General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1963

144 N.L.R.B. 88 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
see that articles of property are not brought in or removed without
authority. There is no interchange between them and the security
officers and they are paid by the day. Accordingly, as they have the
same supervision and their function, in substantial part, is to protect
the Employer's property, they come within the Board's definition
of guards and we shall include them in the unit.14
A clockman, or fire watcher, on the payroll of Thunderbird Hotel,
Inc., was hired by and is under the direction of the chief security officer.
His duties are to watch for fires by making regular rounds and punch-
ing a clock during the night.ls The record shows that he does not en-
force any rules against the employees or the public. As the duty of this
employee is to check for fire hazards, we find that he is not a guard
and shall exclude him from the unit."
Accordingly, we find 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 employees at the
Employer's Winchester, Clark County, Nevada, operations employed
as security guards and timekeepers, but excluding all other employees,
clockmen or fire watchers, office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 National Hotel Company, d/b/a Thomas Jefferson Hotel, 127 NLRB 202, 204.
is He also walks through the Algiers Motel property , and the Employer is paid for this
service.
19 New Hotel Monteleone , 127 NLRB 1092, 1094.
General Electric Company and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO and its Local 201.
Case No. 1-RC-3312. August 20, 1963
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 12, 1954, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision
and Certification of Representatives 1 certifying Local 201, Inter-
national Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, as
the bargaining representative of a unit of office clerical employees
at the Employer's River Works. On April 23, 1962, the Interna-
tional Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFT.-CIO
and its Local 201 filed a request for clarification of certification "to
include in the bargaining unit, for which the petitioning organization
is now the recognized bargaining agent, certain employees, some of
whom are in the following categories as classified by the Employer :
1107 NLRB No . 244 (not published in NLRB volumes ). See also General Electric
Company (Raver Works), 107 NLRB 70
144 NLRB No. 21.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 89
Specialists and/or Analysts and Business Training Course Students."
On May 14, 1962, the Employer filed an answer in opposition to the
request. On June 12, 1962, the Board remanded the matter to the
Regional Director for the First region for the purpose of receiving
evidence on the issues involved. A hearing was held on June 22, 1962,
and on 18 other days over the period through February 25, 1963,
before Hearing Officer Norman Holtz. 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 Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
As noted above the Union wants to include in the bargaining unit
the specialists and/or analysts and the business training course stu-
dents. The Union contends that these employees perform bargaining
unit work and that the unit should be amended accordingly to in-
clude them. The Employer opposes the Union's request for clarifica-
tion made 9 years after the election in the office clerical unit on the
following grounds :
(1) The classification of specialist or analyst, as well as the busi-
ness training course program trainees, were in existence at or prior
to the last representation election in 1953 and they did not vote
therein.
(2) The functions performed by the specialists or analysts are
not the same as those performed by members of the office clerical unit,
either now or at the time of the 1953 election.
(3) The IUE request is an attempt to evade the statutory show-
ing of interest.
(4) To include the employees in the unit by a clarification pro-
cedure would result in a violation of their rights of self-determination
as set forth in Section 7 of the Act.
The terms "specialists" or "analysts" are generic titles used through-
out the Company. They denote an individual who performs his work
through the application of his own efforts, rather than through the
efforts of others. The individual obtains his direction from his own
knowledge or from knowledge of the Employer's objectives. He has
an obligation to plan, integrate, measure, and exercise judgment.
There are many different types of specialists and analysts in the
various units of the finance functions at the River Works plant. Each
type of specialist or analyst has certain specific duties in his position
which are different from other specialists or analysts. Some special-
ists are part-time supervisors, while others have authority and re-
sponsibility to bind the Company in negotiations with customers
and commit company funds. The duties of certain specialists or
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
analysts require an analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of costs,
budgets, and forecasts to advise, recommend, and counsel other man-
agement employees. Specialists' or analysts' duties also require the
establishment of measurements for control and decision-making pur-
poses. Certain specialists or analysts are required to administer the
flow of information, and analyze information received from the bar-
gaining unit employees, as well as analyze and interpret other matters
such as State and local tax matters, insurance, and royalty accounting.
Other specialists or analysts are, in effect, financial managers of
specific programs or operations conducted by the Company. They
have full financial responsibility for an entire program. This would
include briefing and counseling management as to all aspects of
the program; advising the department general manager and the
manager of finance as to the program status at all times; meeting
with and advising customers; and evaluating and assisting all mem-
bers of management in all functions, including manufacturing, mar-
keting, and finance, and any additional requirements demanded by
the customer. In general, they keep complete control of the program,
not only its dollar expenditures, but its implications as to manpower
requirements, both current and anticipated, outlining to the depart-
ment general manager risk areas or problem areas. The salary range
of specialists or analysts is considerably higher than that of the graded
office clerical employee. The duties required of the specialist or
analyst have never been required from members of the office clerical
bargaining unit. Individuals classified as specialists or analysts have
always been treated as part of management and not as part of any
bargaining unit. These individuals are considered an extension of
the manager's arm. The classification of specialist or analyst was in
existence prior to the last representation election in 1953.
The business training course students have been employed by the
Company at its River Works plant since 1948. They have never been
represented in a bargaining unit. The selection and assignment of
students for the program is handled on a companywide basis. The
student is on a separate pay scale which is also administered on a
companywide basis. The students on the program rotate through sev-
eral areas of the finance work and attend evening class seminars. As
the business training course program is companywide, when a student
graduates from the program, he is subject to assignment to a financial
management position anywhere in the Company. The student must
maintain a certain level of performance in both work and class to
complete the program successfully. If the standards are not main-
tained, the student is terminated from the program but he may apply
for a job in the bargaining unit as a new employee.
As noted above, the record shows that the classification of specialists
and analysts and the business training course students were in exist-
OHIO VALLEY CARPENTERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, FTC. 91
ence prior to the Board-conducted election in 1953. Employees in
these classifications did not vote in the election and have never been
represented by any union. No effort was made by the Union to repre-
sent these employees until approximately 9 years after the Board
certified the office clerical unit. Neither the contract executed pursuant
to the certification nor any subsequently executed contracts included
specialists , analysts, or business training course students. Clearly,
the specialists, analysts, or business training course students are not
an accretion to the existing unit. We find, in view of the above and
on the entire record, that a motion for clarification is not the proper
method for adding the excluded classifications to the existing unit.
Even if we were to decide that the specialists, analysts, and business
training course students could be part of the office clerical unit, they
would be entitled to vote whether they desire to be represented as
part of that unit. Since the proper procedure for accomplishing
this purpose is a petition pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act seeking
an election, rather than a motion or petition for clarification, we
shall grant the Employer's motion to dismiss the instant proceeding.2
[The Board dismissed the petition for clarification of unit.]
2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 1142 NLRB 317; Remington Rand Division of
Sperry Rand Corporation, 132 NLRB 1093 , 1095; Brockton -Taunton Gas Company, 132
NLRB 940, 942; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233, 1236.
Ohio Valley Carpenters District Council , United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, and Albert
Scheer and Robert Sauer , its Agents and Cardinal Industries,
Inc. Case No. 9-CC-315. August 21, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 19, 1963, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices as alleged in the complaint, and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in
the attached Intermediate Report. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and the Respondent Council filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and supporting briefs.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
144 NLRB No. 16.