The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1302 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
a written and signed agreement which expressly provides that issues
of eligibility resolved therein shall be final and binding upon the
parties, the Board will consider such an agreement, and only such
an agreement, a final determination of the eligibility issues treated
therein unless it is, in part or in whole, contrary to the Act or estab-
lished Board policy 3
In the instant case, even accepting as accurate such of Petitioner's
allegations as were not substantiated by the Regional Director's
investigation, it appears that the Employer's assertion that its pro-
posed eligibility list was accurate and its agreement to accept the
list for use in the election amounted to no more than necessary and
integral steps in the parties' preparation and adoption of an eligibility
list. The events leading up to its adoption in no wise distinguish the
eligibility list here from eligibility lists which are almost uniformly
used as guides or tools in elections conducted by the Board but which
the Board does not consider final and binding agreements upon issues
of eligibility. For these reasons we shall deny Petitioner's motion
for reconsideration.
[The Board denied the Petitioner's motion for reconsideration.]
MEMBER FANNING took 110 part in the consideration of the above
Order Denying Motion.
a Consolidated Industries , Inc., supra, where the parties expressly , but orally , agreed
that the eligibility list should constitute a comprehensive and binding agreement on
eligibility, is modified accordingly. To the extent Gulf States Asphalt Company, supra, is
inconsistent herewith , it is overruled.
The Santa Fe Trail Transportation Company and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Local No. 795, 1 Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-
2572. January 14,1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Michael J. Lucero,
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, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom
and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
'The Boaid having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended
119 NLRB No. 154.
THE SANTA FE TRAIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 1303
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 Petitioner and the Intervenor, Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, and Express and Station
Employees, Lodge Number 1125, are labor organizations claiming
to represent certain employees 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 appropriate unit :
Petitioner seeks a unit of some 200 clerical employees, including
clerks, secretaries, stenographers, typists, several office machine
operators, PBX operators, freight agents, etc., employed through-
out the Employer's system in 8 States, with the usual exclusions.
The Intervenor, which has represented most of these employees for
many years, agrees substantially with the Petitioner. The Employer
objects to the proposed unit mainly on the ground that it would include
some 90 employees working in the general offices of the Company at
Wichita, Kansas, and to others on the ground that they are confi-
dential, supervisory, or managerial personnel.
Bargaining History
Prior to 1950 the Employer had separate agreements with the
Intervenor, one covering clerical employees at its freight stations in
the eight States and the other covering clerical employees in its
general offices at Wichita. Since 1950 both classes of employees
with some exceptions 2 have been included in the same contract, the
last of which, expired in July 1957 .1 On the basis of the most recent
bargaining history," we will include the Wichita employees.
Confidential Employees
The Employer agrees that all. clerical employees in the field offices
are properly in the unit, with certain exceptions indicated below.
It contends, however, that the employees in the general offices at
Wichita, Kansas, are confidential employees and should be excluded,
mainly on the ground that they have access to files dealing with labor
, Most of the general office employees have been in the bargaining unit. Others were
included under all provisions except rules 7 and 11, which provide for assignment, dis-
placement , and promotion of employees . Others again were excluded from the contract
except for rules 8 and 9 which provides for the retention of certain seniority rights to
"bump" back if such employees leave the exempt classifications.
3In addition to the clerical employees herein sought, the Company employs about 1,200
employees in various classifications , such as truckdrivers , dockmen,, and mechanics, most
of whom are represented by the Petitioner under 2 contracts, the Central States over-the-
road contract and the local cartage contract.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relations or with financial data concerning the Employer's business.
As appears below, we find no merit in this contention.
The Employer would exclude the secretaries of all company officials
who formulate and effectuate the Company's labor relations policies
and negotiate labor contracts; the secretaries of other officials, such as
the sales manager, who sits in on negotiations involving clerks and the
secretaries of division superintendents who sit in on negotiations when
they are conducted in the field; the secretaries of other management
officials whose recommendations are requested with reference to labor
contracts and secretaries of various officers who do not participate
directly in contract negotiations but who are involved primarily in
the handling of labor grievances in their particular departments.
The Employer contends that all these secretaries should be excluded
because (1) they take dictation pertaining to labor problems or to
grievances or (2) they have, access to files containing such subject
matter.
The record is undisputed that the following company officials nego-
tiate labor contracts and are responsible for the formulation and
effectuation of labor policy : W. A. Gammon, vice president, C. F.
Offenstein, general manager, R. V. Hinderliter, assistant general
manager for personnel, R. E. Mason, assistant general manager for
operations, G. B. Chaffin, general auditor, and N. H. Dean, mechanical
superintendent. In accordance with well-established Board policy
we shall exclude the secretaries of these officials from the unit on the
ground of their confidential status.'
Chief clerks and assistant chief clerks : The Employer and Peti-
tioner would exclude the chief clerks and the assistant chief clerks in
the general manager's office and other managerial and administrative
offices. The Intervenor would exclude only one chief clerk in the
general manager's office. The evidence shows that the chief clerks act
4 The secretaries to the division superintendents have occasion to write letters to execu-
tive officers about once every 2 or 3 weeks involving labor matters and grievances con-
cerning over -the-road drivers and dockmen . There is no evidence that they know whether
the letters contained information concerning management 's position in bargaining. The
secretary to the chief clerk to the general manager substitutes for the secretaries to the
labor relations officials indicated above when the latter are on vacation or ill, which she
estimated would be about 25 percent of her time . However , of this 25 percent only about
10 percent of her time is consumed in work considered confidential . The secretary to the
freight auditor takes dictation from the latter and head agents reports clerk but does no
work concerning contracts or grievances . The secretary to the assistant general auditor
testified that none of the dictation she takes involves grievances or negotiations of labor
contracts. She substitutes for the auditor's secretary when the latter is on vacation but
she did not recall whether the dictation related to labor matters . The'secr 'etary to gen-
eral claims agent does the same work as the secretary to the freight auditor. We find
that these secretaries are not confidential employees and shall include them in the unit.
Likewise , we find that the secretaries to the traffic managers , the sales manager and the
general storekeeper are not confidential employees and shall include them in the unit.
The Employer would exclude the head file clerk who has charge of files in the general
manager's office . We find that this fact , for this reason alone, does not make him a con-
fidential employee , and shall include him in the unit . See B. F. Goodrich Co., 115
NLRB 722.
THE SANTA FE TRAIL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY 1305
as office managers and that they and the assistant chief clerks have
authority to hire help and effectively recommend discharge. We shall,
therefore exclude the chief clerks and the assistant chief clerks on
the ground of their supervisory status.5
The head clerks: The Employer would exclude as supervisors the
following head clerks: (1) payroll clerk; (2) disbursements clerk;
(3) freight agents report clerk; (4) internal audit clerk; (5) rate
revising clerk; and (6) file clerk.'
The head payroll clerk works under the chief clerk and the payroll
auditor. His job is to do payroll bookkeeping and to see to it that the
payroll gets out. He is paid about 12 cents an hour more than the
10 to 12 clerks working under him.' The head disbursement clerk
works under a chief clerk and the assistant general auditor. His
duties in general are similar to those of the payroll clerk except that
he is responsible for paying bills. He is paid about 20 cents an hour
more than the lowest paid clerk under him. The head clerk freight
agents reports' works in a subdepartment of the freight auditor's
department and is supervised by a chief clerk, who in turn is respon-
sible to the freight auditor and the general auditor. His job is to
review reports from the freight agents in the system.. There are some
6 clerks working with him in this subdepartment, and he receives
about 12 cents an hour more than the former. The head internal audit
clerk makes audits of reports and handles correspondence. There are
6 clerks and a stenographer working in this group headed by a chief
clerk, who in turn is responsible to the freight auditor. He is paid
about 15 cents an hour more than the other clerks. The head rate
revising clerk handles mail and answers requests for rate information
by telephone. There are 3 clerks and 1 stenographer in this group
G There is 1 chief clerk In the manager's office , 1 in the general auditor ' s office, 1 in the
freight auditor ' s office , 1 in the general claims agent's office , 3 in the division of super-
intendents ' offices, 3 chief clerks transportation supervisors , and 1 chief clerk at each of
the following terminals : Kansas City, Wichita, Oklahoma City, and Houston.
6 This clerk has charge of the files in the general auditor 's office , which includes corre-
spondence relating to labor relations matters. There is no evidence of his supervisory
duties nor do we find that because he has access to the general manager's files that for
this reason alone he is a confidential employee . ( See footnote 4, supra.) We therefore
find that the file clerk is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The Employer
also contended that the head tariff clerk is a supervisor . His duty is to see that tariffs
are properly applied throughout the system . The record indicates that he does essentially
administrative work and that his exclusion was sought mainly on the ground that he has
access to the manager 's files . He is hourly paid at the rate of $1.80 to $1.97. We find
that this clerk is neither a confidential nor supervisory employee and include him in
the unit.
The head tabulating machine operator is considered a supervisor by the Employer.
Her duties are to write checks in connection with payroll preparation , and she has 3 to 4
comptometer operators working under her. She spends from 20 to 30 percent of her time
assigning work and answering questions as to how the cards are to be calculated. The
Employer also contends that she is a confidential employee as she has access to the files in
the general offices of the Company . We find that whatever supervision this employee
exercises is essentially routine , and based on the record as a whole , we find she is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
working under a chief clerk who in turn is responsible to the freight
auditor.
The record shows that the head clerks are older and more exper-
ienced employees than those working under them, and that they act
more like craftsmen in relation to their helpers or working leadmen
for their respective groups. Whatever job assignments and direction
they exercise appear to be essentially routine. All hiring, discharge,
and discipline are exercised by the chief clerks, assistant chief clerks,
and several others. They have not been informed that they have the
power of effective recommendation, and whatever recommendations
they make to the chief clerks or their assistants, if any, do not appear
to be effective within the meaning of the Act as these must be reviewed
and investigated by two or more others in the supervisory hierarchy.
They are hourly paid and have been bargained for by the Employer
for many years. Furthermore, the number of alleged supervisors is
entirely disproportionate to the number of rank-and-file employees.
We find on the basis of the above, that the record as a whole does not
warrant a finding that the head clerks are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and we include them in the unit.
Special auditors and travelling freight auditors: The special audi-
tors make audits several times a year on the payroll and treasurer's
departments. They also • make special audits from sources outside
the Company which may be used for tax purposes, cost studies and
for purposes of collective-bargaining negotiations. The travelling
freight auditors make the rounds of all the stations to audit freight
revenues. Although the Employer may make personnel changes on
the basis of their reports, there is no evidence that these auditors make
effective recommendations as to the status of persons whose work they
audit. The Employer does not contend that these auditors are pro-
fessional employees. They are hourly paid but have not been cov-
ered by the contract. As we find that the special and travelling
auditors are neither supervisory nor confidential employees, we
include them in the unit.
Freight agents and relief freight agents : Petitioner would include
freight agents at the C and D depots where there are no clerical
employees. The Employer would exclude them as managerial. The
C and D depots are the smaller stations some of which do not use
clerical help. There are no office employees under the freight agents,
but the latter do exercise jurisdiction over the pickup driver and dock-
men, and they can recommend hiring and discharge as to them. The
freight agent at these depots according to the Employer is the termi-
nal manager of the station, and acts as the Employer's representative
in their respective locations, soliciting freight business and otherwise
protecting the Employer's interests in the area. The relief agents
NEW PACIFIC LUMBER Co. 1307
are sent out regularly and frequently to the smaller stations where
there are no chief clerks to substitute for and relieve the freight agent
during the latter's absence. We find on the basis of the evidence that
the freight agents and relief agents are managerial employees and
exclude them from the unit.8
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All clerks, secretaries, stenographers, office machine operators, PBX
operators,9 clerical, and office employees in the offices and freight
depots of the Employer employed in the geographical area of
Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Okla-
homa, and Texas, excluding professional employees, confidential
employees, executives, managerial employees, over-the-road drivers,
local cartage drivers, mechanics, garagemen, dock employees, watch-
men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.19
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Gulf States Telephone Company, 118 NLRB 1039.
9 The record shows that the chief PBX operator has two operators including the relief
operator under her. She receives 3 cents an hour more than the operators she trains and
instructs. and has been covered by the contract. The uncontradicted evidence shows that
she has effectively recommended hiring and discharge, and has disqualified individuals for
jobs 2 or 3 times in the past year and a half, and that she has recommended that persons
be docked or reprimanded. We find on the basis of the above that the chief PBX operator
is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
1° At the hearing the Employer appears to have urged that the following employees,
should be excluded: head multilith personnel clerk ; utility accounting clerk; the book-
keeper and the claims prevention clerk. However, in its. brief, the Employer concedes
that these clerks have neither confidential nor supervisory functions. As there is no
evidence in the record to warrant a finding of supervisory status, we shall include these
employees in the unit.
Wallace Stenlake and John Baldwin d/b/a New Pacific Lumber
Co.,' Petitioner and Building Material and Dump Truck Driv-
ers, Local Union No. 420 and Lumber & Sawmill Workers,
Local No. 2288 , Los Angeles County District Council of Car-
penters.2 Case No. 21-RM-446. January 14, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William G. Wilkerson,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 The Employer' s name appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 Herein called Local No. 420 and Local No. 2288 , respectively.
119 NLRB No. 159.