Central National Bank and Trust Co. of Des Moines, Iowa

730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Central National Bank and Trust Company of Des Moines, Iowa' and Office and Professional Em- ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case I 8-RC-9489 January 28, 1974 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Frank E. Kapsch, Jr., of the National Labor Relations Board. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 18, this proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and Petitioner filed briefs in support of their respective positions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings2 made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer, a bank organized under the National Banking Act of the United States, operates from its main office in Des Moines, Iowa, and a motor bank location approximately 1 block away from its main office.3 The employees sought by the Petitioner include all home office and motor bank I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing The Hearing Officer denied the Employer's motion to continue the hearing until the Board's Executive Secretary furnished it with "a copy of an index of all final representation opinions issued by our regional directors pursuant to Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended- In affirming the Hearing Officer's ruling, we note that the National Labor Relations Board does not accord precedential value to decisions by its Regional Directors For this reason, the Board has never considered it necessary or even desirable to compile and index such material. Therefore, as the requested material is neither used nor maintained , we are of the opinion that the Freedom of Information Act (5 U S C. 052) does not clerical and technical employees and exclude all guards, bank officers, supervisors, managerial em- ployees, professional employees, confidentials, and all other employees as defined in the Act.4 The Employer does not contest the scope of the Petition- er's unit except insofar as the unit may be said to contemplate coverage of a prospective motor bank facility, not yet open. In addition, the parties are in disagreement over the unit placement of numerous individuals. Specifically, the unit status of the following individuals is in dispute: titled officers employed in the consumer installment loan area, commercial loan department, correspondent banking department, trust department, public relations de- partment, farm management department, computer department, the new accounts area, the note teller cage, the motor bank, and the investment depart- ment, all of whom Petitioner would exclude and the Employer include. Also, the Petitioner would include and the Employer exclude employee Monica Ellis. There is no history of collective bargaining with respect to the employees involved in this proceeding. The Employer's Operations The Employer operates from a head office and a motor bank located I block away. The formulation and implementation of its policies lie with a group of exempt managerial and supervisory personnel who head various committees organized along functional guidelines. For example, the loan committee reviews all activity arising from an application for either a consumer installment or commercial loan which exceeds stated guidelines. In the consumer install- ment area, officers grant or reject loans based on an established point system which is based on steady employment, home ownership, or equity, etc., and, in the event applicants do not meet the established standards, the application is either rejected or submitted to the loan committee where the final determination is made. The guidelines are usually reviewed on a monthly basis and loan officers do not depart from established guidelines in any significant respect. Examples of the kind of discretion which loan officers exercise are waivers of small late charges and extensions of "due dates" based on what the loan committee considers to be legitimate reasons that would warrant an extension. compel us to prepare and make available to practitioners a subject matter index of all final representation opinions issued by Regional Directors since July 4, 1967 + At the hearing, the Employer indicated that it intended to open another branch office in July 1973. if approval under Federal and state laws could be obtained i During the course of the hearing . the parties stipulated that all kitchen employees who work in the bank cafeteria , the bank's maintenance department employees, and all management trainees employed by the bank should he included in any unit round appropriate 208 NLRB No. 105 CENTRAL NATL. BANK & TRUST CO. The Unit Placement Issues The farm management department is headed by L. W. Cartwright, vice president, and his assistant, Leland Long.5 The remaining employees in the department whose unit placement is in dispute (referred to as farm managers) are Lander, Snyder, Morraine, and Mallory. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends that they are supervisors and should be excluded. Inasmuch as their job functions are identical, they are discussed herein collectively. The Bank does not own the farms but rather manages them (approximately 300) in an agency type relationship for absentee owners. In furtherance of this management function, the Bank, through its farm managers, contracts with tenants who conduct the actual day-to-day operation of managing the farm. The Bank charges the farm owners a fee based on farm earnings. The farm managers visit' the tenants approximately once each month. They are provided with automobiles and an expense account to defray actual expenses connected with their field business. The field activities of the farm managers usually cause them to be away from the office about 4 days a week. Farm managers occasionally refer tenant applicants to Cartwright, the department manager, but in any event it is Cartwright who selects the tenant. Cartwright is responsible for establishing all policies, regarding farm management. Farm managers are not authorized to issue instruc- tions contrary to these established policies. There is no evidence that farm' managers possess or exercise any indicia of supervisory or managerial authority. The tenant farmers with whom they work are not employees of the Bank and the farm managers exercise no control or supervision over bank employ- ees. Based on the foregoing and the entire record, we conclude that the farm managers are not supervisory and/or managerial employees and we shall include them in the unit. Leland Long is assistant manager of the farm management department and, in the absence of Manager Cartwright, he is responsible for running the department. Long performs the same type of field work as other employees in the department, although his workload is arranged so that he is able to spend more time in the office handling administrative duties. It would appear from the record that any supervisory and/or managerial responsibilities exer- cised by Long are at most limited to those infrequent occasions when Manager Cartwright is absent due to illness or vacation. Accordingly, we find that Long does not exercise any supervisory or managerial S Discussed infra. 6 Mike Degee, also a trust officer, is excluded by agreement of the 731 responsibilities on a regular basis and , therefore, we shall include him in the unit. The Trust Department The overall daily supervision and management of the trust department. is handled by Joe Young, senior vice president.. and' Jack Schrieber, assistant vice president, both of whom are admitted supervisors. The remaining officers and assistant officers whose unit placement is in dispute are Willis Cairo, James King, Dirk Van Zante, James Wiser, Melvin Andre- sin, Larry Petersen, and Dale Dietz.6 Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends that they are supervisors and/or managerial employees and should be excluded. Cairo, Petersen, and Wiser all serve the same function, acting as liason between the Bank's trust committee and the owner or beneficiary of the trust. Their duties include reviewing the performance of trusts assigned to them , bearing in mind the objectives of the trust, and the presentation of an annual report to the trust owners to determine if the owner's needs or desires have changed. Thereafter the report is reviewed by Senior Officers Young and Schrieber who report to the trust investment commit- tee. The trust investment committee will then either select the proper investment to match the trust objective or, in cases where the trust owner retains the power to determine the proper investment, the selection will be made by the owner. Cairo, Petersen, and Wiser do not participate in this decision making process. Melvin Andresin is responsible for maintain- ing records for pension and profit-sharing trust accounts. Like Cairo, Petersen, and Wiser, he also confers with the representatives of the various funds that he is assigned and prepares a report to the trust investment committee for a decision in keeping with the trust objectives. Andresin also solicits new business and distributes pamphlets which show the Bank's past record in managing funds . James King is responsible for the actual purchase and sale of stocks and bonds recommended by the trust investment committee. In so doing, King recommends stocks from a list of approximately 60 stocks which the trust investment committee designates for certain purpos- es: e.g., growth, short-term income, capital apprecia- tion, etc. On the basis of this information, the trust investment committee makes a purchase^or-sell recommendation consonant with the trust objectives. King plays no part in the creation of the approved list of stocks. Nor does he exercise any discretion concerning the sale or purchase recommendations made by the trust investment committee. Dirk Van Zante and Dale Dietz are responsible for parties. 732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD apprising the proper parties of all due dates relating to matters involving trusts to which they are assigned,'e.g., the accountant or the estate's attorney, in order to insure that all obligations are promptly fulfilled, including, inter alia, the payment of estate taxes and disbursements to beneficiaries. Although both individuals are attorneys by training, their job functions do not require the exercise of their professional skills as attorneys. On the basis of the foregoing, we find no evidence that the above-mentioned employees exercise or possess any supervisory authority over other bank employees. It is also clear that their duties are basically administrative in nature and that they lack the discretion to make managerial decisions. Accord- ingly, we conclude that employees Cairo, King, Van Zante, Wiser, Andresin, Petersen, and Dietz are neither supervisors nor managerial employees and we shall include them in the unit. The correspondent banking department, headed by Ed Wolfe, operates in conjunction with smaller banks assisting them in maintaining their reserves, processing checks, and participating in so-called override loans. The employees whose unit placement are in dispute are W. Greaves, Jr., and R. Plager.7 Their job functions are identical. The Petitioner contends that they are supervisory and/or manageri- al and should be excluded. Their duties include making field calls on the smaller banks and, when time permits, canvassing for new accounts and selling other services such as computer, trust, and investment services. The correspondent bankers follow an established procedure of calling on customer bankers approximately twice yearly. They also conduct field checks to ascertain the existence of collateral pledged to secure a loan. The correspond- ent bankers accumulate pertinent data on override applications and, initially, Wolfe reviews the data to insure that all relevant information has been gath- ered. Thereafter, the report is passed on to the loan committee for decision. Ed Wolfe regulates all services that the correspond- ent bankers sell to the smaller banks. The record shows that, occasionally, the correspondent bankers will reject a loan =application in the field when the applicant fails to meet certain basic criteria that the loan committee has established for granting loans. However,. in such circumstances, the banker follows clearly established guidelines and no discretion, is exercised in following such a course of action. Based on the above, and the entire record in this case, it is clear that Greaves and Plager are not supervisory and/or managerial employees. Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. I In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that Jerry Thornton is a managerial and/or supervisory employee who is excluded The commercial loan department is headed by Raymond G. Johnston, a senior vice president and an admitted supervisor. In addition to Johnston, there are four commercial loan officers working in the department. Two, E. H. Bliquez and A. B. Dressler, were excluded from the unit on the basis of their managerial-supervisory functions; the remain- ing two, Robert Clark and Palmer Ingelbritson, are in dispute. Clark .holds the title of vice president, while Ingelbritson is classified as a commercial loan officer. Both Clark and Ingelbritson perform essen- tially the same duties; the handling of commercial loans for the Employer's regular customers on a walk-in basis. They both have the authority to approve loans up to $25,000 and to grant extensions of credit on loans up to that amount. However, in the granting of such loans or in extending credit, they are operating under strict guidelines established by the Employer's board of directors from which they are not allowed to deviate. All loans, regardless of amount, are regularly reviewed by the senior. loan committee to which Clark and Ingelbritson are answerable. Neither Clark nor Ingelbritson plays any role in the formulation of loan policy and, as indicated, their authority to approve loans does not permit the exercise of any real discretion. There is also no evidence that Clark and Ingelbritson exercise any supervisory authority. Accordingly, we find that Clark and Ingelbritson are neither supervisors nor managerial employees and we shall include them in the unit. The consumer installment loan department handles regular walk-in loan business and retail dealer loans, where the application for credit is made directly with the retail dealer. The department has five installment loan officers; two of whom, Dale Clause and John Waters, are admitted supervisors. The remaining three, Louis Eubanks, Erbie Fox, and Leroy Knight are in dispute. All three have the authority to grant installment loans without prior approval. However each type of loan has a monetary limit which they cannot exceed and each loan approved by them must achieve a particular point rating under the guidelines covering it. Each loan is reviewed thereafter by both Clause and Waters and eventually by the loan committee and the executive committee. Any loan which does not meet all the specifications of the guidelines must be submitted to Clause or Waters for approval. Under the guidelines, Eubanks, Fox, and Knight have the authority to extend the monthly due date twice on any given loan, subject to review by higher authority and they have the unfettered authority to excuse the payment of small late charges. Like the commercial loan officers, Eubanks, from the unit. CENTRAL NATL. BANK & TRUST CO. Fox, and Knight have nothing to do with the formulation of the guidelines and they are permitted little discretion in the exercise of their loan granting function . There is also no evidence that these individuals exercise supervisory authority over any other employees . Accordingly, we find that Eubanks, Fox, and Knight are neither supervisors nor manage- rial employees and we include them in the unit. The computer department is headed by Harry Lavigne, vice president, and Gerry Graff, assistant data processing officer. The Petitioner contends that employees Ray Johnson, data processing officer, and John Williams, data processing control officer, are managerial and/or supervisory employees and should be excluded from the unit . The Petitioner also contends that employees Thomas Kennedy, systems analyst and program manager, James Mitchell and John Martin, computer operators-- day shift, and Robert Bevens , computer operator-night shift, are supervisors and therefore should be excluded. The Employer would include all of these individuals in the unit. John Williams physically feeds data into the computer and distributes the output to the respective departments . In carrying out this function , Williams follows established priorities set by Lavigne and Graff. There is no evidence that Williams has any authority to deviate from the established policy or that he possesses or exercises any supervisory authority over employees. Based on the above, we shall include him in the unit . Ray Johnson serves as troubleshooter for computer operations and also fills in as a programmer during his spare time. In the performance of his duties as troubleshooter, Johnson periodically receives modifications and updated information from manufacturers which he studies and distributes to the entire department . Johnson primarily works alone and he does not schedule any work for the computer operation . While Johnson is consulted with respect to his opinion on the purchase or modification of equipment , his recommendations are reviewed by Lavigne , who is free to accept or reject them, and who forwards his own recommenda- tion to the opera tions committee which makes the final decision. In the absence of any evidence that Johnson exercises any supervisory or managerial authority we shall include him in the unit. Thomas Kennedy is a programmer who also distributes work to, the other programmers based on Lavigne's instructions. There is no evidence that Kennedy exercises independent judgment or that he possesses or exercises any other indicia of superviso- ry authority. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit. James Mitchell, J9hn Martin. and Robert Bevens are computer operators who, in addition to their own operator duties, distribute work to their fellow 733 employees based on Lavigne's instructions. They are without authority to take any action contrary to Lavigne's instructions. All personnel problems aris- ing in their departments are referred to and acted upon independently by Lavigne. Based on these facts and the entire record we conclude that Mitchell. Martin, and Bevens are not supervisors and we shall include them in the unit. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends that Laverne Imboden, assistant to Motor Bank Supervisor Ken Hall, is a supervisor and should be excluded from the unit . The record shows that the motor branch operates with approximately five full- time and several part-time tellers. During Hall's absence, which is infrequent , Imboden carries out his duties. There is no other evidence which would tend to show that Imboden is a supervisor. Based on the sporadic nature of these temporary assignments we conclude that such evidence is insufficient to warrant a finding that Imboden is a supervisor and we shall include her in the unit. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends that Hilda Robinson, the assistant manager of the credit department, is a supervisor and should be excluded from the unit. The credit department is headed by Phillip Hartman, the manager, and consists of three clerical employees and two manage- ment trainees in addition to Robinson . All depart- ment employees are under the direct supervision of Hartman . However, when Hartman is absent due to illness or vacation, Robinson is in charge of the operation of the department . In such circumstances, employees have been advised that they are to take their orders from Robinson. Although Robinson may exercise certain supervisory functions in Hartman's absence, these occasions appear to be only infre- quent and sporadic . Accordingly, we find that there is no basis for concluding that Robinson is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and we shall include her in the unit. Petitioner contends that Kenneth Nauman, tax clerk, is a supervisor and should be excluded from the unit . The Employer would include him. There is no record evidence that Nauman is engaged in supervisory functions. Rather, the basis of Petition- er's contention is drawn from a job description which, according to the evidence, is unused in practice. Based on the lack of affirmative evidence indicating that Nauman exercises or possesses any of the indicia of supervisory authority, we shall include him in the unit. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, seeks to exclude George Nelson, a junior public relations officer, on the basis that he is a supervisory and/or managerial employee. Nelson's duties include spend- ing approximately 60-70 percent of his time outside 734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the bank calling on clients and soliciting new business. There is no evidence that Nelson, in carrying out these duties , exercises or possesses any supervisory or managerial authority. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit. The Petitioner contends that Everett Newcombe, customer services officer, and Homer Tesdell, assist- ant cashier, both of whom work in the new accounts area, are supervisory and/or managerial employees and should be excluded from the unit . The Employer would include them. The record reveals that New- combe and Tesdell open new accounts and accept customer complaints . In circumstances where the bank has experienced difficulty with a customer's account (e.g., numerous overdrafts), these officers will not accept that customer's application for a new account. By following such a course of action, the officer does not exercise any managerial or supervi- sory.authority but rather follows established banking policies. A similar situation is present when New- combe and Tesdell accept customer complaints. In reviewing a complaint, they will, where possible, isolate the problem and resolve it so long as their action comports with well-established policies. How- ever, if a customer has a complaint which would require a deviation from established guidelines to resolve it to the customer's satisfaction, such a problem must be presented to and resolved by higher officials. Based on the foregoing and the entire record, we conclude that Newcombe and Tesdell are not supervisory and/or managerial employees and we shall include them in the unit. The Petitioner contends that Richard Bisland is a managerial-supervisory employee and should be excluded from the unit. Bisland works in the trust operations department and he is the assistant to Norm Wilson, the trust operations officer. Bisland's duties are primarily in the area of corporate trusts and he does not have direct dealings with other departments . On occasion, he sat in with Wilson during employee evaluations and, in one instance, went over a performance review with an employee. However, there is no evidence that Bisland has ever independently approved an employee evaluation or that he effectively recommended such action. Ac- cordingly, we find that Bisland is neither a supervisor nor a managerial employee and we include him in the unit. The Petitioner contends that Lillian Smart, a typist in trust operations, is a supervisor and should be excluded from the unit . The Employer would include her. Smart works along with two other typists. Although Smart instructs and trains new employees in her section, there is no evidence that she exercises any of the indicia of supervisory authority . Accord- ingly, we shall include her in the unit. The Petitioner contends that Howard Franklin, the most senior employee in the note department, is a supervisor and should not be included in the unit. The Employer disagrees and would include him. The evidence shows that Franklin's duties include is- suance of due date notices to customers who have outstanding notes and that he instructs new and prospective note department employees in the operations of the department. There is no evidence that he exercises or possesses any indicia of supervi- sory authority. Rather, it appears that his duties relating to instructing new and prospective employ- ees stem from his seniority and experience in the department. Based on the foregoing and the entire record, we conclude that Franklin is not a supervisor and we shall include him in the unit. The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends that Don Newkirk, an investment department officer, is a supervisor and should be excluded . His duties include the acceptance and execution of bond purchase orders from smaller correspondent banks, enabling these banks to provide more efficient investment services to their customers . Occasionally a banker will request Newkirk to figure a bond's yield for a particular term. In so doing, he will use widely used services such as Moody's or Standard & Poor's. Also, he is sometimes called upon to recommend a particular bond based on a customer's needs. Here, again, he will do so on the basis of information gathered from widely used investment services. There is no evidence that he exercises or possesses any supervisory authority in the perform- ance of his duties . Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit. The Employer, contrary to the Petitioner, contends that Monica Ellis, secretary to Ivan Johnson in public relations, is a confidential employee and therefore must be excluded from the unit. The Employer asserts that Johnson is involved in labor relations, setting vacation schedules for all employees and making salary recommendations which are usually followed. Ellis, as his secretary , is allegedly privy to and has access to this information. However, the record fails to establish these assertions. Rather, the evidence shows that all matters concerning employee labor relations, wages, hours, and working conditions are handled in the personnel office. Since the record shows that Ellis does not perform duties or have access to matters of a confidential nature, we shall include her in the unit. In its brief, Petitioner urges that certain employees, e.g., farm managers, public relations employees, correspondent bankers, etc., should be excluded on the additional basis of lack of community of interest. We find no merit in this contention. The Petitioner has requested a unit encompassing most of the CENTRAL NATL. BANK & TRUST CO. 735 employees of the Employer. Obviously in such a broad unit, there. is an inherent community of interest among employees and, in the absence of a showing that the employees whom the Petitioner would exclude have a separate identifiable interest, we shall include them in the unit. The Petitioner would include employees at an additional motor bank facility which the Employer proposed opening in July 1973. The Employer opposes unit coverage of this facility on the ground that its plans were speculative in nature and lacked the necessary approval of various Federal and state authorities. We find merit in the Employer's conten- tion. On the basis of the record before us, there is no definite evidence as to when or if the proposed facility will, become operational. In such circum- stances, we do not consider it appropriate, at this time, to determine-whether or not this facility should be a part of the existing unit. Accordingly, Petition- er's request that this facility be part of the appropri- ate unit is denied. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time employees of Central National Bank and Trust Company at its main office and existing motor bank location in Des Moines Iowa, including the cafeteria employees, the maintenance employees, the man- agement trainees, the correspondent bankers, trust department employees, farm managers, installment and commercial loan officers, the computer department employees, the investment department employees, the note department employees, public relations employees, and em- ployee Monica Ellis, excluding managerial em- ployees, professional employees, confidential employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and all other employees. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.)