Swift & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1556 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with reference to the Act That was an understandable omission. Management
officials, at that time , were solely concerned with relieving the shop superintendent,
and the shop foreman, of the tune-consuming duties of conferring with salesmen
on the problems relevant to used trucks Also, the Company wanted to place the
responsibility for the used truck program on some individual who would be account-
able to management for its effectiveness For that job, management chose Nix,
and it is extremely doubtful if anyone in management, at that time, gave any thought
as to whether his authority was that of an assistant foreman, or a leadman. At
that time, his degree of authority was of no apparent importance
Thereafter, it is undisputed that Nix was in operational control of the used car
reconditioning program as it affected the service department He conferred with
the salesmen, duties previously performed by the shop superintendent and the shop
foreman, and in conference with the salesmen wrote up the original order for repair
of used trucks When the order was approved by the sales manager, it was the
responsibility of Nix to see that the work was performed in a workmanlike man-
ner, that the trucks were repaired in certain priority, and that the work was com-
pleted according to the schedule of the salesmen or sales manager In all of this,
Nix was performing duties previously performed by the shop superintendent or shop
foreman, and which involved the use of a certain amount of independent judgment.
As part of his function, he supervised the work of the mechanics on the used trucks,
and he was consulted by the mechanics when they encountered anything unforeseen,
or unordered It is true that Nix was required to consult with Hanson, the shop
foreman, prior to assigning any man to work on a used truck, but that was a routine
requirement, growing out of the fact that the Company desired to peiform customer
work first, and then devote the men's energies to the used truck program
From all the evidence it appears to me that Nix "assigned" and "responsibly
directed" the mechanics in the used truck reconditioning program and that he was,
as Hanson testified , Hanson's assistant, and was a supervisor within the meaning
of the Act
It appears to me that the Company also had this view of Nix's status prior to
the election, hence the election list upon which the Company designated Nix as
"foreman "
The various incidents enumerated show that Nix exercised the authority of a
supervisor, with the consent of his superiors When Nix recommended the firing
of McCaslm, Stall said to fire that mechanic When Dahlberg intervened, Stall
changed his mind, not on the basis that Nix did not have authority to recommend
the firing of a mechanic, but on the ground that he had no authority to fire
McCashn, who worked in the body shop, a department separate and apart from Nix's
used truck program When the proposition concerning the coffee break was sub-
mitted to the men, Nix was the spokesman for management And when Prestrud
wanted the men to speak freely about the bosses or the foremen, Nix was asked to
leave the room This conduct, in my opinion, illustrates that management itself
considered Nix a supervisor at all times prior to the election
Upon all the credible evidence, I find that Nix occupied the position of assistant
foreman at the time of the election, that he was a supervisor, and that his ballot
was properly challenged
It is therefore recommended that the challenge to Nix's ballot be sustained
Swift & Company and United Packinghouse Workers of Amer-
ica, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Swift & Company and National Brotherhood of Packinghouse
Workers, Petitioner. Cases Nos 16RC 2044 and 16 RC-2079.
February 12, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before William H.
Renkel, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
119 NLRB No 194
SWIFT & COMPANY 1557
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-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3, Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-
CIO, herein called United, seeks a unit limited to office clerical em-
ployees of the Employer's accounting department. Petitioner Na-
tional Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, herein called National,
seeks a unit of plant and office clerical employees. The Employer
contends that the unit or units sought are inappropriate because they
contain supervisors, managerial, and confidential employees, and, in
the case of the unit sought by United, because it comprises only a
segment of all the office clerical employees. Finally, the Employer
contends that the unit sought by National is inappropriate for the
additional reasons that (1) it groups office and plant clerical em-
ployees, and (2) it includes technical employees in a unit of clerical
employees.
The Employer's Fort Worth operations are divided into plant and
office facilities, the latter utilizing a separate building. The Employer
also has a district office at the Fort Worth premises. The office
building houses approximately 108 office clerical employees, exclusive
of supervisors and admittedly managerial or confidential employees.
The office force is subdivided into four general groupings, accounting,
commercial, selling, and service. United seeks the approximately 85.
office clericals in the accounting department; alternatively, United
is willing to accept a broader unit, which would also include the other
23 office clerical employees in the office section of the Employer's
operations.
The plant clerical employees all work in the plant, under the gen-
eral overall supervision of a plant superintendent. Their work is
performed in a large number of separate departments. National seeks
all plant clericals, as well as office clericals, and district office employ-
ees. National contends that office clerical and plant clerical duties
are substantially the same and require similar skills, and that all
clerical employees receive the same benefits and have similar working
conditions. It asserts that the close community of interests between
the office and the plant clericals is such as to render appropriate a
1558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit consisting of the two groups.' National, like United, desires
to participate in elections in any unit or units found herein to be
appropriate.
The Employer takes the position, as indicated above, that no unit
or -units of its clerical employees is appropriate as sought by either
United or National on the ground that the bulk of its clerical work-
. ers are either supervisory, managerial, or confidential. Assuming
some unit or units to be appropriate, the Employer contends : (1)
office and plant clericals should be separate; (2) the office clerical
unit petitioned for by United is inappropriate in that it does not
include all office clericals in the Fort Worth plant; (3) certain
employees sought by National are technicals who should not be
included in a clerical unit; and (4) in agreement with United, the
district office employees should not be included in any unit of Fort
Worth plant employees.2
At the outset, it is clear that the office and the plant clericals
involved do not, together, constitute a single appropriate unit.
Although, on rare occasion, the Board has found appropriate a unit
combining office and plant clerical employees, under unusual circum-
stances,' none of these circumstances is present in the instant situa-
tion. The' office clerical employees of the Employer are in a separate
building and they are separately supervised. There has been no
history of bargaining with respect to either group. We shall, there-
fore, follow our usual practice of separating the two groups 4
Turning to the composition of an office-clerical unit, there appears
no reason other than an administrative designation by the Employer
for convenience sake to limit an office clerical unit to employees in
the accounting section. All office clerical employees are located in
a single building, they have generally the same wages, hours, and
working conditions, and they are all under the general supervision
of the auditor and office manager. Accordingly, only a unit of all
the office clerical employees at the plant can be appropriate.'
The Fort Worth district office clerical employees, however, are not
properly includable in such an office clerical unit. They are not
actually part of the Fort Worth plant at all, but constitute the
clerical force of a separate entity, charged with the responsibility
'Aside from the major difference between United and National, respecting whether or
not the office and plant clericals should be joined, the only difference between their posi-
tions is in respect to the Fort Worth district office employees. National would include
them in its requested unit or in a separate office clerical unit, if such is found by the Board
to be inappropriate.
a The Employer also asserts that the district office employees are managerial and con-
fidential.
3 See, for example, General Electric Co., 101 NLRB 619.
4 The Rudolph Wurlitzer Company, 117 NLRB 6; ACF Industries, Inc., 115 NLRB 1106;
Faltin Motor Transportation, Inc., 114 NLRB 1369.
s Detroit Marine Terminals , Inc., 115 NLRB 822 ; American Radiator & Standard Sani-
tary Corporation, 114 NLRB 1151.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1559
,over 25 sales units of the Employer located throughout Texas, Okla-
homa, and Arizona, which uses office space at the Fort Worth plant.
The four employees in question do not share common supervision
with the employees sought by United and National. In these cir-
cumstances, we find that they should be excluded from any unit of
Fort Worth plant employees herein found appropriate.
As has been indicated, the Employer is contending that virtually
the entire complement of clerical employees here involved, both
office and plant, are confidential, managerial, supervisory, or tech-
nical. A particularized resolution of these contentions follows.
The Office Clerical Unit
Livestock paying department: The three clerks in this depart-
ment 6 receive commission firm and auction market invoices, which
they process for payment. The head of this department, who the
Employer contends is a supervisor, has not been informed of any
authority of a supervisory nature, nor has he ever exercised any
such authority. Although the auditor and office manager, Saunders,
testified that he could recommend changes in the status of the other
two clerks, a number of wage increases have been given in the
department without even any consultation with the department head.
When he became department head, he did not receive any salary
increase. He has never attended nor been asked to attend meetings
,of supervisors. What limited powers he possesses and exercises con-
sist of at most routine direction of the work of the other two clerks.
We find, on these facts and the record as a whole, that the head of
the livestock paying department is not a supervisor. Contrary to
the Employer's contention, nothing in the duties of any of these three
clerks in any way falls within the definition of managerial or confi-
dential employees as the Board customarily uses those terms.' We
shall, accordingly, include the three clerks in the livestock paying
-department in the office clerical unit herein found appropriate.
Stationery department: The Employer contends that 1 of the 2 cler-
icals in this department, the department head, is a supervisor, and that
the other is managerial and confidential. The two clerks check all non-
.railroad deliveries, and prepare an "advice of receipt," which goes to
the voucher department. Their duties do not relate to labor relations,
nor do they assist persons who are in any manner involved with labor
relations policy or its effectuation. We find, accordingly, that they are
O The term "department" will be used herein for the 15 groupings of employees in the
accounting department, although it appears from the record that each group is called
"desk" or "department" interchangeably. The auditor and his assistant, called a "chief
,clerk," supervise the entire accounting department.
7 The B. F. Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724; Peninsular Metal Products Corpora-
tion, 116 NLRB 452.
1560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
not confidential employees. There is nothing in the record to support
the Employer's contention that they are managerial.
The head clerk has never been informed of any supervisory author-
ity, nor has he ever exercised any independent authority, although on
one occasion he reported a clerk for sleeping on the job and the clerk
was fired by the auditor. A recommendation of a discharge in the
case of a flagrant violation of working procedures such as this is insuffi-
cient to make a person a supervisor. We find, therefore, that the head
clerk of the stationery department is not a supervisor.
Mail department: The Employer contends that the five clerks in
this department are managerial and confidential, and that the head
clerk is a supervisor. The latter has not been told that he possesses,
nor has he exercised, any functions of a supervisory nature. He has
been asked for opinions, but, according to the auditor's testimony, not
for recommendations. A number of salary increases have been award-
ed in the mail department without any consultation with the head of
the department. His direction of the work of the other clerks in the
department, where he himself performs clerical duties virtually full-
time, is routine in nature. We find, accordingly, that the mail depart-
ment head is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
The mail department clerks handle mail, both incoming and out-
going, and do mimeographing work. There is no evidence in the
record to support the Employer's contention that their work falls
within the Board's managerial or confidential categories. We shall,
accordingly, include them in the unit of office clericals.
Departmental department: The nine clerks in this department pre-
pare profit and loss statements for various departments of the Em-
ployer. The Employer contends that the head of the department is
supervisory, and that he and the others are managerial or confidential.
The department head has never been informed of any supervisory
authority. He directs the work of the other clerks, but in a routine
manner, not requiring the exercise of independent judgment. He was
not given any increase in salary when transferred to the department as
its head. He has recommended salary increases to the auditor, who in
turn has authority to recommend to the plant manager, which have
been acted upon, one 4 months and one a year later. Also, salary in-
creases are frequently given without any consultation with the head of
the department. One of the clerks in the department testified that
when he wanted time off for any reason, the department head went
to the auditor and office manager to see if it could be granted. On
these facts and the record as a whole, we find that the departmental
department head is not a supervisor.
One of the clerks in this department is the private ledger keeper,
who the Employer would exclude as confidential and managerial. This
8 Southern Industries Company, et at., 92 NLRB 998, 999.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1561
employee makes up the profit-and-loss statement for the entire plant.
The Employer considers this statement to be "confidential informa-
tion." However, this clerk does not determine or effectuate policies for
the Employer, in connection with labor relations or otherwise, and he
has no access to confidential information relating to the Employer's
labor relations policies. He is not, therefore, managerial or confiden-
tial within the meaning of the Board's definition of those terms. The
other seven clerks perform similar duties, but with respect to different
departments, rather than the entire plant. For the same reasons as
apply to the private ledger keeper, we find that they are not confiden-
tial or managerial, and they are accordingly included in the office
clerical unit.
Receiving department: The two clerks in this department check all
nonrailroad deliveries to the plant, and forward information to the
voucher department. The Employer contends that one of the clerks,
the head of the department, is a supervisor, and that the other is con-
fidential. The alleged supervisor has never been told he has any such
authority. The only exercise of anything resembling supervisory au-
thority occurred in connection with a raise for the other clerk; the
auditor discussed it with the department head. We find that the
receiving department head is not a supervisor.
As the record does not contain any evidence to support the Employ-
er's contention that either of the employees is confidential or man-
agerial, we shall include both clerks in the receiving department in
the office clerical unit.
Cost figuring department: The five clerks in this department fig-
ure the dressed cost of slaughtering animals-receiving their data
from other departments in the accounting department. Although
they figure costs, their work is routine in nature, and does not require
the exercise of judgment. The Board has held that employees who do
this type of work may be included in office clerical units .9
The Employer contends that the head clerk is a supervisor. He
has never been informed that he has supervisory authority, nor was
any increase in salary given to him on his becoming head clerk.
Although he has recommended increases in salary on several occasions,
once at the behest of the employee, his recommendations are to the
auditor, who himself can only recommend to higher authority. Other
salary increases in the section are effectuated without any consulta-
tion with the department head. Any direction of the other four
clerks is of a routine nature. They shift from job to job at their own
initiative, with virtually no need for assignment by the head of the
department ever arising. The department head testified that "actually
there is very little assignment of work in my department. The girls
9 Bulldog Electric Products Company, 96 NLRB 642; Temco Aircraft Corporation, 117
NLRB 800.
1562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on each job know, what their work is. It is the same work every day.
As the work comes in, they assume the responsibility of completing
the job. There is very little necessity to have to assign the work.".
We find, on , these facts , that the head of the cost figuring department
is not a supervisor.
- Claims department: The two clerks in this department receive and
investigate claims by customers and send them to other clerks.
Approved claims result in a credit to the customers accounts . Nothing
in the record supports the Employer 's contention that they are either
managerial or confidential.
One of the two is the department head, who, the Employer contends,,
is a supervisor. He has not been told by management that he is a
supervisor , or possesses any of the indicia of a supervisor . One salary
increase.that he recommended was not accepted. We find on these
facts and the record as a whole that the claims department head is not
a supervisor.
; Distribution department: The nine clerks in this department ascer-
tain the profit margins that the various sales departments make on the,
items that they handle. None of their work is other than of a clerical
and routine nature; their duties do not bear out the Employer's con-
tention that they are managerial or confidential.
The head of the department, who the Employer asserts is a super-
visor, has never been informed of, nor has he exercised , any super-
visory authority . He received no salary increase when made depart-
ment head. His recommendation that one employee be transferred
out of the department for failure to get his work out was disregarded,
and the employee involved was given a salary increase without con-
sultation with the department head. Although some increases in sal-
ary have eventuated, as long as 6,months after the department head
recommended them, other increases are given without any recom-
mendation by, or consultation with, the department head. Any direc-
tion that the department head gives is of a routine nature and does
not require the exercise of independent judgment; he performs the
routine work of the distribution department about 90 percent of his
time. When he is on his annual 3-week vacation , he is not replaced
as head. The department head testified that all the work in his sec-
tion was "routine ," that the employees "can get it out without anyone
telling them what to do." We find, on these facts, that the head of
the distribution department is not a supervisor , and is included in the
office clerical unit.
Bookkeeping department : The three clerks in this department keels
accounts receivable and prepare statements for customers. Their
duties do not in any manner relate to matters that are either confiden-
tial or managerial within the accepted meaning of those terms.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1563
The head of the department, 1 of the 3, has not been told that he
possesses any supervisory authority, nor does the record show that he
has ever exercised any such authority. His direction is limited to
routine work assignments. We find, accordingly, that he is not a su-
pervisor, and he is included in the office clerical unit.
Voucher department: The five clerks in the voucher department
receive invoices, match them against receiving records and purchase
requisitions, and process them for payment. Their work is primarily
of a routine clerical nature; the record does not support the Employ-
er's assertion that they are managerial or confidential.
The head of this department, who the Employer contends is a
supervisor, has never been informed that he has any supervisory
duties, or authority. Although on one occasion the auditor asked
his opinion when a clerk in the voucher department asked for a raise,
other increases have been effectuated without consultation with. the
department head, or even informing him of them in advance. The
only direction of the work of the other clerks is routine, and does not
require the exercise of independent judgment. Accordingly, we find
that the head of the voucher department is not a supervisor, and he
is included in the office clerical unit.
Banking department: This department's three clerks receive remit-
tances by cash and checks and make disbursements. One of them is
called a "paymaster," and he fills and distributes office payroll enve-
lopes. The Employer contends that he is confidential and managerial.
However, he neither formulates, determines, nor effectuates manage-
ment policies, nor does he assist anyone who does. There is nothing
in the record to show that either of the other clerks is either managerial
or confidential.
The department head, 1 of the 3 clerks, has not been told that he
has supervisory authority, nor has he ever exercised any such author-
ity. The record shows that the work in this section is routine, and
any direction is of a routine nature, not requiring the exercise of
independent judgment, except on rare occasion. We find, accord-
ingly, that he is not a supervisor. All three clerks in the banking
department are therefore included in the office clerical unit.
Payroll department: The 2 full-time and 1 regular part-time clerks
in this department write the payroll drafts, keep earnings records, and
prepare reports for Federal and State agencies. None of these duties
is such as to fall within the Board's definition of managerial or con-
fidential employee.
The head of this department has never exercised supervisory au-
thority, nor has the Employer told him lie possesses any. At times
of peak loads, as during tax reporting periods, the department head
is required to rearrange the working schedules, but his direction in
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this respect, as well as his overall direction of the section, is substan-
tially routine in nature. We find, on these facts and the record as
a whole, that he is not a supervisor. Accordingly, we include the
three clerks in the payroll department in the office clerical unit herein
found appropriate.
Telephone and telegraph department: The four clerks in this de-
partment handle the switchboard and teletype machines. The Em-
ployer contends that they are confidential employees because they
may overhear conversations relating to labor relations. There is no
merit to this contention; the Board has held on many occasions that
the mere possibility of overhearing confidential information does not
make an employee confidential."
The Employer also asserts that the head of this department is a
supervisor. He has never been so informed, and the only exercise
of any duties resembling those of a supervisor consist of once having
been asked his opinion as to whether prospective employees could
operate the switchboard or teletype, and determining which clerk
would work Saturday morning, instead of one-half day during the
week. These facts are not enough to establish his supervisory status.
We, accordingly, include the four clerks in the telephone and telegraph
department in the office clerical unit.
Order writing and invoice departments: The 17 order writing
clerks type orders sent in by the commercial and sales departments.
The 13 invoice clerks copy weights from the loading tickets into the
invoices, compare weights on various records, and sort and total the
office copies by sales route. The record contains no evidence that
any of these clerks are confidential or managerial within the Board's
customary use of those terms.
The 2 departments are combined into 1 for operating purposes,
with 1 head clerk and an assistant head. The Employer contends
that the head and the assistant head are both supervisors. The head
clerk has effectively recommended, according to the record, hiring,
recalling, salary increases, layoffs, and transfers. Although his di-
rection of the other employees appears from the evidence to be no
more than routine, the head clerk of the 30 clerks in these 2 depart-
ments has exercised sufficient supervisory powers so as to fall within
the definition of supervisor. We therefore find, on these facts and the
record as a whole, that he is a supervisor, and he is, accordingly,
excluded from the unit. The assistant head, however, has never
exercised any supervisory authority, nor has he been told he has any
such authority. We find, therefore, that he is not a supervisor, and
he is included in the unit.
10 Heckett Engineering Co., 117 NLRB 1395.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1565
Other office clericals: There are 23 other employees in the office
departments of the Employer, who work in 15 separate departments."
The Employer contends that this group of employees should be ex-
cluded from any unit as managerial or confidential. The Employer
maintains that the work they perform is important, and confidential
in the sense that competitors should not have any kind of access to
the information. However, none of these employees either formulates
or effectuates management policy in the field of labor relations or
any other area, nor do any of them assist in such matters. Some of
these clerks are called "confidential secretaries." They take dictation
from the department head on matters relating to promotions, de-
motions, discharges, and salary increases. To the limited extent that
the work of these employees does involve matters dealing with labor
relations," they nevertheless do not fall within the Board's customary
definition of confidential employee as the work they do is only at a
departmental level, rather than involving general labor relations
policy.13 We find, accordingly, that these 23 clerks are neither con-
fidential nor managerial, and therefore include them in the unit of
office clericals herein found appropriate.
Nurse's aide and janitor: We shall include the nurse's aide and the
office janitor in the office clerical unit, as they would otherwise be
without any possibility of representation. Their interests are more
closely allied to those of the office clerical employees than to any
other group.
We find accordingly that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All office clerical employees of the Employer at its Fort Worth,
Texas, plant in the following departments : banking, mail, voucher,
departmental, cost figuring, livestock paying, distribution, order writ-
ing, invoice, bookkeeping, claims, payroll, stationery, receiving, tele-
phone and telegraph, general sales, Armstrong plant sales, Swift city
sales, Armstrong city sales, grocery sales, beef, lamb, and veal, table-
ready meats, canned foods, provision, contract sales, refinery, mar-
garine, byproducts, discrepancy, credit, transportation, purchasing,
and industrial relations, including the nurse's aide and office janitor,
but excluding all other employees at the Employer's Fort Worth plant,
district office employees, and supervisors and guards as defined in
the Act.
11 These 23 are in addition to others whom all parties have agreed to exclude from any
unit or units, including the heads and assistant heads of the selling, commercial and
service departments, the heads of the beef, lamb, veal department, the provision depart-
ment, and the purchasing and credit assistants.
12 The record shows that they spend at most about 5 percent of their time in this
manner.
13 Ethyl Corporation', 118 NLRB 1369 ; Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, 106 NLRB
1236.
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Plant Clerical Unit
There are approximately 107 plant clerical employees in issue with
respect to their status as managerial, confidential, or technical em-
ployees.14 The Employer contends that all but 2 of the 107 are con-
fidential, or managerial, and that the remaining 2 are technical, and
would exclude all from any unit found appropriate; in effect, the
Employer is therefore contending that no unit of its plant clerical
employees is appropriate. As indicated above, we have already re-
jected this broad contention. We shall at this point examine the
duties of the plant clerical employees in the various departments.
Contract department: The one clerk in this department 15 is called
an "expediter-coordinator." He sees that products covered by Gov-
ernment contracts meet specifications and are ready for delivery. Ac-
cording to the Employer, he has access to information that the Em-
ployer would not want competitors to know, and his desk, located near
the plant superintendent, permits him to overhear discussions of labor
relations policy. Neither of these facts suffices to bring the expediter-
coordinator into the category of confidential or managerial.l5 tiVe
shall therefore include him in the plant clerical unit herein found ap-
propriate.
Employees' market: The one employee in this department is a
cashier, who keeps records and receives payment for products ordered
by employees. The market is operated on a break-even basis, and
supervisors determine prices based on reports prepared by the cashier
of financial operations of the market although the cashier does not
set prices. She clearly is not confidential, as her duties are not at
all connected with labor relations. Furthermore, as her duties in con-
nection with operating the market are routine in nature, requiring
no independent judgment, but merely accurate reporting of the
financial operations of the employees' market, we find that she is not
managerial. She is accordingly included in the plant clerical unit.
Mechanical department: The three employees in this department
are in charge of all repairs and construction work. Its head, a master
mechanic, his assistant, and the foreman of the storeroom are ex-
cluded from any unit as supervisors, by stipulation of the parties.
There are 2 clerks in the storeroom, 1, according to the Employer,
being a supervisor, and both being confidential and managerial, and
a secretary, who, the Employer asserts, is confidential and managerial.
The allegedly supervisory clerk substitutes for the foreman of the
storeroom at the infrequent times that the latter is ill or on vacation.
is The 107 in dispute are in addition to a group of persons whom all parties have agreed
to exclude from the unit on grounds of being supervisory, confidential, or technical.
15 A second was stipulated by the parties to be a supervisor.
16 Hughes Tool Company, 97 NLRB 1107; B. F. Goodrich Company, 92 NLRB 575.
SWIFT & COMPANY '1567
The only other employee in the storeroom is the other clerk. We find
that this clerk, on the record as a whole, is not a supervisor."
This same clerk keeps time books for employees in different depart-
ments of the plant, and with the other storeroom clerk, keeps records
to determine productive hourly labor costs of the operating depart-
ments. His work in these respects does not categorize him as either
confidential or managerial, nor is the other clerk, who performs
similar duties, confidential, or managerial.
The secretary in the mechanical department handles correspondence
with respect to construction and repair work, and writes up minutes
of first and second step grievance procedures. Based on these facts,
and on the further fact that she is located in a position to overhear
managerial discussions of grievances, the Employer contends that
she is managerial and confidential. The duties of this employee are
concerned with labor relations only at a departmental level, which the
Board has held does not make the duties conform to the customary
meaning of the term confidential. The Employer asserts that the de-
tails of the construction and repair work are "confidential," because
it lets contracts for such work out on competitive bidding. However,
it is well established that access to this type of information does not
make the employee involved managerial.18 We shall accordingly in-
clude the three employees of the mechanical department in the plant
clerical unit.
Slaughtering and processing departments ; 19 The 26 clerks in these
departments are all, according to the Employer, confidential and
managerial, and most of them are, also according to the Employer,
supervisory.
The, only -bases for the Employer's contention that the employees
concerned are managerial or confidential are that they either (1) keep
records that the Employer regards as confidential in the sense that the
Employer would not want their contents divulged to competitors; (2)
have desks located so that they can overhear grievance discussions;
or (3) have knowledge of the Employer's secret formulae. The Board
has held that none of these factors makes an employee managerial
or confidential so as to require his exclusion from a unit.
As to the alleged supervisory status of a number of the clerks in the
various slaughtering and processing departments, the record shows the
following. Three of the clerks substitute for foremen during the lat-
ters' illnesses or vacations, and 12 merely keep time records. Those
who substitute, according to the record, do so infrequently. We find,
17 White Provision Co., 116 NLRB 1552, 1555.
18 Ibid.
19 These 17 departments are as follows : variety meat cooler, animal protein, hide cellar,
carcass cooler , primal beef cutting, canner cutter beef canning , car loading , meats for
babies and pard shipping , table-ready meats and kitchen , smokehouse, sliced bacon, fresh
pork, sweet pickle and dry salt pork , frozen package meat, freezer , cooperage , and refinery.
1568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
accordingly , that none of the plant clerks in dispute in the slaughter-
ing and processing departments is a supervisor . We shall, therefore,
include the 26 clerks in these departments in the plant clerical unit.
Shipping department: The 5 clerks in this department consist of a
chief clerk , who the Employer contends is managerial and confidential,
but not a supervisor , a clerk who keeps time records , who the Employer
asserts is for that reason a supervisor , another clerk who performs
general clerical duties , and also relieves the stenographer of several
other departments , and 2 clerks who perform routine clerical duties in
the department.
The alleged supervisory clerk clearly does not come within the
definition of supervisor in the Act, as he does no more than keep time
records. We find that he is not a supervisor.
The employee who relieves the stenographer at other departments
spends part of her time performing stenographic work for the plant
superintendent , and takes dictation with respect to matters affecting
plantwide labor relations during these periods. However, the record
shows that the time she spends relieving the superintendent 's stenog-
rapher is very limited. We find, accordingly, that she is not con-
fidential 20
The other 3 clerks in the shipping department , including the chief
clerk, do routine clerical work , and do not have anything to do with
labor relations , or assist anyone who handles labor relations. We find
tha they are neither confidential nor managerial, and shall include the
5 clerks in the shipping department in the plant clerical unit herein
found appropriate.
Trucking department: There are two clerks in this department.
One, a dispatcher , accumulates and routes orders to avoid overlapping
of routes . There is no evidence to support the Employer 's contention
that he is confidential or managerial.
The second clerk keeps drivers' time and trip records . The Em-
ployer contends that he is a supervisor , basing this contention solely
on the fact that this clerk keeps time records. As indicated above,
this is not a criterion of supervisory status. Nor do this clerk 's duties
in any manner make him a confidential or managerial employee. Ac-
cordingly, we shall include the two clerks in the trucking department
in the plant clerical unit.
Time and employment office: All parties stipulated to exclude, as
supervisors , the foreman and assistant foreman of this department.
Of the 10 clerks in the time and employment office, 7 are timekeepers.
They calculate regular earnings of employees , premium earnings for
foremen, and sick and accident pay and vacation averages for various
groups of employees . Duties such as these clearly do not constitute the
20 American Lithofold Corporation, 107 NLRB 1061, 1064.
SWIFT & COMPANY 1569
timekeepers managerial or confidential . 21 Nor does the fact that they
assist the department head in preparing surveys relating to costs of
various phases of the Employer 's operations render them confidential
or managerial.
Another employee in this department calculates the plant salaried
payroll , hands out United States savings bonds , and performs other
work of a generally personnel nature. However, none of the work she
performs is in connection with the formulation or effectuation of
management policy in the field of labor relations . We find, according-
ly, that she is not confidential or managerial.
A comptometer operator in this department, who assists with pay-
roll' work and posts absenteeism , is also in no way part of manage-
ment's labor relations policy team , either directly , or by assisting some-
one else who is. We find that the comptometer operator is neither
managerial nor confidential.
The tenth employee of this department is an insurance man, who
fills out claim forms and processes records in connection with the Em-
ployer's insurance program. The fact that he has access to payroll in-
formation does not render him either managerial or confidential. He
also puts into effect the Employer's insurance plan, but the head of the
department testified that the rules and regulations involved are quite
rigid and the insurance man has no discretionary powers, but merely
applied the proper rule to the proper condition . In these circum-
stances, we find that the insurance man is not confidential or manage-
rial. Accordingly, the 10 employees in dispute in the time and
employment office are included in the plant clerical unit.
Standards department: The head and assistant head of this depart-
ment, which has 40 employees , are excluded from any unit as super-
visors by stipulation of the parties. The Employer would exclude all
38 other employees.
Twenty of the 38 are checkers-7 mechanical and 13 production,
who record the time and production of employees in the various depart-
ments, from which premium earnings are figured. They, as is the
case with many of the clerical employees here involved, are in a loca-
tion where they may overhear grievance discussions , and they partici-
pate in grievance meetings involving standards. We find, on these
facts and the record as a whole, that the checkers are not managerial
or confidential employees.22
Two of the 20 checkers are alleged by the Employer to be supervisors,
as "assistant foremen." Neither of the two has the power to hire, fire,
promote, or discipline, but one has recommended wage increases, some
of which were granted. They also have general authority to make
21 Independent Lock Company of Alabama, 106 NLRB 1136.
22 Bulldog Electric Products Company , 96 NLRB 642 , 644; Florence Stove Company,
94 NLRB 1434.
476821-58-vom . 119--100
1570 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recommendations , although such recommendations must go to the
department head first , and thence in turn to the plant superintendent
and plant manager. They assign work to the men under them, and
shift assignments where volume changes so require. Although there
is some doubt as to whether the assignments and direction are more
than of a routine nature, in view of the number of employees in this
department, and the fact that the production head checker and the
mechanical head checker have specific authority to make recommenda-
tions respecting personnel actions, we find that they are supervisors,
and shall exclude them , as such, from the plant clerical unit herein
found appropriate.
There are also nine comptometer operators in the standards depart-
ment, who perform routine clerical operations on the standards check-
ing sheets prepared by the standards checkers. They all have access
to records concerning employees ' earnings . However, neither this nor
any other portion of their duties makes the comptometer operators
managerial or confidential within the meaning of the Board's cus-
tomary definition.
The Employer asserts that two of the comptometer operators, a
chief clerk and an assistant chief clerk , are supervisors . The chief
clerk has authority to recommend personnel actions, and was expressly
given this authority when hired. He directs the work of and assigns
work to the other comptometer operators . Although he has not made
any recommendations in the year he has been on the job, the authority
he possesses in this respect, and the responsibility he has for directing
the other comptometer operators , are sufficient to make him a super-
visor. . His assistant , on the other hand, relieves the chief clerk only
sporadically. Particularly. in light of the fact that the chief clerk
himself has made no recommendations, it is highly unlikely that the
power to make recommendations on the infrequent occasions that the
assistant chief substitutes for the chief would ever be exercised. We
find, on these facts, that the assistant chief is not a supervisor.
One clerk in this department is called a posting clerk. She makes
up lists of premium hours of the various operators . Although she
has access to earnings information, this is not enough by itself to make
her managerial, confidential, or supervisory , nor, as repeatedly pointed
out, is the fact that her work locations permits her to overhear griev-
ance discussions.
Another employee in this department is called a "confidential secre-
tary ." She takes dictation and types letters of a confidential nature
for the head of the standards department and for division superin-
tendents, and also types the rate book covering all rates of pay in the
production and maintenance bargaining unit, and the standards report
showing the earnings of supervisors and the output of each depart-
ment. Her work for the division superintendent does involve assisting
SWIFT & COMPANY 1571
-a person who formulates, determines, and effectuates management
policy in the field of labor relations. For this reason, we shall exclude
her from the unit as a confidential employee.
There are six time-and-motion study engineers in the standards