100 N.L.R.B. 1450 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

Pittsburgh Metallurgical Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 9, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1450 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD PITTSBURGH METALLURGICAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1 and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICULTURAL IM- PLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW-CIO), PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1674. October 9, 19.5 Decision and Direction of Election Upon.a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner, by executing an agreement with the Employer in June 1952 covering all production and maintenance employees at the plant here involved, but expressly excluding office and clerical employees and the messenger, waived its right to represent these excluded em- ployees. We deny the motion, on the ground that the 1952 contract does not support the alleged waiver or constitute an agreement by the Petitioner not to seek to represent them separately. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Calvert City, Kentucky, plant, including the mes- senger, but excluding professional employees and supervisors. The Employer agrees, and would include some seven named office and cler- ical employees in some six classifications. But it would exclude seven other employees 2 on the ground that they are confidential employees, 1 As amended at the hearing. 2 Three secretaries ( assigned respectively to the superintendent, the personnel director, and the office manager), three clerks ( the chief clerk, the maintenance department clerk, and the yard department clerk), and the switchboard operator 100 NLRB No. 229. PITTSBURGH METALLURGICAL COMPANY, INCORPORATED 1451 and the messenger on the ground that he has different interests from the remaining employees sought by the Petitioner .3 With respect to the three secretaries, the record shows that the plant or general superintendent and the personnel director exercise man- agerial functions in the field of labor relations. Although the office manager participates in such functions to a far lesser degree, the record indicates that he receives copies of labor relations material for filing by his secretary. Moreover, his secretary regularly operates the teletype machine, which is used for communication with the home office regarding labor relations. She also types final versions of the Employer's labor contracts after negotiations have been completed, and in this respect appears to be working for the superintendent and personnel director. In addition, she is in charge of files containing all the foregoing and certain other labor relations material. Pur- suant to our usual custom, we find that the secretary to each of these three officials is a confidental employee and should be excluded 4 With respect to the three clerks, the record fails to establish the Employer's allegation that they have access to labor relations material, although they do have access to other information which the Employer considers confidential for business reasons 5 Pursuant to usual Board practice, we find that these clerks are not confidential employees within our meaning of the term. With respect to the switchboard operator, she "sometimes" trans- mits over the teletype machine messages which "once in a while" relate to labor relations. Generally, however, the Employer does not charge her with confidential matters, but contends only that she may eavesdrop on such matters and should be excluded from the unit for that reason. There is no evidence that she ever does eavesdrop. Pur- suant to our usual custom, we find such a speculative possibility in- sufficient to exclude her from the coverage of the Act as a confidential employee. 3 The Employer would also exclude the three clerks on the ground that they might be supervisors , and the position of secretary to the chief engineer on the ground of its confi- dential nature. However, the record does not establish the alleged supervisory status with respect to the clerks . As to the position of secretary to the chief engineer, the record establishes that there is no incumbent and that the Employer does not presently contem- plate filling the vacancy. Accordingly , we find no merit in these arguments of the Employer d See The Ohio Steel Foundry Company, 92 NLRB 683 ; Phillips Oil Compen4j, 91 NLRB 534. For example , there is testimony that the office where the chief clerk spends some of his time receives "copies of certain labor reports and personnel reports . .. of dis- ciplinary action" and "correspondence relating to general labor policies . . . neces- sary for our supervision to be familiar with " There is also testimony that department heads sharing an office with other clerks are consulted before a change in labor policy applicable to the particular department . We find such testimony insufficient to warrant excluding the clerks from the coverage of the Act . See cases cited in the preceding footnote. 1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The messenger's duties are not clerical or performed principally in the office. But he is directly responsible to the office manager, and is excluded from the existing production and maintenance unit sep- arately represented by the Petitioner. In these circumstances, we reject the Employer's contention that his interests are so different from those of the office and clerical employees as to preclude his in- clusion in the present unit. Accordingly, we find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Calvert City, Kentucky, plant, including the chief clerk, the maintenance department clerk, the yard department clerk, the switchboard operator, and the messenger, but excluding the plant superintendent's secretary, the personnel director's secretary, the office manager's secretary, and professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] HERPOLSHEIMER COMPANY 1 and RETAIL CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1682, RETALD CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1863. October 9,1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Russell Bradley, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- I The name, of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. The Employer at the hearing moved to dismiss the petition, contending that the Peti- tioner had failed to show adequate interest among the employees it seeks to represent. This is a matter which is administratively determined and is not the subject of litigation. We are, moreover, satisfied that the Petitioner had made adequate showing of interest in the unit which the Board finds appropriate herein. The motion is therefore denied. W. F. Schraft & Sons Corp., 86 NLRB 77. 100 NLRB No. 232.