Kern Council Services

KERN COUNCIL SERVICES 817 Kern Council Services to the Developmentally Dis- ing directly under the executive/administrative as- abled, Inc. and Social Services Union, Local sistant to the Employer's director. The only other 535, Service Employees International Union, secretary in the unit is Paula Antell. Crawford and AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-4995 Antell each receive work assignments from and December 23, 1981 perform primarily secretarial duties for one of two separate groups of professionals in the AC unit. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF When one of the secretaries is absent for a signifi- REPRESENTATIVE cant length of time, the other assumes both sets of secretarial duties. BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER ANDsecretarial duties. MEMBERS FANN G AND HNTER Crawford trained Antell when the latter was hired by the Employer in September 1979. Addi- Pursuant to authority granted it by the National tionally, since approximately June 1980, Crawford Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the has approved Antell's request for time off and has National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- filled out monthly time summary sheets for Antell. member panel has considered objections to and de- Crawford signs both the leave approval and time terminative challenges in an election held on Octo- summary forms in the space designated for supervi- ber 7, 1980,' and the Hearing Officer's report rec- sory approval. Further, as the Hearing Officer ommending disposition of same. The Board has re- found, Crawford has authority to discipline Antell viewed the record in light of the briefs and hereby and has exercised this authority in the past. Thus, adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and recom- on one occasion when a nutritionist for whom mendations,2 except as modified herein. Antell performed secretarial work had a problem The Hearing Officer found that Judy Crawford with Antell's work attitude, Crawford counseled was not a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Antell regarding her attitude and disposition.On an- Act and recommended overruling the challenge to other occasion, Crawford directed Antell to make her ballot. His determination that Crawford was up work time lost due to her lateness. not a supervisor was based, inter alia, on his con- Most significantly, Crawford prepared Antell's clusion that her alleged supervisory functions were annual evaluation in which she recommended that isolated and routine in nature and did not require Antell be raised to a higher salary level. Crawford the use of independent judgment. Additionally, the discussed this evaluation with Antell and signed it Hearing Officer found that Crawford had no au- in the space designated for "supervisor" There is thority to assign work, hire, fire, suspend, lay off, no evidence of any additional independent supervi- transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively sor investigation of Antell regarding the salary in- recommend such action. recommend such action. A<< . crease. Crawford's recommendation was approved The Petitioner has excepted to the Hearing Offi- . 's re ' , ,. ,* i iby the Employer's director. cer's recommendation to overrule the challenge to b th ct Crawford's ballot and contends that Crawford is a Section 2(11) of the Act defines a supervisor as supervisor because, based on the Hearing Officer's "any individual having authority, in the interest of own findings, Crawford has the au ri the employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, or deny sick leave and vacation leave, to discipline recall, promote, discharge, assign, reward, or disci- an employee, to evaluate her work performance, pline other employees, or responsibly to direct and effectively to recommend that her salary be in- them, or to adjust their grievances, or effectively creaed We fnd meri in thePetitioner's excep- to recommended such action, if in connection with crtins. We find methe foregoing the exercise of such authority is not Crawford is a secretary in the Employer's "as- of a merely routine or clerical nature, but requires sessment and consultation" (herein AC) unit work- the use of independent judgment." It has repeated- ly been pointed out that, since this definition is 'The election was conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of stated in the disjunctive, possession of any of the Election. Of approximately 17 eligible voters, 8 cast ballots for and 7 enumerated powers or attributes is sufficient to es- against the Petitioner. There were two challenged ballots, a number suffi-h tf status cient to affect the election results. In addition, the Petitioner filed objec- tablish the existence of supervisory status. lions to the election. Following an investigation, the Regional Director Here, Crawford possesses several of the indicia issued his Supplemental Decision in which he overruled the Petitioner'svir a rit inc the record sta Objections I and 2 and ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the fac-upervisory au y ince e re e tual and legal issues raised by the Petitioner's Objections 3 and 4 and by the two challenged ballots. Thereafter, a hearing was held and the Hear- The Hearing Officer found that the Employer's accounting office ing Officer issued a report on challenges and objections. considered Crawford to be Antell's supervisor and automatically sent her ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Acting the personnel forms for Antell which are generally sent to an employee's Regional Director's recommendations that the challenge to the ballot of supervisor. Terry Wilson be sustained, that the Petitioner be allowed to withdraw its ' Penn Industries, Inc., 233 NLRB 928, 930-931 (1977), and cases cited Objection 3, and that the Petitioner's Objection 4 be overruled. therein. 259 NLRB No. 108 KERN COUNCIL SERVICES 817 Kern Council Services to the Developmentally Dis- ing directly under the executive/administrative as- abled, Inc. and Social Services Union, Local sistant to the Employer's director. The only other 535, Service Employees International Union, secretary in the unit is Paula Antell. Crawford and AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-4995 Antell each receive work assignments from and December 23, 1981 perform primarily secretarial duties for one of two separate groups of professionals in the AC unit. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF When one of the secretaries is absent for a signifi- REPRESENTATIVE cant length of time, the other assumes both sets of BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER ANDsecretarial duties. MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER,. C r a w f o r d t rain e d Antell when the latter was hired by the Employer in September 1979. Addi- Pursuant to authority granted it by the National tionally, since approximately June 1980, Crawford Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the has approved Antell's request for time off and has National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- filled out monthly time summary sheets for Antell. member panel has considered objections to and de- Crawford signs both the leave approval and time terminative challenges in an election held on Octo- summary forms in the space designated for supervi- ber 7, 1980,' and the Hearing Officer's report rec- sory approval.' Further, as the Hearing Officer ommending disposition of same. The Board has re- found, Crawford has authority to discipline Antell viewed the record in light of the briefs and hereby and has exercised this authority in the past. Thus, adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and recom- on one occasion when a nutritionist for whom mendations,I except as modified herein. Antell performed secretarial work had a problem The Hearing Officer found that Judy Crawford with Antell's work attitude, Crawford counseled was not a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Antell regarding her attitude and disposition.On an- Act and recommended overruling the challenge to other occasion, Crawford directed Antell to make her ballot. His determination that Crawford was up work time lost due to her lateness. not a supervisor was based, inter alia, on his con- Most significantly, Crawford prepared Antell's elusion that her alleged supervisory functions were annual evaluation in which she recommended that isolated and routine in nature and did not require Antell be raised to a higher salary level. Crawford the use of independent judgment. Additionally, the discussed this evaluation with Antell and signed it Hearing Officer found that Crawford had no au- i designated for "supervisor." There is thority to assign work, hire, fire, suspend, lay off, no e o additional independent supervi- transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively* .... r * „ 11 -i- sui- i transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively sor investigation of Antell regarding the salary in- recommend such action./- ,-,- recommend such acio * .1 * *i- u * crease. Crawford's recommendation was approved The Petitioner has excepted to the Hearing Offi- by t E diretor , , ,. , * ii- i.,i~~~~by the Employer s director. cer's recommendation to overrule the challenge to Section 2 1) o ta Crawford's ballot and contends that Crawford is a Sec . t a o ndiid o f th e Act defines a supervisor as supervisor because, based on the Hearing Officer's tedividual having authority, in the interest of own findings, Crawford has the authority to grant rt he employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, or deny sick leave and vacation leave, to discipline pr ec a1 - Promote, discharge, assign, reward, or disci- an employee, to evaluate her work performance, pthe oth er employees, or responsibly to direct and effectively to recommend that her salary be in- th em o o r t o m dust th e i r grievances, or effectively creased. We find merit in the Petitioner's excep- t o recommended such actions if in connection with tions. the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not Crawford is a secretary in the Employer's "as- o f a merly routine or clerical nature but requires sessment and consultation" (herein AC) unit work- th e use of independent judgment." It has repeated- ly been pointed out that, since this definition is 'The election was conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Stated in the disjunctive, possession of any Of the Election. Of approximately 17 eligible voters, 8 cast ballots for and 7 enumerated powers Or attributes is Sufficient to es- against the Petitioner. There were two challenged ballots, a number suffi- t _r i^ t1, *» e * - . ' cient to affect the election results. In addition, the Petitioner ried objec- tablish the existence of Supervisory StatUS. tions to the election. Following an investigation, the Regional Director Here, Crawford possesses several of the indicia issued his Supplemental Decision in which he overruled the Petitioner's r ,,pevisirv ailhnritv since the record estah- Objections I and 2 and ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the fac- o f Supervisory authriy Since te record estb- (ual and legal issues raised by the Petitioner's Objections 3 and 4 and by the two challenged ballots. Thereafter, a hearing was held and the Hear- ' The Hearing Officer found that the Employer's accounting office ing Officer issued a report on challenges and objections. considered Crawford to be Antell's supervisor and automatically sent her ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Acting the personnel forms for Antell which are generally sent to an employee's Regional Director's recommendations that the challenge to the ballot of supervisor. Terry Wilson be sustained, that the Petitioner be allowed to withdraw its I Penn Industries. Inc., 233 NLRB 928, 930-931 (1977), and cases cited Objection 3, and that the Petitioner's Objection 4 be overruled,.therein. 259 NLRB No. 108 KERN COUNCIL SERVICES 817 Kern Council Services to the Developmentally Dis- ing directly under the executive/administrative as- abled, Inc. and Social Services Union, Local sistant to the Employer's director. The only other 535, Service Employees International Union, secretary in the unit is Paula Antell. Crawford and AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-4995 Antell each receive work assignments from and December 23, 1981 perform primarily secretarial duties for one of two separate groups of professionals in the AC unit. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF When one of the secretaries is absent for a signifi- REPRESENTATIVE cant length of time, the other assumes both sets of BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER ANDsecretarial duties. MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER,. C r a w fo r d t ra in e d Antell when the latter was hired by the Employer in September 1979. Addi- Pursuant to authority granted it by the National tionally, since approximately June 1980, Crawford Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the has approved Antell's request for time off and has National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- filled out monthly time summary sheets for Antell. member panel has considered objections to and de- Crawford signs both the leave approval and time terminative challenges in an election held on Octo- summary forms in the space designated for supervi- ber 7, 1980,' and the Hearing Officer's report rec- sory approval.' Further, as the Hearing Officer ommending disposition of same. The Board has re- found, Crawford has authority to discipline Antell viewed the record in light of the briefs and hereby and has exercised this authority in the past. Thus, adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and recom- on one occasion when a nutritionist for whom mendations,I except as modified herein. Antell performed secretarial work had a problem The Hearing Officer found that Judy Crawford with Antell's work attitude, Crawford counseled was not a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Antell regarding her attitude and disposition.On an- Act and recommended overruling the challenge to other occasion, Crawford directed Antell to make her ballot. His determination that Crawford was up work time lost due to her lateness. not a supervisor was based, inter alia, on his con- Most significantly, Crawford prepared Antell's elusion that her alleged supervisory functions were annual evaluation in which she recommended that isolated and routine in nature and did not require Antell be raised to a higher salary level. Crawford the use of independent judgment. Additionally, the discussed this evaluation with Antell and signed it Hearing Officer found that Crawford had no au- i designated for "supervisor." There is thority to assign work, hire, fire, suspend, lay off, no e o additional independent supervi- transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively* .... r * „ 11 -i- sui- i transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively sor investigation of Antell regarding the salary in- recommend such action./- ,-,- recommend such acio * .1 * *i- u * crease. Crawford's recommendation was approved The Petitioner has excepted to the Hearing Offi- by t E diretor , , ,. , * ii- i.,i~~~~by the Employer s director. cer's recommendation to overrule the challenge to Section 2 1) o ta Crawford's ballot and contends that Crawford is a Sec . t a o ndiid o f th e Act defines a supervisor as supervisor because, based on the Hearing Officer's tedividual having authority, in the interest of own findings, Crawford has the authority to grant rt he employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, or deny sick leave and vacation leave, to discipline pr ec a1 - Promote, discharge, assign, reward, or disci- an employee, to evaluate her work performance, pthe oth er employees, or responsibly to direct and effectively to recommend that her salary be in- th em o o r t o m dust th e i r grievances, or effectively creased. We find merit in the Petitioner's excep- t o recommended such actions if in connection with tions. the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not Crawford is a secretary in the Employer's "as- o f a merly routine or clerical nature but requires sessment and consultation" (herein AC) unit work- th e u se o f independent judgment." It has repeated- ly been pointed out that, since this definition is 'The election was conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Stated in the disjunctive, possession of any Of the Election. Of approximately 17 eligible voters, 8 cast ballots for and 7 enumerated powers Or attributes is Sufficient to es- against the Petitioner. There were two challenged ballots, a number suffi- t _r i^ t1, *» e * - . ' cient to affect the election results. In addition, the Petitioner ried objec- tablish the existence of Supervisory StatUS. tions to the election. Following an investigation, the Regional Director Here, Crawford possesses several of the indicia issued his Supplemental Decision in which he overruled the Petitioner's r ,,pevisirv ailhnritv since the record estah- Objections I and 2 and ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the fac- o f Supervisory authriy Since te record estb- (ual and legal issues raised by the Petitioner's Objections 3 and 4 and by the two challenged ballots. Thereafter, a hearing was held and the Hear- ' The Hearing Officer found that the Employer's accounting office ing Officer issued a report on challenges and objections. considered Crawford to be Antell's supervisor and automatically sent her ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Acting the personnel forms for Antell which are generally sent to an employee's Regional Director's recommendations that the challenge to the ballot of supervisor. Terry Wilson be sustained, that the Petitioner be allowed to withdraw its I Penn Industries. Inc., 233 NLRB 928, 930-931 (1977), and cases cited Objection 3, and that the Petitioner's Objection 4 be overruled,.therein. 259 NLRB No. 108 KERN COUNCIL SERVICES 817 Kern Council Services to the Developmentally Dis- ing directly under the executive/administrative as- abled, Inc. and Social Services Union, Local sistant to the Employer's director. The only other 535, Service Employees International Union, secretary in the unit is Paula Antell. Crawford and AFL-CIO, CLC, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-4995 Antell each receive work assignments from and December 23, 1981 perform primarily secretarial duties for one of two separate groups of professionals in the AC unit. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF When one of the secretaries is absent for a signifi- REPRESENTATIVE cant length of time, the other assumes both sets of BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER ANDsecretarial duties. MEMBERS FANNING AND HUNTER,. C r a w fo r d t ra in e d Antell when the latter was hired by the Employer in September 1979. Addi- Pursuant to authority granted it by the National tionally, since approximately June 1980, Crawford Labor Relations Board under Section 3(b) of the has approved Antell's request for time off and has National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a three- filled out monthly time summary sheets for Antell. member panel has considered objections to and de- Crawford signs both the leave approval and time terminative challenges in an election held on Octo- summary forms in the space designated for supervi- ber 7, 1980,' and the Hearing Officer's report rec- sory approval.' Further, as the Hearing Officer ommending disposition of same. The Board has re- found, Crawford has authority to discipline Antell viewed the record in light of the briefs and hereby and has exercised this authority in the past. Thus, adopts the Hearing Officer's findings and recom- on one occasion when a nutritionist for whom mendations,I except as modified herein. Antell performed secretarial work had a problem The Hearing Officer found that Judy Crawford with Antell's work attitude, Crawford counseled was not a supervisor under Section 2(11) of the Antell regarding her attitude and disposition.On an- Act and recommended overruling the challenge to other occasion, Crawford directed Antell to make her ballot. His determination that Crawford was up work time lost due to her lateness. not a supervisor was based, inter alia, on his con- Most significantly, Crawford prepared Antell's elusion that her alleged supervisory functions were annual evaluation in which she recommended that isolated and routine in nature and did not require Antell be raised to a higher salary level. Crawford the use of independent judgment. Additionally, the discussed this evaluation with Antell and signed it Hearing Officer found that Crawford had no au- i designated for "supervisor." There is thority to assign work, hire, fire, suspend, lay off, no e o additional independent supervi- transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively* .... r * „ 11 -i- sui- i transfer, or promote employees, or to effectively sor investigation of Antell regarding the salary in- recommend such action./- ,-,- recommend such acio * .1 * *i- u * crease. Crawford's recommendation was approved The Petitioner has excepted to the Hearing Offi- by t E diretor , , ,. , * ii- i.,i~~~~by the Employer s director. cer's recommendation to overrule the challenge to Section 2 1) o ta Crawford's ballot and contends that Crawford is a Sec . t a o ndiid o f th e Act defines a supervisor as supervisor because, based on the Hearing Officer's tedividual having authority, in the interest of own findings, Crawford has the authority to grant rt he employer, to hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, or deny sick leave and vacation leave, to discipline pr ec a1 - Promote, discharge, assign, reward, or disci- an employee, to evaluate her work performance, pthe oth er employees, or responsibly to direct and effectively to recommend that her salary be in- t hem o o r t o m dust th e i r grievances, or effectively creased. We find merit in the Petitioner's excep- t o recommended such actions if in connection with tions. the foregoing the exercise of such authority is not Crawford is a secretary in the Employer's "as- o f a merly routine or clerical nature but requires sessment and consultation" (herein AC) unit work- th e u se o f independent judgment." It has repeated- ly been pointed out that, since this definition is 'The election was conducted pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Stated in the disjunctive, possession of any Of the Election. Of approximately 17 eligible voters, 8 cast ballots for and 7 enumerated powers Or attributes is Sufficient to es- against the Petitioner. There were two challenged ballots, a number suffi- t _r i^ t1, *» e * - . ' cient to affect the election results. In addition, the Petitioner ried objec- tablish the existence of Supervisory StatUS. tions to the election. Following an investigation, the Regional Director Here, Crawford possesses several of the indicia issued his Supplemental Decision in which he overruled the Petitioner's r ,,pevisirv ailhnritv since the record estah- Objections I and 2 and ordered that a hearing be held to resolve the fac- o f Supervisory authority Since te record estb- (ual and legal issues raised by the Petitioner's Objections 3 and 4 and by the two challenged ballots. Thereafter, a hearing was held and the Hear- ' The Hearing Officer found that the Employer's accounting office ing Officer issued a report on challenges and objections. considered Crawford to be Antell's supervisor and automatically sent her ' In the absence of exceptions thereto, we adopt, pro forma, the Acting the personnel forms for Antell which are generally sent to an employee's Regional Director's recommendations that the challenge to the ballot of supervisor. Terry Wilson be sustained, that the Petitioner be allowed to withdraw its I Penn Industries. Inc., 233 NLRB 928, 930-931 (1977), and cases cited Objection 3, and that the Petitioner's Objection 4 be overruled,.therein. 259 NLRB No. 108 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lishes that she counsels and disciplines Antell, 5 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the evaluates her performance, and has effectively rec- challenge to Judy Crawford's ballot should be sus- ommended an increase in her salary.6 Additionally, tained. Since both the challenges to ballots in the Crawford has authority to grant or deny Antell's election have been sustained, the tally shows that a leave requests. Concededly, these supervisory func- majority of valid ballots have been cast for the Pe- tions do not occupy the majority of Crawford's titioner. Accordingly, we shall issue a Certification time, but Crawford's constant possession of super- of Representative. visory authority, regardless of the frequency of its exercise, is to be distinguished from instances CERTIFICATION OF where an individual lacks supervisor status because REPRESENTATIVE he possesses supervisory authority sporadically or he possesses supervisory authority sporadically or It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid infrequently. 7 Moreover, the relatively few in- ballots have been cast for Social Services Union, stances of Crawford's exercise of supervisory au- Local 52, Service Employees International Union thority are explicable by her relatively recent as- Lo c a I 5 Service Employees nt tSetional Union sumption of supervisory authority over Antell AFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of (June 1980), and the fact that she supervises but the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the one employee, a factor that in itself does not bar said labor organization is the exclusive representa- supervisory status.8 Finally, Crawford performs her tive of all the employees in the unit found appro- disciplinary and evaluation functions independently priate herein for the purposes of collective bargain- and these functions are those which require discre- ing in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- tion and independent judgment. ployment, or other conditions of employment: In view of the foregoing, we find that Crawford All clerical employees employed by the Em- is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) ployer at its facilities located in Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Delano and Lamont, Cali- See, e.g., JK. Electronics, Inc., d/b/a Wesco Electrical Company, 232 fornia, excluding professional employees, NLRB 479 (1977). '"" l c d b e o E c r a " p y "fornia, excluding professional employees, See. e.g., Our Way. Inc./Our Way Machine Shop, Inc., 238 NLRB 209, Client Program Coordinator Assistants, guards 213 (1978). and supervisors as defined in the Act, as 'Cf. Complete Auto Transit, Inc., 214 NLRB 425 (1974). Cartwright Hardware Co. Inc., 229 NLRB 781, 783, fn. 17 (1977). amended. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lishes that she counsels and disciplines Antell,5 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the evaluates her performance, and has effectively rec- challenge to Judy Crawford's ballot should be sus- ommended an increase in her salary.' Additionally, tained. Since both the challenges to ballots in the Crawford has authority to grant or deny Antell's election have been sustained, the tally shows that a leave requests. Concededly, these supervisory func- majority of valid ballots have been cast for the Pe- tions do not occupy the majority of Crawford's titioner. Accordingly, we shall issue a Certification time, but Crawford's constant possession of super- of Representative. visory authority, regardless of the frequency of its exercise, is to be distinguished from instances CERTIFICATION OF where an individual lacks supervisor status because REPRESENTATIVE he possesses supervisory authority sporadically or I i h crie t a m o th valid infrequently.7 Moreover, the relatively few in- t is hereby certified that a majority of the valid infrquetly. Moeovr, te rlatvelyfewin- ballots have been cast for Social Services Union, stances of Crawford's exercise of supervisory au- L a l 525, S e e Emplo ye s I e rnaton, U n io n , thority are explicable by her relatively recent as- A L o c a I 5 2 5 Service Employees International Union sumption of supervisory authority over Antell tAFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of (June 1980), and the fact that she supervises but t h e National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the one employee, a factor that in itself does not bar s a id l ab o r organization is the exclusive representa- supervisory status.' Finally, Crawford performs her tiv e of all the employees in the unit found appro- disciplinary and evaluation functions independently priate h e r ein for the purposes of collective bargain- and these functions are those which require discre- i"g i n respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- tion and independent judgment. ployment, or other conditions of employment: In view of the foregoing, we find that Crawford All clerical employees employed by the Em- is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) ployer at its facilities located in Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Delano and Lament, Cali- NLRB 'W^).s '""" l c - d/ b/ 4 W 7 s 9 o El ( c 1 r 7 ca 7 Compony. 2 fornia, excluding professional employees, I See. e.g., Our Way. Inc./Our Way Machine shop. Inc., 238 NLRB 209, Client Program Coordinator Assistants, guards 213 (1978). and supervisors as defined in the Act, as 'Cf. Complete Auto Transit. Inc., 214 NLRB 425 (1974). Carnwright Hardware Co., Inc., 229 NLRB 781, 783, fn. 17 (1977). amended. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lishes that she counsels and disciplines Antell,5 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the evaluates her performance, and has effectively rec- challenge to Judy Crawford's ballot should be sus- ommended an increase in her salary.' Additionally, tained. Since both the challenges to ballots in the Crawford has authority to grant or deny Antell's election have been sustained, the tally shows that a leave requests. Concededly, these supervisory func- majority of valid ballots have been cast for the Pe- tions do not occupy the majority of Crawford's titioner. Accordingly, we shall issue a Certification time, but Crawford's constant possession of super- of Representative. visory authority, regardless of the frequency of its exercise, is to be distinguished from instances CERTIFICATION OF where an individual lacks supervisor status because REPRESENTATIVE he possesses supervisory authority sporadically or I i h crie t a m o th valid infrequently.7 Moreover, the relatively few in- t is hereby certified that a majority of the valid infrquetly. Moeovr, te rlatvelyfewin- ballots have been cast for Social Services Union, stances of Crawford's exercise of supervisory au- L a l 525, S e e Emplo ye s I e rnaton, U n io n , thority are explicable by her relatively recent as- A L o c a I 5 2 5 Service Employees International Union sumption of supervisory authority over Antell tAFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of (June 1980), and the fact that she supervises but t h e National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the one employee, a factor that in itself does not bar s a id l ab o r organization is the exclusive representa- supervisory status.' Finally, Crawford performs her tiv e of all the employees in the unit found appro- disciplinary and evaluation functions independently priate h e r ein for the purposes of collective bargain- and these functions are those which require discre- i"g i n respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- tion and independent judgment. ployment, or other conditions of employment: In view of the foregoing, we find that Crawford All clerical employees employed by the Em- is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) ployer at its facilities located in Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Delano and Lament, Cali- NLRB 'W^).s '""" l c - d/ b/ a Weso Elec lrical C 479 p y 1 9 2 77fornia, excluding professional employees, I See. e.g., Our Way. Inc./Our Way Machine shop. Inc., 238 NLRB 209, Client Program Coordinator Assistants, guards 213 (1978). and supervisors as defined in the Act, as 'Cf. Complete Auto Transit. Inc., 214 NLRB 425 (1974). Carnwright Hardware Co., Inc., 229 NLRB 781, 783, fn. 17 (1977). amended. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lishes that she counsels and disciplines Antell,5 of the Act. Accordingly, we conclude that the evaluates her performance, and has effectively rec- challenge to Judy Crawford's ballot should be sus- ommended an increase in her salary.' Additionally, tained. Since both the challenges to ballots in the Crawford has authority to grant or deny Antell's election have been sustained, the tally shows that a leave requests. Concededly, these supervisory func- majority of valid ballots have been cast for the Pe- tions do not occupy the majority of Crawford's titioner. Accordingly, we shall issue a Certification time, but Crawford's constant possession of super- of Representative. visory authority, regardless of the frequency of its exercise, is to be distinguished from instances CERTIFICATION OF where an individual lacks supervisor status because REPRESENTATIVE he possesses supervisory authority sporadically or I i h crie t a m o th valid infrequently.7 Moreover, the relatively few in- t is hereby certified that a majority of the valid infrquetly. Moeovr, te rlatvelyfewin- ballots have been cast for Social Services Union, stances of Crawford's exercise of supervisory au- L a l 525, S e e Emplo ye s I e rnaton, U n io n , thority are explicable by her relatively recent as- A L o c a I 5 2 5 Service Employees International Union sumption of supervisory authority over Antell tAFL-CIO, and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of (June 1980), and the fact that she supervises but t h e National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the one employee, a factor that in itself does not bar s a id l ab o r organization is the exclusive representa- supervisory status.' Finally, Crawford performs her tiv e of all the employees in the unit found appro- disciplinary and evaluation functions independently priate h e r ein for the purposes of collective bargain- and these functions are those which require discre- i"g i n respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of em- tion and independent judgment. ployment, or other conditions of employment: In view of the foregoing, we find that Crawford All clerical employees employed by the Em- is a supervisor within the meaning of Section 2(11) ployer at its facilities located in Bakersfield, Ridgecrest, Shafter, Delano and Lament, Cali- NLRB 'W^).s '""" l c - d/ b/ a Weso Elec lrical C 479 p y 1 9 2 77fornia, excluding professional employees, I See. e.g., Our Way. Inc./Our Way Machine shop. Inc., 238 NLRB 209, Client Program Coordinator Assistants, guards 213 (1978). and supervisors as defined in the Act, as 'Cf. Complete Auto Transit. Inc., 214 NLRB 425 (1974). Carnwright Hardware Co., Inc., 229 NLRB 781, 783, fn. 17 (1977). amended.