Central National Bank and Trust Co. of Des Moines, Iowa

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 730 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

730 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Central National Bank and Trust Company of Des
Moines, Iowa ' and Office and Professional Em-
ployees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC,
Petitioner. Case I 8-RC-9489
January 28, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Frank E.
Kapsch, Jr., of the National Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 18, this proceeding was transferred to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and
Petitioner filed briefs in support of their respective
positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings2 made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, a bank organized under the
National Banking Act of the United States, operates
from its main office in Des Moines, Iowa, and a
motor bank location approximately 1 block away
from its main office.3 The employees sought by the
Petitioner include all home office and motor bank
I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
The Hearing Officer denied the Employer's motion to continue the
hearing until the Board 's Executive Secretary furnished it with "a copy of an
index of all final representation opinions issued by our regional directors
pursuant to Section 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended-
In affirming the Hearing Officer's ruling, we note that the National Labor
Relations Board does not accord precedential value to decisions by its
Regional Directors For this reason , the Board has never considered it
necessary or even desirable to compile and index such material. Therefore,
as the requested material is neither used nor maintained , we are of the
opinion that the Freedom of Information Act (5 U S C. 052) does not
clerical and technical employees and exclude all
guards, bank officers, supervisors, managerial em-
ployees, professional employees, confidentials, and
all other employees as defined in the Act.4 The
Employer does not contest the scope of the Petition-
er's unit except insofar as the unit may be said to
contemplate coverage of a prospective motor bank
facility, not yet open. In addition, the parties are in
disagreement over the unit placement of numerous
individuals. Specifically, the unit status of the
following individuals is in dispute: titled officers
employed in the consumer installment loan area,
commercial loan department, correspondent banking
department, trust department, public relations de-
partment, farm management department, computer
department, the new accounts area, the note teller
cage, the motor bank, and the investment depart-
ment, all of whom Petitioner would exclude and the
Employer include. Also, the Petitioner would include
and the Employer exclude employee Monica Ellis.
There is no history of collective bargaining with
respect to the employees involved in this proceeding.
The Employer's Operations
The Employer operates from a head office and a
motor bank located I block away. The formulation
and implementation of its policies lie with a group of
exempt managerial and supervisory personnel who
head various committees organized along functional
guidelines. For example, the loan committee reviews
all activity arising from an application for either a
consumer installment or commercial loan which
exceeds stated guidelines. In the consumer install-
ment area, officers grant or reject loans based on an
established point system which is based on steady
employment, home ownership, or equity, etc., and, in
the event applicants do not meet the established
standards, the application is either rejected or
submitted to the loan committee where the final
determination is made. The guidelines are usually
reviewed on a monthly basis and loan officers do not
depart from established guidelines in any significant
respect. Examples of the kind of discretion which
loan officers exercise are waivers of small late
charges and extensions of "due dates" based on what
the loan committee considers to be legitimate reasons
that would warrant an extension.
compel us to prepare and make available to practitioners a subject matter
index of all final representation opinions issued by Regional Directors since
July 4, 1967
+ At the hearing, the Employer indicated that it intended to open another
branch office in July 1973. if approval under Federal and state laws could
be obtained
i During the course of the hearing . the parties stipulated that all kitchen
employees who work in the bank cafeteria , the bank 's maintenance
department employees, and all management trainees employed by the bank
should he included in any unit round appropriate
208 NLRB No. 105
CENTRAL NATL. BANK & TRUST CO.
The Unit Placement Issues
The farm management department is headed by L.
W. Cartwright, vice president , and his assistant,
Leland Long.5 The remaining employees in the
department whose unit placement is in dispute
(referred to as farm managers) are Lander, Snyder,
Morraine, and Mallory. The Petitioner, contrary to
the Employer, contends that they are supervisors and
should be excluded. Inasmuch as their job functions
are identical, they are discussed herein collectively.
The Bank does not own the farms but rather
manages them (approximately 300) in an agency type
relationship for absentee owners. In furtherance of
this management function, the Bank, through its
farm managers, contracts with tenants who conduct
the actual day-to-day operation of managing the
farm. The Bank charges the farm owners a fee based
on farm earnings. The farm managers visit' the
tenants approximately once each month. They are
provided with automobiles and an expense account
to defray actual expenses connected with their field
business. The field activities of the farm managers
usually cause them to be away from the office about
4 days a week. Farm managers occasionally refer
tenant applicants to Cartwright, the department
manager, but in any event it is Cartwright who
selects the tenant. Cartwright is responsible for
establishing all policies, regarding farm management.
Farm managers are not authorized to issue instruc-
tions contrary to these established policies. There is
no evidence that farm' managers possess or exercise
any indicia of supervisory or managerial authority.
The tenant farmers with whom they work are not
employees of the Bank and the farm managers
exercise no control or supervision over bank employ-
ees. Based on the foregoing and the entire record, we
conclude that the farm managers are not supervisory
and/or managerial employees and we shall include
them in the unit.
Leland Long is assistant manager of the farm
management department and, in the absence of
Manager Cartwright, he is responsible for running
the department. Long performs the same type of field
work as other employees in the department, although
his workload is arranged so that he is able to spend
more time in the office handling administrative
duties. It would appear from the record that any
supervisory and/or managerial responsibilities exer-
cised by Long are at most limited to those infrequent
occasions when Manager Cartwright is absent due to
illness or vacation. Accordingly, we find that Long
does not exercise any supervisory or managerial
S Discussed infra.
6 Mike Degee, also a trust officer, is excluded by agreement of the
731
responsibilities on a regular basis and , therefore, we
shall include him in the unit.
The Trust Department
The overall daily supervision and management of
the trust department. is handled by Joe Young, senior
vice president .. and' Jack Schrieber, assistant vice
president, both of whom are admitted supervisors.
The remaining officers and assistant officers whose
unit placement is in dispute are Willis Cairo, James
King, Dirk Van Zante, James Wiser, Melvin Andre-
sin, Larry Petersen, and Dale Dietz.6 Petitioner,
contrary to the Employer, contends that they are
supervisors and/or managerial employees and should
be excluded. Cairo, Petersen, and Wiser all serve the
same function , acting as liason between the Bank's
trust committee and the owner or beneficiary of the
trust . Their duties include reviewing the performance
of trusts assigned to them , bearing in mind the
objectives of the trust, and the presentation of an
annual report to the trust owners to determine if the
owner's needs or desires have changed. Thereafter
the report is reviewed by Senior Officers Young and
Schrieber who report to the trust investment commit-
tee. The trust investment committee will then either
select the proper investment to match the trust
objective or, in cases where the trust owner retains
the power to determine the proper investment, the
selection will be made by the owner. Cairo, Petersen,
and Wiser do not participate in this decision making
process. Melvin Andresin is responsible for maintain-
ing records for pension and profit-sharing trust
accounts . Like Cairo, Petersen , and Wiser, he also
confers with the representatives of the various funds
that he is assigned and prepares a report to the trust
investment committee for a decision in keeping with
the trust objectives . Andresin also solicits new
business and distributes pamphlets which show the
Bank's past record in managing funds . James King is
responsible for the actual purchase and sale of stocks
and bonds recommended by the trust investment
committee. In so doing , King recommends stocks
from a list of approximately 60 stocks which the trust
investment committee designates for certain purpos-
es: e.g., growth , short-term income , capital apprecia-
tion, etc. On the basis of this information , the trust
investment committee makes a purchase^or-sell
recommendation consonant with the trust objectives.
King plays no part in the creation of the approved
list of stocks. Nor does he exercise any discretion
concerning the sale or purchase recommendations
made by the trust investment committee.
Dirk Van Zante and Dale Dietz are responsible for
parties.
732 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apprising the proper parties of all due dates relating
to matters involving trusts to which they are
assigned,'e.g., the accountant or the estate's attorney,
in order to insure that all obligations are promptly
fulfilled, including, inter alia, the payment of estate
taxes and disbursements to beneficiaries. Although
both individuals are attorneys by training, their job
functions do not require the exercise of their
professional skills as attorneys.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find no evidence
that the above-mentioned employees exercise or
possess any supervisory authority over other bank
employees. It is also clear that their duties are
basically administrative in nature and that they lack
the discretion to make managerial decisions. Accord-
ingly, we conclude that employees Cairo, King, Van
Zante, Wiser, Andresin, Petersen, and Dietz are
neither supervisors nor managerial employees and we
shall include them in the unit.
The correspondent banking department, headed by
Ed Wolfe, operates in conjunction with smaller
banks assisting them in maintaining their reserves,
processing checks, and participating in so-called
override loans. The employees whose unit placement
are in dispute are W. Greaves, Jr., and R. Plager.7
Their job functions are identical. The Petitioner
contends that they are supervisory and/or manageri-
al and should be excluded. Their duties include
making field calls on the smaller banks and, when
time permits, canvassing for new accounts and
selling other services such as computer, trust, and
investment services. The correspondent bankers
follow an established procedure of calling on
customer bankers approximately twice yearly. They
also conduct field checks to ascertain the existence of
collateral pledged to secure a loan. The correspond-
ent bankers accumulate pertinent data on override
applications and, initially, Wolfe reviews the data to
insure that all relevant information has been gath-
ered. Thereafter, the report is passed on to the loan
committee for decision.
Ed Wolfe regulates all services that the correspond-
ent bankers sell to the smaller banks. The record
shows that, occasionally, the correspondent bankers
will reject a loan =application in the field when the
applicant fails to meet certain basic criteria that the
loan committee has established for granting loans.
However,. in such circumstances, the banker follows
clearly established guidelines and no discretion, is
exercised in following such a course of action. Based
on the above, and the entire record in this case, it is
clear that Greaves and Plager are not supervisory
and/or managerial employees. Accordingly, we shall
include them in the unit.
I In accordance with the stipulation of the parties, we find that Jerry
Thornton is a managerial and/or supervisory employee who is excluded
The commercial loan department is headed by
Raymond G. Johnston, a senior vice president and
an admitted supervisor. In addition to Johnston,
there are four commercial loan officers working in
the department. Two, E. H. Bliquez and A. B.
Dressler, were excluded from the unit on the basis of
their managerial-supervisory functions; the remain-
ing two, Robert Clark and Palmer Ingelbritson, are
in dispute. Clark .holds the title of vice president,
while Ingelbritson is classified as a commercial loan
officer. Both Clark and Ingelbritson perform essen-
tially the same duties; the handling of commercial
loans for the Employer's regular customers on a
walk-in basis. They both have the authority to
approve loans up to $25,000 and to grant extensions
of credit on loans up to that amount. However, in the
granting of such loans or in extending credit, they are
operating under strict guidelines established by the
Employer's board of directors from which they are
not allowed to deviate. All loans, regardless of
amount, are regularly reviewed by the senior. loan
committee to which Clark and Ingelbritson are
answerable. Neither Clark nor Ingelbritson plays any
role in the formulation of loan policy and, as
indicated, their authority to approve loans does not
permit the exercise of any real discretion. There is
also no evidence that Clark and Ingelbritson exercise
any supervisory authority. Accordingly, we find that
Clark and Ingelbritson are neither supervisors nor
managerial employees and we shall include them in
the unit.
The consumer installment loan department handles
regular walk-in loan business and retail dealer loans,
where the application for credit is made directly with
the retail dealer. The department has five installment
loan officers; two of whom, Dale Clause and John
Waters, are admitted supervisors. The remaining
three, Louis Eubanks, Erbie Fox, and Leroy Knight
are in dispute. All three have the authority to grant
installment loans without prior approval. However
each type of loan has a monetary limit which they
cannot exceed and each loan approved by them must
achieve a particular point rating under the guidelines
covering it. Each loan is reviewed thereafter by both
Clause and Waters and eventually by the loan
committee and the executive committee. Any loan
which does not meet all the specifications of the
guidelines must be submitted to Clause or Waters for
approval. Under the guidelines, Eubanks, Fox, and
Knight have the authority to extend the monthly due
date twice on any given loan, subject to review by
higher authority and they have the unfettered
authority to excuse the payment of small late
charges. Like the commercial loan officers, Eubanks,
from the unit.
CENTRAL NATL. BANK & TRUST CO.
Fox, and Knight have nothing to do with the
formulation of the guidelines and they are permitted
little discretion in the exercise of their loan granting
function . There is also no evidence that these
individuals exercise supervisory authority over any
other employees . Accordingly, we find that Eubanks,
Fox, and Knight are neither supervisors nor manage-
rial employees and we include them in the unit.
The computer department is headed by Harry
Lavigne , vice president , and Gerry Graff , assistant
data processing officer . The Petitioner contends that
employees Ray Johnson, data processing officer, and
John Williams , data processing control officer, are
managerial and/or supervisory employees and
should be excluded from the unit . The Petitioner also
contends that employees Thomas Kennedy, systems
analyst and program manager , James Mitchell and
John Martin , computer operators-- day shift, and
Robert Bevens , computer operator-night shift, are
supervisors and therefore should be excluded. The
Employer would include all of these individuals in
the unit . John Williams physically feeds data into the
computer and distributes the output to the respective
departments . In carrying out this function , Williams
follows established priorities set by Lavigne and
Graff. There is no evidence that Williams has any
authority to deviate from the established policy or
that he possesses or exercises any supervisory
authority over employees . Based on the above, we
shall include him in the unit . Ray Johnson serves as
troubleshooter for computer operations and also fills
in as a programmer during his spare time. In the
performance of his duties as troubleshooter, Johnson
periodically receives modifications and updated
information from manufacturers which he studies
and distributes to the entire department . Johnson
primarily works alone and he does not schedule any
work for the computer operation . While Johnson is
consulted with respect to his opinion on the purchase
or modification of equipment , his recommendations
are reviewed by Lavigne , who is free to accept or
reject them , and who forwards his own recommenda-
tion to the opera tions committee which makes the
final decision. In the absence of any evidence that
Johnson exercises any supervisory or managerial
authority we shall include him in the unit.
Thomas Kennedy is a programmer who also
distributes work to, the other programmers based on
Lavigne 's instructions . There is no evidence that
Kennedy exercises independent judgment or that he
possesses or exercises any other indicia of superviso-
ry authority. Accordingly, we shall include him in the
unit.
James Mitchell, J9hn Martin . and Robert Bevens are
computer operators who, in addition to their own
operator duties, distribute work to their fellow
733
employees based on Lavigne's instructions . They are
without authority to take any action contrary to
Lavigne's instructions. All personnel problems aris-
ing in their departments are referred to and acted
upon independently by Lavigne. Based on these facts
and the entire record we conclude that Mitchell.
Martin, and Bevens are not supervisors and we shall
include them in the unit.
The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends
that Laverne Imboden, assistant to Motor Bank
Supervisor Ken Hall , is a supervisor and should be
excluded from the unit . The record shows that the
motor branch operates with approximately five full-
time and several part-time tellers . During Hall's
absence, which is infrequent , Imboden carries out his
duties. There is no other evidence which would tend
to show that Imboden is a supervisor . Based on the
sporadic nature of these temporary assignments we
conclude that such evidence is insufficient to warrant
a finding that Imboden is a supervisor and we shall
include her in the unit.
The Petitioner, contrary to the Employer, contends
that Hilda Robinson, the assistant manager of the
credit department , is a supervisor and should be
excluded from the unit . The credit department is
headed by Phillip Hartman , the manager, and
consists of three clerical employees and two manage-
ment trainees in addition to Robinson . All depart-
ment employees are under the direct supervision of
Hartman . However , when Hartman is absent due to
illness or vacation , Robinson is in charge of the
operation of the department . In such circumstances,
employees have been advised that they are to take
their orders from Robinson . Although Robinson may
exercise certain supervisory functions in Hartman's
absence , these occasions appear to be only infre-
quent and sporadic . Accordingly , we find that there
is no basis for concluding that Robinson is a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act and we
shall include her in the unit.
Petitioner contends that Kenneth Nauman, tax
clerk , is a supervisor and should be excluded from
the unit . The Employer would include him. There is
no record evidence that Nauman is engaged in
supervisory functions . Rather , the basis of Petition-
er's contention is drawn from a job description
which , according to the evidence , is unused in
practice . Based on the lack of affirmative evidence
indicating that Nauman exercises or possesses any of
the indicia of supervisory authority , we shall include
him in the unit.
The Petitioner , contrary to the Employer, seeks to
exclude George Nelson, a junior public relations
officer , on the basis that he is a supervisory and/or
managerial employee. Nelson's duties include spend-
ing approximately 60-70 percent of his time outside
734 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the bank calling on clients and soliciting new
business . There is no evidence that Nelson, in
carrying out these duties , exercises or possesses any
supervisory or managerial authority . Accordingly, we
shall include him in the unit.
The Petitioner contends that Everett Newcombe,
customer services officer, and Homer Tesdell, assist-
ant cashier , both of whom work in the new accounts
area, are supervisory and/or managerial employees
and should be excluded from the unit . The Employer
would include them . The record reveals that New-
combe and Tesdell open new accounts and accept
customer complaints . In circumstances where the
bank has experienced difficulty with a customer's
account (e.g., numerous overdrafts), these officers
will not accept that customer's application for a new
account . By following such a course of action, the
officer does not exercise any managerial or supervi-
sory.authority but rather follows established banking
policies . A similar situation is present when New-
combe and Tesdell accept customer complaints. In
reviewing a complaint , they will, where possible,
isolate the problem and resolve it so long as their
action comports with well -established policies. How-
ever, if a customer has a complaint which would
require a deviation from established guidelines to
resolve it to the customer 's satisfaction, such a
problem must be presented to and resolved by higher
officials . Based on the foregoing and the entire
record, we conclude that Newcombe and Tesdell are
not supervisory and/or managerial employees and
we shall include them in the unit.
The Petitioner contends that Richard Bisland is a
managerial-supervisory employee and should be
excluded from the unit. Bisland works in the trust
operations department and he is the assistant to
Norm Wilson , the trust operations officer . Bisland's
duties are primarily in the area of corporate trusts
and he does not have direct dealings with other
departments . On occasion , he sat in with Wilson
during employee evaluations and, in one instance,
went over a performance review with an employee.
However, there is no evidence that Bisland has ever
independently approved an employee evaluation or
that he effectively recommended such action. Ac-
cordingly , we find that Bisland is neither a supervisor
nor a managerial employee and we include him in
the unit.
The Petitioner contends that Lillian Smart, a typist
in trust operations, is a supervisor and should be
excluded from the unit . The Employer would include
her. Smart works along with two other typists.
Although Smart instructs and trains new employees
in her section, there is no evidence that she exercises
any of the indicia of supervisory authority . Accord-
ingly, we shall include her in the unit.
The Petitioner contends that Howard Franklin, the
most senior employee in the note department, is a
supervisor and should not be included in the unit.
The Employer disagrees and would include him. The
evidence shows that Franklin 's duties include is-
suance of due date notices to customers who have
outstanding notes and that he instructs new and
prospective note department employees in the
operations of the department . There is no evidence
that he exercises or possesses any indicia of supervi-
sory authority. Rather, it appears that his duties
relating to instructing new and prospective employ-
ees stem from his seniority and experience in the
department . Based on the foregoing and the entire
record, we conclude that Franklin is not a supervisor
and we shall include him in the unit.
The Petitioner , contrary to the Employer , contends
that Don Newkirk, an investment department officer,
is a supervisor and should be excluded . His duties
include the acceptance and execution of bond
purchase orders from smaller correspondent banks,
enabling these banks to provide more efficient
investment services to their customers . Occasionally
a banker will request Newkirk to figure a bond's
yield for a particular term . In so doing, he will use
widely used services such as Moody's or Standard &
Poor's . Also, he is sometimes called upon to
recommend a particular bond based on a customer's
needs . Here, again , he will do so on the basis of
information gathered from widely used investment
services. There is no evidence that he exercises or
possesses any supervisory authority in the perform-
ance of his duties . Accordingly , we shall include him
in the unit.
The Employer , contrary to the Petitioner, contends
that Monica Ellis, secretary to Ivan Johnson in public
relations , is a confidential employee and therefore
must be excluded from the unit. The Employer
asserts that Johnson is involved in labor relations,
setting vacation schedules for all employees and
making salary recommendations which are usually
followed. Ellis, as his secretary , is allegedly privy to
and has access to this information. However, the
record fails to establish these assertions. Rather, the
evidence shows that all matters concerning employee
labor relations, wages, hours, and working conditions
are handled in the personnel office. Since the record
shows that Ellis does not perform duties or have
access to matters of a confidential nature , we shall
include her in the unit.
In its brief, Petitioner urges that certain employees,
e.g., farm managers, public relations employees,
correspondent bankers , etc., should be excluded on
the additional basis of lack of community of interest.
We find no merit in this contention . The Petitioner
has requested a unit encompassing most of the
CENTRAL NATL. BANK & TRUST CO. 735
employees of the Employer. Obviously in such a
broad unit, there. is an inherent community of
interest among employees and, in the absence of a
showing that the employees whom the Petitioner
would exclude have a separate identifiable interest,
we shall include them in the unit.
The Petitioner would include employees at an
additional motor bank facility which the Employer
proposed opening in July 1973. The Employer
opposes unit coverage of this facility on the ground
that its plans were speculative in nature and lacked
the necessary approval of various Federal and state
authorities. We find merit in the Employer's conten-
tion. On the basis of the record before us, there is no
definite evidence as to when or if the proposed
facility will, become operational. In such circum-
stances, we do not consider it appropriate, at this
time, to determine-whether or not this facility should
be a part of the existing unit. Accordingly, Petition-
er's request that this facility be part of the appropri-
ate unit is denied.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(c) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees
of Central National Bank and Trust Company at
its main office and existing motor bank location
in Des Moines Iowa , including the cafeteria
employees, the maintenance employees, the man-
agement trainees, the correspondent bankers,
trust department employees, farm managers,
installment and commercial loan officers, the
computer department employees, the investment
department employees, the note department
employees, public relations employees, and em-
ployee Monica Ellis, excluding managerial em-
ployees, professional employees, confidential
employees, guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act and all other employees.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.)