the National Safety-Council has done excellent work on industrial health problems peculiar to the chemical industry. It does seem to be the opportune moment, however, to develop an industry approach to the problem. If the industry is able a t all times to present the true facts backed by adequate experimental data, it Y,ill be in a position immediately to combat unjust attacks by n ell-meaning but perhaps too enthusiastic individuals, who, for one reason or another, seek to go to illogical extremes. Here is a possibility of initiating R worthwhile industry program.