PTI Communications

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1992

308 N.L.R.B. 918 (N.L.R.B. 1992)

918
308 NLRB No. 129
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1 King was on temporary assignment to the Vancouver head-
quarters for several months, including the time of hearing. Mayo
substituted for her in Anchorage. No party asserted Mayo should be
excluded from the unit on this or any other basis.
Telephone Utilities of Alaska and Telephone Utili-
ties of the Northland, Inc., d/b/a PTI Commu-
nications and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1547, AFL–CIO,
CLC. Case 19–RC–12558
September 21, 1992
ORDER DENYING REVIEW
BY MEMBERS DEVANEY, OVIATT, AND
RAUDABAUGH
The Board has delegated its authority in this pro-
ceeding to a three-member panel, which has considered
the Employer’s request for review of the Regional Di-
rector’s Decision and Direction of Election (pertinent
portions are attached). The request for review is denied
as it raises no substantial issues warranting review.
MEMBER OVIATT, dissenting.
I would grant the Employer’s request for review.
APPENDIX
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
An election by secret ballot shall be conducted by the un-
dersigned among the employees in the unit found appropriate
at the time and place set forth in the notice of election to
be issued subsequently, subject to the Board’s Rules and
Regulations. Eligible to vote are those in the unit who were
employed during the payroll period ending immediately pre-
ceding the date of this Decision, including employees who
did not work during that period because they were ill, on va-
cation, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are employees
engaged in an economic strike which commenced less than
12 months before the election date and who retained their
status as such during the eligibility period and their replace-
ments. Those in the military services of the United States
may vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible to
vote are employees who have quit or been discharged for
cause since the designated payroll period, employees engaged
in a strike who have been discharged for cause since the
commencement thereof and who have not been rehired or re-
instated before the election date, and employees engaged in
an economic strike which commenced more than 12 months
before the election date and who have been permanently re-
placed. Those eligible shall vote whether or not they desire
to be represented for collective bargaining purposes by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547,
AFL–CIO, CLC.
The Employer provides local telephone exchange service
throughout most of Alaska. Its headquarters are in Van-
couver, Washington, where the offices of President Ted
Burns, Vice President for Human Resources Wes Carson and
Labor Relations Manager Joe Osa are. The highest ranking
official in Alaska is Bernadette Murray, Vice President,
whose office is in Anchorage. Reporting directly to Murray
are Acting General Plant Superintendent Dave Bennett, Per-
sonnel Manager Gladys Jenkins, Customer Service Manager
Jan Williams, Tariffs and Access Supervisor Susan Arm-
strong, and three Area Superintendents—James Collard (Ju-
neau), Bill Thompson (Renai) and George Godfrey (North
Pole). Reporting to Thompson is Kodiak Area Supervisor
Chuck Stauffer and reporting to Collard is Sitka Area Super-
visor Wayne Stott.
The Petitioner, which already represents a unit of installa-
tion and service employees, warehousemen and customer
service representatives, now seeks a separate unit of office
clerical employees located throughout the Employer’s oper-
ations in Alaska. There is no bargaining history involving
these employees. The parties are in agreement as to the ap-
propriateness of the unit with the exception of nine individ-
uals the Employer would exclude as confidential employees
and the Petitioner would include.
KATHY KING:
Ring’s title is Secretary II and she works for Jan Williams,
the Employer’s Customer Service Manager. This department,
located in Anchorage, employs approximately 70 individuals
and is responsible for marketing, repairs, advertising, public
relations and the business office. Williams reports to Murray.
Williams’ role in labor relations is virtually identical to that
of Bennett. That is, he serves on the contract negotiating
team, participates in formulation of the Employer’s negotia-
tion strategy, drafts Murray’s grievance responses and makes
recommendations thereon and, on his own initiative, decides
and administers discipline to employees within his large de-
partment.
King works with one other clerical, a support specialist,
Bill Mayo.1 Williams does not include Ring in actual con-
tract negotiation activity nor does he discuss these matters
with her. She is called upon to compile the memoranda gen-
erated at his earlier contract strategy meetings held with his
lower-level supervisors, not the negotiation team or higher-
level strategy team. With regard to the administration of
labor relations policy, Ring types the written reprimands pre-
pared by Williams that are placed in employee files. She also
typed at least one work correction plan for Williams, but that
incident appears to have involved a supervisor, not an em-
ployee. Ring types both the draft grievance response to go
to Murray as well as the final response for Williams’ signa-
ture. She types all division performance evaluations. Wil-
liams proposed an upgrade in the status of service representa-
tives and an unspecified change in their duties recently; King
typed the document. King has substituted for Fleming in
managers’ meetings, but no details were given concerning
the frequency of such substitutions or whether labor rela-
tions, as opposed to purely business matters. were discussed
As in the case of Bennett, I find Jan Williams formulates,
determines and effectuates the Employer’s labor relations
policy. B. F. Goodrich Co., supra [115 NLRB 722 (1956)].
However, I do not find record evidence concerning King’s
responsibilities to warrant excluding her from the unit. She
has no role in investigating grievances, which would demon-
strably affect their merit, or any other stated substantive
input in the handling of grievances. Weyerhaeuser Co., 173
NLRB 1170 (1968); ITT Grinnell Corp., supra. The typing
of evaluations and similar documents is not sufficient. RCA
Communications, Inc., supra [154 NLRB 34 (1965)]; John
919PTI COMMUNICATIONS
2 With regard to Porter’s role in an interview situation, this issue
was dealt with by the Board in Chico Community Memorial Hos-
pital, 215 NLRB 821 (1974), in which the personnel clerk was
found to be confidential. I note that Chico has never been cited in
later cases for this proposition and, further, the Chico clerk was
much more active in interviewing applicants than was Porter. Indeed,
the Chico clerk regularly participated in screening applicants and it
was anticipated that in the future would do more than 50 percent of
interviewing. Accordingly, I do not find Porter’s situation to be gov-
erned by Chico.
Sexton & Co., supra [224 NLRB 1341 (1976)]. The evidence
concerning substituting for Fleming, without a clear dem-
onstration that the substitution has some frequency and regu-
larity and that it exposes Ring to confidential labor relations
policy, does not make her a confidential employee. Bechtel
Inc., 215 NLRB 906 (1974). Nor would a single stated in-
stance of typing the service representatives’ upgrades. Ac-
cordingly, I find Kathy King not to be a confidential em-
ployee and I shall include her in the unit.
MARLENE PORTER:
Porter, a Senior Support Specialist, is supervised by Glad-
ys Jenkins, Industrial Relations Administrator, and works
with one other clerical, a receptionist. The three comprise the
Anchorage personnel office, which is responsible for process-
ing all personnel forms for Alaska employees; maintaining
their personnel files; processing job vacancies; and monitor-
ing EEO, pay and benefits programs within the Employer’s
guidelines. Jenkins reports to Murray.
Jenkins serves on the negotiating team and participates in
the pre-negotiation strategy sessions. Unlike Bennett and
Williams, however, she is not empowered to administer dis-
cipline on her own but must seek Murray’s approval, accord-
ing to Murray’s testimony. She participates in the processing
of grievances by gathering information, drafting some re-
sponses for Murray and making recommendations thereon,
and, in management meetings, reporting on and coordinating
the various grievance situations around the state. Murray tes-
tified generally that Jenkins helps interpret the contract for
supervisory personnel. In evidence, however, is a 1989 letter
from the Employer to Petitioner stating that Jenkins is not
authorized to interpret the contract, resolve grievances or
make policy decisions. That letter has apparently never been
rescinded.
Occasionally, Porter performs some work for Murray. For
the 1991 contract negotiations she was asked to compile
some statistics on overtime usage going back to 1985. She
also has substituted for Fleming. The frequency was not
noted, but the cited task was that of typing Murray’s evalua-
tions of the three area superintendents. Finally, Porter has
typed Murray’s annual staffing plan which projects the an-
ticipated total number of employees for the coming year.
The greatest part of Porter’s effort is directed toward the
workings of the personnel office. She maintains the person-
nel files for Alaska employees, generating much of the rou-
tine documentation needed to effect pay raises, promotions or
other status changes. She monitors a tickler system to ensure
that evaluations for Anchorage employees are timely pre-
pared. When she receives the evaluations and notices the em-
ployee being cited for an attendance problem, she brings it
to the attention of Jenkins or Murray. She has no part in typ-
ing reprimand memoranda. She checks time sheets and ex-
pense records for proper coding and enters the information
on the computer. When the Employer is hiring new employ-
ees, Porter sets up the interviews and prepares the necessary
paperwork. Interviews and hiring recommendations are done
by committee. The record shows that at least once Porter was
asked to serve on such a committee in Jenkins’ absence. The
three members of the committee functioned by individually
scoring the applicants, with the highest-scoring applicant re-
ceiving the committee’s hiring recommendation. This action
took place two years before the hearing, and the position in-
volved was that of receptionist. Once a new employee is
hired or the Employer’s janitorial service has a new hire,
Porter enters the individual’s ‘‘eyeprint’’ into the Employer’s
security system. She also deletes eyeprints of terminated em-
ployees. Porter types Jenkins’ grievance memoranda and her
draft responses for Murray’s use and, at Jenkins’ direction,
has researched time usage by employees. Porter testified that
she types about five such documents annually.
I do not find Gladys Jenkins’ authority to be sufficient to
meet the Board’s test for managers in labor relations matters.
While she has a hand in formulating and determining labor
relations policy by participating in negotiations, her authority
in effectuating that policy is seriously limited. She is reduced
to the status of an advisor only and one who must act strictly
within established guidelines. She cannot discipline employ-
ees on her own authority or issue written grievance resolu-
tions over her signature. Clearly, she has not been accorded
the same level of authority as Bennett or Williams, her de-
partment-head counterparts.
Based upon the foregoing and the record in its entirety, I
find Marlene Porter not to be a confidential employee. While
Murray clearly is a person who formulates, determines and
effectuates labor policy, the nature of the relationship be-
tween Murray and Porter, as well as the nature and infre-
quency of the work Porter has performed for Murray, is in-
sufficient to warrant Porter’s exclusion from the unit. The
overtime study done by Porter is not confidential; the Union
is given overtime statistics monthly. Typing area superintend-
ents’ evaluations is not deemed confidential inasmuch as
they do not involve rank-and-file employees. RCA Commu-
nications, supra. The record does not demonstrate that Porter
is privy to the labor costs the Employer would be willing to
agree to in negotiations through her access to Murray’s staff-
ing plan or other budgetary information. Pullman Inc., 214
NLRB 762 (1974). And Porter’s occasional substitution for
Fleming is insufficient to cause her exclusion from the unit.
Bechtel Incorporated, supra.
Nor would Porter’s work for Jenkins serve to find con-
fidential status. While the Tass she performs may well allow
her to learn of personnel matters prior to their being revealed
to employees affected by them, absent a confidential relation-
ship with a person who formulates, determines and effec-
tuates the Employer’s labor policy, she cannot be found to
be a confidential employee. California Inspection Rating Bu-
reau, 215 NLRB 780 (1974); Carolina Telephone & Tele-
graph Co., 258 NLRB 1387 (1981).2
Clericals to the Area Superintendents
The three area superintendents are Collard, Godfrey and
Thompson. Until a January 1992 reorganization, they re-
ported to the general plant superintendent, but now report di-
rectly to Murray. Each of the three is held responsible, with-
920 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in his own geographic sphere, for service and installation
work, public relations, and administering the current IBEW
contract. None of the three serves on the Employer’s labor
contract negotiating team. Prior to contract negotiations each
area superintendent meets with subordinate supervisors to
discuss possible changes in the next contract. A meeting of
these managers is also held in Anchorage for further discus-
sion of the preferred changes. As noted earlier, Murray de-
cides between competing opinions and, only after she has
conferred directly with Vancouver, is the strategy finalized.
Insofar as the administration of the current contract is con-
cerned, each of the three is empowered to handle only the
lowest level grievances, i.e., grievances in the oral stage.
Murray testified that they can only make recommendations
once grievances have reached the written stage. They are not
authorized to sign written grievances as resolved. Their au-
thority to administer discipline on their own initiative is
similarly circumscribed. Murray testified that if, for example,
Collard wanted to suspend an employee for three days, he
would need the approval of both Murray and Vancouver.
KATHY BUZZELL:
Buzzell is Sr. Support Specialist to Juneau Area Super-
intendent Jim Collard. Collard supervises approximately 45
employees in southeast Alaska communities. Buzzell appears
to work with a support specialist, although that position was
vacant at the time of hearing. Buzzell is responsible for per-
forming the tasks one normally associates with clerical work
such as receiving, distributing and typing correspondence and
handling telephone calls. She maintains personnel files and
types employee evaluations. Most of the testimony beyond
this point is in dispute.
Collard testified that either before or after his discussing
contract negotiation ideas with his subordinate supervisory
staff, he has discussed some of these ideas with Buzzell, in-
cluding ‘‘her areas of expertise,’’ time and expense account-
ing, and that Buzzell has gathered such statistical information
for and from the supervisors. Buzzell denies this, stating spe-
cifically that she has never been solicited to gather such in-
formation and has made no recommendations. She stated fur-
ther that she has never attended any staff meeting at which
labor relations was discussed.
Collard testified Buzzell opens all mail, including that
marked ‘‘confidential.’’ Buzzell testified she has been in-
structed by Collard not to open such mail and that she does
not.
Collard stated Buzzell types letters of reprimand and that
this occurs before the employee to whom the reprimand is
addressed knows of it. He gave no examples. Collard has
been in his present position two years. Buzzell testified she
recalled typing at least one such letter, but only prior to
Collard’s becoming area superintendent. Buzzell also refutes
Collard’s assertion that she types merit increase rec-
ommendations made by supervisors for unrepresented em-
ployees.
As to the handling of grievances, Collard testified Buzzell
is used by Collard as a ‘‘sounding board’’ in discussing
grievances and that she give an opinion as to their merits or
resolution. He stated she gathers statistical information con-
cerning grievances and gives it to Collard in written form.
No examples of either activity were cited. Collard testified
that he once had her type a draft grievance response. He had
been filling in for Bennett when the grievance arose in that
office but had returned to his own office when it had to be
typed and assigned it to Buzzell. To the contrary, she testi-
fied that she has never investigated any grievances for Col-
lard and, further, the only one that has arisen to her knowl-
edge in the past two years occurred within a month of the
hearing and that she not only was not consulted about it or
asked to type it but knew nothing about it until after it was
resolved.
Part of Buzzell’s responsibilities, as is true with most of
the other individuals at issue, is the analysis and audit of em-
ployee expense accounts and time and attendance records.
When questions arise as to their accuracy or which contrac-
tual payment code is to be used, Buzzell is sometimes called
by employees. Buzzell, if she is not absolutely sure which
code is correct, sends the employee back to his supervisor
to work it out between them.
Collard annually anticipates the coming year’s manpower
needs based on workload, gives the number and classifica-
tions of employees to Buzzell to compute operating costs.
The Anchorage office has already supplied a computer disk
containing percentage cost increases and Buzzell combines
the two sets of information. She has no substantive input.
DEBORAH KITCHENS:
Kitchens is Sr. Support Specialist to North Pole Area Su-
perintendent George Godfrey. Their operation is near Fair-
banks. Godfrey, who had held his post just six weeks at the
time of hearing, is charged with overseeing approximately 22
employees. He did not testify, and the record contains evi-
dence that his labor relations authority is certainly no greater
than that of Collard or Thompson.
Kitchens is the only clerical in the North Pole office. She
performs the normal clerical functions of handling cor-
respondence and telephone calls. She also performs the same
analysis/audit of employee expenses and time and attendance
records as the other clericals involved herein; types employee
evaluations; maintains personnel files; and types the office
budget, which includes payroll information.
Kitchens has not been involved with any labor pre-nego-
tiation meeting or discussions with management. She is
sometimes called upon by employees to give them the cor-
rect contractual expense codes. As to the processing of griev-
ances, at most, Kitchens appears to have typed a draft re-
sponse from a supervisor to the area superintendent some-
time between 1985–1989. She does not investigate griev-
ances or make recommendations thereon. It appears she also
typed a disciplinary letter during the 1985–1989 period.
DAWN LOVETT:
Lovett is Sr. Support Specialist to Kenai Area Super-
intendent Bill Thompson, who directs approximately 45 em-
ployees throughout the Kenai Peninsula and the Aleutian
Chain. Their office is located in Kenai. Lovett works with
Support Specialist Curtis, Lovett did not testify. Lovett per-
forms the same general clerical tasks attributed to Buzzell
and Kitchens with regard to handling correspondence and
telephone calls, monitoring time and expense sheets, typing
evaluations and maintaining personnel files. Like them, she
is at times called upon by employees to determine correct
contractual coding for their expense accounts and she assists
to the extent she is able by virtue of her expense account ex-
pertise. She also types annual manpower projections from in-
921PTI COMMUNICATIONS
formation generated by Thompson’s assessment of antici-
pated future work and Anchorage’s set increased percentage
costs. This projection must be approved by Murray. Thomp-
son testified that Lovett attends his meeting with his subordi-
nate supervisors to discuss their contract change preferences
and that she takes notes of their discussion. She also has
been called upon to type letters of reprimand to be placed
in employees’ files or memoranda, presumably to Murray,
recommending that certain actions be taken. Lovett once sub-
stituted for Anne Fleming two years before the hearing but
at the hearing, no evidence was adduced to show she dealt
with confidential labor relations material at that time.
CONCLUSION: BUZZELL, KITCHENS, LOVETT:
I do not find the Employer’s area superintendents to be
persons who formulate, determine and effectuate manage-
ment policies with regard to labor relations. Holly Sugar
Corp., 193 NLRB 1024 (1971); Carolina Telephone & Tele-
graph Co., supra; Greyhound Lines, 257 NLRB 477 (1981).
The record as a whole makes it clear that the Employer’s
overall approach to labor relations’ formulation and deter-
mination, and to a lesser extent its effectuation, is very cen-
tralized, resulting in the area superintendents being utilized
as advisors only and even limiting their role in contract ad-
ministration. Thus, they may give recommendations as to
perceived needed labor contract changes, and thus have some
role in policy formulation, but they have no authority to de-
cide the matters. Additionally, they must have the approval
of Murray and Vancouver before they may act on discipli-
nary or grievance issues of any import. Such limitations do
not meet the Board’s test.
Additionally, record evidence concerning the three
clericals is not such that I would declare them to be con-
fidential employees. Maintaining personnel files, typing eval-
uations, and having advance access to other forms of con-
fidential labor relations information is not sufficient to ex-
clude an individual from the unit absent the clear demonstra-
tion of a confidential relationship with a person who formu-
lates, determines and effectuates the Employer labor relations
policy. It is the confidentiality of such a relationship, not the
confidentiality of information, that is determinative. Grey-
hound Lines, Inc., supra; Ernst & Ernst National Warehouse,
228 NLRB 590 (1977); John Sexton & Co., supra. Similarly,
their work on budgetary and manpower studies, particularly
at their relatively low organizational level, is not the type of
information contemplated by the Board in Pullman Standard
Division of Pullman, Incorporated, supra, as justifying a con-
fidential finding. And their assisting employees in correctly
coding expense and attendance claims is clearly insufficient.
As to Buzzell, the record contains too little undisputed evi-
dence to make a determination had I found Collard’s status
to be different.
Based upon the foregoing and the record as a whole, I find
Kathy Buzzell, Deborah Kitchens and Dawn Lovett not to be
confidential employees.
Clericals to the Area Supervisors
TERRI JOHNSON:
Johnson is Sr. Specialist to Chuck Stauffer, Kodiak Area
Supervisor. Their work location is Kodiak and approximately
nine employees work there. Neither Johnson nor Stauffer tes-
tified. In fact, testimony concerning Johnson was very brief
and general in nature, as was that concerning Stauffer’s re-
sponsibilities and status. At the very most, Stauffer has made
what Murray termed ‘‘effective recommendations’’ concern-
ing unspecified grievances and collective bargaining agree-
ment proposals. No evidence was adduced to show his role
in these important areas to be more that [sic] that of a minor
advisor. In his daily supervision of the Kodiak operation,
Stauffer is in contact with the Petitioner’s steward and he ad-
ministers the contract in the installation and service unit.
Johnson serves as the sole office clerical employee in Kodiak
and, as such, performs the normal clerical functions such as
handling correspondence and telephone calls. She reviews at-
tendance and expense records in the same manner as other
clericals. Thompson testified that her duties were the same
as those performed by Lovett, whom I have found not to be
a confidential employee, and Ann Curtis, an undisputed unit
member.
Based upon the foregoing and the record as a whole I find
that Terri Johnson is not a confidential employee. It is clear
that the position of Kodiak Area Supervisor is not that of one
who formulates, determines and effectuates the Employer’s
labor relations policy. Holly Sugar Corp., supra. Even if it
were, Johnson’s responsibilities fall far short of the standard
necessary to warrant her exclusion as a confidential em-
ployee. Accordingly, I shall include Terri Johnson in the
unit.
ELAINE CRONE:
Elaine Crone is Sr. Support Specialist to Sitka Area Super-
visor Wayne Stott. Approximately 12 employees work in this
operation, of whom Crone is the only clerical. As in the case
of Johnson, testimony concerning Crone and Stott was brief
and general; neither Crone nor Stott testified. Murray testi-
fied that Stott has made ‘‘effective recommendations’’ con-
cerning unspecified grievances and contract proposals, but
there was no evidence that his role exceeded this level of ac-
tivity. He may attend the contract negotiating strategy meet-
ing to give his views of desired contract changes, but there
was no evidence to show he shared this information with
Crone upon his return to Sitka or that he was part of the Em-
ployer’s negotiating team. Stott administers the contract for
the currently represented employees, including processing
verbal grievances. As the Sitka operation’s only clerical,
Crone handles all correspondence; maintains employee files;
types evaluations; checks travel, expense and attendance
sheets and types the Sitka budget.
Record evidence fails to demonstrate that Elaine Crone is
a confidential employee. Rather, it shows that Wayne Stott’s
position is not that of one who formulates, determines and
effectuates labor relations policy. Holly Sugar, supra. While
he plays a limited role in effectuating the Employer’s policy
through administration of the current contract, he has not
been given the responsibility of formulating or determining
that policy. Moreover, Crone’s own responsibilities are not
sufficient to find her a confidential employee even if Stott’s
status were different. Accordingly, I find Elaine Crone not to
be a confidential employee and I shall include her in the
unit.