Bechtel Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1974

215 N.L.R.B. 906 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Bechtel Incorporated and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Help-
of America, Teamsters Local 959, State of
Alaska, Independent, Petitioner. Case 19-RC-7151
December 30, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted on August 1, 1974, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 19
among the employees in the stipulated unit. The tally
of ballots furnished the parties showed that of approxi-
mately 161 eligible voters, 152 cast ballots, of which 66
were for the Petitioner, 68 were against the Petitioner,
and 18, sufficient in number to affect the results of the
election, were challenged.
On September 13, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued his Report and Recommendations on
Challenged Ballots in which he recommended that the
challenges to the ballots of certain persons` be sus-
tained and that the challenges to the ballots of other
persons' be overruled and their ballots opened and
counted. Thereafter the Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the Regional Director's report and a support-
ing brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of
the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the fol-
lowing employees constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer in
Alaska on the Alyeska Trans-Alaska Pipeline pro-
ject in the following classifications: general ser-
vices; clerks; intermediate clerks; assistant secre-
taries; key punch operators; senior clerks;
secretaries; chief clerks and office assistants; ex-
cluding teletype operators; assistant graphic art-
ists; graphic artists; draftsmen; junior account-
ants; timekeepers; industrial nurses; technicians;
senior technicians; receiving coordinators; confi-
dential employees, including secretary to indus-
trial relations manager, secretary to labor relations
representative, secretary to manpower services
manager, secretary to general manager, secretary
to deputy general manager-construction, and
secretary to projects services manager; managerial
employees; technical employees; professional em-
ployees; all other employees; guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board, having considered the entire record,
including the Regional Director's report and the Em-
ployer's exceptions and brief, hereby adopts the Re-
gional Director's findings and recommendations, ex-
cept as modified below.'
We find merit in the Employer's exception to the
Regional Director's finding that Pat Lynch was not a
confidential employee. Lynch was challenged by the
Petitioner on the ground that she was a confidential
employee, and the Employer agreed with that position.
Both parties agreed, however, that she would be eligible
to vote if she were not a confidential employee, and
apparently expressed no objection to the Regional
Director's proceeding with an investigation of her
status. In its exceptions to the Regional Director's re-
port the Employer contends, inter alia, that the Re-
gional Director should have honored the agreement of
the parties that Lynch was a confidential employee.'
We find it unnecessary to pass on this contention be-
cause we conclude that, even absent an agreement, the
challenge to Lynch's ballot should be sustained.
Lynch was the secretary to Thomas Oxman, a con-
struction manager, who, the Regional Director found,
"is involved in formulating, determining and effectuat-
ing certain basic labor relations policies that will have
. . . impact" over the entire project covered by the
bargaining unit. The Regional Director found, more-
over, that Lynch was Oxman's regular secretary and as
such was expected to keep any information which she
might acquire in the course of her duties confidential.
He concluded, however, that Lynch was not a confi-
dential employee because he found that she devoted
I Linda Auck, Joy Dalgarn, Evelyn Hull, Carolyn Lyons, Nastasia Mark- 3 As exceptions have been filed only as to the Regional Director's recom-
ham, Phyllis Martin , Ada Martinez , Jack Pence , Julie Sipes, Dwight Smith, mended disposition of the challenge to Pat Lynch's ballot, we adopt pro
and Bruce Swain forma his recommendations concerning the 17 other challenged ballots
2 Carole Sanchez, Linda Wolff , Jane Williams, Brenda Jones Gamble, ° The Petitioner , which initiated the challenge , has taken no position
Henry Kallenberg , Pat Lynch , and Joanl€e Rodgers before us
215 NLRB No. 126
BECHTEL INCORPORATED 907
only a minute portion of her time to acting in a confi-
dential capacity on matters concerning labor relations.
In so concluding he construed existing Board precedent
differently from the way we do. As noted above, the
Regional Director found that Lynch actually served in
a confidential capacity to Oxman. Once that relation-
ship has been established it remains only to determine
whether the management official has the necessary in-
volvement in labor relations policies and whether the
secretary or other alleged confidential employee is ex-
posed to the official's labor relations activities in the
regular course of such employee's duties. If such expo-
sure occurs in the normal course of the secretary's
duties, he or she is a confidential employee. In such
instance, no inquiry need be made into the amount of
time the employee actually spends in duties connected
with labor relations.' Of course, in a case where the
5 See, e g , The Grocers Supply Company, Inc, 160 NLRB 485,
488-489 (1966) If, on the other hand, an employee acts in a confidential
capacity only as a substitute for a regular confidential employee, we will
inquire into the substantiality of the substitutes contact with labor relations
This is what the Board did in cases such as Meramec Mining Company, 134
NLRB 1675 (1961), and Swift & Company, 129 NLRB 1391 (1961), relied
on by the Regional Director
alleged confidential employee is consciously, excluded
from access to labor relations information there would
be reason to doubt that the employee is acting in a
confidential capacity. That is not the case here, and we
find that Lynch was, at the times material herein, a
confidential employee. Therefore we sustain the chal-
lenge to her ballot.
DIRECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain a representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining among
certain employees employed by Bechtel Incorporated,
it is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 19 shall, pursuant to the Board's Rules and
Regulations, within 10 days from the date of this direc-
tion, open and count the challenged ballots of Carole
Sanchez, Linda Wolff, Jane Williams, Brenda Jones
Gamble, Henry Kallenberg, and Joanlee Rodgers, and
thereafter prepare and cause to be served on the parties
a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of
the challenged ballots, and the appropriate certifica-
tion.