Standard Oil Co. (Indiana)

282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-LABOR RELATIONS BOARD some were carried on in the presence of supervisors, who raised no objection to their conduct. Under these circumstances, we find that the conduct of Game and Newsome tended to prevent a choice of representatives in a free atmosphere. We are also convinced that, even though the supervisors were at some distance from the actual polling place, and apparently said nothing calculated to restrain or coerce the employees, their presence in the area where the employees were gathered while waiting to vote tended to interfere with the employees' freedom of choice of a bargain- ing agent. In particular, we regard as improper Galloway's conduct in walking back and forth in the space which the employees were re- quired to traverse to go to the polling place. In view of the above findings, we believe that the purposes of the Act will best be effectuated by setting the election aside. When the Regional Director advises the Board that the circumstances permit the free choice of a bargaining representative, we shall direct that a new election be held among the employees concerned. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the election held on April 6, 1951, among the employees of Belk's Department Store of Savannah, Georgia, Inc., be, and it hereby is, set aside. STANDARD OIL COMPANY (INDIANA) and CENTRAL STATES PETROLEUM UNION LOCAL 115, AFFILIATED WITH CENTRAL STATES PETROLEUM UNION9 NATIONAL,1 PETITIONER. Case. No. 14-RC-1620. February 25, 1952 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 Milton O. Talent, 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 Herzog and Members Houston 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. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer reserved for Board decision the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the alleged unit was inappropriate in that it purported to include confidential employees . We find no merit in this motion and it is hereby denied. 98 NLRB No. 34. STANDARD OIL COMPANY (INDIANA) 283 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 and the Employer stipulated that the following unit is appropriate for collective bargaining : All office and clerical employees at the Employer's Wood River, Illinois, refinery, excluding all other employees, confidential em- ployees,3 guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The parties disagree however as to whether certain employees should be excluded from the unit as confidential employees within the meaning of Board decisions. Specifically, the Petitioner would include, and the Employer would exclude, certain named employees who perform secretarial, stenographic, or clerical services for divi- sion superintendents and three employees in the industrial relations division. Secretary, stenographer, or clerk to division superintendents :4 The record discloses that the division superintendents, among other things, assist top management in the negotiation of collective bar- gaining contracts; occasionally attend bargaining sessions; make recommendations concerning union contract proposals; suggest con- tract revisions and proposals; furnish top management with requested information necessary in the negotiation and administration of col- lective bargaining agreements; adjust grievances; and bargain with the Petitioner as employer representatives during the term of the collective agreement concerning matters not specifically covered therein and sign the concluded supplementary agreements. We find that the division superintendents exercise managerial functions in the field of labor relations and that the employees involved herein who act in a confidential capacity, performing secretarial, stenographic, and clerical services for them are confidential employees. We shall therefore exclude them from the unit. Employees in the industrial relations division: It appears that one disputed employee, Gloria Galeaz, performs the same confidential services as employee Emerick, whom the parties have agreed to exclude. We shall therefore also exclude Galeaz. The other two employees in dispute are B. Bosich and Theresa Roberts. The record discloses that Bosich is a clerk in the plans ' In agreement with the parties , we shall exclude Josephine Stahoviak , secretary to the refinery manager, and D. Emerick , secretary, industrial relations division, as confidential employees, and Walter,.J Blakeley , who we find has supervisory and confidential functions. 4 Mary E. Claussen , secretary, office manager ; Helen Stevenson , stenographer, chief engineer ; Joy Wolff, clerk, superintendent mechanical division ; Bonnie Grammer, stenog- rapher, superintendent heavy oils division ; :Mary Henkhaus , stenographer, superintendent light oils division , Norman Elrod, secretary, chief chemist. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and benefit, personnel section of the industrial relations division, and merely has access to information concerning the hiring of employees, the administration of various benefit plans, and line supervisors' re- ports of employees' job performance which have promotional im- portance. Roberts is a stenographer in the safety section which ad- vises management on safety programs and handles workmen's com- pensation claims and related matters. We find that, as Bosich and Roberts do not assist or act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate and effectuate labor relations policy, they are not confi- dential employees within the Board's definition of the term.5 Ac- cordingly, we shall include them in the unit. We find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Wood River, Illinois, refinery, excluding all other employees, con- fidential employees, guards, and professional employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 6 Cf. Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co., 92 NLRB 711, 712-713; Phillips Oil Company, 91 NLRB 534, 538-539. The Employer would also exclude as confidential certain other positions not now filled nor intended to be filled in the near future . We find it unnecessary to make any determination with respect to these positions. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION AND LOCAL 19, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION and CLARENCE PURNELL AND ALBERT G. CRUM WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS OF WASHINGTON, AND ITS EMPLOYER MEMBERS and ALBERT G. CRUM AND CLARENCE PURNELL LUCKENBACH STEAMSHIP COMPANY, INC. and CLARENCE PURNELL ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY and CLARENCE PURNELL ROTHSCHILD-INTERNATIONAL STEVEDORING COMPANY and CLARENCE PURNELL ALASKA TERMINAL AND STEVEDORING Co. and CLARENCE PURNELL TAIT STEVEDORING CO., INC. and CLARENCE PURNELL. Cases Nos. 19-CB-38,19-CB-69, 19-CA-2920,19-CA-299, 19-CA-227, 19-CA- 098, 19-CA-230, 19-CA-256, and 19-CA-257. Febriwry 26, 1952 Decision and Order On April 6, 1951, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his Intermediate Report finding, inter alia, that the Respondent Water- *See Notice to Show Cause, 101 NLRB No . 53, and Supplemental Decision and Order Amending and Clarifying Certain Findings in the Decision and Order of February 26, 1952, 101 NLRB No. 151. 98 NLRB No. 44.