Columbia Steel & Shafting Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 1536 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All employees at the Employer's Washington, D.C., apartment
building, including engineering assistants, but excluding office clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
[The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 5-RC-3443.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 As we have directed an election in a larger unit than that requested by either the
Operating Engineers or Building Service Union , we shall permit either or both unions to
withdraw from the election upon written notice to the Regional Director , within 10 days
from the date of this Decision and Direction of Election.
Columbia Steel & Shafting Company and Edgar T. Ward's
Sons Company and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-J?-1019. August 30, 1961
DECISION CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
On January 31, 1945, the National Labor Relations Board issued its
Decision and Direction of Election 1 in the above matter finding the
following unit to be appropriate :
All office, clerical, and cafeteria employees, janitors, and
nurses employed by the Companies at the Carnegie, Pennsyl-
vania, plant and offices, including pay-roll clerk, schedule clerk,
and accounts receivable and payable supervisors at Ward's, but
excluding secretaries to heads of departments, supervisor of bill-
ing department, head of photostat department, plant engineer,
production engineer, chief clerk of. order department, order de-
partment supervisor at Ward's, metallurgists, guards, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action.2
Pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election was held among
.the employees-in the above described unit, and on March 5, 1945, the
-Regional Director for the Sixth Region certified the Petitioner as
bargaining representative for said unit. Thereafter, and continu-
1 00 NLRB 301.
2 At the time of the certification , Edgar T . Ward's Sons Company was a subsidiary of
Columbia Steel & Shafting Company. Ward's operated a number of warehouses through-
out the country , including one in Carnegie, Pennsylvania, and clerical employees em-
ployed at the Carnegie warehouse were included in the certified unit. Now, however,
Ward's consists of only the Carnegie warehouse , and has become a division of Columbia
Steel & Shafting Company.
132 NLRB No. 134.
COLUMBIA STEEL & SHAFTING COMPANY, ETC. 1537
ously to the present time, the parties have entered into collective-
bargaining agreements.3
On February 6, 1961, the Petitioner filed a motion to clarify or
amend certification of representatives, requesting the Board to find
that the following classifications are specifically included in the certi-
fied unit: cost accountant and budget clerk, general ledger accountant,
orders raw material clerk, orders desk clerk, sales order clerk, stenog-
rapher, laboratory clerk. In the alternative, the Petitioner requested
that the Board issue an order to show cause why the motion should
not be granted, or that the Board order a hearing to be held in the
matter. On February 17,1961, the Employer filed an answer in oppo-
sition to the motion in which it, the Employer, denied that any of the
categories named therein are properly within the certified unit, and
requested that the Board deny the motion or, in the alternative, order
that a hearing be held in the matter. On April 13, 1961, the Board
issued an order directing that a hearing be held on all issues raised by
the Petitioner's motion and the Employer's answer thereto and re-
ferring the matter to the Regional Director for the Sixth Region for
that purpose. On May 10 and 11, 1961, in accordance with the above
order, a hearing was held before F. J. Surprenant, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, including the brief filed by the
Employer subsequent to the hearing, the Board 4 finds :
The Petitioner contends that the following employees are office
clericals who should be included in the certified unit. The Employer
would exclude them as technical, supervisory, confidential, or mana-
gerial. While some of the disputed classifications have been estab-
lished since the certification, the duties of others have been changed
or expanded.
Henry Richell, general ledger accountant, is referred to by the
Employer as the accounting department supervisor. He is located in
the accounting department where he is in charge of the general ledgers
and responsibly directs the work of the department's clericals. He
has the authority to discipline and effectively to recommend hiring,
firing, and promotion of the employees under him. In these circum-
stances, the general ledger accountant (accounting department super-
3 In 1954 , in Case No. 6-UA-1490, the Petitioner petitioned for authority to make a
union-shop agreement and an election was held in the following unit: All office clerical
and cafeteria employees , and janitors , excluding confidential employees , nurses, guards,
professional employees , and supervisors . Beginning with the contract of September 1,
1952, and continuing through the current contract , dated February 26, 1960, the unit has
been described as "all office , clerical, cafeteria employees , and janitors except confidential
employees , technical employees , guards, and supervisory employees " However, the Em-
ployer stated that it no longer employs cafeteria employees.
'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
[ Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
1538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visor) is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and we shall
exclude him from the certified unit.
Joseph Okrutny, orders raw material clerk, is referred to by the
Employer as supervisor, tube division. He is located in the business
office of the tube division where he, inter alia, responsibly directs the
clericals in the office and has the authority effectively to recommend
hiring, firing, and change of status of these employees. Accordingly,
we find that the orders raw material clerk (supervisor, tube division)
is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude him
from the certified unit.
William Manby, orders desk clerk (referred to by the Employer
as assistant to sales manager-bar), and Daniel Wood, sales order
clerk (referred to by the Employer as assistant to manager, sales-
tube), were located until recently 5 in the offices of the tube and bar
divisions, respectively. Wood was hired in 1959 as a sales or man-
agement trainee, while Manby, who had been working for the Em-
ployer as an office clerical employee, was selected for management
training when he returned from military service in 1955. During
their training period, both were engaged primarily in sales work in
their respective divisions. Aside from becoming familiar with the
way orders are received, processed, scheduled, produced, shipped, and
billed, Wood spent the majority of his time in handling customer con-
tacts by telephone and making sales surveys. Manby spent the ma-
jority of his time in contacting customers and salesmen and handling
customer complaints. We find that the interests and duties of the
orders desk clerk (assistant to sales manager-bar) and the sales order
clerk (assistant to manager, sales-tube) are more related to those of
the Employer's salesmen, who are not a part of the certified unit, than
to those of the clerical employees.6 We shall, therefore, exclude them
from the certified unit.
Robert Kolvek, laboratory clerk (referred to by the Employer as
metallurgical laboratory technician), is located in the plant labora-
tory where is is engaged in research and testing of the physical prop-
erties of steel. He spends about half his time in running routine
chemical and physical tests and balance of his time in research and
development projects which require the exercise of independent judg-
ment. Although he does not have a degree, he has had 1 year of col-
5 On May 4, 1961 , Manby was promoted to manager of sales for the Summerill Stainless
Tube Division In Scottdale , Pennsylvania, and on May 1, 1961, Wood was promoted to
district sales manager for the Employer 's Philadelphia office. Neither had been replaced
at the time of the hearing , but the Employer anticipated filling their positions as soon
as it could find qualified men. Accordingly , we shall determine the unit placement of the
positions held by Manby and Wood prior to May 1961 . United States Pipe and Foundry
Company, 104 NLRB 202, at 203 and footnote 4
6 We find it unnecessary to decide whether these trainees have Interests more closely
related to management solely by virtue of their selection for such training . See, e g,
Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated, 131 NLRB 1436.
COLUMBIA STEEL & SHAFTING COMPANY, ETC. 1539
lege chemistry and 3 years of college metallurgical engineering. In
addition, he had 8 years of experience as a laboratory technician prior
to his employment by the Employer. The record shows his college
training is essential to the performance of his work. He is supervised
by a graduate engineer, and he has no contact with the Employer's
clerical employees, except Rosella Bigelman, discussed below, who
types his reports. We-find that the laboratory clerk (metallurgical
laboratory technician) is not a clerical employee and that his duties
and interests are substantially different from those of the clerical em-
ployees in the certified unit. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from.
the certified unit.
Rosella Bigelman, a stenographer, is secretary to the plant manager,,
and is engaged in the usual duties of her classification. As secretary
to the plant manager, who participates in the formulation of company
labor policies and administers labor contracts covering production and
maintenance employees, this employee assists and acts in a confidential
capacity to a person who formulates, determines, and effectuates man-
agement policies in the field of labor relations. Accordingly, we find
that she is a confidential employee and shall exclude her from the.
certified unit.7
Charles Lowar, cost accountant and budget clerk (who the Em-
ployer states has no official title), works in the methods and cost de-
partment under the supervision of Mr. Korte, the methods engineer.,,
It appears the department was created after the certification. Korte's.
functions include serving as chairman of the job evaluation committee
for the production unit and as chairman of the Employer's budget
committee. Lowar is primarily engaged in the preparation and typing
of cost, efficiency, and time-study reports, from accounting depart-
ment records, following a formula set up by Mr. Korte. These reports
are used by Mr. Korte in making recommendations to top manage-
ment concerning cost reduction which could affect the jobs of the
Company's production and maintenance employees. However, there
is no evidence that Korte formulates, determines, and effectuates Com-
pany policies in the field of labor relations with respect to either the
production and maintenance or the clerical employees. As Lowar does.
not assist a person performing such functions, it follows, and we find,
that Lowar is not a confidential employee.' Nor is he a managerial
employee, for there is nothing in the record to indicate that he takes-
part in the formulation and determination of company policy in gen-
7 The B F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722 , 724. Moreover , her predecessor was not
included in the unit.
8 Mr. Korte is not a college graduate However, he has taken some courses in methods
engineering and has had on-the -job training in this field . The parties agree that he is
excluded from the unit.
9 The B F Goodrich Company, supra; Ethyl Corporation , 118 NLRB 1369, 1371. Cf.
Inland Steel Products Company, 124 NLRB 198 , at 199-200.
614913-62-vol. 132-98
1540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eral.10 On the contrary, the duties and interests of Charles Lowar are
substantially the same as those of the clerical employees in the certi-
fied unit. Accordingly, we find that the cost accountant and budget
clerk is an accretion to the certified unit, and shall include him.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the certification heretofore issued in the
above-captioned proceeding be, and it hereby is, clarified by specifically
including, in the description of the appropriate unit, the classifications
of cost accountant and budget clerk and the secretary to the methods
engineer, and specifically excluding, in the description of the appro-
priate unit, the classifications of general ledger accountant (account-
ing department supervisor), orders raw material clerk (supervisor,
tube division), orders desk clerk (assistant to sales manager-bar),
sales orders clerk (assistant to manager, sales-tube), and secretary to
the plant manager.
" American Federation of Labor , etc., 120 NLRB 969 , 973. See also Swift & Company,
129 NLRB 1391 Cf. Puget Sound Power & Light Company, 117 NLRB 1825, 1827;
Slier Co., 108 NLRB 1417 , 1422 ( William Webber).
' Chickasaw Hotel Company d/b/a Chisca Plaza Motor Hotel,'
Petitioner and Hotel & Restaurant Employees & Bartenders
International Union , Local 847, AFL-CIO. Case No. 26-RM-
121. August 30, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Act a hearing
was held before John E. Cienki, hearing 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The Employer is engaged, in Memphis, Tennessee, in a hotel busi-
ness over which the Board previously asserted jurisdiction in 1959.2
The question of the Board's present assertion of its jurisdiction arises
anew because the figures provided by the Employer show the Em-
ployer's gross volume of business during 1960, to be $493,276.
This drop to below the $500,000 volume necessary to satisfy the
Board's jurisdictional standards, reflects a loss in revenue occasioned
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
s Case No 32-RC-1330, not published in the printed volumes of Board decisions. The
Union was the Petitioner in this prior proceeding.
132 NLRB No. 128.