The B. F. Goodrich Co.

722 i DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It is thus clear that the facts in the instant proceeding are distinguishable from those of the McAllister case and hence the McAllister decision does not apply here. . Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Trial Examiner is convinced, and finds, that the three essential elements of a violation-inducement, refusal, and unlawful objective-have not been proved.'° The Trial Examiner further finds that the allegations of the complaint that Respondents have violated Section 8 (b) (4) (A) have not been sustained by the credible evidence. Accordingly, the Trial Ex- aminer recommends that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Firchau Bros. Logging Company, a partnership, and The Long-Bell Lumber Co., a Missouri corporation, are engaged in, and during all times material herein were en- gaged in, commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, and Respondent Harris is its financial secretary and business agent, 3. The allegations of the complaint that Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act have not been sustained. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 10 Cf. Reilly Cartage Company, 110, NLRB 1742 ; Jay-K Independent Lumber Corp., 108 NLRB 1323; Douds v. Sheet Metal Workers, 101 F. Supp. 273 (E. D., N. Y,) ; Elliott Y. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 91 F. Supp. 690. The B. F. Goodrich Company and Local No. 281, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-2849. March 7,1956 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 Katherine W. Neel, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner, which is the certified bargaining representative for a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Oaks, Pennsylvania, plant, seeks to represent the office and clerical employees at the Oaks plant in a separate unit.' The Employer agrees that a unit of office and clerical employees is appropriate, but the parties disagree as to the professional, supervisory, or confiden- ? The unit which the Board found appropriate in the earlier case (57 NLRB 1718) ex- cluded office and clerical employees in accordance with a stipulation of the parties. 115 NLRB No. 103. THE B . F. GOODRICH COMPANY - 723 tial status of the individuals discussed below, the Petitioner seek- ing to include them and the Employer contending for their exclusion" The accountant and junior accountant (Fesmire and Wack) are the members of the accounting department responsible for determining the Employer's total cost of production. Such production costs are computed on a monthly basis and are arrived at by applying "neces- sary overhead" to the "various costs of the plant from specifications, labor standards, and other information." Both employees have taken accounting courses and it appears that about 2 years' experience on the job is required to perform their work in a satisfactory manner. Neither employee is required to be, or is, a certified public accountant or college graduate. As Fesmire and Wack do not meet the pre- requisites to professional classification as set forth in Sedtion 2 (12) of the Act,' we find they are not professional employees and shall include them in the unit. The accountant in charge of accounts payable (Cole) directs the work of the accounts payable clerk. It is his responsibility to keep the Employer advised as to the work performance of that employee and any recommendation by him, whether for a wage increase or dis- missal, would be "quite influential." In these circumstances we find that Cole is a supervisor as defined m the Act, and we shall exclude him from the unit. The buyer-expediter (Prizer) is assistant to the manager of the purchasing department. The record does not reveal this individual's duties and responsibilities except to show that, when the manager of the purchasing department is absent, he assumes the manager's duties and authority, including the authority to direct the work of the secre- tary, the only other employee in the department, and to purchase materials and equipment for the Employer. There is nothing in the record to establish whether such assumption of authority is regular and substantial or merely occasional and sporadic. On the present record we are unable to determine the unit placement of Prizer. Ac- cordingly, we shall permit him to vote subject to challenge. The secretaries to the plant engineer and personnel, office, industrial engineering, purchasing department, production, and technical divi- sion managers perform the usual duties of their classification, handling the general secretarial, clerical, and stenographic work required by the officials to whom they are assigned. As already indicated, the Em- 'The parties ate agiced as to the inclusion in the unit of the accounting clerk, produc- tion records clerk , utility clerk, time clerk, distribution control clerk , bill of lading clerk, order typist, payroll clerks, bookkeeping machine operators , and typist clerks, but they would exclude the secretary to the plant manager, the secretary to the personnel manager (Jacob ), the plant manager , personnel manager, manager of industrial engineering, man- ager of purchasing , nianageis of the technical division , plant engineer , traffic manager, pioduction superintendent , production foreman . office manager , supervisor of accounting, and supervisor of timekeeping and payroll 'See Floicm,e Stoic Company, 9-1 NLRIt 1434, 1436, Automatic , l:lcctrsc Company, 78 NLRB 1057 , Ron a i t Tele,, Inc , 84 NL11B 414, 423 724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer contends for the exclusion of these secretaries as confidential employees while the Petitioner requests their inclusion. The plant engineer and the industrial engineering, purchasing de- partment, production, and technical division managers are charged with substantially similar responsibilities, such as hiring, discharge, disciplining, and promoting employees under their supervision, as well as granting merit increases to and, at some stage of the grievance procedure, handling the grievances of those employees. The per- sonnel manager acts as the Employer's legal officer and,. i n addition to representing the Employer in the third step of the grievance pro- cedure, participates in the negotiation of bargaining contracts with the Petitioner. If the Petitioner is certified herein, he will also bar- gain with it as to the clerical unit. The office manager, apart from the role he plays in the disposition of grievances of the employees whose work he directs, will assist in the bargaining negotiations with the Petitioner if it is certified as a result of the election hereinafter directed. Since.the early Ford Motor Company case,' in which definitions theretofore accorded the term "confidential employees" were reex- amined, the Board has consistently excluded from bargaining units as confidential employees persons who assist and act in a confidential ca- pacity to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate manage- ment policies in the field of labor relations. Although announcing its intention in the Ford Motor Company case to limit the term "confiden- tial" so as to embrace only such employees, the Board has, from time to time since that decision, expanded its view as to what constitutes a confidential employee by designating as "confidential," for example, secretaries to persons involved in the handling of grievances 5 and cashiers having access to labor relations policy data.' Upon further reexamination of our holdings in the instant connection, we are still of the opinion expressed in the Ford Motor Company case that any broad- ening of the definition of the term "confidential" as adopted in that decision needlessly precludes employees from bargaining collectively together with other employees sharing common interests. Conse- quently, it is our intention herein and in future cases to adhere strictly to that definition and thus to limit the term "confidential" so as to em- braces only those employees who assist and act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management poli- cies in the field of labor relations.' 4 66 NLRB 1317. °Internation.al Smelting cG hefeing Co. (Raritan Copper Works), Case No. 4-RC-2143 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders), upon which the Emn- ployer relies herein, is one such case. e Bond Stores, Incorporated, 99 NLRB 1029. To the extent that Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 107 NLRB 1191, relied upon by the Employer, and the cases cited in footnotes 5 and 6 and other cases are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, they are hereby overruled. THE B. F. GOODRICH COMPANY 1 725 On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the secretaries to the personnel manager and office manager are confidential employees who should be excluded from the,unit because of the role in past and future bargaining negotiations assigned to the officials for whom they wdrk.8 However, there is nothing in the duties of the other management repre- sentatives involved which would wartant a finding that they formu- late, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. It therefore follows that the secretaries to the plant engi- neer and industrial engineering, purchasing department, production, and technical division managers are not confidential employees, and we shall include them in the unit. There remains for consideration the status of the senior payroll clerk (Punyko) ahd the telephone operator and receptionist (Hakun). Punyko assumes the duties of the supervisor of timekeeping and pay- roll, whom the parties agreed to exclude, when the latter is-ill or on vacation. Hakun performs the usual duties of her classification. She also operates the teletype machine when the utility clerk, whom the parties agreed to include in the unit, is elsewhere engaged. It appears that on occasion Hakun receives messages concerning labor relations over the telephone or teletype machine. It is manifest from what has been said above that Punyko and Hakun are not confidential em- ployees. And as the supervisory authority vested in Punyko is of a sporadic nature, we find, contrary to the Employer, that she is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We shall include Punyko and Hakun. Accordingly, we find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Oaks, Pennsylvania, plant, including the accounting clerk, production records clerk, utility clerk, time clerk, distribution control clerk, bill of lading clerk, order typist, payroll clerks, bookkeeping machine operators, typist clerks, senior payroll clerk, telephone opera- tor and receptionist, accountant, junior accountant, and the secretaries to the manager of industrial engineering, manager of the purchasing department, managers of the technical division, prodlictioii manager, and plant engineer, but excluding the secretaries to the plant mailaget, personnel manager, and office manager, professional employees, guards, the plant manager, personnel manager, manager of industrial engineering, manager of purchasing, managers of the technical divi- sion, plant engineer, traffic manager, production superintendent, pro- duction foremen, office manager, supervisor of accounting, supervisor of timekeeping and payroll, the accountant in charge of accounts pay- able, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8The secretary to the personnel manager whose status is in dispute performs substan- tially the same duties as the personnel manager's other personal secretary , who the parties quite correctly agree should be excluded from the unit