Copperweld Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1229 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

COPPERWELD STEEL COMPANY 1229
management representatives . ( I consider , of course, that McKibben 's conduct
is attributable to the Respondent .) McKibben 's statements to Smith and also
to Fisher in 1950 seem to indicate his preoccupation with "full -time" workers,
and the General Counsel 's argument that Smith "could have been more easily
spared for his union duties from salvage , a non-assembly -line process, than
from bench inspection , an assembly line process ," does not necessarily negate
a preference by McKibben that employees in any or all classifications devote
all their time to their work . I am unable to find on the basis of this record
that the evidence preponderantly supports the inference of union animosity
which the General Counsel would establish . I shall accordingly recommend that
the complaint be dismissed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
COPPERWELD STEEL COMPANY and OFFICE, CLERICAL & SALARIED EM-
PLOYEES OF THE COPPERWELD STEEL COMPANY, PETITIONER. CaSe
No. 6-RC-1152. February 10, 1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William A. McGowan, hear-
ing 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all nonsupervisory salaried em-
ployees at the Employer's plant in Glassport, Pennsylvania, including
office clerical, technical, and professional employees, but excluding
three confidential employees. The Employer would exclude certain
other employees, discussed below, as confidential employees, or as
both confidential and professional.2 As appears hereafter, the em-
ployees designated by the Employer as professional are either tech-
" The secretaries to the three policy-making executives , 1. e , the executive vice president,
treasurer , and secretary , are stipulated to be confidential employees , and we so find.
2 The Employer further contends that the development engineer is a supervisor, and
should be excluded also for that reason . See footnote 13.
102 NLRB No. 119.
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nicals or professionals in related technical fields. Under well-estab-
lished policy, technical employees may not be grouped with office and
clerical employees where any party objects to such a grouping .3
Alleged Confidential Employees
The secretary to the employee relations manager in the industrial
engineering office assists him in labor relations matters, including the
typing of contract proposals and keeping his confidential files regard-
ing such matters. The other 3 clerical employees in that office, 2
stenographers and the personnel assistant, assist the personnel man-
ager and work with the personnel, medical, insurance, and discipli-
nary records, which the Employer considers confidential. Although
the two stenographers may, on occasion, be assigned the typing of
sections of lengthy labor contracts, there is no showing that they ever
type any confidential contract proposals. As only the secretary does
confidential work for a person who participates in formulating and
effectuating the Employer's labor relations policies, we shall exclude
her from the office and clerical unit, and include the stenographers and
the personnel assistant .5
The Employer likewise contends that the general bookkeeper, sal-
aried payroll clerk, accounts payable clerk, cost clerks, and payroll
clerk in the accounting department are confidential employees. None
of these, however, either assists, or acts in a confidential capacity to,
any person exercising managerial functions in the field of labor re-
lations 6 The Board has frequently held that the fact that employees
have access to financial and business data,7 prepare the payrolls or
work with cost records 9 does not render them confidential employees.
Accordingly, we find that none of these accounting department em-
ployees is a confidential employee. We shall include them in the
office and clerical unit, as well as the telephone operator,'° as such
clerical employees are customarily found not to be confidential em-
ployees.
The Employer contends further that its production methods are
confidential, and that, therefore, its electrical engineer, development
8 The Ohio Steel Furnace Company, 92 NLRB 683.
4 The personnel assistant also gives tests to clerical applicants and grades them accord-
ing to a prepared grading system . She does not assist in making the final selections among
qualified applicants , but may turn away applicants who are obviously unsuitable for employ-
ment . We find that such duties are insufficient as a basis for excluding her as a managerial
employee.
Standard Brands Incorporated, 101 NLRB 1349 ; Cities Service Refining Company,
94 NLRB 1634.
6 Wilson & Co , Inc., 102 NLRB 191.
1 The Ohio Steel Foundry Company , 92 NLRB 683; Gulf States Telephone Company, 101
NLRB 270.
s Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., 100 NLRB 1301.
Wilson & Co ., Inc., supra.
Pittsburgh Metallurgical Company, Incorporated , 100 NLRB 117.
COPPERWELD STEEL COMPANY 1231
engineer, assistant consulting engineer, metallurgists, chemists and
laboratory technicians, machinist, and stenographer should be ex-
cluded as confidential employees. We likewise find no merit in this
contention. The mere fact that an employee does work related to
secret designs, patents, or formulas does not render him a confidential
employee within the Board's definition 11 Furthermore, the Board
has often held that there is no incompatibility between the faithful
performance of duty and the enjoyment of benefits under the Act.12
Professional Employees
The Employer contends that the electrical engineers (Pyle and
Schmalz), development engineer (Furse),13 sales engineer (Pudlak),
assistant consulting engineer, and the metallurgists are highly trained
and experienced professional employees engaged in predominantly
intellectual development and research work. As they have the requi-
site specialized educational training or the equivalent, and their work
involves the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment, we find
that they meet the standards for professional employees set out in the
Act. However, we do not agree with the Employer's position that
the following employees are also professional:
The chemists analyze metals, acids, and other materials, and con-
duct various types of tests for the engineers and metallurgists. Al-
though a college degree or the equivalent in experience is required,
we find that their work is too routine for them to be considered pro-
fessional employees. We shall include them in a unit with other
technical workers.
The plant engineers make designs of machinery or equipment for
rough sketches or from verbal instructions from their supervisors.
They also determine clearances, calculate strength of materials, and
check drawings by detail draftsmen, spending most of their time at
the drawing boards. As an engineering degree is not required, and
as much of the work is routine, we agree with the Petitioner that they
are not professional, but technical, employees.
The demonstrating engineer, who demonstrates the use of ground
rods to potential buyers, must have a thorough knowledge of elec-
tricity in order to answer questions about company products. How-
ever, the demonstrations, consisting of driving the rods into the
ground, conducting the tests, and explaining the results, are consid-
erably routine. We find that this employee is merely a technical
employee.
11 Swift & Company, 9,8 NLRB 746; E. R. Squibb & Sons, $3 NLRB 792.
12 Chase Bra8s & Copper Co., Inc., 102 NLRB 62.
13 The Employer contends, contrary to the Petitioner , that Furse is a supervisor. As the
laborers , who remain under the supervision of their own foreman , are only temporarily
assigned to work with him to help run the experimental equipment which he uses, and as
his direction of them is merely routine, we find that he does not have supervisory status.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accordance with the foregoing determinations, we find that all
office and clerical employees at the Employer's Glassport, Pennsyl-
vania, plant, including district sales managers , traffic manager,14 and
assistant storekeeper, but excluding confidential secretaries, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
an appropriate unit.
We also find that the technical employees and professional em-
ployees may function as separate units or may be joined together for
the purposes of collective bargaining. The inclusion of the profes-
sionals in the same unit with the technicals will depend upon their
desires, to be expressed in a separate election.
We shall accordingly direct separate elections in the following vot-
ing groups :15
(A) All technical employees at the Employer's Glassport, Penn-
sylvania, plant, including the demonstrating engineer and the lab-
oratory machinist, but excluding the heater,16 professional employees,
all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(B) All professional employees at the Employer's Glassport, Penn-
sylvania, plant, including the electrical engineers, development engi-
neer, sales engineer, assistant consulting engineer, and metallurgists,
but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
The employees in the professional voting group (B) will be asked
two questions on their ballot : (1) Do you wish the professional em-
ployees to be included in the same unit with the Employer's technical
employees? (2) Do you wish to be represented for purposes of col-
lective bargaining by the Petitioner? If a majority of the profes-
sional employees vote "Yes" to the first question, indicating their
wish to be included in the same unit with the technical employees,
they will be so included. Their votes on the second question will then
be counted together with the votes of the technical voting group (A)
to decide whether or not they wish to be represented by the Peti-
tioner, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed
herein is instructed to issue a certificate of representatives to the Peti-
tioner in the event a majority of the employees in both voting groups
vote for the Petitioner, in which case the Board finds that the em-
ployees in voting groups (A) and (B) together constitute an appro-
14 The parties apparently agree, and we find, that the district sales managers and the
traffic manager have no supervisory status.
'b The Petitioner did not indicate whether or not it wished to represent the employees
in units smaller than the overall salaried employees unit. We shall direct the elections
with the provision that the Regional Director is authorized, upon request of the Petitioner
within 10 days of the date of this direction, to dismiss the petition insofar as it applies
to any group of employees which the Petitioner does not wish to represent separately.
16 Although the heater is a salaried employee , we find that his work and interests are
more closely allied to those of employees in the production and maintenance unit. We
shall therefore exclude him.
ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1233
priate unit. If, on the other hand, a majority of the professional
employees in voting group (B) vote against inclusion in the tech-
nical unit, they will not be included with the technical employees and
their votes on the second question will then be counter to decide
whether or not they wish to be represented by the Petitioner in a sep-
arate professional unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER
ACME ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 3-RC-1109
and 3-RC-1125. February 10, 1953
Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Katherine Tarbell, 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 Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
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 labor organizations named below claim 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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
hereinafter called IBEW, seeks a unit consisting of all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's 3 plants-1 in Alle-
gany, New York, and 2 in Cuba, New York. The International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter
called IUE, seeks a unit consisting of the production and maintenance
employees at the two Cuba plants only, contending that these plants,
102 NLRB No. 107.