Pullman, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 7, 1974

214 N.L.R.B. 762 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Pullman Standard Division of Pullman , Incorporated and United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO. Case 13-RC-13297 November 7, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed on February 15, 1974, under Section 9(b) and (c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Michael A. Garrigan on March 21 and 27, 1974. The hearing was reopened and addi- tional evidence received before Hearing Officer Wil- liam G. Kocol on May 16, 1974. Following the hear- ing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Di- rector for Region 13, this proceeding was transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs were filed by both the Employer and the Petitioner. 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 proceeding, 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 is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: al employees who should be excluded from coverage under the Act. Railroad industry requests for car-building bids, either competitive or exclusive, are received by the Employer's marketing department and forwarded to the central freight estimating employees, who collab- orate in preparing a detailed estimate of the compo- nent costs involved in producing the desired car. Es- timating projects are functionally broken down and severally assigned to one or more employees in each estimating group (material, labor, and tool-and-die) and to a specification contract writer. The lone date technician estimator primarily assists the material es- timators by running computer cost analyses of steel and various other bulk production materials. The composite itemized cost estimates for a bid project are typed on "A&D" (add and deduct) forms by the department's secretary or clerk-stenographer. Final estimates on a bid request are sent to the marketing department where they remain essentially un- changed. Profit margins are determined and certain other adjustments to cost are made in formulating the final bid price to be submitted by the Employer. An integral feature of cost estimating is the com- putation of labor expenses. Labor estimators figure all labor costs for a car's production, utilizing the Employer's labor bulletins, revised quarterly, which specifically indicate anticipated labor expenses up to 15 months beyond the current date. Bulletin pro- jections are based on knowledgeable managerial esti- mates of the results of future contract negotiations. In essence, the labor bulletins reflect the Employer's future bargaining strategy by revealing labor cost fig- ures which would be the acceptable end result of that strategy. The Employer asserts that all persons in the pro- posed unit have regular access to confidential labor bulletin information and therefore "act in a confi- dential capacity to persons who formulate, de- termine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations." I Therefore, the Employer argues that recognition of a unit composed of these eril itsees would Im"confidential" em loalle edl pp yg y The Employer is a Delaware corporation with principal offices in Chicago, Illinois, and plant facili - future collective-bargaining position , especially since ties in Illinois , Indiana , Alabama, and Pennsylvania . ' they would be represented by the Petitioner, who in It is engaged in the manufacture and sale of railroad this case also represents a unit of the Employer's pro- freight cars and related parts. duction and maintenance personnel. The Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of all We find merit in the Employer ' s position. The material estimators , spec writers , labor estimators , Board has in the past denied eligibility in representa- die estimators , data technician estimators , and secre - tion elections to those employees who, in the course taries employed in the central freight estimating de- of their duties, regularly have access to confidential Carr Technical information concerning anticipated changes which t th E lo er's C amt t y p ym a e mppar en center in Hammond, Indiana. The Employer con- tends that the proposed unit is inappropriate since all employees therein are confidential and/or manageri- 1 The B F Goodrich Company, 115 NLRB 722, 724 (1956) 214 NLRB No. 100 PULLMAN STANDARD DIVISION OF PULLMAN, INC. may result from collective-bargaining negotiations.2 We regard such employees as specially aligned with the employer's interests in the area of labor relations, even absent the showing of a confidential work rela- tionship with a specifically identifiable managerial employee responsible for labor policy. Therefore, we have accorded these employees the status of "confi- dential" employees and excluded them from partici- pation with other employees in union activities which would necessarily subject them to a critical conflict of interests and impair their trust with the employer.' In determining the issue of confidentiality, the pre- cise nature of the allegedly confidential information is significant. The Board has held that it will not ex- clude as "confidential" employees who merely have access to personnel or statistical information upon which an employer's labor relations policy is based; nor will it exclude employees with access to labor relations information after it has become known to the union or the employees concerned.4 In this case, 2 American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corporation, 119 NLRB 1715 (1958) 3 Star Brush Manufacturing Co, Inc, 100 NLRB 679 (1952) 4 American Radiator & Standard, supra 763 however, the employees in central freight estimating are privy to the precise labor rates to which the Em- ployer in pursuit of its own labor policy will be will- ing to agree in some future collective-bargaining agreement. The record indicates that only these cen- tral freight estimating employees and certain indis- putably managerial personnel are entrusted with this kind of information. Premature disclosure of this in- formation obviously would reveal the Employer's an- ticipated ultimate settlement figures and thus preju- dice its bargaining strategy in any future negotia- tions. We therefore conclude, based on evidence regard- ing the access to and nature of information shared by all employees in the proposed unit, that these em- ployees are "confidential" and should be excluded from participation in a representation election under the Act. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.' ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 5 In view of our discussion concerning the confidential issue , we find it unnecessary to reach the managerial question raised by the parties