NLRB Cases Archive 1960 - 1995, LABOR-RELATIONS 1993-94 CCH-NLRB ¶15,407, MITCHELLACE, INC. and CHICAGO & CENTRAL STATES JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING & TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC., (July 27, 1994), National Labor Relations Board, (Jul 27, 1994)

MITCHELLACE, INC. and CHICAGO & CENTRAL STATES JOINT BOARD, AMALGAMATED CLOTHING & TEXTILE WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO-CLC.

314 NLRB No. 95.Case No. 9-RC-16259. July 27, 1994

Before Gould, Browning and Cohen.

Office Clerical Employees--Status as--Production Employees’ Unit.--The ballots of two employees were invalidated in a union representation election for a bargaining unit that consisted of production employees because the two workers were found to be an employer’s office clericals. Their supervisor managed five other admitted office clericals. Further, the employees attended office functions that were reserved for office workers only and were identified on the employer’s records as being office workers. Consequently, these two employees did not share a community of interest with other bargaining unit employees so as to qualify them to vote in the production unit election. Section 9(b).

Back reference: ¶2635.051.

From Text of Board’s Decision

The Board has reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to adopt the hearing officer’s findings [1] and recommendations with respect to the Employer objections, [2] but with respect to the challenged ballots, we find, contrary to the hearing officer’s recommendation that the Petitioner’s challenges to the ballots of Holly Boggs and Stacey Clark should be sustained. [3]

The facts are not in dispute. Boggs and Clark are data entry clerks responsible for entering production data into computers. Operators and floor leaders fill out production data sheets at the end of their shift which are then taken by the floor leaders or supervisors and put into mailboxes situated outside the data entry clerks’ offices. The data entry clerks generate production reports which are used to track productivity by showing operator and machine output. The reports are posted in the production area and are distributed to supervisors, floor leaders, and the plant manager via their mailboxes. Production is then compared with preset “production norms” to determine operator and machine productivity.

Both Boggs and Clark work in the front office area where the office clerical, supervisory, and management offices are located. They have work-related contact with plant employees only when they have questions about the production data which cannot be answered on the phone and occasionally when a floor leader drops off the production reports. Clark testified that she would speak to the floor leaders approximately once a day but that she only entered the production area about twice a month. Boggs testified that she entered the production area approximately once a week and spent 50 percent of her time on data entry. In addition, Boggs also prints shipping labels for large orders which the Employer produces for other companies and testified that production supervisors would bring those labeling orders to her office.

Boggs also prepares data on production savings and conducts observational monitoring of operator and machine productivity. The results are then used to set “production norms” by which individual output and efficiency are measured. During the summer, in response to a company request, both Boggs and Clark, like other clerical employees, worked in the production area for short periods because of temporarily increased production requirements.

Boggs and Clark are both supervised and evaluated by office manager, Myria Denniston, who also supervises five other admitted office clericals. Office clericals’ performance evaluation are reviewed by the Employer’s chief operating officer, Steve Keating, to whom Denniston reports. Both Boggs and Clark are identified on their annual performance evaluations as working in the office department and are paid on the office pay scale. In contrast, employee Judy Smith and Barbara Joseph, who are also data entry clerks and admitted plant clericals, work in the production area, are part of a separate production supervisory hierarchy which ultimately reports to the plant manager, and are paid on the plant employee pay scale.

Boggs and Clark participate in functions which are for office personnel only, such as the office Christmas party, and Boggs testified that she attended office employee birthday parties. In addition, Boggs has participated on two occasions as a judge in the Employer’s “Good Housekeeping Program” in which office employees review the production departments for cleanliness and award an extra hour of pay to the production employees in the winning department.

Given these facts, we find, contrary to the hearing officer, that Boggs and Clark are office clericals.

The Board has long held that the distinction between office and plant clericals is rooted in community of interest concepts. Minneapolis-Moline Co., 85 NLRB 597, 598 (1949). Clericals whose principal functions and duties relate to the general office operations and are performed within the office itself are office clericals who do not have a close community of interest with a production unit. This is true even if those clericals spend as much as 25 percent of their time in the production area and have daily contact with production personnel. Container Research Corp., [1971 CCH NLRB ¶22,767] 188 NLRB 586, 587 (1971).

Under the facts of this case, we find Boggs and Clark do not share a community of interest with the production employees. They are separately located in the office area, are separately supervised, and have limited work-related contact with the production employees. They attend office functions, are excluded from participation in plant employee incentive programs and are characterized by the Employer as office employees on their annual evaluations. In these circumstances, we find that they are office clericals and therefore are excluded from the unit. See Cook Composites & Polymers Co., [1993-94 CCH NLRB ¶15,288] 313 NLRB No. 189 (Apr. 20, 1994); Virginia Mfg. Co., [1992-93 CCH NLRB ¶17,916] 311 NLRB 992 (1993); Jakel Motors, [1987-88 CCH NLRB ¶19,395] 288 NLRB 730, 742 (1988), enfd [111 LC ¶11,211] 875 F.2d 644 (7th Cir. 1989).

In addition, Boggs also conducted observations of machine and operator efficiency which were subsequently used to set “production norms,” which were in turn used to evaluate employee output, and on occasion production employees would come and discuss problems they had in meeting the norms with Denniston and ask that the norms be reevaluated. As the Board has noted, this monitoring function may lead unit employees to consider Boggs to be more aligned with management’s interest than with theirs. Virginia Mfg. Co., supra.

For these reasons we shall sustain the challenge to the ballots of Boggs and Clark. The remaining challenged ballots are not longer determinative, [4] and we accordingly find that a certification of representative should be issued.