The Ohio Steel Foundry Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 683 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE OHIO STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY,' EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT' AND AGRI-
CULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-920.-Decided December 13, 1950
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 Bernard Ness, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its -powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board"filids
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 to' represent a unit consisting of all em-
ployees at the Employer's Lima, Ohio, plant, in the payroll depart-
ment, employment department, shop clerks, timekeepers, engineering
department, standards department, purchasing department, nurses,
main office employees, and storeroom employees, excluding all confi-
dential clerks and supervisors. The Employer contends that the Peti-
tioner cannot properly represent these clerical and office employees
because it is the recognized , bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees at this plant, and
that in any event the inclusion in the clerical unit of certain employees
discussed below, whom the Employer considers to be professional or
confidential employees is, improper.
At its plant, located in Lima, Ohio, the only plant involved in this
proceeding, the Employer manufactures steel alloyed castings: Local
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
92 NLRB No. 106.
683
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
975, of the Petitioner is the recognized bargaining representative of
production and maintenance employees at this plant. The Petitioner
has stated that depending on the employees' desires, either Local 975
or a local to be formed, will represent these employees. For reasons
'stated in earlier cases, we find the Employer's contention that the
Petitioner may not also represent office workers at this plant in a
separate appropriate bargaining unit to be without merit.2
The unit sought by the Petitioner is composed primarily of clerical
employees in the several office departments of the plant. The Peti-
tioner and the Employer disagree with respect to the unit placement
of the following employees whom in each case the Petitioner, would
include, and the Employer would exclude :
Time-study men. There are four time-study men who work in the
standards department. The Employer contends that these employees
are professionals. Their duties are to make time studies and deter-
mine the normal for any given operation. Although they prepare
standard data for determining incentive rates and assist in making
cost estimates, they do not determine the rates for any given operation.
They are paid on an hourly basis as are other clerical employees, and
receive the same benefits. It does not appear that the Employer
requires that these employees possess any professional training as a
qualification for the performance of this work.
We do not agree with the Employer's contention that these time-
study men are professional employees. While the Board has, on
occasion, found time-study men to be professional,3 this has been done
only where the academic training required of the time-study men
involved, and the discretion and independent judgment exercised
by them in the performance of their tasks clearly brought them within
the definition set forth in Section 2 (12) of the amended Act. We
are not persuaded that the time-study men involved herein, who
are not required to possess any special professional training, and
do not themselves set rates, meet these tests. Accordingly, we con-
elude that they are not professionals' We further find that, in this
case the duties and interests of the. time-study men are sufficiently
.related to those of" the office clerical employees to warrant their
inclusion in the office clerical unit .-5
Engineering department: There are 8 draftsmen employed in the
engineering department whose duties are to make drawings from
specifications of castings produced in the plant. High school train-
2 See Birmingham Electric Company, 89 NLRB 1342; International Salt Company, 74
NLRB 1253.
See Detroit Harvester Company, 7,9 NLRB 1316; General Electric Co., 89 NLRB 726.
4 Aragon Baldwin Mills, 80 NLRB 1042.
6 See Detroit Harvester Company, footnote 3, supra; General Electric Co., footnote 3,
supra; ef. Minneapolis Moline Company , 85 NLRB 597.
THE OHIO STEEL FOUNDRY COMPANY 685
ing is a minimum requirement for the job. They serve a 4-year
apprenticeship through an on-the-job training program, and there
are 13 to 14 steps in the progression, as designated by wage raises.
Theirwork is supervised by 2 highly skilled employees who are desig-
nated as checkers. While we do not agree with the Employer's con-
tention that these draftsmen are professional employees, we find
that they are technical employees.6 Under well-established Board
policy, technical employees may not appropriately be grouped with
office and clerical employees where any party objects to such a group-
ing.' Accordingly we shall exclude them from the clerical unit.
Although the Petitioner has indicated its willingness to represent
them in a separate unit, the record before us, does not disclose the
extent to which the duties and interests of employees may be related
to those of other employees in the plant. We are therefore unable
at 'this time to determine- whether a technical unit limited to the
engineering department employees would be appropriate.
Confidential employees: The Employer would exclude as confi-
dential employees five of the accounting department employees.
William D. Ralston, classified as a general billing and accounting
clerk, writes all sales invoices, tabulates sales in books of accounts,
and types checks in payment of material and supplies. Leonard E.
Roth, classified as a bookkeeper, makes entries into the sales journal,
maintains accounts receivable and payable, approves salesmen's
travelling expenses and writes some checks in payment of accounts.
Mary M. Peters and Glenna Peterson, both classified as accounting
clerks, prepare cost sheets, check .and type financial statements, run
trial balances, and perform other general accounting work. They
have access to company records on income and expenses. Z. T. Pear-
son, Jr., assistant to the chief cost accountant, determines the cost
of production of ordnance castings. He periodically visits the shop
to survey and supervise the shop clerk's record keeping of costs.
Although these five employees have access to financial and business
data that factor alone does not render them confidential . employees
as the Board has construed that term." As we find they are not
confidential employees we shall include them in the unit .9
The Employer would also exclude as confidential employees the
following :
Herbert Som netinger is classified as an employment clerk. He is
the assistant to the employment manager and does typing for the per-
'Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666; Chicago Railway Equipment Co., 85
NLRB 586.
4 See International Harvester Company, West Pullman Works , 89 NLRB 413 and cases
cited herein.
' See Southern Alkali Corporation, 84 NLRB 120.
' Sears, Roebuck & Co., 76 NLRB 167; Chicago Railway Equipment Company, supra.
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sonnel manager .' Both of these officials participate in grievance pro-
cedure meetings. In addition, Sommetinger maintains all employ-
ment records and the Company's group insurance plan. He initially
interviews new employees, although he does not make the final de-
terminations. He is the only nonsupervisory employee in the em-
ployment department. We find that he is a confidential employee and
shall exclude him from the unit 10
Janice Klingel is employed as a stenographer and takes the majority
of her dictation from the secretary-treasurer of the Company, who
handles all labor negotiations for the Company. In addition she
takes dictation from the chief accountant, who is in charge of all
the main office employees. We find that she is a confidential employee
and therefore shall exclude her from the unit 11
Patricia Brown, classified as a mail clerk, opens, sorts, and delivers
all mail to the various departments. She is under the supervision of
the chief accountant. We find that she is not a confidential employee
and shall include her in the unit 12
Mary Patton is both a file clerk and teletype operator employed in
the main office under the general supervision of the.chief accountant.
.We find that she is not a confidential employee and shall include her
in the unit 18
Betty Noffsinger is secretary to the. vice president in charge of
sales, who, on rare occasions, deals with labor relations problems.
This activity alone is not sufficient to warrant a finding that she is a
confidential employee.14 Accordingly we shall include her in the
unit.l5
Nurses: Three registered nurses are employed in the first-aid de-
partment under the general supervision of the personnel manager.
They perform the usual duties associated with their positions. All
parties agree and we find that these nurses are professional employees
within the meaning of the Act. As such, they may not be included in
the office and clerical unit unless they have expressed their desire to
that effect in a. separate election.- The Petitioner desires to represent
them either separately or as part of the office and clerical unit. There-
fore, we shall at this time, make no finding with respect to the appro-
priate unit for these nurses, deferring such conclusion until a separate
election shall have been held among them.
1o Detroit Harvester Co., 79 NLRB 1316.
11 Ibid.
12 Smith Paper, Incorporated , 76 NLRB 1222.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid. .
15 Board Member Reynolds would exclude Betty Noffsinger on the ground that she is
a confidential employee:
11 We have held that following such expression the inclusion of nurses in an office and
clerical unit is appropriate . Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 89 NLRB 8; American
Locomotive Company, A lco Products Division, 92 NLRB 115.
THE OHIO STEEL FOUNDRY, COMPANY 687
We shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups :
(a) All employees in the payroll department, standards depart-
ment, and purchasing department, all main office employees, shop
clerks, storeroom employees, and timekeepers,'' but excluding drafts-
men and checkers, nurses, confidential employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
(b) All nurses employed in the first-aid department.
The. employees in the nonprofessional voting group (a) will be
polled as to whether or not the petitioning union shall represent
them.
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 with the unit of office and shop clericals in a
unit composed of all employees in the payroll department, standards
department, and purchasing department, all main office employees,
shop clerks, storeroom employees, and timekeepers, employed at the
Employer's Lima, Ohio, plant, for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing? (2 ) Do you wish to be represented for the purposes of collective
bargaining by the International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO? If a major-
ity of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote "yes" to
the first question, indicating their wish to be included in a unit with the
nonprofessional employees, they will be so included. Their votes on
the second question will then be counted together with the votes of
the nonprofessional voting group (a) to decide the representative for
the whole office and shop clerical unit. If, on the other hand, a major-
ity of the professional employees in voting group (b) vote against
inclusion, they will not be included with the nonprofessional em-
ployees, their votes on the second question will then be counted to
decide whether they want to be represented in a separate professional
unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
"As the duties and interests of the shop clerks , storeroom employees , and timekeepers
are closely allied to those of the office clerical employees , and as the record indicates
that these . plant clericals have not been included in the production and maintenance unit
currently represented by the Petitioner , and as no party objects to their inclusion, we
include them`within the clerical unit. E . IV. Bliss Company, 81 NLRB 428. Republic
.steel Corporation, 72 NLRB 525.