Copperweld Specialty Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1973

204 N.L.R.B. 46 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Copperweld Specialty Steel Company and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 8-UC-79
June 12, 1973
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING
PETITION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY , AND PENELLO
On February 6, 1973, Petitioner, the representative
of a unit of the Employer's employees since it was
certified by the National Labor Relations Board in
1970, filed a petition requesting clarification of the
unit. Hearings were held on February 21, 27, and 28,
and March 5, 1973, before Hearing Officer Paul
Weingarten. All parties appeared and participated at
the hearings. On March 23, 1973, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 8 issued an order transferring the
case to the Board. Thereafter a brief was filed by the
Employer.
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.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial 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 Petitioner involved herein is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act and claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. Petitioner was certified in 1970 as the represen-
tative of a unit of "All office clerical employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Warren, Ohio plant,
excluding all employees covered by any other labor
agreements, mill clerks, technical employees, confi-
dential employees, nurses, and all professional em-
ployees, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act." By virtue of the petition for unit clarification,
the Petitioner is now seeking a further accretion to its
bargaining unit of a group of five sales order corre-
spondents, four scheduling coordinators, and one of
each of the following classifications: supervisor-mill
scheduling, supervisor-primary inventory, supervisor-
cost control, spare parts supervisor, and cost analyst.
The position of the Petitioner is that the seven clas-
sifications were mistakenly excluded from the bar-
gaining unit because the Employer failed to list the
individuals occupying the jobs in those classifications
on the eligibility list at the time the election was con-
ducted. Consequently, the Petitioner was unaware of
any issue regarding inclusion of these classifications
in the unit at that time. None of the employees in
those classifications voted or attempted to vote in the
election. The Employer argues that the individuals
occupying the jobs in the seven classifications at the
time of the Board election were supervisory or mana-
gerial employees, and, therefore, it did not include
their names on the eligibility list. After the certifica-
tion was issued, the parties realized that there were
employees whose status might be in dispute and
agreed that the term "employee" in the collective-
bargaining agreement should not prevent the Union
from seeking an opinion from the Board regarding the
appropriateness of including certain jobs within the
bargaining unit. Thus, the Petitioner asserts that this
agreement is yet another reason for the Board to de-
cide the status of the seven classifications. The Peti-
tioner also claims that the classifications are basically
unchanged from those in existence at the time of the
Board election. The employer took the position that
the duties of the employees in the seven classifications
have changed since the election. The Employer con-
tends that the jobs evolved to include increased re-
sponsibilities and therefore support its argument that
the employees in these classifications should remain
excluded from the bargaining unit on the basis that
they function in either a supervisory or managerial
capacity.
A unit clarification may be in order where a new
employee classification has been created, or an
employer's operations have been expanded subse-
quent to a certification, and the employees involved
are normal accretions to the certified unit. Here, how-
ever, the seven disputed classifications are not new,
since they were in existence at the time of the Board
election which resulted in certification. Furthermore,
the Petitioner does not allege that the duties of the
employees involved have undergone such change as
would be tantamount to the creation of new classifica-
tions. In these circumstances, we find that the petition
raises a question concerning the representation of the
employees in the classifications mentioned above
which, under settled precedent,' cannot be resolved in
the clarification proceeding. Thus, even if the seven
classifications were mistakenly excluded from the
bargaining unit, a question we need not decide, we
believe that they do not constitute an accretion to the
existing unit. The proper procedure for accomplishing
Petitioner's purpose in the instant matter is a petition
filed pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act, seeking an
election, rather than a petition for unit clarification.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
' AMF Electra Systems Division, AMF Incorporated, 193 NLRB 1113;
Gould-National Batteries, Inc, 157 NLRB 679.
204 NLRB No. 4