Chicago Railway Equipment Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 586 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of CHICAGO RAILWAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 13-RC-593.-Decided August 8,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Morris
Slavney, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Mem-
bers 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner requests a unit of all office employees in the Com-
pany's general and factory offices including the shipping clerk, re-
ceiving clerk, and timekeeper, but excluding executives, supervisors,
I The Employer moved to dismiss the instant petition on the ground that the Petitioner
cannot represent the employees herein petitioned for because its constitution does not
authorize the organization of office employees of a company manufacturing railroad equip-
ment . The motioh'was referred to the Board , and is hereby denied . As the Board has
frequently held under similar circumstances , the willingness of a petitioner to represent
the employees in issue is controlling under the Act, not the eligibility of employees to
membership , nor the exact extent of the petitioner ' s constitutional jurisdiction . Matter of
Hall Level & Manufacturing Works, 72 N. L. R. B. 165; Matter of Federated Publications,
Inc., 74 N. L. R. B . 1054 ; Matter of American Buff Company, 67 N. L. It. B. 473.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 106.
586
CHICAGO RAILWAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 587
private secretaries, the traffic manager, and purchasing agent. The
Company, in addition to the above exclusions, would exclude the em-
ployees discussed below. There is no previous bargaining history
covering the employees herein petitioned for.
The assistant purchasing agent. This employee works in the gen-
eral office. He schedules new orders placed with the Company and
interviews salesmen concerning possible purchases of materials and
supplies. Although he places orders for supplies that are needed,
requisitions must normally be approved by the purchasing agent. He
has no supervisory authority. Accordingly, we shall include him in
the unit.2
The customer correspondent. This employee is located in the gen-
eral office. He acknowledges by letter orders placed by customers,
checks and traces production orders, and ascertains shipping dates.
He also expedites orders and confers with the works manager as to
the progress of a particular order. He has the same working condi-
tions and is paid a salary comparable to that of other employees in-
cluded in the unit. The Employer seeks to exclude this employee on
the same basis as the assistant purchasing agent. It does not appear
from the record in this case, however, that this employee exercises any
policy-making functions which associate his interests with those of
management. Accordingly, we shall include him in the unit .3
The assistant to the traffic and billing supervisor. The Employer
contends that this employee is a supervisor. The record indicates
that he assists the traffic and billing supervisor in the general office
and is responsible for much of the detail work connected with check-
ing the accuracy of freight bills, routing sheets, and the proper bill-
ing of orders. Although there is some evidence that this employee is
consulted in connection with the hiring or discharging of other em-
ployees, we are not persuaded that his recommendations in this regard
are effective. Consequently, we find that he is not a supervisor within
the meaning of the amendedAct, and shall include him in the Unit .4
The head bookkeeper. This employee works in the general office
and performs all the nonroutine bookkeeking. The record indicates
that she responsibly directs the work of the head pay-roll clerk, stock
record clerk, pay-roll clerks, and hand bookkeepers, and spot checks
their work for errors. She can effectively recommend that discipli-
nary action be taken in regard to any of these employees. We find
that she is a supervisor as defined in the amended Act, and shall ex-
clude her from the unit.
a Matter of S. T. Johnson Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 1330.
See Matter of General Electric Company , 81 N. L. R. B. 654.
4 Matter of The Barrett Division , Allied, G emical_-d Dye, Corporation; 65 N. L . R. B. 903;
see also Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company , 63 N. L. It. B. 1230.
588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The head pay-roll clerk. This employee works in the general office.
He maintains and prepares pay-roll records and does general ac-
counting. He also supervises the work of the timekeeper and pay-roll
distribution clerk and has access to the office personnel files in the
normal course of his duties. However, this employee is not a con-
fidential assistant to a managerial employee in charge of the Em-
ployer's labor relations and does not have access to general labor
relations policy data.. We find that he is not a confidential employee,
and we shall include him in the unit.5
The pay-roll distribution clerk. This employee is located in the
general office, and is responsible for the preparation of pay-roll re-
ports covering shop and general office personnel. He examines and
sorts job tickets, computes incentive payments, and assembles wage
information. However, it does not appear that he has access to con-
fidential personnel files, nor is he advised of the manner in which the
data he compiles may be used in connection with labor relations. We
have frequently held that working on, or having access to matters
which ,are confidential to the Employer's business, but which' are not
directly related to labor relations, does not warrant excluding the
employee in question from a bargaining unit as a confidential em-
ployee.6 Accordingly,' we shall include this employee in the unit.
The shipping and receiving clerks. These employees work on the
shipping dock in the plant, which is some distance away from the
general office. The Employer contends that this physical separation
warrants their exclusion from the office employees unit. These two
employees maintain shipping and receiving records and perform'vari-
eiis errands for the shop superintendent, under whose supervision
they work. The shipping clerk handles the timekeeping duties in the
absence. of the timekeeper,-who'is under the supervision of the head
pay-roll clerk. Both employees make several trips throughout the
day to the general office to obtain.factory mail and bills of lading.
As the duties and, interests of these employees are similar to those of
the general office employees and as no other labor organization seeks
to represent them, we shall include them in the unit.7
The.timekeeper is located in the shop office but is under the super-
visioiii of the head pay-roll clerk in the general office. He checks the
attendance of shop employees, keeps records on their time and piece-
work,and calculates their earnings, information. which the. Employer
Matter of Inter-ifountain . Telephone Company, 79 N. L. R . B. 715; Matter of The Ohio
Associated Telephone Company, 82 N. L. R. B. 972.
e Matter of Art Metal Construction Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 80 ; Matter of. Line Material
Company of Pennsylvania , 73 N. L . R..B.,704 ; Matter ,of Bethlehem,Steel Company, supra.
Matter of E. W. Bliss Company , Toledo Machine Tool.Division, 81 N. L. R. B. 428.
CHICAGO RAILWAY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 589
considers confidential. It does not appear that this employee performs
any duties related to the field of labor relations, and mere knowledge
of employee earnings or other pay-roll matters does not bring an
employee within the Board's definition of a confidential employee.8
For the reasons stated above, in connection with the shipping and re-
ceiving clerks, we shall include this employee in the unit.
The engineering department. The Petitioner would include em-
ployees in this department who perform clerical and office work. The
Employer would exclude all engineering department employees. The
engineering department is located on the floor above the general office
.and is under the direct supervision of the mechanical engineer. This
department employs 13 people, all of whom are engaged in engineer-
ing, drafting, the making of blueprints or work closely related to these
functions. Several of the employees have had either formal training
in the field of engineering or the equivalent amount of time in actual
experience, and the draftsmen and engineers must be familiar with
advanced mathematics. Although some of the jobs in this department
require relatively little skill and are' similar to clerical jobs in the
general office, there is a planned program whereby employees in this
department who have little training can advance to more technical
jobs as they gain experience. There is no interchange of employees
and very little contact between this department and the general office.
In view of these circumstances, including the separate location and
.supervision, the lack of interests in common with that of the general
office employees, and the technical nature of their work, we shall ex-
clude the employees in the engineering department from the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.'
Accordingly, we find all office and clerical employees of the Em-
ployer, at its Chicago plant, including the timekeeper, shipping and
receiving clerks, assistant to the traffic and billing supervisor, custo-
mer correspondent, pay-roll distribution clerk, assistant purchasing
agent, and head pay-roll clerk, but excluding the traffic manager, pur-
chasing agent, head bookkeeper, employees of the engineering depart-
ment, confidential employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
8 Matter of Art Metal Construction Company, supra ; Matter of Line Material Company
of Pennsylvania, supra.
See Matter of The Adams .t Westlake Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 726; Matter of Gardner-
Denver Company , 82 N. L. R. B. 201; Matter of American Smelting and Refining Company,
80 N. L . R. B. 68.
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer , an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than.
30 days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and su -
pervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard , and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election , including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off , but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election , and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented , for purposes of collec-
tive bargaining , by International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft
and. Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO.