Electrical Workers IUE Local 826 (Otis Elevator)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 826, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and CLC and Linda Fields and Otis Elevator Company, Inc., Party to the Contract. Case 25-CB-4290 27 October 1983 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 9 September 1981, Administrative Law Judge Irwin H. Socoloff issued the attached decision. The General Counsel filed exceptions and a supporting brief, and the Respondent filed cross-exceptions and a supporting brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings, and conclusions only to the extent consistent with this Decision and Order. The complaint alleges that the Respondent Union, Local 826, International Union of Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and CLC, violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing a provision in its collective-bargaining agreement with Otis Elevator Company which grants superseniority for purposes of layoff and recall to local union officers. The judge found that the one officer named in the com- plaint, the financial secretary, occupied a position which relates in general to furthering the bargain- ing relationship and recommended dismissing the complaint, citing Limpco Mfg. Co., 230 NLRB 406 (1977), enfd. sub nom. Anna D'Amico v. NLRB, 582 F.2d 820 (3d Cir. 1978). For the reasons stated below, we do not agree. The facts, as set out in more detail in the judge's decision, are not in dispute. The Respondent Union has served since 1965 as the collective-bargaining representative of the salaried and hourly employees at Otis Elevator Company's Bloomington, Indiana plant. All its collective-bargaining agreements with the Employer, from the initial 1966 contract to the present contract which is effective to 1983, con- tained a superseniority clause providing that "in the event there should be a decrease in the work- ing force, the Local Union Officers, including ne- gotiation committee members, shall be the last to be laid off and the first to be recalled."' Since set- i The Respondent Union represents the salaried employees in one unit and the hourly employees in another unit. The units have separate collec- tive.bargaining agreements. The salaried unit superseniority provision is the focus of the instant case. 268 NLRB No. 12 tlement of a 1969 grievance, the Employer and the Respondent Union have agreed not to apply the su- perseniority provision to members of the union ne- gotiating committee. Only the five Local officers- president, two vice presidents, financial secretary, and recording secretary-along with the stewards 2 have been eligible for superseniority under the con- tract since 1969. In the late summer of 1980 the Employer cut back its work force, resulting in numerous layoffs and downgrading of employees. One of those downgradings involved salaried production clerks, the Employer determining that one of the present production clerks would have to be reassigned to the lower paid position of inventory clerk. On 27 August 1980, one of the Employer's supervisors in- formed production clerk Linda Fields that she was being "bumped" into the position of inventory clerk while fellow production clerk David Carter, who was the union financial secretary, was being retained as a production clerk. Fields had greater seniority than Carter for the purpose of layoff and recall under the contract, and would have been re- tained in the higher paying classification while Carter would have been downgraded had there been no superseniority clause. When Fields protest- ed her downgrading to the Employer's personnel manager, he replied that the Respondent Union was relying on the 1969 grievance settlement which acknowledged the contractual right of union officers to superseniority. Fields was downgraded to the position of inventory clerk on 2 September 1980. She was reassigned as production clerk in late December, was downgraded to inventory clerk again on or about I February 1981, and was finally reassigned as production clerk in mid-March 1981. The Respondent Union's financial secretary is elected and serves as the organization's financial of- ficer. His responsibilities include accounting for all money received by the Union, paying all the Union's bills, preparing the Union's monthly finan- cial reports, maintaining the Union's books and ac- counts, processing dues-checkoff authorization cards, ensuring that dues are deducted for all em- ployees who have authorized checkoff, and manag- ing union strike benefits. The financial secretary serves on the Union's executive board, comprised of the five officers, three trustees, and six members- at-large. At the monthly executive board meetings, third-step contractual grievances are discussed and 2 The superseniority clause of the collective-bargaining agreement con- tains a provision regarding superseniority for stewards, in addition to the provision regarding superseniority for local union officers. The steward superseniority provision states that "Salaried Stewards shall, among the plant clerical employees and inspectors, be the last to be laid off and the first to be recalled," It is not at issue in the instant case. 180 ELECTRICAL WORKERS IUE LOCAL 826 (OTIS ELEVATOR) the executive board votes whether to pursue the grievance. The financial secretary and the other ex- ecutive board members attend the monthly meet- ings of the shop stewards at which pending con- tractual grievances are considered. As noted above, the judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed, finding that the Re- spondent Union's financial secretary performed duties entitling him to exercise superseniority rights under the standards set forth in Limpco Mfg. How- ever, the Board recently reexamined the issue of superseniority for union officials in Gulton Electro- Voice, 266 NLRB 406 (1983), and on reconsider- ation decided to overrule Limpco and its progeny. In Gulton, at 409, the Board announced, for reasons set forth in detail therein, that: We will find unlawful those grants of super- seniority extending beyond those employees responsible for grievance processing and on- the-job contract administration. We will find lawful only those superseniority provisions limited to employees who, as agents of the union, must be on the job to accomplish their duties directly related to administering the col- lective-bargaining agreement. Here, the judge engaged in a detailed examination of the record evidence concerning the duties and activities of the financial secretary and found that the financial secretary "does not engage in stew- ard-type functions at the plant level." That finding is fully supported by the record, and we affirm it. Therefore, under Gulton, we find that the mainte- nance and enforcement of the collective-bargaining agreement provision granting superseniority to local union officers was unlawful as applied to the Respondent Union's financial secretary. 3 Accord- ingly, we find that the Respondent Union has vio- lated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act by maintaining and enforcing the superseniority clause with respect to its financial secretary. Furthermore, by according David Carter superseniority under the disputed clause and thereby affecting employ- ees who would not have been affected if the col- lective-bargaining agreement had not accorded the financial secretary superseniority, the Respondent Union further violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2). 3 In finding that the Union acted unlawfully, we note that the super- seniority clause at issue herein appears to apply only to layoffs and re- calls. Indeed the contractual clause speaks only of "in the event there should be a decrease in the working force" local union officers will be "the last to be laid off and the first to be recalled." Yet here the Re- spondent Union applied the clause in a situation where the union officer faced, not layoff, but merely a downgrading to a lower paying job. There is no contention or evidence that financial secretary Carter would have been laid off had the Respondent Union not applied the superseniority clause to his situation. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af- firmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. We have found that the superseniority provision here in dispute is unlawful and we shall therefore order that the Respondent Union cease and desist from maintaining or enforcing the superseniority clause in the collective-bargaining agreement with respect to the Respondent Union's financial secre- tary. To remedy the discriminatory application of the unlawful clause, we shall order the Respondent Union to notify the employer and any affected em- ployee in writing that it has no objection to the re- instatement of any affected employee to the posi- tion he or she held prior to the enforcement of the superseniority clause against him or her. We shall further order the Respondent Union to make whole any affected unit employee for loss of earnings which may have been suffered as a result of the discrimination against the affected employee. Back- pay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289 (1950), with interest as provided in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). Finally, we shall order that Respondent Union cease and desist from in any like or related manner restrain- ing or coercing employees it represents in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed employees by Section 7 of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Otis Elevator Company, Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. Local 826, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. By maintaining and enforcing a clause in its collective-bargaining agreement with the employer which accords the Respondent Union's financial secretary superseniority, the Respondent Union has engaged in, and is engaging in, unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. 4. By according Union Financial Secretary David Carter superseniority to the detriment of an- other unit employee under the clause found unlaw- ful herein, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in an unfair labor practice within 181 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the meaning of Section 8(b)(l)(A) and (2) of the Act. 5. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent Union, Local 826, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma- chine Workers, AFL-CIO and CLC, its officers, agents, and representatives, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Maintaining, enforcing, or otherwise giving effect to the clause in its collective-bargaining agreement with Otis Elevator Company, Inc., ac- cording the Respondent Union's financial secretary superseniority for purposes of layoff and recall or any other purpose. (b) Causing or attemping to cause the employer to discriminate against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (c) In any like or related manner restraining or coercing employees of the employer in the exercise of the rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Make whole any unit employee for loss of earnings he or she may have suffered as a result of the discrimination against him or her, such lost earnings to be determined in the manner set forth in the section of this decision entitled "The Remedy." (b) Notify the employer and any affected em- ployee in writing that the Respondent Union has no objection to reinstating any affected unit em- ployee who but for the unlawful assignment of su- perseniority would not have been downgraded. (c) Post at its meeting hall copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix." 4 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 25, after being signed by the Respondent Union's authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respondent Union immediately upon re- ceipt, and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous places including all places where no- tices to members are customarily posted. Reasona- ble steps shall be taken by the Respondent Union to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. 4 If this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board." (d) Mail signed copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix" to the Regional Director for Region 25, for posting by the Employer, if it is willing. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Respondent has taken to comply. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT maintain or enforce any clause in our collective-bargaining agreement with Otis Ele- vator Company, Inc., according the financial secre- tary superseniority with respect to layoff or recall. WE WILL NOT cause or attempt to cause Otis El- evator Company, Inc. to discriminate against any employee by requiring that the collective-bargain- ing agreement be enforced so as to downgrade him or her instead of the financial secretary when the financial secretary does not in fact have greater se- niority in terms of length of employment. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner re- strain or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights protected by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL notify Otis Elevator Company, Inc. that we have no objection to reinstating affected unit employee Linda Fields, who but for the un- lawful assignment of superseniority would not have been downgraded. WE WILL make the above-named employee whole for any loss of earnings she may have suf- fered as a result of the discrimination against her, with interest. LOCAL 826, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MA- CHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO AND CLC DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE IRWIN H. SOCOLOFF, Administrative Law Judge: Upon a charge filed on September 15, 1980, by Linda L. Fields, an individual, against Local 826, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL- CIO and CLC, herein called the Respondent, the Gener- al Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director for Region 25, issued a complaint dated October 24, 1980, alleging violations by the Re- 182 ELECTRICAL WORKERS IUE LOCAL 826 (OTIS ELEVATOR) spondent of Section 8(b)(2) and (A) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, herein called the Act. The Respondent, by its answer, denies the com- mission of any unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, trial was held before me in Bloom- ington, Indiana, on July 8, 1981, at which the General Counsel and the Respondent were represented by coun- sel and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex- amine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs which have been duly considered. On the entire record in this case and from my observa- tions of the witnesses, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. JURISDICTION Otis Elevator Company, Inc., a New Jersey corpora- tion, maintains a plant in Bloomington, Indiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of elevator equipment and related products. During the year preceding issuance of the complaint, a representa- tive period, it purchased and received at the Blooming- ton plant goods and materials valued in excess of $50,000 which were sent directly from points located outside the State of Indiana. I find that Otis Elevator Company, Inc. is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 1l. LABOR ORGANIZATION The Respondent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. II. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background The Respondent has, since 1965, served as collective- bargaining representative of the salaried and hourly paid employees at the Bloomington plant. Its initial contracts with the employer, and succeeding agreements, 1 have contained, in identical language, superseniority provi- sions as follows: Salaried Employees Agreement Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Arti- cle, in the event that there should be a decrease in the working force, the Local Union Officers, in- cluding negotiation committee members, shall be the last to be laid off and the first to be recalled provided that they have the ability and fitness to perform the available work. The Salaried Stewards shall, among the plant clerical employees and inspectors, be the last to be laid off and the first to be recalled provided that they have the ability and fitness to perform the available work within the department. I The salaried employees and the hourly paid workers are covered by separate agreements. Production and Maintenance Employees Agreement Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Arti- cle, the stewards shall, among the employees in the department, be the last to be laid off and the first to be rehired, provided they have the ability to per- form the work available within the department. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this Arti- cle, Officers, Executive Board Members, Grievance Committee Members, and Negotiating Committee Members shall, among the employees within the Plant, be the last to be laid off and the first to be rehired, provided they have the ability to handle the work available. Late in the summer of 1980, the employer reduced its work force, necessitating the layoffs and downgradings of a large number of employees. On August 27, the Re- spondent Union enforced the superseniority provisions, thus causing Linda L. Fields, a salaried production clerk, to be "bumped" to the lower paying position of invento- ry clerk while her fellow production clerk, David Carter, the then financial secretary of the Union, was re- tained in the higher paying classification. At the time Fields had greater actual seniority than Carter, under the contract, for layoff and recall purposes, and, but for the operation of the superseniority provisions, would have been retained in the higher paying classification while Carter would have been downgraded. In the instant case, the General Counsel contends that Carter, as financial secretary of the Union, did not have duties involving the implementation or administration of the collective-bargaining agreement, and did not engage in the processing of grievances or other steward-type ac- tivities at the plant level, and, therefore, when the Re- spondent caused the superseniority provisions of the agreement to be applied to his benefit, and to the detri- ment of Fields, it acted in violation of Section 8(b)(2) and (1)(A) of the Act. The Respondent argues that the integral importance of the financial secretary to the proper and efficient functioning of the union entity ren- ders the occupant of that position a proper recipient of superseniority benefits for layoff and recall purposes. B. Facts2 Notwithstanding the language of the contractual su- perseniority provisions, the parties have, since the dispo- sition of a 1969 grievance, limited superseniority rights to stewards and to the five union officers (president, two vice presidents, recording secretary, and financial secre- tary). Thus, as a matter of practice under the contract, superseniority rights do not extend to members, qua members, of the Union's executive board, negotiating committee, or grievance committee. The superseniority provisions have been applied to situations of layoff and recall, and to downgradings which occur as a result of layoffs. 2 The factfindings contained herein are based on a composite of rele- vant documentary and testimonial evidence introduced at the hearing. The record is free of significant evidentiary conflict. 183 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD On August 22, 1980, Fields was informed by her su- pervisor, George Howell, that the employer would insti- tute a reduction in force, affecting her classification but that she, Fields, would not be laid off or downgraded. However, 5 days later, Howell told Fields that she would be "bumped" to a lower paying job, and that Carter would be retained as a production clerk, because, as the Union's financial secretary, Carter had supersen- iority rights. When Fields protested to John Bywater, the employer's personnel manager, she was informed that the Union had produced the settlement of the 1969 grievance, granting superseniority rights to union offi- cers. Fields' subsequent request, made to the Union, that it file a grievance on her behalf was ignored. On Septem- ber 2 she was downgraded to the position of inventory clerk where she worked until the end of December. Fol- lowing reinstatement to her former job, Fields was again downgraded, to the inventory clerk position about Feb- ruary 1. In mid-March, she was returned to her perma- nent classification job. The Respondent Union is not an amalgamated union. It represents but one group of employees, the Otis em- ployees working at the Bloomington plant. Its officers, all of whom are elected, and its 728 members are em- ployees of Otis. The affairs of the Union are handled by its executive board which consists of the five officers, three trustees, and six members-at-large. Contracts are negotiated by a committee which includes the president, the two vice presidents, and four elected members. This committee acts after it receives, from the members, their suggestions concerning contract changes. 3 All collective- bargaining agreements, negotiated by the committee, are subject to ratification by the membership. The Union's financial secretary is its sole financial offi- cer. His responsibilities include receiving and accounting for all money paid to the Union; preparing vouchers and cosigning checks, insuring that bills are paid, preparing and presenting monthly financial reports to the executive board and the membership and per capita tax reports to the International Union, maintaining the Union's books and accounts, preparing necessary income tax reports, maintaining checking and savings accounts, participating in the conduct of quarterly and annual audits, receiving mail, ordering and maintaining office equipment and sup- plies, processing dues-checkoff authorization cards, en- suring that dues are deducted for all employees who have authorized checkoff, and managing strike benefits. The financial secretary attends the monthly executive board meetings at which third-step grievances are dis- cussed, and recommendations to the membership, with respect to whether or not to proceed with such griev- ances to arbitration, are formulated. This officer, along with the other members of the executive board, also at- tends the monthly meetings of the shop stewards at which all pending grievances are considered. The finan- cial secretary spends some 12 hours per week in per- formance of his official duties for which he is paid $75 per month plus compensation for "lost time" from work. In 1980, the financial secretary, Carter, was appointed by 3 Of the approximately 350 members who, in 1980, submitted recom- mendations to the Union, suggesting changes in the contract, none urged that seniority preference for union officers be discontinued. the president, with the approval of the membership, to take notes at negotiation meetings. However, this ap- pointment was apparently unrelated to Carter's financial secretary position and, in any event, his role at negotia- tions was limited to note-taking. C. Conclusions In Dairylea Cooperative,4 the Board held that contract clauses granting superseniority rights to union stewards are lawful provided such benefits are bestowed solely for purposes of layoff and recall. While finding that these clauses have an inherent tendency to discriminate against employees for union-related reasons, the Board conclud- ed that superseniority clauses, which operate to keep the steward on the job, are nonetheless permissible because they maintain the ability of the steward to perform his functions, thus benefiting all unit employees. In subse- quent cases, the Board approved superseniority arrange- ments which not only permit stewards to avoid layoff but also downgrading. 5 In recent years, a divided Board has also considered the issue presented in this case, namely, whether superseniority may be provided to union officers who do not engage in steward-type func- tions. A Board majority (then Chairman Fanning and Mem- bers Murphy and Walther) found in Electrical Workers Local 623 (Limpco Mfg., Inc.),6 that superseniority rights lawfully had been invoked to prevent the layoff of the union's recording secretary, one of its four officers and the only union officer employed at the Limpco plant. That officer did not have official responsibility for the handling of grievances. The majority, in concluding that superseniority arrangements need not be limited in appli- cation to individuals engaged in processing or adjusting grievances at the workplace, noted: What is at stake is the effective and efficient repre- sentation of employees by their collective-bargain- ing representatives. Certainly, the representational activities carried out by union officials involved in the administration of the collective-bargaining agreement on behalf of employees extend beyond the narrow confines of grievance processing. These encompass at the very least a functioning local to assert the presence of the union on the job.' The Act guarantees employees the right to be so represented through the collective-bargaining process. In fact, perhaps the most important union officer, the presi- dent, is usually not involved in grievance proceed- ings ... The majority held that "once it has been initially demon- strated that the official responsibilities of the union offi- cer in question bear a direct relationship to the effective and efficient representation of unit employees" applica- tion of contractual superseniority to this officer is pre- 4 219 NLRB 656 (1975), enfd. sub nom. NLRB v. Teamsters Local 338, 531 F.2d 1162 (2d Cir. 1976). 5 See, e.g., Parker-Hannifin Corp.., 231 NLRB 884 (1977). 6 230 NLRB 406, 407-408 (1977), enfd. sub nom. D'Amico v. NLRB, 582 F.2d 820 (3d Cir. 1978) 184 ELECTRICAL WORKERS IUE LOCAL 826 (OTIS ELEVATOR) sumptively valid. Dissenting, Members Jenkins-and Pen- ello opined that the grant of superseniority benefits to union officials whose representation functions are'not re- lated to their presence on the job is presumptively in- valid. In Otis Elevator Co.,7 a Board majority approved seniority preference for additional officers "because in their official capacities they contribute to the ability of the union to represent the unit efficiently and effective- ly." Thereafter, in American Can Co.,8 a divided Board sanctioned application of contractually established super- seniority benefits to union officials who served, respec- tively, as a guard (a doorman) and a trustee (whose offi- cial duty it was to take charge of the hall and the union's property). In that case, the majority held that documen- tary descriptions of the duties of the officers in question, which showed no visible or direct impact by them on contract administration, were insufficient to overcome the presumption of lawful application of superseniority benefits. Subsequent to issuance by the Board of the American Can decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in D'Amico v. NLRB, 9 reviewed the Board's decision in Limpco. Agreeing with the Board majority, that the union's recording secretary was a proper recipient of superseniority benefits, the court relied on factual findings that the officer "participated in- formally in processing grievances and assisting stewards in resolving grievances, and advised stewards and fore- men on contract interpretation. She was asked by the chief steward to attend meetings to help formulate bar- gaining ideas. During a recent strike, she was in charge of scheduling pickets and handling money for the pick- ets." In light of these factors, the court concluded that application of the superseniority clause was valid as the union had met its burden by producing "credible proof that the individual in question was officially assigned duties which helped to implement the collective-bargain- ing agreement in a meaningful way." Following the court's decision in D'Amico, the Board, sua sponte, reconsidered its American Can'° holding, and, by plurality decision, overturned it. Members Jen- kins and Penello, the dissenters in Limpco, held that union officers may not benefit from superseniority clauses except when the officers also serve as stewards or otherwise engage in administration of the contract at the place and during the hours of their employment. Member Murphy, while concurring in the result reached by Members Jenkins and Penello, did so because, in her view, the demonstrated duties of the guard (doorman) and the trustee (who took charge of the hall and the 7 231 NLRB 1128 (1977). s 235 NLRB 704 (1978). 9 Supra. LO American Can Co. (11), 244 NLRB 736 (1978). union's property) did not relate "to the general further- ing of the bargaining relationship." In her concurrence, Member Murphy emphasized her continued adherence to the Limpco rationale. Dissenting, then Chairman Fanning and Member Truesdale continued to support the original decision in American Can. For present purposes, I regard the Board's majority decision in Limpco as still good law since three of the five Board members, in the Board's most recent decision in this area, affirmed its general rationale. I regard the current state of the law as this: When superseniority clauses are applied to union officials, stewards or offi- cers, whose duties relate, in general, to furthering the bargaining relationship, the tendency of such clauses to discriminate against employees based on union consider- ations is offset by the representational benefits gained by all unit employees. In the instant case, the financial secretary, whose su- perseniority rights are challenged, does not engage in steward-type functions at the plant level. He is, however, the Union's financial officer and, as the record evidence demonstrates, he is vital to the proper and efficient func- tioning of the Union entity and, hence, to the ability of the Union to administer the contract and represent the employees. This is not a case in which superseniority rights were granted to a doorman but, rather, to one of the highest ranking and most responsible of union offi- cials. The officer was elected by his fellow unit employ- ees to serve as the sole financial officer of a union which exists to serve the employees of this particular unit. He plays a vital role in the ability of the Union to function and to assert its presence on the job. For these reasons, I conclude that, under Limpco, the Respondent Union did not violate the Act by causing the superseniority provi- sions of the contract to be applied to this officer. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Otis Elevator Company, Inc. is an employer en- gaged in commerce, and in operations affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent, Local 826, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO and CLC, is a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. 3. The Respondent has not violated the Act as alleged in the complaint. [Recommended Order for dismissal omitted from pub- lication.] I In addition, at the monthly executive board meetings, he partici- pates, formally, in the grievance process. He also, as noted, attends the regular meetings of the shop stewards. 185