The Abs Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 22, 1990

299 N.L.R.B. 516 (N.L.R.B. 1990)

516 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The ABS Corporation and Graphic Communications
Union, District Council #2, AFL-CIO. Case
36-RC-5134
August 22, 1990
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS
CRACRAFT AND DEVANEY
The National Labor Relations Board, by a three-
member panel, has considered determinative chal-
lenges in an election held May 11 and 12, 1989, and
the hearing officer's report recommending disposi-
tion of them The election was conducted pursuant
to a Stipulated Election Agreement The tally of
ballots shows 13 for and 15 against the Petitioner,
with 3 challenged ballots, a number sufficient to
affect the results
The Board has reviewed the record in light of
the exceptions and brief and has adopted the hear-
ing officer's findings and recommendations'
DIRECTION
IT IS DIRECTED that the officer in charge for Su-
bregion 36 shall, within 10 days of this Decision
and Direction, open and count the ballots of
Louise Fuller, Melissa Mosteller, and Tracy Willis,
and thereafter prepare and cause to be served on
the parties a revised tally of ballots, on the basis of
which he shall issue an appropriate certification
IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED that this matter be re-
manded to the officer in charge for Subregion 36
for further processing consistent with this decision
MEMBER CRACRAFT, dissenting in part
Contrary to my colleagues, I find that order
entry clerk Melissa Mosteller does not share a suffi-
cient community of interest with the employees in
the stipulated appropriate unit to justify her mclu-
sion 1 I would sustain the challenge to Mosteller's
ballot and direct the issuance of a Certification of
Results of Election 2
1 We agree with the heanng officer's recommendation, for the reasons
set forth in the attached report, that the challenges to the ballots of Me-
lissa Mosteller, Tracy Willis, and Louise Fuller be overruled and that
their ballots be opened and counted In overruling the challenge to the
ballot of Mosteller, we rely particularly on her common supervision with
the key entry employees, who were stipulated to be in the unit, and with
the monotype operator (Willis) and the quality control employee (Fuller),
whose jobs we also find to be unit positions, her assistance to the mono-
type operator, and her role in beginning the production process
1 The stipulated appropnate unit is all full-time and regular part-time
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Portland,
Oregon facility, excluding office clencal employees, guards, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act
2 The tally in the election was 13 for and 15 against the Union, with 3
determinative challenged ballots order entry clerk Mosteller, monotype
operator Tracy Willis, and quality control employee Louise Fuller
The parties stipulated that data entry clerks (not to be confused with
the order entry clerk, Mosteller) were eligible to vote in the election
The Employer argues that Mosteller is an office
clerical employee and is thus expressly excluded
from the stipulated production and maintenance
unit The Union asserted at the hearing that the
order entry clerical position is within the produc-
tion and maintenance unit The hearing officer
found, and my colleagues have agreed, that Mos-
teller is a plant clerical, and was thus eligible to
vote in the election
The Employer pnnts checks and deposit slips for
banks and other financial institutions Its Portland
facility operates on three shifts 7 30 a m to 4 p m,
3 30 pm to 12 am, and 11 30 pm to 8 am There
are approximately 35 total employees
Like the unit employees, Mosteller is hourly
paid, on a timecard However, she works a unique
5 a m to 1 30 p m shift Her supervisor, Julie An-
derson, also supervises the data entry clerks (who
the parties stipulated as eligible to vote in the elec-
tion) and monotype operator Willis (who my col-
leagues, in agreement with the hearing officer,
have found to be a plant clerical, eligible to vote in
the election)
The Portland facility is divided by full height
walls into a production area and an office area
The office area includes, inter alia, Mosteller's
order entry desk, the data entry office (also re-
ferred to as the key entry office), the monotype
room, and the customer service area
Mosteller works at a desk behind an approxi-
mately 10 feet high "L"-shaped partition which
separates her from the rest of the office area She is
also separated from the production area, by a full
height wall The four data entry clerks and the
monotype operator work in two separate enclosed
offices, both of which open onto the office area
The customer service employees work in an unen-
closed part of the office area
All customer orders received in the mail at the
Portland facility come first to Mosteller She pi-
geonholes the orders into batches of 15 according
to style, color, and quantity ordered Periodically,
a work expediter comes to Mosteller's desk and re-
moves the batches to the data entry clerks, who
enter the data from the orders into a computer
Mosteller succinctly described her duties as fol-
lows "I open up envelopes, and then I sort down,
and then I batch out the work"
Also, the hearing officer found, and my colleagues agree, that monotype
operator Willis and quality control employee Fuller were plant clencals,
and thus eligible to vote in the election
As noted above, I find that the challenge to order entry clerk Mos-
teller's ballot should be sustained In light of this finding, Willis' and
Fuller's ballots are nondetermmative, and It is thus unnecessary for me to
decide whether they are properly Included in the unit
299 NLRB No 67
ABS CORP 517
Mosteller is physically separated from and has no
contact with the unit employees in the production
and maintenance and data entry departments 3
Mosteller does, however, interact once or twice a
day with the customer service department supervi-
sor (the customer service employees are not in the
stipulated unit) in seeking clarification of question-
able customer orders or in responding to rush and
pnonty orders received by the customer service
department Also, Production Manager John Stan-
ley testified that "very, very rarely," when Mos-
teller has a light workday and help is needed in the
monotype office, Mosteller will be asked if she
wants to assist monotype operator Willis 4
The heanng officer found, and my colleagues
have agreed, that Mosteller is a plant clerical, eligi-
ble to vote in the election, on the following
grounds
(1) She has the same supervisor as monotype
operator Willis, quality control employee
Fuller, and the data entry clerks, all of whom
have been found or stipulated to be in the unit
(2) She has a different supervisor than the
customer service employees, the plant recep-
tiomst and the administrative secretary, all of
whom are outside the unit
(3) She did not come into contact with cus-
tomer service (i e, nonumt) employees during
the workday
(4) She has "some limited contact" with
data entry employees 5
(5) Her opening of the mail and sorting and
batchmg of orders "is where the production
process actually begins"
Although the hearing officer did not rely on it,
one could add to the factors noted above Mos-
teller's assistance to the monotype operator But
taking all of this evidence together, I still find that
it is decidedly inadequate to support a finding that
Mosteller shares a sufficient community of interest
s The record does not show whether the work expediter who removes
batches of orders from Mosteller's desk and delivers them to the data
entry office is a member of the data entry section Even if he or she is,
the record shows only that this work expediter from time to time simply
removes batches of orders from Mosteller's desk There is no showing
that Mosteller and the expediter coordinate their activities, Interact, or
even speak to each other
4 Mosteller's testimony on this subject differed from Stanley's Accord-
ing to Mosteller, about three times a week she completes her normal
opening and sorting duties in 6 hours, and then "sometimes" assists
monotype operator Willis
Assuming arguendo that Mosteller's testimony is more accurate than
Stanley's, I nevertheless find below that Mosteller does not share a suffi-
cient community of Interest with the employees in the unit—Including
Willis—to justify her inclusion
' The record establishes that Mosteller's only contact with the data
entry office is indirect and remote, when her batches of sorted orders are
periodically removed and delivered to data entry by the work expediter
(The record does not reflect whether the work expediter is a data entry
employee)
with the unit employees to justify her inclusion in
the unit
Primarily, and most importantly, Mosteller has
almost no interchange with unit employees She
has none at all with the production and mainte-
nance employees, who comprise the bulk of the
unit, and perhaps none at all with the data entry
employees (unless the work expediter is m fact a
data entry employee—a question on which the
record is silent) Even if the work expediter is a
data entry employee, that just means that Mos-
teller's batches of sorted orders are taken away by
a unit employee—hardly a fundamental community
of interest building block So the "limited contact"
that the hearing officer found that Mosteller had
with the data entry employees is at most very limit-
ed and as far as the record shows it may not even
exist
And, even assuming that Mosteller does assist
Willis periodically (see fn 4), her only measurable
work contact with a unit employee is the 6 hours
each week—maximum—that she "helps out" mono-
type operator Tracy Willis This is not, m my view
and in light of the other evidence in this case, a
sufficiently significant amount of mterchange with
unit employees to justify Mosteller's inclusion in
the bargaining unit
Although Mosteller has the same supervisor as
five plant clerical unit employees and she does not
come into contact with the customer service repre-
sentatives, I find these factors, even when consid-
ered in conjunction with the fact that Mosteller
may on occasion assist with the monotype tasks, to
be an inadequate basis to justify Mosteller's inclu-
sion in the instant production and maintenance bar-
gaining unit
In light of all the above considerations, I would
sustain the challenge to Mosteller's ballot and issue
a Certification of Results of Election 6
\
■
6 See Avecor, 296 NLRB 727, 746 (McWaters) (1989), Jake! Motors, 288
NLRB 730, 742 (Mama) (1988), Cincinnati Bronze, 286 NLRB 39, 44
(Frakes) (1987), Continuous Curve Contact Lenses, 236 NLRB 1330 (1978)
While none of these cases is precisely "on all fours" factually with the
Instant case, they each share with the Instant case certain fundamental
considerations pertinent to the question of whether order entry clerk
Mosteller shares a sufficient community of Interest with the employees in
the Instant unit to justify her inclusion
APPENDIX
FINDINGS OF FACTS
The Employer is in the busmess of printing bank
checks and deposit slips for banks and financial mstitu-
tions The Employer's Portland, Oregon facility but one
of over 30 such facilities m the country In Portland, the
Employer has approximately 35 employees working on
three shifts The physical layout of the Portland facility
518 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is basically divided in two, a production area and offices
where the administrative and clerical employees are lo-
cated The production area includes the press, bindery
and supply functions The "office" area encompasses the
camera room, computer room, key entry office, customer
service and reception areas, managerial offices, confer-
ence and lunchrooms A small sales office is off to one
side of the office area Employees who were stnpulated
as eligible to vote have their work areas in both the pro-
duction area of the facility as well as the "office" area
Employees stnpulated as eligible to vote include em-
ployees who operate printing, binding, press and cutting
and packing machines as well as employees who inspect
the printed work product These employees are located
in the production area of the facility Employees in the
"office" area that were stipulated as eligible to vote are
the four key entry clerks who sit at a computer keyboard
and type in information related to orders for checks
This information includes such things as the name and
address of the individual, check numbers, etc
MELISSA MOS TELLER
Mosteller is employed as the order entry clerk, a pos-
tion not to be confused with key entry The order entry
clerk opens the mail from customers ordering checks and
sorts and batches the orders by style and color Once a
batch of 15 orders is ready, the key entry department re-
ceives them and the information is entered into the com-
puter Mosteller's work area is within the customer serv-
ice area but is separated from the customer service repre-
sentatives by a work station partition Mosteller has
almost no occasion to have contact with press and bind-
ery employees and her contacts with key entry are limit-
ed to the key entry expeditor retrieving batches to be de-
livered to key entry for processing Mosteller's contacts
with customer service representatives is negligible since
her questions about orders are supposed to go through
her supervisor Mosteller works a 5 00 a m to 1 30 p m
shift which does not coincide with any other employee
Her supervisor is Julie Anderson who also supervises
key entry and the monotype operation performed by
Tracy Willis, another challenged voter When Mosteller
has completed her order entry duties, she will assist in
monotype or very mfrequenty in bindery
TRACY WILLIS
Willis is the Employer's monotype operator She is su-
pervised by Julie Anderson and performs her work in
the computer and camera rooms Willis receives informa-
tion from key enrty and enters batch numbers into a
computer The inputted information is relayed to another
machine which produces a film Willis cuts the film,
feeds it into a processor which produces a plate and then
she cuts holes in the plate for the press Willis then sets
the plates down on a table in the press area so the pro-
duction process can continue Willis usually has contact
several times a day with the employees in key entry and
no contact with the customer service employees Willis
works a 7 30 a m to 400 p m shift which is the Employ-
er's regular designated first shift Willis is the only em-
ployee on the first shift to work the monotype although
on third shift, another employee performs similar work
This employee, Jim Mahaffey, was stipulated by the par-
ties as eligible to vote
LOUISE FULLER
Fuller is employed on the second shift primarily as a
quality control employee Fuller's primary work station is
located in the production area Her quality control func-
tion involves physically taking ink readings from the
presses and talking with the press employees about those
readings, if necessary At her work area she records the
number of errors accumulated during the day and sepa-
rates rejected orders from the orders ready for shipping
Because the Employer does not run a complete produc-
tion process on second shift, she does not perform all of
the quality control functions that take place on day shift
Part of her shift is spent in the key entry area utilizing
the computer, entering the batch numbers to be shipped
and billed Additionally, she spends time at the order
entry desk sorting orders by style and color On second
shift there are no regular key entry or customer service
clerks working During this shift, there are also no super-
visors present The leadperson stipulated as eligible to
vote, watches over the employees present, production
employees and Fuller Julie Anderson is Fuller's supervi-
sor for billing and order entry functions
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This issue herein is whether the challenged voters
share a community of interest with production employ-
ees or whether they should be considered office clericals,
excluded from the bargaining unit by stipulation of the
parties This case presents a difficult situation inasmuch
as these challenged voters spend much or all of their
work time in the "office" area of the Employer's facility
While plant clencals are usually found within the pro-
duction area, the absence of their physical proximity to
the production area is not particularly dispositive of the
matter in light of other factors Thus, the challenged
voters are supervised differently than the office clencals
employed in the classifications of customer service repre-
sentatives and receptionist and secretary All three are
supervised by Julie Anderson who also supervises Key
entry employees who were eligible voters Additionally
Louise Fuller is also "supervised" on second shift, by a
production leadmen who is an eligible voter None of the
three challenged voters come into contact with the cus-
tomer service representatives during their work day yet
Fuller and Willis have frequent contact with press em-
ployees and Willis has frequent contact with key entry
employees Mosteller has some limited contact with key
entry employees While the customer service representa-
tives, the receptionist and the one secretary have no role
to play in the actual production process of printing
checks, all three challenged voters do Mosteller as the
order entry clerk is where the production process actual-
ly begins Mosteller receives the customer orders,
batches them by type and turns the batches over to key
entry employees Willis, as the monotype operator, re-
ceives information from key entry and begins the physi-
cal process which results in the production of a printing
ABS CORP 519
plate which is then given to the press employees Willis
Fuller spends two thirds of her shift performing shipping
and billing tasks m key entry as well as order entry func-
tions Her other responsibilities take her to the produc-
tion area where she performs ink readings on the print-
ing presses Thus, all three job classifications perform
work which is the integral part of the production proc-
ess Unlike customer service or the receptionist, the chal-
lenged voters have no contact with customers and they
do not substitute for them in their absence
In view of the common supervision between the eligi-
ble key entry employees and the challenged voters, the
regular contact between voters and those challenged as
well as the challenged voters in the flow of production, I
find them to be plant clencal employees eligible to vote
in the election Avon Products, Inc , 250 NLRB 1479
(1980), Sears, Roebuck & Go, 227 NLRB 1403 (1977)
Based on the the foregomg, I recommend the chal-
lenges to the ballots of Louise Fuller, Melissa Mosteller,
and Terry Willis be overruled and further recommend
their ballots be opened and counted and a new tally of
ballots be issued