Siemens Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 21, 1976

224 N.L.R.B. 1579 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

SIEMENS CORPORATION 1579
Siemens Corporation and Local Union No 3, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner Case 29-RC-3236
June 21, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND WALTHER
On January 22, 1976, the Regional Director for
Region 29 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in which he directed an election in a unit com-
prised of two office clerical employees and a senior
planner Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102 67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
filed a timely request for review, contending that the
Regional Director erred by failing to exclude one of
the clericals, the district manager's secretary, as a
confidential employee, and by including the senior
planner in the requested unit despite his lack of a
community of interest with the office clerical em-
ployees
By telegraphic order dated March 2, 1976, the
Board granted the Employer's request for review
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 considered the entire record in this
case and makes the following findings
The Employer sells, installs, and services X-ray
equipment from a number of locations throughout
the country, including its Lake Success, New York,
sales and service facility involved herein The Peti-
tioner currently represents the X-ray technicians
working out of Lake Success and now seeks to repre-
sent the two clericals and the senior planner who
work in the office As indicated, the Employer would
exclude Nancy Clark from the unit on the grounds
that she performs work of a confidential nature
Clark is secretary to the district manager who is a
member of the Employer's negotiating team Involved
in bargaining with the Petitioner for the technicians'
unit at the Lake Success facility The Regional Direc-
tor concluded that Clark is not a confidential em-
ployee for the reason that, at most, only a fraction of
her time is spent in confidential duties We do not
agree
The record shows that Clark performs a wide
range of clerical duties, including the typing of corre-
spondence for the district manager, filing, opening
mail, and answering telephones, among other duties
The record further reveals that, during her approxi-
mately 8-month tenure, Clark was called upon to
type a disciplinary warning and during contract ne-
gotiations typed a memorandum containing tenta-
tively agreed-upon bargaining issues and a counter-
proposal for presentation to the Union Clark has
access to employee grievance files, and the record
also shows that her predecessor, as the district
manager's secretary, typed the Employer's grievance
responses Thus, it appears her position would also
encompass such duties
In view of the foregoing, we find that Clark acts in
a confidential capacity to a person involved in for-
mulating, determining, and effectuating the Em-
ployer's labor relations policies and she is there-
fore a confidential employee' The fact that Clark
does not presently spend a greater portion of her
time in duties related to labor relations matters does
not warrant a contrary result Rather, the test is
whether she is expected to, and in fact does, act in a
confidential capacity in the normal course of her du-
ties 2 Accordingly, as we have concluded that Clark is
a confidential employee, she is excluded from the
voting group found herein
The Employer contends that the senior planner
does not share a community of interest with the other
office clerical The record shows that the senior plan-
ner has a B S degree in architecture and performs
the function of preparing layout plans for the instal-
lation of X-ray equipment He works under the su-
pervision of the service department manager and
spends approximately 90 percent of his worktime in
the same office with his supervisor, the two office
clericals, three other supervisory personnel, and four
"outside" salesmen The Regional Director properly
found the senior planner to be a technical employee
Forbes, the remaining office clerical, does secre-
tarial work primarily for the service department
manager and the 16 X-ray technicians, who, together
with the senior planner and the assistant service de-
partment manager, comprise the Employer's entire
service department
The Board includes technical employees in units
with office clerical employees where, as here, the
facts show common supervision, work location, and
other factors indicative of a community of interest 3
In view of the facts here, which show that the senior
planner and the service department clerical perform
functions for the service department to which they
1 The B F Goodrich Company 115 NLRB 722 (1956)
2 West Chemical Products Inc 221 NLRB 250 (1975)
3 The Budd Company Automotive Division Gary Plant 136 NLRB 1153
1155 (1962) American Motors Corporation Parts Division 206 NLRB 287
288 (1973)
224 NLRB No 216
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are assigned and are sought by the representative of
the technicians unit under that department, we shall,
in these circumstances, establish a voting group 4
composed of these employees and we shall direct a
self-determination election among them If a majori-
ty of the employees in such voting group vote for the
Petitioner, they shall be deemed to constitute a part
of the existing technicians' unit, and the Petitioner
may bargain for such employees as part of that unit
If a majority of them vote against the Petitioner, they
4It is our understanding of the record that the Petitioner indicated its
willingness at the hearing to represent these employees as part of its existing
unit
will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain
outside the existing unit In either event, the Region-
al Director shall issue an appropriate certification
The voting group is
All office clerical employees and the senior
planner in the Employer's Service Department
at its Lake Success, New York, facility, exclud-
ing all other employees, confidential employees,
professionals, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication I