Sunarhauserman

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 1176 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

1176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SunarHauserman and UBC, Southern Council of In-
dustrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 2982, Union-Petitioner. Case 26-
UC-104
14 December 1984
DECISION ON REVIEW AND UNIT
CLARIFICATION
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 6 February 1984 the Regional Director for
Region 26 issued his decision and order dismissing
the Union's petition for unit clarification. The Re-
gional Director found the petition inappropriate be-
cause it attempted to clarify the contractually
agreed-upon bargaining unit during the term of the
parties' collective-bargaining agreement. Thereaf-
ter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, the Union filed a
timely request for review alleging that the Region-
al Director made inadequate and erroneous find-
ings of fact.
By telegraphic order dated 24 May 1984 the
Board granted the Union's request for review, rein-
stated the petition and remanded the case to the
Regional Director for a hearing and an appropriate
decision. On 6 July 1984 the hearing officer issued
a report setting forth the issues and facts. On 11
July 1984 the Acting Regional Director issued an
order transferring the case to the Board.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case and makes the following findings.
The Employer manufactures modular office fur-
niture. The Union was certified in 1965 and repre-
sents the following unit of employees:
All production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's Marked Tree, Arkansas, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, profession-
al employees, guards and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
The Employer and the Union are parties to a
collective-bargaining agreement effective 14 No-
vember 1983 through 15 November 1986. The par-
ties' previous contract was negotiated in late 1980
and was in effect from 1980 to 1983. The petition
urges that the job classifications of inventory cycle
counter, quality control technician, receiving clerk,
and dock auditor are properly included in the unit.
For the reasons discussed below we find that the
inventory cycle counter, quality control technician
and receiving clerk have been historically excluded
from the unit and that the position of dock auditor
is appropriately included in the unit.
The classifications covered by the petition are
salaried positions which participate in programs
and receive benefits different from those of the
hourly unit employees. These benefits include dif-
ferent systems of performance review, education
reimbursement, medical insurance, life insurance,
vacation scheduling, and pension benefits. Unlike
the unit employees, the disputed classifications do
not punch a timeclock.
The position of inventory cycle counter was cre-
ated 5 September 1977. The position was originally
entitled production and inventory control coordi-
nator and was necessitated by expansion and the in-
stitution of a new inventory system. The counter's
duties include daily monitoring of inventory,
counting parts in work areas and checking them
against a ledger balance, and overseeing the inven-
tory control system. Although the position in-
volves a substantial amount of time working on the
factory floor it also entails a significant amount of
paperwork. For the first 3 years of the position's
existence, the counter had a desk in the main cleri-
cal office, an area separate and enclosed from the
plant floor. When the main clerical office became
overcrowded, the counters were moved to an en-
closed cubicle in the plant area.
The position of quality control technician was
created in October 1979. The position was necessi-
tated by an increase in inventory and a need to
assure that all materials complied with specifica-
tions. The position evolved from the unit classifica-
tion of inspector, which primarily involved the
visual checking of goods from a specific depart-
ment. The technician position is more complex in
that it requires the use of sensitive equipment, the
ability to read blueprints, and the ability to conduct
chemical paint analysis. The technician's duties in-
clude checking the material acceptability of parts,
sampling, and assuring compliance with blueprints.
Technicians perform a significant amount of cleri-
cal work and are situated in cubicles in the plant
area.
The position of receiving clerk, originally enti-
tled receiving and supply clerk, has been in exist-
ence since at least October 1977. The receiving
clerk checks and identifies incoming materials and
directs them throughout the plant. The position in-
volves a substantial amount of paperwork including
maintenance of purchase orders, logs, financial
data, inspection sheets, and invoices.
The position of dock auditor was created 2
March 1981. The position was necessitated by fre-
quent mistakes in outgoing shipments. The dock
auditor's duties consist of checking the merchan-
273 NLRB No. 147
SUNARHAUSERMAN 1177
dise being shipped against a packing list. The dock
auditor works primarily in the loading dock area
and works closely with unit employees in the ship-
ping crew. The dock auditor and the shipping crew
are commonly supervised. The position involves
minimal clerical work. Before the dock auditor's
position was established, a crew leader or unit em-
ployee performed this function. Following the cre-
ation of the dock auditor's position the number of
shipping errors decreased and the need for a full-
time dock auditor diminished. Since October 1983
the position has been vacant.' The auditor's func-
tions are currently performed by unit employees or
the crew leader, much the same as preceded the
creation of the dock auditor position.
The Union contends that it reserved the right to
file a unit clarification petition concerning the dis-
puted classifications after the parties reached im-
passe during the 1983 contract negotiations. It fur-
ther asserts that the duties of the disputed classifi-
cations were performed in the past by bargaining-
unit employees and that these duties are plant cleri-
cal in nature, similar to those of unit members. The
Employer contends that most of the disputed posi-
tions existed before the 1980 and 1983 contract ne-
gotiations and that they do not share a community
of interest with bargaining-unit employees.
We find that the position of inventory cycle
counter, quality control technician, and receiving
clerk have historically been excluded from the unit.
The evidence shows that these positions were in
existence at the time of the parties' 1980 and 1983
contract negotiations. The record does not indicate
that the Union sought to include these positions in
the unit. 2 The contractual unit reached by the par-
ties did not include the above-mentioned classifica-
tions. Furthermore, the evidence does not show
' The Employer's plant manager and assistant manager testified that
the dock auditor position has not been eliminated, that the auditor's job
description remains on file, and that the position would be filled if the
number of shipping errors increased to previous levels
2 At the time the quality control technician position was created the
Union filed a grievance alleging that the Employer was removing work
from the bargaining unit The parties resolved the grievance by returning
four employees to their hourly positions and keeping two as technicians
that the duties of these positions have changed.
Based on the foregoing evidence, we agree with
the Regional Director that clarification of the unit
with respect to these classifications is inappropri-
ate.
Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that
the dock auditor has not historically been excluded
from the unit and that it is appropriate to clarify
the unit so as to include that classification. The
dock auditor position was created in March 1981.
The Union's first opportunity to include this posi-
tion in the unit was during the parties' 1983 con-
tract negotiations. The Union unsuccessfully at-
tempted to include the dock auditor. Upon reach-
ing impasse, however, the Union informed the Em-
ployer that it would pursue the disputed classifica-
tions, including dock auditor, by way of a unit
clarification petition. The Union did not abandon
its proposal to include the dock auditor in ex-
change for a concession during bargaining. Thus,
the Union did not acquiesce in the exclusion of the
dock auditor from the unit.
We further find that the dock auditor shares a
community of interest with unit employees. The
dock auditor works in close contact with the ship-
ping crew in the loading area and performs func-
tions closely related to those of the unit employees.
The dock auditor and unit employees are common-
ly supervised and the dock auditor's duties are per-
formed by unit employees when the former is
absent.
Accordingly, as we find the position of dock
auditor has not historically been excluded from the
unit and shares a community of interest with unit
employees, we shall clarify the unit to include it.
The petition is otherwise dismissed.
ORDER
The unit of production and maintenance employ-
ees represented by UBC, Southern Council of In-
dustrial Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Local No.
2982, at SunarHauserman is clarified to include the
classification dock auditor.