American Motors Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1973

206 N.L.R.B. 287 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

AMERICAN MOTORS CORP. 287
American Motors Corporation , Parts Division and In-
ternational Union, United Automobile , Aerospace &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America
(UAW), Petitioner. Case 30-RC-1939
October 5, 1973
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Philip E. Bloedorn.
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, this case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board for de-
cision. The Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National
Labor Relations Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. -
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(l) and 2(6) and
(7) of the' Act.
4. The appropriate unit: There is no history of col-
lective bargaining involving the employees sought.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all office clerical and
technical employees employed by the Employer at its
Parts Division located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ex-
cluding all confidential employees, managerial em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other em-
ployees.' The Employer contends that the technical
employees should not be included with the office cler-
ical employees and that it is the Board's policy not to
include technical employees with office clerical em-
ployees where, as here, one of the parties objects.
The Employer is a division of the American Motors
Corporation and is engaged in the operation of a na-
tional parts distribution center located in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. The Employer distributes and supplies au-
The Petitioner's unit request appears as amended at the hearing.
tomotive parts to various'dealers throughout the Unit-
ed States and to customers overseas.
The Employer's facility is located at 3280 South
Clement Avenue in Milwaukee. It is situated on 43
acres of land. There are 10 buildings which are all
connected. Only one building is a multistory building.
Within those buildings there are approximately 700,
000 square feet of office space and a million and a half
square feet of warehousing space. There is in excess
of $100 million worth of inventory located at the facil-
ity. There are approximately 800 employees, half of
whom are hourly paid and the other half, salaried. Due
to the nature of the operation, involving as it does the
distribution of automotive parts, a great deal of pa-
perwork is required. The facility includes large data
processing, inventory control, and central claims sec-
tions. The office space is primarily confined to build-
ing 3, which is the only multistory building. Located
on the first floor of building 3 are industrial relations
and industrial engineering departments. The remain-
ing departments, except for the international division,
which is located in building 6, are located on the
second floor of building 3.
The parts division is the basic support facility for 4
zones representing the United States and approxi-
mately 20 regional warehouses in various cities in the
United States. Some Milwaukee departments report
directly to Detroit corporate headquarters. These de-
partments include central claims, data processing,
and international division.
The Milwaukee facility operates under the direc-
tion of Director J. M. Panettiere and is composed of
10 closely coordinated departments which perform
the service operation. There are seven departments
that report directly to Panettiere and other closely
integrated departments which report to Detroit cor-
porate headquarters through Panettiere.
The departments in which the employees whose job
classifications are in dispute because they have both
office clerical and technical employees as well as con-
fidential employees and supervisors include: ware-
house administration, data processing, field
operations, central claims, central distributions, fi-
nance, industrial plant and package engineering, in-
ternational division, material, control, and
specifications and quality control.'
The Petitioner contends that the close community
of interest existing between the office clerical and
technical employees makes it an appropriate unit. The
Employer contends that the Board should either es.,
tablish separate units of technical and clerical em-
ployees or, in the alternative, permit the technical
employees to vote regarding their wishes to be includ-
2 The parties stipulated, and we find, that all of the employees in the
industrial relations department are to be excluded.
206 NLRB No. 38
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ed in a clerical unit and make that vote determinative
of the unit.
The Employer is a party to collective-bargaining
agreements covering more than 400 warehouse em-
ployees with another local of the Petitioner, an agree-
ment with the Teamsters covering 15 over-the-road
drivers, and an agreement covering approximately 6
plant guards with the United Plant Guard Workers.
There is no contract bar concerning the approximate-
ly 200 employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner.
The issues herein concern the appropriateness of a
combined office clerical and technical unit, as sought
by the Petitioner and opposed by the Employer; the
Employer's assertions that certain employees are
technical, confidential, managerial, or supervisory;
and the eligibility of certain employees who are on
leaves of absence due to maternity leave or illness.
As to the scope of the unit, contrary to the
Employer's contention, the Board no longer excludes
technical employees from units including other em-
ployees merely because, as here, one of the parties
objects to their inclusion. While separate technical
units may be appropriate, the Board in The Sheffield
Corporation 3 ended its practice of automatic exclu-
sion of technical employees from production and
maintenance units whenever their unit placement was
in issue . The Board stated that it would no longer
automatically exclude technicals, but would de-
termine their unit placement on the basis of their com-
munity of interest, in each case, by analyzing factors
which include desires of the parties, bargaining histo-
ry, similarity of working conditions, type of industry,
organization of plant, whether the technical employ-
ees work in separately situated and separately con-
trolled areas, and whether any union seeks to
represent technical employees separately. This policy
was later extended to cases involving clerical employ-
ees and technical employees 4 In determining the
community of interest of the technicals, the Board
also considers such factors as the existence of com-
mon supervision, contact or interchange with other
employees in the unit, specialized schooling, and on-
the-job training.'
As -Board policy permits the inclusion of technical
employees in other units where they share a commu-
nity of interest with such employees, we make the
following findings:
Stipulations: The parties entered into numerous
stipulations concerning the status of certain employ-
ees as office clerical employees,' technical employees,'
3 134 NLRB 1101.
4 The Budd Company, Automotive Division, Gary Plant, 136 NLRB 1153.
'Mosier Safe Company, 188 NLRB 650.
6 The parties stipulated, and we find, that the employee classifications
listed in Appendix A are office clericals:
confidential employees, managerial employees, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors.
The-Employer contends that, with few exceptions,
most of those employees stipulated by the parties as
being clerical are in salary grade 6 or less, whereas
other employees, whether there is agreement or dis-
pute as to their technical status, are in grade 6 or
above. Additionally, the Employer contends that the
securing of experience and the faith of the Employer
in allowing an induvidual to make important deci-
sions are factors which elevate technical employees in
their own eyes, as well as the eyes of their coworkers,
above those jobs which are mere routine and require
very little in the way of individual judgment. The
Employer's salary grading system indicates that it
considers those employees who are claimed to be
technical to be in more responsible positions within
the Employer's hierarchy.
The parties are in disagreement over certain job
classifications which the Employer claims are techni-
cal and the Petitioner claims are office clerical. The
classifications are as follows:
Claims analyst A: Although both parties stipulated
that most claims analysts A are office clericals, the
Employer contends that one employee, Memmel, who
works in the central claims department, is misclassi-
fied, since the work he performs is not that of a claims
analyst A but of a special analyst. Memmel assertedly
checks the work of claims analysts senior when re-
quired.
Traffic claims analyst: The employee in this classifi-
cation assembles supporting documents for loss, dam-
age, and overcharge claims. He checks and processes
damage claims against common carriers, deals direct-
ly with carrier traffic officials and representatives
concerned with freight rate activities, and arranges for
the handling and clearance of imports and shipments.
Inventory control analyst A: This classification is
located in the materials department. The record
shows that the employees in this classification issue
purchase orders. They work on the second floor with
clerks and typists; they receive no special training or
schooling. Some have a high school education and
some have attended college. They are not required to
use special equipment or tools.
Order analyst A; order analyst B, and order inquiry
analyst: The Employer contends that these classifica-
tions are basically the same except for complexity of
tasks. The individuals in these classifications are lo-
cated in the material control department. An order
7 The parties also stipulated, and we find, that the following job classifica-
tions are technical employees. Illustrator A, quality control analyst A, quality
control analyst B. In view of their community of interest as displayed by their
similar working conditions and common supervision , and the fact that no
union seeks to represent them separately, we shall include them in the unit.
AMERICAN MOTORS CORP. 289
analyst A is an employee who has had a period of
1-1/2 to 2 years of experience and has been reclassi-
fied after working at the hiring level position of order
analyst B. Order analysts handle dealer complaints,
change orders, insure that dealers get proper orders,
and check with engineering. The order inquiry ana-
lysts and order analysts A handle the emergency or-
ders and contact parts analysts, zone warehouses, and
warehouse personnel . The order analyst A has the
same duties as an order inquiry analyst.
Commercial accounts coordinator: The employees in
this classification are located in the material control
department and are responsible for ordering, receiv-
ing, processing, and resolving all commercial ac-
counts. These individuals operate more in the area of
incoming orders rather than purchasing parts. These
employees create orders through a keypunch input
into the data center.
Expediter A: This position is located in the material
control department. Promotion to this position is
achieved through experience gained as an expediter B.
The employees in this classification are responsible
for determining shipping promises, securing commit-
ments, resolving prices, and generally handling crit-
ical problems.
Parts analyst A; chasis parts analyst senior; and illus-
tration coordinator: These classifications are located in
the specifications and quality control and graphics
departments. The basic function of these classifica-
tions is that of parts analyst who releases replacement
parts into the parts distribution network. These em-
ployees prepare catalogue copy for the publications
department, develop common parts within their indi-
vidual responsibility areas, and develop installation
kits. Their responsibility is to release the paperwork
which provides for replacement parts to be available
and shipped for distribution to dealers through zone
and regional warehouses . They also prepare copy for
parts catalogues . They require no special training
other than a knowledge of cars.
Catalogue writer and special analyst A; editor A; and
catalogue writer A: These classifications are located in
the specifications and quality control department.
These employees prepare parts catalogues. They re-
quire experience in the publication field and some
knowledge of automobiles.
Technician and writer A: This classification is locat-
ed in the specifications and quality control depart-
ment. The function of the employee in this
classification is,to dissemble vehicles for publication
illustration and to prepare technical booklets covering
'installation techniques. This position necessitates the
use of various types of sophisticated testing equip-
ment and diagnostic techniques. In addition, mechan-
ical ability and semantic proficiency are required. The
record shows this employee works in a building where
vehicles are housed; however, he is in constant con-
tact with the catalogue writers. He is also salaried and
receives the same fringe benefits and has the same
working hours as the office clericals.
Cyclical inventory auditor: This classification is lo-
cated in the controller department. The job duties of
this employee consist of determining whether the ac-
counting books reflect the proper quantity of material
in the warehouses by comparing various records
against physical counts. This is done on a cyclical
basis rather than an annual physical inventory.
Order analyst and material analyst: These classifica-
tions are located in the international division and the
employees' job functions are comparable to those of
order analyst B in the material control department.
Clerk typist A: The Employer contends that em-
ployees Moffatt, Layer, Wilson, Honeck, Kucinski,
and Mikolajcyzk are technical employees. The record
shows that the duties of these employees are not sub-
stantially different from those of the clerk typists A
who were stipulated by the parties to be office cleri-
cals. Moreover, they all work in the material control
department and have the same immediate supervi-
sion.
The record shows that the employees in the afore-
mentioned classifications have daily contact with em-
ployees the parties agreed were office clericals. They
have the same fringe benefits; all are salaried employ-
ees; they have the same supervision; nearly all of
these employees work at desks in open areas in close
proximity to admitted office clericals; and all asserted
technicals have the same working conditions and
hours as the office clericals. Moreover, no other union
seeks to represent them separately.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing and on the
record as a whole, we find, without passing upon the
precise technical status of each of the disputed classi-
fications, that the asserted technical employees share
a community of interest with the office clericals suffi-
cient to warrant their inclusion in the unit found ap-
propriate herein.'
The Employer has also raised placement issues with
respect to certain classifications which it argues
should be excluded as supervisory or managerial.
These classifications and our rulings with respect to
them are as follows: ,
Cost analyst A: There are two employees in this
classification who work in the controller department.
These employees work on budget performance, ap-
propriateness of capital spending requests, special fi-
nancial analysis studies, reconciliation of accounts,
8 Cf. Albuquerque Division of A CF Industries, Inc, 145 NLRB 403; The
Budd Company, supra
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and other accounting matters. The Employer con-
tends that a great deal of individual judgment is re-
quired in the preparation and submission of financial
data. These employees submit the compiled budgets
to a corporate office for approval and do special stud-
ies and financial analysis.
There is no evidence that cost analysts A formulate,
determine, or effectuate managerial policies, or that
they possess any indicia of supervisory authority. We
find, therefore, that they are not managerial or super-
visory, and we shall include them in the appropriate
unit.
Expediter senior: The two employees working in this
job classification are located in the material control
department. They assign work to other expediters and
assist the employees with any problems they may
have. The record shows they have no authority to
hire; they are not responsible for work of the expedi-
ters A or B; they spend 80 percent of their time per-
forming the same tasks as other expediters and the
remainder of their time answering questions and in-
structing others. As there is no evidence that they
possess any indicia of supervisory authority, we find
that they are not supervisors within the meaning of
the Act, and we shall include them in the unit.
Senior accountant: There is one employee in this
classification who works in the controller department.
His duties include auditing expense accounts, prepa-
ration of various miscellaneous reports including in-
come tax, balances, the making of journal entries for
division and corporate books, the making of financial
studies, and the preparation of various types of finan-
cial information at the request of management. In
view of the absence of evidence that the senior ac-
countant formulates, determines, or effectuates man-
agerial policies, or that he has any indicia of
supervisory authority, we find that he is not a manage-
rial or supervisory employee, and we shall include him
in the unit.
Purchasing administrator: The individual in this
classification is located in the material control depart-
ment. He is responsible for ordering all nonproduc-
tive materials and shipping supplies, as well as the
source selection of packaging. The incumbent is a
college graduate. He spends approximately 25 percent
of his workday routinely assigning work to two cleri-
cals and 75 percent of his time performing the other
duties of his classification, he has no access to nor
does he work with personnel or labor relations re-
cords. The record shows he has no authority to hire,
discipline, or promote; he cannot assign overtime,
and he never adjusts grievances.
There is no evidence that the purchasing adminis-
trator formulates, determines, or effectuates manage-
rial policies, or that he has any indicia of supervisory
authority. We find, therefore, that he is not a supervi-
sor or managerial employee, and we shall include him
in the unit.
Inventory control analyst senior: The employee in
this classification is located in the material control
department. He is responsible for the resolution of
many problems presented by purchasing, including
the authorization of additional purchases and ' the
commitment of the company to various charges. He
may instruct other employees and assist them in their
work. Although on occasion he may substitute for a
supervisor on vacation; he has never been told that he
was a supervisor; he does not have a special parking
spot as provided for supervisors; and the other em-
ployees were not told that he was asupervisor.
There is no evidence that the inventory control ana-
lyst senior formulates, determines, or effectuates
managerial policies, or that he possesses any indicia
of supervisory authority. We find, therefore, that he
is not managerial or supervisory, and we shall include
him in the unit.'
Claims analyst senior: There are four employees in
this classification who work in the central claims de-
partment. They are responsible for approving claims
against the Employer. Experience rather than special
training separates the claims analysts senior from the
claims analysts A, who are admitted office clericals.
Although the claims analysts senior check the work of
the claims analysts A, on occasion a claims analyst
senior may have his work checked by a claims analyst
A. Claims analysts senior are promoted from claims
analysts A, both process about the same amount of
claims per day, and they have common supervision.
Claims analysts senior make no recommendations as
to hire, discipline, transfer, layoff, promotion, or
grievances.
As there is no evidence that they possess any indicia
of supervisory authority, we find that they are not
supervisors, and we shall' include them in the unit.10
Order analyst senior: The individual in this classifi-
cation works in the material control department. He
answers inquiries on emergency orders, arranges for
shipment of parts, selects the method of shipment,
and performs other functions in connection with get-
ting parts to dealers. He also determines what should
be classified as an emergency. Although he resolves
parts emergencies, routinely acts for the supervisor in
9 The Employer asserts that , if the Board should find that he is not a
supervisor, the Employer's position is that he is a technical employee Howev-
er, without determining whether he is a technical employee, we shall include
him in the unit since he shares a community of interest with the employees
in the unit
10 Although the Employer contends, in the alternative, that they are techni-
cal, in view of our finding above, we shall include them in the unit because
of their community of interest, without making a determination as to their
technical status
AMERICAN MOTORS CORP. 291
his absence, directs and trains order analysts, rou-
tinely assigns work, instructs and routinely directs
three clericals, the record shows that this individual
does not have the authority to use independent judg-
ment in relation to hire, transfer, discipline, or recom-
mending such action. He spends only 5 percent of his
time instructing researchers.
There is no evidence that he possesses any indicia
of supervisory authority. We find, therefore, that he
is not supervisory, and we shall include him in the
unit.
Disposition analyst senior: The individual in this
classification works in the central claims department.
He coordinates the section's efforts with data pro-
cessing to assure that the system is running properly.
Although he has sporadically acted as a supervisor
since December 1972, the record shows. that he works
with and has the same supervision as the disposition
analyst A, a stipulated office clerical classification.
There is no evidence that the disposition analyst
senior formulates , determines , or effectuates manage-
rial policies, or that he possesses any indicia of super-
visory authority. We find, therefore, that he is not
managerial or supervisory, and we shall include him
in the unit.
The parties are in disagreement with respect to the
eligibility of certain clerical employees who are on
leaves of absence due to illness or maternity leave.
The Employer's policy with respect to maternity
leave is that an employee having 6 months of service
is eligible for a leave of absence of not more than 1
year in duration and at the end of that 1-year period
she is terminated unless she requests reinstatement.
In the case of a disability leave, the 12-month peri-
od is extended to the point where the physician releas-
es the employee for work and the Employer accepts
him.
During the relevant period, there were seven em-
ployees on maternity and sick leave who were in the
unit . Although the Employer testified that a majority
of employees who take a maternity leave of absence
do not return to employment at the expiration of their
leave, the Employer admitted that it cannot state with
respect to any individual currently on an unexpired
maternity leave of absence that there is not a reason-
able expectation of that individual's returning to
work.
The Board has often held that employees on sick
leave may vote in the election absent any evidence
that such employees have quit or been discharged."
Beverly A. Bowe was hired on July 21, 1969. She
left on maternity leave on November 17, 1972.
J. Pospichal was hired on March 24, 1969. She went
" Foley Manufacturing Company, 115 NLRB 1205.
on maternity leave on April 7 1972. She had requested
reinstatement, but no jobs were available. The Em-
ployer plans to reinstate her.
J. Ricciardi was hired on October 16, 1970. She
went on maternity leave on December 15, 1972.
M. Schroeder was hired on August 27, 1965. She
went on maternity leave on August 25, 1972. 11
Mildred Nalencz was hired on May 8, 1967. She
went on maternity leave on January 28, 1972.
Susan Wildes was hired on'September 3, 1968. She
went on maternity leave on November 30, 1971. She
failed to request reinstatement and was terminated.
Ann Brown was hired on September 2, 1969. She
went on leave of absence due to illness on October 20,
1972. She is in inactive status until she is released by
her personal physician to return to work.
Accordingly, we find that employees Bowe, Pospi-
chal, and Ricciardi were on maternity leave during
the relevant period and therefore are eligible to vote.
Borwn 's last day of work was October 20, 1972, and
the Employer has continued her on an indefinite leave
of absence pursuant to its policy. As Brown is on sick
leave, we find that she is eligible to vote.
Since neither Schroeder nor Nalenca had been on
maternity leave for more than a year before the hear-
ing herein on January 10, 1973, we shall permit them
to vote subject to challenge.
Wildes has not returned to work within the time
limit set by the Employer's rules following her ab-
sence on approved leave. As' Wildes has quit work, we
shall not permit her to vote.
On the basis of the foregoing, the parties' stipula-
tions, and the entire record, we find that the following
employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All office clerical, asserted technical, and tech-
nical employees employed by the Employer at its
Parts Division facilities in Milwaukee, Wiscon-
sin, including general clerk A, general clerk B,
accounts payable clerk, accounts payable clerk
C, stenographer A, records analyst A, records
analyst B, accounting clerk B, accounting clerk
C, keypunch operator A, keypunch operator B,
inventory control analyst B, input and output
control clerk, switchboard operator, order and
documentation clerk, clerk typist A, clerk typist
B, office service clerk B, inventory control clerk,
disposition analyst A, disposition analyst B, cal-
culating machine operator A, secretary-stenogra-
pher, transportation clerk trainee, typing
specialist, documents clerk, teletype operator A,
order clerk senior, documentation clerk senior,
billing clerk senior, billing clerk, production
scheduler, parts analyst B, art clerk, payroll clerk
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
A, claims analyst A, computer operator A, com- Clerk typist A (except Moffatt, Layer, Wilson, Ho-
puter operator B, computer operator C, printing nek, Mikolajcyzk, and Kucinski)
technician senior, claims analyst A (including Clerk typist B
Memmel), traffic claim analyst, inventory con- Office service clerk B
trol analyst A, order analyst A, order analyst B, Inventory control clerk
order inquiry analyst, commercial accounts coor-
dinator, expediter A, parts analyst A, chassis
parts analyst senior, illustration coordinator, cat-
alogue writer and specialist A, editor A, cata-
logue writer A, technician and writer A, cyclical
inventory auditor, order analyst, material ana-
lyst, clerk typist A, cost analyst A, expediter sen-
ior, senior accountant, purchasing administrator,
inventory control analyst senior, claims analyst
senior, order analyst senior, disposition analyst
senior, illustrator A, quality control analyst A,
quality control analyst B; but excluding all confi-
dential employees,12 managerial employees,"
professional employees,14 guards, and supervi-
sors 15 as defined in the Act, and all other em-
ployees represented under current collec-
tive-bargaining agreements.
[Direction of election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
12 The parties stipulated , and we agree , that the employees injob classifica-
tions listed in Appendix B are confidential employees.
13 The parties stipulated , and we find, that the following job classification
is managerial : system analyst programmer A. The parties also stipulated that
the three employees classified as accounts payable auditor senior are to be
excluded because they are management trainees.
14 Thepartles stipulated , and we agree, that A. Rabarge, a registered nurse,
is a professional employee. Also stipulated by the parties as being profession-
al are the package engineering supervisor, package engineers , industrial engi-
neers A, and industrial engineers.
15 The parties stipulated , and we agree , that the employees injob classifica-
tions fisted in Appendix C are supervisors
APPENDIX A
OFFICE CLERICAL EMPLOYEES
General clerk A
General clerk B
Accounts payable clerk
Accounts payable clerk C
Stenographer A
Records analyst A
Records analyst B
Accounting clerk B
Accounting clerk C
Keypunch operator A
Keypunch operator B
Inventory control analyst B
Input and output control clerk
Switchboard operator
Order and documentation clerk
Disposition analyst A
Disposition analyst B
Calculating machine operator A
Secretary-stenographer
Transportation clerk trainee
Typing specialist
Documents clerk
Teletype operator A
Order clerk senior
Documentation clerk senior
Billing clerk senior
Billing clerk
Traffic clerk
Production scheduler
Parts analyst B
Art clerk
Payroll clerk A
Claims analyst A (except Zimmerman)
Computer operator A
Computer operator B
Computer operator C
Printing technician senior
APPENDIX B
CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES
Secretary to manager of central claims department
Secretary to manager of national transportation
Secretary to controller
Secretary to manager of industrial and plant engi-
neering
Secretary to manager of international division
Secretary to manager of material control depart-
ment
Secretary to manager of specifications, quality con
trol and graphics
Secretary to manager of central distribution depart-
ment
Secretary to manager of data processing depart-
ment
Secretary to manager of field operations
Secretary to plant superintendent
Secretary to director of industrial relations
Secretary to director parts division operations
Personnel clerk
AMERICAN MOTORS CORP.
APPENDIX C
SUPERVISORS"
Material manager
Materials administration manager
Audit analysis manager
Inventory control manager
Parts dispersion manager
Materials administration supervisor
Expediting supervisor
Dealer inquiry supervisor
A.M.C. parts inventory control supervisor
Jeep parts inventory control supervisor
Dealer order supervisor
A.M.C. zone replenishment supervisor
Jeep zone replenishment supervisor
Data processing shift supervisor
Procedures auditor
Pricing analyst senior
Industrial relations director
Labor relations manager
Employee services supervisor
Safety and security supervisor
Specifications and quality control department
manager
Quality and reliability manager
Quality assurance supervisor
Quality evaluation supervisor
Chassis and body parts engineering manager
Chassis parts analysis supervisor
Body parts analysis supervisor
Publication graphics manager
Publication supervisor
Art supervisor
Controller
General accounting manager
Accounting manager
Accounting supervisor
Accounts payable supervisor
Office services supervisor
Financial analysis manager
Payroll and billing supervisor
Records supervisor
Verification supervisor
Claims supervisor
Central claims manager
International division manager
International parts order supervisor
Parts documentation supervisor
Central distribution manager
National transportation manager
Plant superintendent
Transportation supervisor
Transportation analyst
Industrial and plant engineering manager
Field liaison engineering supervisor
Plant engineering supervisor
Technician and writer supervisor
Cyclical auditing supervisor
Industrial relations manager
Salary administration supervisor
293