Peter Kiewit Sons' Co.

194 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cashiers at each plant . The duties of checkers , cashiers, and shipping clerks are analogous to those of plant clerical em- ployees rather than office clerical or management employees. Under these circumstances , we find nothing in the record to prevent the Petitioner from representing these employees in separate units if the employees select the Petitioner as their bargaining representative. 6 We find that the following units are appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All cashiers , shipping clerks, and storeroom employees at the San Antonio, Texas , brewery of Pearl Brewing Company, excluding production and delivery employees , office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, all other em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All cashiers and shipping clerks at the San Antonio, Texas, brewery of Lone Star Brewing Company, excluding production and delivery employees , office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, all other employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act. 6 [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] $Dr. Pepper Bottling Company , 78 NLRB 1261. 6 The record discloses that Lone Star employs no middlemen or storeroom employees We therefore make no unit determination for this employment category at Lone Star. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTER- NATIONAL UNION, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-1942. July 16, 1953 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 Bernard Marcus, 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 [Members Houston, Styles , and Peter- sonl. 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner and Intervenor (United Gas , Coke and Chemical Workers of America, CIO) seek a unit of hourly 106 NLRB No 30. PETER KIEWIT SONS' CO. 195 paid, nonmanual employees at the Employer's place of business in Portsmouth, Ohio, and project site near Waverly, Ohio., The parties agree generally as to the appropriateness of the unit, except that the Employer would exclude as super- visors certain individuals variously classified,' whom the Petitioner and Intervenor would include, and would exclude as confidential or managerial employees certain other individuals classified as secretaries, interviewers, and lecturers, all of whom at least the Petitioner would include. Alleged Supervisors The Employer is engaged in a multibillion dollar construc- tion project for the Atomic Energy Commission, called the Pike County Atomic Energy Project. The employees work in offices and in the field at various locations throughout the project site, which covers approximately 6 square miles, as well as in Portsmouth, approximately 23 miles away. The Employer has divided the project into 3 units for managerial purposes. Each unit is further divided into divisions under division heads; each division, into branches under chiefs; each branch, into sections under principals; and each section, into groups under seniors. The project, begun in August 1952, has not yet reached full operation. As of May 3, 1953, the Employer had in its employ about 1,200 hourly paid non- manual employees, most of whom were hired before October 1952; of these, about 675 are sought in this proceeding, the rest being professionals primarily. The total number of hourly paid nonmanual employees has steadily been increasing and at peak is expected to reach about 1,800.3 Each of the alleged supervisors has the authority effectively to recommend the promotion, discharge, and/or reward of employees, the power responsibly to direct employees and/or the authority to adjust grievances. Although a limited number of individuals in certain of the classifications in issue may not have been informed of their authority, it would appear that these particular individuals presently are without subordi- nates.4 However, subordinates apparently will be assigned to them in due course. We find that the individuals alleged by 'The unit appears substantially as described in the petition. It is essentially a unit of office and field clerical employees. 2 The Employer contends the following classifications are supervisory: Clerk chief en- gineering, clerk principal engineering, clerk chief general, clerk principal general, depart- ment service supervisor, multilith group leader, NPA chief, office manager assistant, reproduction assistant chief, traffic agent, clerk chief payroll, chief operator, time checker area, timekeeper area, clerk principal accounting, first-aid supervisor, head janitor, chief photographer, storekeeper, clerk stenographer senior, and dispatcher. 3At peak, the Employer expects to employ from 25,000 to 30,000 manual (craft) and nonmanual employees 4The alleged supervisory classifications have been filled first in anticipation of the expanding employment force. 322615 0 - 54 - 14 196 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Employer to be supervisors are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude them ats such.-' Alleged Confidential and Managerial Employees The employees classified as senior secretaryand secretary, in performing the customary duties of their classifications, act in a confidential capacity to the Employer' s unit managers and department or division heads , who develop labor relations policies for the respective units. We find therefore that these secretaries are confidential employees and shall exclude them as such.6 The interviewers screen applicants for employment, ap- praising and classifying their applications and making recom- mendations as to whether or not they be hired . These recom- mendations are passed on by the senior interviewer , who also directs the interviewers in effecting employment of personnel. We find that the senior interviewer is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude him as such . We further find that both the senior interviewer and the interviewers exercise authority and judgment in the hiring process on the Employer's behalf and shall therefore exclude them.? The lecturers , under the direction of a senior lecturer, plan and present the indoctrination program for all employees and the training program for all supervisors . In these programs, the lecturers express company policies , including labor rela- tions policies . We find that the senior lecturer is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude him as such. We further find that both the senior lecturer and the lecturers have interests more closely allied with management than with the employees and shall therefore exclude them. e We find that the following employees of the Employer con- stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All hourly paid, nonmanual employees at the Employer' s place of business in Portsmouth, Ohio, and project site near Waverly, Ohio, including buyers, senior buyers , expediters , messengers 5Northern Redwood Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 272; Continental Pipe Line Company, 78 NLRB 379. We do not pass upon the classification of dispatcher, since, at the date of the hearing, it was yet to be filled Because the record fails to describe the functions and authority of the multilith group leader classification, we shall permit the individual or individuals in this classification to vote subject to challenge. 6 Gulf States Telephone Company, 101 NLRB 270 We do not pass upon the classification of executive secretary, since, at the date of the hearing, it was yet to be filled. 7 New England Telephone 8z Telegraph Company, 90 NLRB 639 8 Minnesota and Ontario Paper Co., 92 NLRB 711. GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY 197 outside,' multilith group leaders,L° and first-aid attendants, but excluding investigators , lecturers , senior lecturer , inter- viewers, senior interviewer , confidential employees, profes- sional employees , guards, communications chief, assistant recreation division chief , and other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] olefore the hearing, the Teamsters, which represents the Employer's truckdrivers, requested recognition as bargaining agent for the buyers, senior buyers, expediters, and messengers outside. However, though notified of the petition and hearing in this case, the Teamsters did not appear. Furthermore, these classifications would appear to be prop- erly included in the unit. 10 As already mentioned, we shall permit the individual or individuals in this classifica- tion to vote subject to challenge, without making any determination of status at this time. In the event that the challenged ballot or ballots will affect the outcome of the election, a further investigation to determine the status of this individual or these individuals will be conducted. GARDNER MACHINE COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-R.C-2697. July 16, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On July 23, 1952, pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election ' 1 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, among employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate . At the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of about 213 eligible voters, 198 cast ballots, of which 76 were for the Petitioner , 121 were against the Petitioner , 1 was challenged , and none was void. On July 28, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election , a copy of which was .served on the Employer . In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections and, on October 30, 1952, issued and served on the parties his report on objections, in which he recommended that some of the objections be sustained , and others overruled ; and he further recommended that the Board set aside the election and that a new election be directed.2 Thereupon the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director ' s report on objections.3 1T'he Decision and Direction of Election, issued on July 2, 1952, is not reported in the bound volumes of the Decisions and Orders of the Board. 2Because the challenged ballot could not affect the results of the election, the Regional Director made no report concerning the challenge. 3 We adopt the findings and recommendations of the Regional Director to which no excep- tions were taken, and we overrule such objections. 106 NLRB No. 32.