The Murray Ohio Manufacturing Co.

In the Matter of THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL- TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), LOCAL 65 Case No. 8-R-1743.-Decided March 27,1945 Jones, Day, Cockley c Reevis, by Messrs. Thomas F. Veach and George D. Bonebrake, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Company. Mr. Herbert J. Pap pin, of Cleveland, Ohio, and Mr. Anthony Bell, of Euclid, Ohio, for the Union. Mr. A. Summer Lawrence, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by International Union, United Automo- bile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), Local 65, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, herein called the Com- pany,' the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro- priate hearing upon due notice before Arthur Stark, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Cleveland, Ohio, on January 26 and 29, 1945, and February 2, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file briefs with the Board. The Company's motion to dismiss is hereby denied for reasons hereinafter stated. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : 1 The name of the Company which was incorrectly set forth in the petition and other formal papers as "Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company," was amended without objec- tion at the hearing by adding the word "The" to the name of the Company as previously set forth herein. 61 N. L. R. B., No. 5. 47 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged at its plant in Cleveland, Ohio, in the manufacture of war products for the United States Government. During the past year, the Company used at its Cleveland plant, raw materials valued at approximately $5,000,000, of which more than 30 percent was shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period, the Company sold finished products valued at more than $10,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was shipped to points out- side the State of Ohio. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Local 65, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem- -bership employees of the Company. a III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On January 2, 1945, the Union addressed a letter to the Company requesting recognition as bargaining representative for certain em- ployees of the Company. The Company declined to grant the Union's request for recognition. The Company contends that the Union is not a proper party to represent the clerical and technical employees herein concerned for the reason that it is already the contract representative of the Company's production and maintenance employees. The Company further con- tends that the Union is barred from representing the Company's cler- ical and technical employees by reason of its contract with the Com- pany covering the production and maintenance employees, wherein it agreed that it would not solicit for membership any employees ex- cluded from the production and maintenance unit. We find such contentions to be without merit.2 A statement by a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced in evi- dence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.' 2 See Matter of The Babcock & Wilcox Co., 52 N. L. R. B. 900'; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 60 N. L R B 324. 'The Field Examiner reported that the Union had submitted -49 designations dated between August 1941 and January 1945, including 36 designations dated December 1944, and 9 dated January 1945, of which designations 41 bore the names of employees on the Company's pay roll of January 12, 1945, containing the names of 67 employees in the claimed appropriate unit. THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 49 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union contends that all clerical and technical employees in the factory office and general office, including employees in the tabulating, accounting, time study, sales, engineering, drafting, inspection, and purchasing departments and employees known as schedule clerks, production clerks, lead-off inspectors, shipping and receiving clerks, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire or discharge or effectively recommend such action, constitute an appro- priate unit. While the Company agrees that technical and clerical employees may be combined in a single appropriate unit, it contends that numerous individuals should be excluded therefrom upon the ground that they are either confidential or supervisory employees. The employees in question will be considered in relation to the de- partments in which they are employed. Accounting Department Of the 17 employees in this department, including the pay-roll de- partment, it is agreed by the parties that 3 employees should be ex- cluded as having supervisory authority' The remaining 14 employ- ees in this department concerning whom a dispute exists comprise the following individuals : S. J. Walters occupies the position of accounts payable clerk. His work consists of checking and matching invoices and recording in- voices in the ledgers. While he has no access to either personnel or labor relations records and is in no way concerned with collective bargaining, the Company contends that he is a'confidential employee by reason of the fact that he certifies bills as proper for payment by the Company. There is, however, nothing to indicate that he has any discretion to commit the Company with respect to the payment thereof. We find that he has neither confidential nor managerial duties with respect to his employment by the Company, and since he hasp no supervisory authority, we shall include him within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. B. Mackley is a material cost clerk whom the Company claims is a confidential employee. The work of this employee, which is essen- tially a bookkeeping function, consists of posting records of various A These employees are by name , E. H Hartnagel, E. L Steingerwald , and w. W Porter. Since all three have authority to recommend changes in the status of employees , we shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD materials purchased by the Company. The evidence is undisputed to the effect that he has no supervisory authority and has no ' access to personnel or labor relations information. While his work may in- volve knowledge of facts which the Company considers confidential from a business and financial point of view, this circumstance is in- sufficient to establish a confidential relationship to management.5 We find, contrary to the contention of the Company, that Mackley does not enjoy a confidential status. We shall, accordingly, include him within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Mrs. E. Parsons operates the bookkeeping machine, makes invoices, and enters orders. Mrs. U. Nicolai operates a comptometer and is in the same position as Mrs. E. Parsons so far as the general nature of her duties is concerned. The Company contends that both are con- fidential employees, although neither has access to personnel records. We find that they have no confidential relationship to the Company and shall, accordingly, include them in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Miss I. Bliss is a stenographer and takes dictation from the factory manager and treasurer regarding employees under their respective jurisdictions. Such dictation concerns promotions, demotions, wage increases and other personnel matters. She also types all confiden- tial statements from the accounting department to the board of di- rectors. The. Company contends that she should be excluded from the unit as a confidential employee. We are of the opinion that the Company's position is well taken. We find that this employee oc- cupies, in substance, the position of private secretary by reason of which she obtains advance knowledge of the Company's position re-' garding confidential matters pertaining to labor relations. Accord- ingly, we shall exclude her from the unit hereinafter found appropriate 6 Allen Fowler is assistant to the head of the pay-roll department, a subdivision of the accounting department. The Company contends that he is both a supervisory and a confidential employee. The evi- dence discloses that his duties consist of operating tabulating ma- chines and handling records relating to costs and pay rolls. While he has access to records of weekly' wages, rates of pay and similar in- formation of non-salaried employees, he does not have access to per-, sonnel records or information pertaining to labor relations.7 More= over, although he may occasionally substitute for the head of the pay- roll department in the latter's absence by reason of illness or vacation, 5 See Matter of The Babcock & Wilcov Co., 52 N. L. R. B. 900. 6 See Matter of American Can Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 530; Matter of The Hoover Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 1321. 7 The Board has held that mere access to information relating to the earnings of other employees does not establish a confidential status with respect to management. See Matter of Todd Johnson Dry Docks, Inc., 54 N. L. R. B. 1362: THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 51 and at such times, may by virtue of his position recommend the hire or discharge of employees, there is nothing in the record to indicate that he acts in a supervisory capacity at any specified times or that opportunities so to act occur with any degree of frequency. Further evidence of his non-supervisory status appears in the fact that he does' not attend foremen's meetings provided by the Company for the in- struction of its supervisory personnel. We are of the opinion that the sporadic and infrequent occasions for exercising supervisory authority hereinabove referred to are insufficient to establish Fowler as a super- visory employee within the meaning of our usual definition.8 Further- more, in the absence of any access by this employee to the personnel records or other evidence indicating- advance knowledge on his part of the Company's position in matters concerning its labor relations, we are of the opinion that such employee does not enjoy a confidential relationship to management.' We shall, accordingly, include him within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. B. Coski is a pay-roll clerk who checks time cards as they come to the pay-roll department to see that the figures thereon are consistent. His assistant, H. Heil, has the present task, together with other minor clerical duties, of distributing pay-roll checks to the hourly-rated employees. The Company contends that Coski is a supervisory em- ployee. While it appears that Heil receives instruction from Coski, there is no evidence that Coski has any authority to recommend any change in the status of Heil as an employee of the Company. Both Coski and Heil have access to information concerning individual pay rolls used in the preparation of pay-roll checks. The Company also contends that by reason thereof, both Coski and Heil are in the posi- tion of confidential employees. Since, however, as hereinabove in- dicated, mere access to records of weekly wages and similar pay-roll information regarding employees is insufficient to establish a confi- dential status from the point of view of eligibility to bargain col- lectively,10 we find that neither Coski nor Heil occupies a confidential status. We further find that Coski is not a supervisory employee within the meaning of our usual definition. Accordingly, we shall include both employees within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Mrs. Ann Cain is an experienced calculating machine operator engaged in computing employees' earnings, compiling department pay rolls, handling and reporting pay-roll deductions and compiling pay- 8 See Matter of United States Smelting, Refinting and Mining Companj, 53 N L. R B. 84; Matter of Goodman Manufacturing Company, 58 N L. R B. 531 9 See Matter of General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Dn,ision, 53 N. L. R. B. 1096. 10 See footnote 8. Cf. Matter of The Imperial Electric Company, 59 N L R B 150, cited by the Company, but distinguishable upon the ground that the employees therein referred to as the "supervisor of time and personel and his assistant," had, in addition to pay-roll duties, definite responsibilities to the Company with respect to collective bargaining together with access to all personnel files of the Company. 52 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD roll statistics. The Company contends that she is a supervisory employee. Mrs. Agnes Copeland, Miss K. Kramer, Miss B. Sullivan, Miss J. Mallios, and Miss L. S. Ferry, are comptometer operators and key punch operators whom the Company claims are confidential em- ployees. The work of all these employees involves the handling of the same records relating to wages and similar information. None of these employees have access to personnel or labor relations records and none of them have supervisory authority. We find that these employees do not possess a confidential relation to management; ac- cordingly, we shall include them within the unit.11 Production Department The work of this department is to facilitate the manufacture of all the Company's products. Of the 11 employees in this department, the parties are agreed upon the exclusion of lead-off men as super- visory employees 12 The remaining 8 employees in this department, concerning whom a dispute exists, comprise the following individuals. W. Ziegler fills out orders for raw materials, follows requisitions through and keeps the three lead-off men informed as to when raw -materials will be available so that they can plan their schedules ac- cordingly. He likewise keeps all records of weights and furnishes the material cost clerk with certain information that is required in computing material costs. While he works under the direct super- vision of the vice president of the Company and coordinates his activ- ities with those of the lead-off man, he admittedly has no supervisory authority to effect or recommend changes in the status of other em- ployees. The Company contends that he is a confidential employee by reason of the fact that he has access to information regarding orders for new products and schedules for the production of these products. There is, however, nothing in the record to indicate that he has access to any information on the subject of personnel or labor relations. We find that he is not a confidential employee and shall include him within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. S. Zivanchev is a purchase follow-up man who works with finished material only and whose duty it is to see that forgings, screw machine parts, and other items used in the manufacture of the Company's products arrive on schedule when needed. The Company, although admitting that he has no supervisory authority, contends that he is a confidential employee. While it apears that he has access to records concerning orders and purchases, there is no evidence that he has " See Matter of Hudson Motor Car Company, 55 N. L R: B. 509. 12 The lead-off men are by name S. J . Kazmir, H L. Bateman , and R. T Burns. Since it appears that these individuals have substantial supervisory duties with respect to other employees , we shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 53 - opportunity in the normal course of his employment to acquire advance information regarding the Company's position in matters relating to labor relations.13 C. W. Scott performs duties similar to those of Zivanchev and is equally without supervisory or confidential duties of the type hereinabove, referred to. We find, contrary to the Company's contention, that they are not confidential employees and we shall, therefore, include them within the unit. M. Herzak, J. Rohier, and TV. Baumgart perform the same type of duties and are officially described as "departmental production control supervisors." The Company contends that these employees have substantial supervisory duties and should therefore be excluded from the unit herein concerned. The evidence reveals' that, notwithstand- ing the supervisory title hereinabove referred to, these employees perform the duties of schedule clerks, including the scheduling of work and the keeping of records of what has been ordered and pro- duced. The record does not establish that they have authority effec- tively to recommend changes in the status of other employees.14 We find that these employees do not have supervisory duties within the customary definition thereof. We shall, accordingly, include them within the unit hereinafter found appropriate. M. Wooten keeps records of maintenance dies, and schedules work to correspond with production. The Company contends that he is a confidential and supervisory employee. The record discloses that he issues instructions as to the disposal of dies and works in coopera- tion with the foreman; that he also attends foremen's meetings spon- sored by the Company and has two men working under his direction. The employee himself testified that on two different occasions he had made recommendations for wage increases which were effected by the Company. While there is no evidence to support a finding that he enjoys a confidential relationship to management with respect to labor relations, we find that he is a supervisory employee. J. Mc- Carthy does the same type of work as Wooten, considered above, but on a different shift. While he does not attend foremen's meetings and there is no affirmative evidence that he has authority to make recom- mendations with respect to the status of employees, we find, in view 13 The possibility that this employee may, by his location in the office building overhear confidential conversations between the lead -off man and others in his department is im- material where such opportunity does not arise by reason of any duty connected with his, employment. 14 The Company's labor relations manager testified that he "imagined" that these three employees would have authority to recommend the discharge of various stock chasers, described as material progress men who assist them in their work However, the witness was unable to state whether or not these particular schedule clerks had been instructed that they had such authority, or whether they had ever made recommendations of this character. The witness further stated that he did not know whether the immediate supervisor of such employees would definitely act upon the recommendations made by the employees above mentioned There is no evidence that any recommendations by these employees have ever been put into effect by higher management officials of the Company 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of his comparable duties, that this employee has substantial super- visory authority. We shall, accordingly, exclude both Wooten and McCarthy from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Material Progress Department The function of this department is to supervise the progress of materials. The seven men in this department, referred to as material progress men, perform substantially the same duties. The Company contends that they are supervisory and also confidential employees. The evidence reveals that the work of these employees consists of seeing that the material goes through according to schedule and also checking the time tickets filled out by a machine operator to see that an operator is not paid on a piece work basis during the time that he is operating on day-rate work. The employees herein concerned are of a type generally known as checkers. They have access to production records but not to records relating to personnel or labor relations. While it appears that these employees occasionally act in a supervisory capacity with respect to certain laborers in the moving of materials, the record indicates that the checkers as a group do not regularly supervise other employees of the Company. We find that these men do not perform confidential duties and are not supervisory employees within the meaning of our usual definition. We shall in- clude them in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 15 Inspection Department Of the approximately 97 employees in this department, only 9 em- ployees in the classification of lead-off inspector, together with an employee in the capacity of secretary, are the subject of dispute be- tween the parties 16 The Company, contends that lead-off inspectors are supervisory employees aid should therefore be excluded from the unit to be determined herein. The evidence reveals that lead-off inspectors have charge of the regular departmental inspectors, of whom as many as 13 may be under the supervision of a single lead-off inspector. The lead-off inspector will check to see that the regular inspectors have reported for work and are working at their assigned locations. If a regular inspector 'b The Board has frequently included checkers in units of clerical employees. Matter of Armour and Company, 54 N. L. R. B 1462. '° The Union and the Company are agreed that A Hoffman and F. Kalenski, chief inspector and foreman of inspectors respectively, should be excluded from the unit herein concerned The remaining inspectors , known as floor and final inspectors , are included under the existing contract covering the Company s production and maintenance emploN ees We find that the chief inspector and the foreman of inspectors are supervisory employees within the meaning of our usual definition . Accordingly, we shall exclude such super- visory employees from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 55 is absent, the lead-off inspector will transfer another man to the posi- tion of the absent employee. Lead-off inspectors have authority to send a man home for intoxication or other misconduct and have done so when the occasion required it. They also have authority to re- port to their superiors whether or not an employee under their super- vision is satisfactory. They attend foremen's meetings at which supervisory techniques are discussed. Regular inspectors receive all their orders from lead-off inspectors. We are of the opinion that lead- off inspectors have substantial supervisory duties. We shall, accord- ingly, exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. The remaining dispute with respect to this department concerns a secretary whom the Company claims is a confidential employee. 17 The record discloses that this employee, who is private secretary to the chief inspector, takes all the latter's dictation, including reports with respect to employees in his department and on grievances. In addi- tion thereto, it appears that she has access to memoranda on the pro- posed disposition of grievances prior to the disclosure of the Company's position with respect thereto, and also has advance knowledge of disciplinary lay-offs by reason of the fact that she handles all clearance slips prepared by the chief inspector as part of the lay-off procedure. We find that she enjoys a confidential relationship to management and shall therefore exclude her from the unit herein- after found appropriate. . The Purchasing Department The only dispute with respect to this department 18 concerns an em- ployee by the name of W. Banas. This employee,, whom the Com- pany contends is a managerial and supervisory employee, holds the position of assistant purchasing agent, handles priorities, and buys all miscellaneous items required in the plant. He works next to and under the direction of G. Barlow, the purchasing agent, and substi- tutes as a purchasing agent whenever the latter is absent from the office.19 The work of Banas consists for the most part in contacting people outside the Company and handling solicitors who come to the Company seeking orders. His responsibilities with respect to pur- chases include the right to commit the Company to the price of items which he is authorized to purchase. During normal times, he super- vises the work of three or four female employees in the- purchasing "Mrs L. Parsons. 1s The Company, although originally opposing the inclusion of Mrs B. Horen, a clerical employee in this department , admitted at the hearing and in its brief, that this employee does not perform duties of a supervisory or confidential nature. We shall, accordingly, include her in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 11 The assistant sales manager who testified concerning the duties of Banas estimated that the purchasing agent was absent about one-third of the time. 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD department. His supervisory authority includes the right to recom- mend the hiring of employees for his department, which authority he has exercised upon occasion. We find that Banas, by virtue of his supervisory and managerial duties, should be excluded from the unit; we shall exclude him. Sales and Service Department This department is mostly concerned with civilian sales which now constitute only approximately 1 percent of the Company's total sales. The employees concerning whom a dispute exists comprise the follow- ing individuals : Miss M. E. Foley directs in normal times a staff of approximately two female employees engaged in the answering of correspondence. Incidental to such position she has the right at such times to recom- mend the hire and discharge of employees. In addition to super- visory duties, she also makes up confidential reports for the president and vice president, which reports are accessible only to the highest company officials. The evidence indicates that she acts, at times in the capacity of private secretary to the assistant sales manager and vice president of the Company who indirectly handles matters con- cerning labor relations. We find that, by virtue of her position as private secretary to higher management officials she has confidential duties which together with her supervisory responsibilities, warrant her exclusion from the unit hereinafter found appropriate; we shall exclude her. Mrs. H. Patterson is a stenographer in the, sales department where she takes the dictation of the sales manager regarding sales to civilian customers. While she has access to all records in the sales depart- ment, there is no evidence that she has access to personnel or other labor relations material or that she takes dictation with reference thereto. The Company contends that she is a confidential employee but does not claim that she has supervisory authority or that she directs the work of other employees. We find that she does not enjoy a con- fidential relationship to management in matters concerning labor re- lations. Accordingly, we shall include her in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Miss Kilrain and Mrs. L. Ada' nowicz are typists who, in the per- formance of routine clerical jobs, make invoices, enter service orders, and handle contact work with respect to price communications between a supervisory employee in the accounting department and the service manager in the sales and service department. While they have access to information regarding prices, the record does not indicate that they have confidential knowledge concerning the labor relations of the Com- pany. We find, contrary to the Company's - contention, that these THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 57 employees do not possess a confidential relationship to management. We shall, accordingly, include them in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. ° Time-study Department The three employees in this department, all of whom are known as time-study men,20 do similar work and report to a common supervisory in the department. The Company contends that time-study men are supervisory employees and possess a confidential status with respect to management. The evidence reveals that the time-study men herein concerned set rates paid to machine operators as the result of time studies made with respect to the operation of different machines. In addition thereto, it appears that at grievance meetings held regarding such rates, time-study men sit in as representatives of management. Inasmuch as the time-study men set wage rates and participate in bar- gaining conferences, we find that they are managerial employees bear- ing a confidential relationship to the Company in matters concerning labor relations.21 We shall exclude time-study men from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Design Drafting Department The Company contends that the three design lay-out engineers 22 the one detail draftsman 23 in this department under the supervision of Herman Kraeft, chief engineer, should be excluded from the unit as supervisory and confidential employees. The function of the design lay-out engineers is to break down a proposed product into its various parts and set up the design by which it may be produced. The detail draftsman makes working drawings of the parts in detail after the design lay-out engineers have finished their general design . While it appears that all four employees have access to information important to the Company from a business point of view, there is nothing to in- dicate that they have confidential knowledge concerning labor relations or that they are in any respect supervisory employees. We shall, accordingly, include them in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.24 Methods Division of Engineering Department This division plans the progress of work and methods of producing individual parts and the assembly of parts. It also supplies the 20 The time-study men comprise the following individuals : C. E Specht , J. Henkel, and B W. Parsons 21 See Matter of Oliver Farm Equipment Company, 53 N. L R B. 1078 ; Matter of Armour and Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1462 ; Matter of The Yale & Towne Manufacturing Company, 60 N. L. R. B. 626. 22 E. A. Hahn, A. Neuman, E. Lofgren. 21 R. B. Ezekial. 24 See Matter of Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, 55 N. L. R. B. 1491. 58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD machines necessary for the manufacture of the parts. The four em- ployees in this department whom the Company contends should be excluded as supervisory, managerial, or confidential employees are as follows : William Long is a licensed industrial engineer who plans the ma- chinery operations and the movement of parts through the factory. He decides what heat treating and special machinery are necessary and also investigates possible sources of special items. He interviews manufacturers of these machines and recommends the purchase of such machines. While he may not directly commit the Company to the purchase of machinery, his recommendations with respect to the purchase of such machinery are invariably followed by the head 'of the department without further investigation.25 We find that by virtue of his responsibilities to the Company in the planning of op- erations and the purchase of machine equipment, this employee has substantial managerial duties, by reason whereof we shall exclude him from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. S. Lo f tleld, although not a licensed industrial engineer, plans the fabrication of parts and assemblies and does work similar to that of Long, except that he has jurisdiction over the fabrication, whereas Long has jurisdiction over the movement of parts and machinery. His work includes the interviewing of manufacturers and the making of recommendations as to the purchase of machinery. We find that, like Long, he has substantial managerial duties which warrant his exclusion from the appropriate unit; we shall exclude him. Miss Steinbock is a typist and clerk in the Drafting and Methods Engineering Departments. She keeps the records of the purchase of machines and also does the necessary typing for the Time-Study De- partment. While she has access to records concerning costs and methods of operations, there is nothing in the record to indicate that she has access to labor relations records, or that she does stenographic work or typing in connection with personnel matters. We find, con- trary to the contention of the Company, that she possesses no confi- dential relationship to management and shall, therefore, include her in the unit. Nathan Abrams is a labor cost clerk whose desk is in the Time-Study Department. He is supervised by the Production Engineering Man- ager and handles figures and statistics on labor costs of finished prod- ucts and scrap. He also figures material costs and proposed products. There is no evidence that he supervises any other employees. While he has access to labor cost records, there is nothing to indicate that he has access to information pertaining to labor relations. We find, The evidence also discloses that during the installation of machinery , Long is some- times present and occasionally supervises the factory employees engaged in doing installa- tion work. THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 59 contrary to the Company's contention, that he does not enjoy a con- fidential relationship to management.26 Accordingly, we shall include him within the unit. Production Engineering Department This department, under the supervision of Rudy Skerl, provides the means for producing various parts, dies, fixtures, jigs, and special ma- chines. It works in conjunction with the Methods Department and carries out the programs of the latter. The Company contends that the four employees in his department should be excluded as confi- dential employees.27 The record reveals that all four employees are classified as design draftsmen and perform similar work, consisting of designing tools and fixtures needed to fabricate parts. While they may acquire knowledge of new products to be brought out by the Com- pany, and methods to be used by the Company in developing such prod- ucts, there is nothing to indicate that they have access to personnel rec- ords or have advance knowledge of the Company's position in matters concerning labor relations. It is undisputed that they have no super- visory authority. We find, contrary to the Company's contention, that these employees do not enjoy a confidential relationship to manage- ment. Accordingly, they will be included in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Stock and Receiving Department This department, under the supervision of John Scarl, receives all incoming material and checks to see both that there is no breakage and that the proper number of articles are delivered. The parties are in disagreement as to the inclusion or exclusion from the unit of the fol- lowing individuals : W. R. Stapleton is the receiving clerk and works under the foreman of the department. His work consists of checking invoices, receiving material and inspecting for breakage. In addition thereto, he super- vises at least two laborers who deliver material and may effectively rec- ommend disciplinary action or discharge with respect to the laborers under his supervision. He is on the list to attend, and has attended, foremen's meetings. We find, in agreement with the Company's con- tention, that he is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our usual definition. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the unit. George Catteral, a salaried clerk in the main stockroom, has charge of placing stock and issuing materials upon requisition from other de- partments throughout the plant. He keeps records of all materials that go in or out of the stockroom and does some physical labor. There 29 See Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 52 N. L. R. B 190. 27 These employees are by name, H. Richardson , A. Yates, R. Heeder, and E. De Germinino. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD is no evidence that he has any supervisory duties or that he is a con- fidential employee. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Employment Department This department is in charge of hiring all new employees and is un- der the direction of the employment manager. The dispute in the present instance concerns two individuals. Ann Bevan, although clas- sified as a clerk, interviews and hires upon requisition practically all of the unskilled and female applicants for employment, writes reports with respect to such applicants, and keeps the seniority file used for proposed lay-offs, together with employment and personnel records. Bernice Buckley does clerical work, including the typing of letters from the office of the employment department and has access to all personnel records. We find that both these employees possess a con- fidential relationship to management 28 We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Traffic Department Miss E. Walker, the only employee in this department as to whose status some question was raised at the hearing, is a clerk and typist. The Company admits that she has no supervisory authority and is not a private secretary. The Company also does not claim that she is in the category of a confidential employee, although she may have access to information which the Company considers confidential. We find that she has no supervisory or confidential duties and shall in- clude her in the unit. Telephone Department The `Company contends that the telephone operator 2° should be excluded because she has the opportunity to listen in on confidential telephone conversations between company officials. While it is pos- sible that she may obtain confidential information by such means, we do not regard the possibility as requiring her exclusion from the unit. The record does not indicate that she obtains such information in the normal course of duties. We shall , therefore, include her in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 30 We find that all clerical and technical employees of the Company,31 excluding employees in the Inspection Department , Time-Study De- 28 See Matter of Spicer Manufacturing Corporation, 55 N L . R. B. 1491; Matter of Elec- tric Auto Lite Company, 57 N L. R B 723. 29 Miss L. Fenton 31 See Matter of Hudson Motor Car Company, 55 N. L. R. B 509; Matter of American Can Company, 55 N. L. R B. 530. - 31 Included in the unit are the employees listed in Appendix A. THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY 61 partment, Employment Department, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action,'2 constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec- tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby Dmu 7rEr that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Murray Ohio Manufacturing Company, Cleveland, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula- tion's, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im- mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in per- son at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they, desire to, be represented by International Union, United Automobile, Air- craft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), Local 65, for the purposes of collective bargaining. $' Excluded from the unit are the employees listed in Appendix B. 639678-45-vol. 61-6 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX ACCOUNTING DEPART- MENT S. J. Walters B. Mackley Mrs. E. Parsons Mrs. U. Nicolai Allen Fowler B. Coski H. Heil Mrs. Ann Cain Agnes Copeland K. Kramer B. Sullivan J. Mallios L. S. Ferry PRODUCTIO MENT W. Zeigler S. Zivanchev C. W. Scott M. Herzak J. Rohler W. Baumgart N DEPART- MATERIAL PROGRESS PARTMENT All employees PURCHASING MENT Mrs. B. Horen ACCOUNTING MENT E. H. Hartnagel E. L. Steigerwald' W. W. Porter Miss I. Bliss DE- DEPART- A TELEPHONE OPERATOR Miss L. Fenton SALES AND SERVICE IDE- PARTMENT Mrs. H. Patterson Miss M. Kilrain Mrs. L. Adamowicz DESIGN-DRAFTING DE- PARTMENT E. A. Hahn E. Lofgren A. Neuman R. B. Ezekial METHODS DIVISION OF EN- GINEERING DEPART- MENT Miss Steinbock N. Abrams PRODUCTION ENGINEER- ING DEPARTMENT H. Richardson A. Yates R. Heeder E. DeGerminirio STOCK AND RECEIVING DE- PARTMENT George Catteral TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT Miss E. Walker APPENDIX B DEPART- I INSPECTION DEPARTMENT PRODUCTION DEPART- MENT S. J. Kazmir H. L. Bateman R. R. Burns H. Wooten J. McCarthy Lead-off inspectors Foreman of inspectors Chief inspector PURCHASING DEPART- MENT C. Barlow W. Banas EMPLOYMENT DEPART- MENT All employees THE MURRAY OHIO MANUFACTURING COMPANY SALES AND SERVICE DE- PARTMENT Miss M. E. Foley TIME-STUDY DEPARTMENT All employees DESIGN-DRAFTING PARTMENT Herman Kraeft 63 STOCK AND RECEIVING DE- PARTMENT John Scarl W. R. Stapleton PRODUCTION ENGINEER- ING DEPARTMENT Rudy Skerl DE- METHODS DIVISION OF EN- GINEERING DEPART- MENT Harold Kruger William Long S'. Loftsfield MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For reasons which I expressed in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company , 47 N. L. R. B. 932, and Matter of Federal Motor Truck Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 984, I feel constrained to disagree with the holding in the instant proceeding.