General Electric Co.

88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD see that articles of property are not brought in or removed without authority. There is no interchange between them and the security officers and they are paid by the day. Accordingly, as they have the same supervision and their function, in substantial part, is to protect the Employer's property, they come within the Board's definition of guards and we shall include them in the unit.14 A clockman, or fire watcher, on the payroll of Thunderbird Hotel, Inc., was hired by and is under the direction of the chief security officer. His duties are to watch for fires by making regular rounds and punch- ing a clock during the night.ls The record shows that he does not en- force any rules against the employees or the public. As the duty of this employee is to check for fire hazards, we find that he is not a guard and shall exclude him from the unit." Accordingly, we find 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 employees at the Employer's Winchester, Clark County, Nevada, operations employed as security guards and timekeepers, but excluding all other employees, clockmen or fire watchers, office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 14 National Hotel Company, d/b/a Thomas Jefferson Hotel, 127 NLRB 202, 204. is He also walks through the Algiers Motel property , and the Employer is paid for this service. 19 New Hotel Monteleone, 127 NLRB 1092, 1094. General Electric Company and International Union of Electri- cal, Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and its Local 201. Case No. 1-RC-3312. August 20, 1963 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On February 12, 1954, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives 1 certifying Local 201, Inter- national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as the bargaining representative of a unit of office clerical employees at the Employer's River Works. On April 23, 1962, the Interna- tional Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFT.-CIO and its Local 201 filed a request for clarification of certification "to include in the bargaining unit, for which the petitioning organization is now the recognized bargaining agent, certain employees, some of whom are in the following categories as classified by the Employer : 1107 NLRB No . 244 (not published in NLRB volumes ). See also General Electric Company (Raver Works), 107 NLRB 70 144 NLRB No. 21. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 89 Specialists and/or Analysts and Business Training Course Students." On May 14, 1962, the Employer filed an answer in opposition to the request. On June 12, 1962, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional Director for the First region for the purpose of receiving evidence on the issues involved. A hearing was held on June 22, 1962, and on 18 other days over the period through February 25, 1963, before Hearing Officer Norman Holtz. 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 Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : As noted above the Union wants to include in the bargaining unit the specialists and/or analysts and the business training course stu- dents. The Union contends that these employees perform bargaining unit work and that the unit should be amended accordingly to in- clude them. The Employer opposes the Union's request for clarifica- tion made 9 years after the election in the office clerical unit on the following grounds : (1) The classification of specialist or analyst, as well as the busi- ness training course program trainees, were in existence at or prior to the last representation election in 1953 and they did not vote therein. (2) The functions performed by the specialists or analysts are not the same as those performed by members of the office clerical unit, either now or at the time of the 1953 election. (3) The IUE request is an attempt to evade the statutory show- ing of interest. (4) To include the employees in the unit by a clarification pro- cedure would result in a violation of their rights of self-determination as set forth in Section 7 of the Act. The terms "specialists" or "analysts" are generic titles used through- out the Company. They denote an individual who performs his work through the application of his own efforts, rather than through the efforts of others. The individual obtains his direction from his own knowledge or from knowledge of the Employer's objectives. He has an obligation to plan, integrate, measure, and exercise judgment. There are many different types of specialists and analysts in the various units of the finance functions at the River Works plant. Each type of specialist or analyst has certain specific duties in his position which are different from other specialists or analysts. Some special- ists are part-time supervisors, while others have authority and re- sponsibility to bind the Company in negotiations with customers and commit company funds. The duties of certain specialists or 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD analysts require an analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of costs, budgets, and forecasts to advise, recommend, and counsel other man- agement employees. Specialists' or analysts' duties also require the establishment of measurements for control and decision-making pur- poses. Certain specialists or analysts are required to administer the flow of information, and analyze information received from the bar- gaining unit employees, as well as analyze and interpret other matters such as State and local tax matters, insurance, and royalty accounting. Other specialists or analysts are, in effect, financial managers of specific programs or operations conducted by the Company. They have full financial responsibility for an entire program. This would include briefing and counseling management as to all aspects of the program; advising the department general manager and the manager of finance as to the program status at all times; meeting with and advising customers; and evaluating and assisting all mem- bers of management in all functions, including manufacturing, mar- keting, and finance, and any additional requirements demanded by the customer. In general, they keep complete control of the program, not only its dollar expenditures, but its implications as to manpower requirements, both current and anticipated, outlining to the depart- ment general manager risk areas or problem areas. The salary range of specialists or analysts is considerably higher than that of the graded office clerical employee. The duties required of the specialist or analyst have never been required from members of the office clerical bargaining unit. Individuals classified as specialists or analysts have always been treated as part of management and not as part of any bargaining unit. These individuals are considered an extension of the manager's arm. The classification of specialist or analyst was in existence prior to the last representation election in 1953. The business training course students have been employed by the Company at its River Works plant since 1948. They have never been represented in a bargaining unit. The selection and assignment of students for the program is handled on a companywide basis. The student is on a separate pay scale which is also administered on a companywide basis. The students on the program rotate through sev- eral areas of the finance work and attend evening class seminars. As the business training course program is companywide, when a student graduates from the program, he is subject to assignment to a financial management position anywhere in the Company. The student must maintain a certain level of performance in both work and class to complete the program successfully. If the standards are not main- tained, the student is terminated from the program but he may apply for a job in the bargaining unit as a new employee. As noted above, the record shows that the classification of specialists and analysts and the business training course students were in exist- OHIO VALLEY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, FTC. 91 ence prior to the Board-conducted election in 1953. Employees in these classifications did not vote in the election and have never been represented by any union. No effort was made by the Union to repre- sent these employees until approximately 9 years after the Board certified the office clerical unit. Neither the contract executed pursuant to the certification nor any subsequently executed contracts included specialists, analysts, or business training course students. Clearly, the specialists, analysts, or business training course students are not an accretion to the existing unit. We find, in view of the above and on the entire record, that a motion for clarification is not the proper method for adding the excluded classifications to the existing unit. Even if we were to decide that the specialists, analysts, and business training course students could be part of the office clerical unit, they would be entitled to vote whether they desire to be represented as part of that unit. Since the proper procedure for accomplishing this purpose is a petition pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act seeking an election, rather than a motion or petition for clarification, we shall grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the instant proceeding.2 [The Board dismissed the petition for clarification of unit.] 2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1142 NLRB 317; Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 132 NLRB 1093 , 1095; Brockton-Taunton Gas Company, 132 NLRB 940, 942; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233, 1236. Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, and Albert Scheer and Robert Sauer, its Agents and Cardinal Industries, Inc. Case No. 9-CC-315. August 21, 1963 DECISION AND ORDER On March 19, 1963, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent Council filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- 144 NLRB No. 16.