National Cylinder Gas Co.

726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Girdler Company, Division of National Cylinder Gas Company; Patterson-Emerson-Comstock Company of Alabama, Inc.; Win- ton M. Blount, William H. Blount and Clara B. Blount d/b/a Blount Brothers Construction Company; and Dunn Construc- tion, Inc., d/b/a Associated Contractors and Office Employees International Union, Local No. 18, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-171. 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 and reopened hearings were held before Philip B. Cordes, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 3 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. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner's showing is inadequate, a substantial number of cards having been obtained by Kenneth Peters, allegedly a supervisor. For the reasons stated below we find that Peters is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We therefore do not reach the issue of whether his activities would in fact be improper if conducted by a supervisor. Peters works in the Employer's office services section, which han- dles interoffice and outgoing mail, requisitions for duplicating work, and office supplies. In addition to Peters, the section, which is un- der the supervision of the business manager, includes two messengers and a part-time typist. Peters is now classified as a senior clerk, an assertedly supervisory job, but originally was hired as a clerk, a job not asserted to be supervisory. His uncontradicted testimony is that his duties with respect to other employees did not change when his classification changed. Peters is not consulted in the hire or promotion of employees in the office services section .4 He has twice recommended individuals 1 The AFL and CIO having merged we are amending the identification of the Petitioner's affiliation. 9 By Board order of October 26, 195,5 , the proceeding was remanded to the Regional Director to obtain further evidence on points deemed material by the Board I The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the peti- tion because of the organizational activities of an alleged supervisor The motion is de- nied for the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered 3 of this Decision , c,ifia. + The fact that Peters was asked whether a messenger selected for piomotion could be released clearly does not establish supervisory status. 115 NLRB No. 109. GIRDLER COMPANY 727 for employment; the recommendations were rejected. He does not have authority to initiate wage increases for employees in this sec- tion; nor can he excuse their tardiness. Peters' disciplinary authority has extended only to telling one of the messengers that he would have to make his mail runs on time. Asked if he had the authority to recommend discipline if the situa- tion warranted it, Peters said he "supposed" he would, in such case, have to make a -recommendation to the business manager. However, the record does' not indicate what weight would be given to such a recommendation. It would appear that any directions Peters might give other em- ployees are purely routine, requiring the exercise of little or no dis- cretion. Moreover, Peters was not informed, and did not know before the original hearing in this case, that the Employer considered him a supervisor. He has never been told he possesses supervisory au- thority. In these circumstances, we find that Peters is not a super- visor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning 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 is engaged in the rehabilitation of the Alabama Ordnance Works, Childersburg, Alabama, under contract with the United States. The Petitioner seeks generally a unit of all office and clerical employees of the Employer, in its offices and warehouses, ex- cluding all other employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act. Although the Employer took no position on this unit as a whole, it agreed with the Petitioner on certain inclusions and exclusions. The parties agree that the following classifications are to be included : Inside messengers ; junior clerks ; typists ; clerks; material checkers; stenographers; timekeepers; bookkeeper, secretary (with exceptions noted below) ; expediter (with exceptions noted below). The parties agreed to the following exclusions : The stenographer in the personnel department who sometimes acts as secretary to the personnel manager; the first aid man; the secretaries to the project manager, the per- sonnel manager, the business manager, and the construction super- intendent; field expediter; chief expediter; storekeeper. The parties disagree as to the placement of the following, whom the Employer would exclude and the Petitioner would include : Junior clerk in the personnel department: This employee has ac- cess to all personnel files, and also serves as part-time receptionist. The' Employer would exclude her on the grounds that she is a confi- dential employee and also that she is, in effect, a guard. It does not appear that this junior clerk assists or acts in a confi- dential capacity to any person who formulates , determines, and effec- 728 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tuates management policies in the field of labor relations., The mere fact of access to personnel data does not render her a confidential em- ployee.' With respect to this employee's asserted security functions, it does not appear that she enforces any plant protection rules,' al- though in the performance of this part of her duties she must adhere to the Employer's rule? Accordingly, we shall include her. Clerk in personnel department: This clerk has, generally, the same duties as the junior clerk above with respect to confidential files. For the reasons set out above, we include this employee in the unit. Receptionist: The Employer contends that this individual's func- tions are such as to make her a guard and that she should therefore be excluded. The receptionist is responsible, according to the Em- ployer, for controlling admission to all offices for about 7 hours per day. Shortly before the receptionist comes in, and for a short time after she leaves, her duties are performed by a guard. There is no guard present for the rest of the time. However, should it be neces- sary to exclude anyone, guards are subject to her call. It would thus appear that actual enforcement of the Employer's plant protection rules is entrusted to the guards, not to the receptionist. Accordingly, we shall include the receptionist in the unit. Time checkers: The Employer would exclude these employees on the ground that they are outside workers and a part of production, not office clerical at all. Their job is to check attendance of all em- ployees-office and production.: In doing this they spend about 6 hours per day in the field, and the rest of the time in the office prepar- ing their reports. They are under the same supervision and report to the same section as the timekeepers, whom the parties agree to include. In these circumstances we find that the interests of the time checkers are more closely allied with those of employees the parties have agreed to include in the proposed unit, and we shall include them. Senior clerks: The Employer would exclude these as supervisors. Uncontradicted testimony in the record indicates that senior clerks, ex cept Kenneth Peters, whose duties and authority are discussed above, have the power effectively to recommend changes in the status of em- ployees working under their direction. Accordingly, we shall exclude senior clerks, except Kenneth Peters, as supervisors. Secretary to the comptroller: The comptroller is the Employer official to whom the manager of the personnel department reports. However, it is not clear from the record that the comptroller does in fact formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations. As the mere fact that this employee might type wage data is not sufficient to render her r-a confidential employee; G The B F Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722 6 Walgreen Company, 114 NLRB 1168 7 Cf Caterpillar Tractor Company, 109 NLRB 871, 872 GIRDLER COMPANY 729 -and the comptroller's position is not clear, we shall permit her to vote subject to challenge. Assistant accountants : There are two individuals in this category, whom the Employer would exclude as supervisors-one in the cost accounting office, and the other in the conservation department. As to the, cost accounting assistant, it appears that he works directly under the cost accountant, computes disbursements , and assists three clerks and typists in making similar computations . He also takes the place of the cost accountant when the latter is absent, but the record does not establish the extent of the authority he then exercises or the periods for which he does so. However, such exercise would appear to be infrequent. Moreover, the direction the assistant accountant exercises over the three clerks and typists appears to be routine. Especially does this seem so when it is noted that if both the cost ac- countant and the assistant accountant are held supervisors, there would be 2 supervisors for 3 clerical employees, an excessive ratio. We therefore find' that the assistant accountants are not supervisors and shall include them in the unit. Buyers : These six employees are under the supervision of the pur- chasing agent . They receive requisitions for materials and services, which they fill, using their judgment and discretion . On purchases up to $2,000 they have final authority to commit the Employer 's credit. We therefore find, without passing upon the Employer's other con- tentions, that the buyers are managerial employees whom we shall exclude from the unit. Eutipediters : The parties agreed to exclude the chief expediter as a supervisor and the field expediters as outside employees.' There is disagreement as to the expediters in the purchasing department, 1 in the priority section, , and 1 in the traffic section. The Employer con- tends that these two expediters are heads of their respective sections, to be excluded as supervisors. However, as the record does not show that these expediters exercise supervisory authority , we shall include them 'in the unit. We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Chil- •dersburg, Alabama, operations constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All office clerical employees including inside ines- sengers, junior clerks,9 typists , clerks,10 material checkers, stenog- raphers, timekeepers , bookkeeper, secretary," expediters," time checkers, assistant accountants , and the receptionist, but excluding 9 This category is not filled at the piesent time ° Including the lumot clerk in the per sonnel department 1° InclndInr the clerk in the personnel department 11 Including the secretary to the comptroller, subject to challenge "Except chief and field expediters 730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD senior clerks," buyers, stenographer in personnel department , first aid man, secretaries to project manager, personnel manager, business manager, and construction superintendent, chief and field expediters, storekeeper, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. v Except Kenneth Peters Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and Local No. 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,' - Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-2877. 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 Henry L. Jalette, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing the parties agreed that the record to be considered by. the Board in this proceed- ing should include the transcript, exhibits, and entire record in Case No. 14-RC-2728' Upon the entire record in this case and the entire record in Case No. 14-RC-2728, 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 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. The Employer is engaged in St. Louis, Missouri, in the manufacture and sale of chemicals and in the processing of materials containing uranium. These operations occupy a 30-acre tract which contains over 100 buildings. The plant consists of a main plant and the ura- nium division. The AFL and CIO having verged since the healing in this case . we are amending the identification of the Petitioner 's attiliation as indicated in the caption ' Malliuckrodt Chemical Works, 114 NLRB 187, decided October 3 , 1955 In that case the Petitioner sought a unit similar to the one it seeks now However , without consider- ing the unit contention , the Board dismissed the petition for the reason that it was untimely filed because an existing contract constituted a bar thereto s Independent Union of Chemical Plant W 'orkei s, herein called the Intervenor, was per- mitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a contractual interest The parties agree that its contract is not a bar to this proceeding 115 NLRB No. 110.