A. Overholt Co., Inc.

A. OVERHOLT COMPANY, INC. 837 the nature of the conduct engaged in by them , indicating strong hostility to the efforts of the employees of Respondent Southland to organize and an attempt to interfere generally with the rights guaranteed employees by the Act , the under- signed will recommend that the Respondents cease and desist not only from the conduct found herein to be illegal but from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees of Southland in their right to self- organization' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America , CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. 2. L. L. Levinson and W. R Strickland are employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 3. Southland Manufacturing Company, L L. Levinson , and W. R. Strickland by interfering with, restraining , and coercing the employees of Southland Manu- facturing Company in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act have engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 5. The Respondent Southland Manufacturing Company has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act by discharging Mandy Parker or by refusing to employ or reemploy Mary Beasley Sawyer. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume ] Is See May Department Stores v. N. L. R. B., 326 U. S. 376. A. OVERHOLT COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS, OF AMERICA , LOCAL 269 , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 6-/IC-78!x. -3f ay 24,1951. Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed 1 under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil E. Narick, hear- ing 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3 The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct name of the Employer. 94 NLRB No 116. 838 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. Since 1942 the Employer has recognized the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees at its warehousing and whiskey bottling plant at Large, Pennsylvania. Contracts ne- gotiated from time to time by the parties have specifically excluded, inter alias, office clerical employees. The Petitioner now seeks to represent office clerical employees in a separate appropriate unit. The Employer contends that its existing contract with the Petitioner, ex- ecuted December 5, 1950, for a term of 1 year with an automatic renewal clause, which specifically excludes office clerical employees from coverage, constitutes a bar to the instant petition. The Em- ployer further urges that the same labor organization may not appro- priately represent both production and maintenance employees and office clerical employees. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, neither the express exclusion of office clerical employees from the contract for produc- tion and maintenance employees,2 nor the Petitioner's representation of its production and maintenance employees precludes the Petitioner's representation of office clerical employees in a separate appropriate unit.3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, subject to its contention set forth in paragraph numbered 3, above, and the Petitioner agree that office clerical em- ployees at the Employer's warehousing and whiskey bottling plant at Large, Pennsylvania, excluding professional and confidential em- ployees and supervisors, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The parties are in disagreement as to the status of Virginia N. Ma- halic and Lucille Glover. The Employer contends that they are con- fidential employees. The Petitioner disagrees. The Employer maintains its administrative offices in New York City and operates two plants, one located at Large, Pennsylvania, and the other about 32 miles distant at Broad Ford, Pennsylvania. Only employees at its Large plant are directly concerned in this pro- ceeding. Through its vice president in charge of labor relations and production, the Employer determines its labor relations policy for both plants and the negotiation of its labor contracts. A "resident manager," with offices at the Broad Ford plant, is the effectuating officer of the labor relations policy for both the Large and Broad Ford plants. He is one of the negotiating officers of the labor con- 'Philadelphia Company and Associated Companies, 84 NLRB 115 ; The Baltimore Transat Company, 92 NLRB 1254. 3 The Ohio Steel Foundry Company, 92 NLRB 683. A. OVERHOLT COMPANY, INC. 839, tracts. The plant superintendent does not formulate labor relations policy, but in the past has participated in negotiation meetings and_ is the effectuating officer of labor relations policy at the Large plant level. The personnel and safety manager, with offices at the Broad Ford plant, participates in the negotiation of labor contracts and._ serves both plants, acting in an advisory capacity in labor relations. matters. He spends 2 days per week at the Large plant. Mahalic is the personnel clerk at the Large plant. She is under the direction of the plant superintendent and the chief clerk 4 in the absence of the personnel and safety manager. She prepares notices of hire, transfer, and discharge of employees, conducts preliminary interviews of applicants for work in the absence of the personnel and safety manager; prepares weekly interview reports, safety re- ports, and assists in the handling of group insurance details. She has complete charge of personnel records at the Large plant. She serves as secretary to the personnel and safety manager on the days that he spends at the Large plant, taking such dictation as may be necessary, including matters relating to grievances. Mahalic does not sit in on grievance meetings nor does she have access to infor- mation pertaining to labor relations policy other than the personnel files. Glover acts as secretary to the plant superintendent and the chief clerk at the Large plant. She takes dictation, transcribes letters, pre- pares monthly reports, and keeps records relating to plant operations,. production, and sales. On infrequent occasions, she takes dictation from the plant superintendent relating to grievances. She has no- access to personnel or labor relations data. During vacation of the chief clerk, or temporary absence from the office, she serves as acting chief clerk and assigns work in routine to otFier office employees. The- chief clerk has no authority to hire or discharge employees, such au- thority resting in the plant superintendent. We find that Mahalic, who serves both as personnel clerk and as secretary to the personnel and safety manager at the Large plant, is a confidential employee and is excluded as such from the unit. On the basis of the facts as disclosed from the entire record herein, we are not persuaded that Glover serves in a confidential capacity to any mana- gerial official who formulates and effectuates labor relations policy, and therefore we find that she is not a confidential employee within our meaning of that term. We shall include her in the unit .5 Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer- constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All office clerical * The chief clerk is also known in the record as the office manager. Phillips Oil Company, 91 NLRB 534 ; B. F. Goodrich Company, 92 NLRB 575. 840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees at the Employer's warehousing and whiskey bottling plant at Large, Pennsylvania, excluding professional and confidential em- ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] THE DAYTON COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 292, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 18-R'C-975. May 24, 1951 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 Clarence A. Meter, 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-mem- ber panel. [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Mur- dock]. 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 representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner desired to be certified as the bargaining representa- tive of a unit composed of all employees of the Employer engaged in the installation, service, and repair of radio and television receivers, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer declines to recognize the Petitioner until it is certified by the Board, apparently contending that it is improper to allow the requested unit without including therein the employees in the major appliance service and repair department. The Employer operates a department store in downtown Minne- apolis. In addition, the Employer has three warehouses : The Currie Avenue warehouse, the Third Avenue warehouse, and the Olson Ave- nue service garage, which are located, respectively, 8 blocks, 29 blocks, and 16 blocks from the department store. The unit which the Pe- titioner wishes to represent is located in the Currie Avenue ware- 94 NLRB No. 127.