Union College

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 531 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

UNION COLLEGE
Union College and Office and Professional Employ-
ees International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 32,
Petitioner. Case 22-RC-7830
January 23, 1980
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held on April 19, 1979, before Hearing Officer
Celeste J. Mattina of the National Labor Relations
Board. Following the close of the hearing,' the
Regional Director for Region 22 transferred this case
to the Board for decision.2 Thereafter, the Employer
filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudical error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
' Distributive Workers of America, District 65, was certified in Case 22-
RC-6760 and since then has been recognized as the exclusive bargaining
representative of employees in the requested unit and was permitted to
intervene at the hearing in this proceeding.
On April 30, 1979, the Union College Employees' Association (the
Association) submitted a motion to intervene and, in the event that the motion
was denied, requested that it be placed on the ballot in any election to be held
in the petitioned-for unit. On the same day the Association filed a petition in
Case 22-RC-7854 to represent employees in the unit the Petitioner seeks in
this proceeding. The Regional Director, on May 8, 1979, dismissed the cros-
petition filed by the Association in Case 22-RC-7854 and denied the motion
to intervene citing the Association's failure to support its cross-petition
and/or the motion to intervene by a showing of interest which predated the
close of the hearing held in the present case as required by Sec. 11026.2(c) of
the Board's Casehandling Manual. However, on May 4, 1979, the Regional
Director referred to the Board the Association's request to appear on the
ballot. Then on June 4, 1979, the Association filed a timely request for review
of the Regional Director's denial of its request to intervene and dismissal of its
petition in Case 22-RC-7854. We agree with the Regional Director that the
Association has not submitted a timely showing to support either its request
for intervention or its cross-petition in Case 22-RC-7854. See Sec. 11026.2(c)
cited above, and, also, Gary Steel Products Corporation, 127 NLRB 1170
(1960). Accordingly, we affirm the Regional Director's rulings with respect to
the request for intervention and cross-petition. Further, as the request to be
placed on the ballot is simply an alternative way of requesting intervention, we
deny that request for the reasons stated above.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Employ-
er within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer are
those employees in the established, recognized bar-
gaining unit set forth in the Intervenor's 1978-79
bargaining agreement with the Employer and, we find,
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the
Act:'
All full-time and part-time clerical employees
who work more than twelve (12) hours per week,
including clerks I, II, III, and IV, secretaries and
departmental secretaries, computer operators,
keypunch operators, clerk-typists, programmers,
administrative assistants I and II, general clerks,
couriers, switchboard operators, accounting assis-
tants, typists, offset operators, lab assistants,
laboratory technicians, recorders, and coordina-
tors employed by the Employer at its Cranford,
Plainfield, and Elizabeth, New Jersey, campuses,
but excluding all professional employees, mana-
gerial employees, technical employees, confiden-
tial employees,' laboratory coordinators, guards,
and supervisors, as defined in the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, and all other employ-
ees.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
' The Regional Director transferred the case to the Board in order to allow
the Board to consider the Employer's assertion that no election may be
directed due to a potential conflict of interest between the nonteaching
professionai employees then represented by the Petitioner and the clerical
employees sought herein. As the Petitioner no longer represents the
Employer's nonteaching professional employees, the conflict-of-interest issue
raised by the Employer in opposition to the election in this proceeding has
been rendered moot.
' The Petitioner and Employer in effect agreed to the appropriateness of the
requested unit and, side from certain relatively minor changes, the unit is
that set forth in the certification in Case 22-RC-6760. District 65 refused,
however, to take a position on the unit though it did not suggest, much less
contend, that its established unit was not appropriate.
' The Employer contends that the secretaries to the divisional deans at the
college should be excluded as confidential employees. The record establishes
that the divisional deans help determine the Employer's labor policies, serve
on the college's bargaining team which involves them in collective-bargaining
contract negotiations, and participate in the processing of grievances. The
secretaries to the divisional deas have access to the grievance files and the
Employer's notes relating to the grievances and help with the work in
connection with the labor relations functions of the divisional deans.
Accordingly, we find that the secretaries to the divisional deans are
confidential employees and are excluded from the appropriate unit found
herein. See B. F Goodrich Company 115 NLRB 722 (1956); Siemens
Corporation. 224 NLRB 1579 (1976).
247 NLRB No. 69
531