NLRB Decision

Customer Service Representatives, Asset Management Group, Inventory Administrators, Assistant Project Manager, and Blocked Invoice Coordinator. The Petitioner contends that, since the parties negotiated their most recent collective-bargaining agreement, the Employer has created the above-listed classifications to perform work that was previously performed by represented employees. The Employer maintains that it created all of the classifications in issue to perform functions that did not previously exist, and that the employees filling the newly created positions do not share a sufficient community of interest with the represented employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Additionally, the Employer contends that the unit clarification petition is untimely with respect to the Assistant Project Manager and Purchasing Specialists, as it created those positions before the current collective bargaining agreement became effective.

As discussed herein, I find that there is insufficient evidence on which to conclude that the petition is untimely with respect to the Assistant Project Manager and Purchasing Specialists. Nevertheless, I find that the Purchasing Specialists' responsibilities do not include work that was previously performed by bargaining unit employees. Similarly, I find that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Blocked Invoice Coordinator should be included in the unit, I do find, however, that the remaining classifications perform work that was previously performed by represented employees, and I will therefore clarify the bargaining unit to include the Customer Service Representatives, Asset Management Group, Assistant Project Manager, and Inventory Managers.

The Petitioner has represented the salary-grade employees employed at the facility located at 120th and I Streets, Omaha, Nebraska (Omaha facility) since 1979. The Petitioner's representation of these employees predates the Employer's ownership of the Omaha facility, which began in October 2001, when, pursuant to a spin-off transaction, the Employer succeeded Lucent Technologies, Inc. and inherited its collective-bargaining agreement with the Petitioner.

The Petitioner currently represents approximately 150 of the Employer's employees in Omaha. The represented employees are grouped within multiple pay classifications ranging from Tier 1, the lowest classification, to Tier 5, the highest, and earning between $9.28 and $24.30 per hour. The represented employees whose responsibilities and duties most closely resemble the job classifications in issue are the Materials Management Analysts. The parties utilize the classification Materials Management Analyst to encompass several groups of represented employees who perform various tasks including, inter alia, drafting, material resource planning, scheduling, inventory administration, and production control. The Employer currently employs approximately 48 Materials Management Analysts.

In April and May 1998, Lucent Technologies and the Petitioner negotiated the current collective-bargaining agreement, which they signed on May 30, 1998. The evidence indicates that, during negotiations, the parties did not discuss including any of the contested job classifications within the bargaining unit. In May 2000, the Employer created the position of Customer Service Representative (CSR) and classified it as a non-unit position. In or about August 2000, the Petitioner filed a grievance, contending that the CSRs should be included in the bargaining unit. The grievance has progressed through the fourth step of the parties' dispute resolution process, but has not been resolved.

As mentioned above, in addition to the CSRs, the Petitioner also disputes the placement of five additional job classifications. The record does not disclose whether the Petitioner has filed any additional grievances, but, in any event, the parties have not resolved the disputed classifications, which are described below seriatim.

The Employer's predecessor, AT&T, created the Purchasing Specialist position approximately 15 years ago.(2) For approximately the last five years, the Purchasing Specialists have operated exclusively from the Employer's Omaha facility, as the Employer transferred its high-valued commodities purchasing, which had been performed in Greensboro, North Carolina, to the Omaha facility and consolidated it with its then-existing purchasing organization in Omaha. The Employer currently employs 12 Purchasing Specialists: Nathan Bills, Michael Edwards, Thelma Eley, Brad Hilton, Crystal Stewart, Greg Jenkins, Travis Hofeldt, Eric Southard, Robert Mantell, Josh Fielder, Nicole Schnieders, and Bethany Hahn. The Purchasing Specialists operate within the Employer's Global Purchasing Organization, which is responsible for procuring raw materials and capital equipment, which the Employer requires to produce the products it sells.

The Purchasing Specialists' responsibilities include, inter alia, meeting with and evaluating potential suppliers, negotiating contracts, and periodically monitoring the performance of the Employer's current suppliers. In performing their duties, the Purchasing Specialists are not only required to interact closely with suppliers, but they also meet with the Employer's engineers to ensure that the materials that they purchase comply with the Employer's specifications. In addition, the Purchasing Specialists interact with the Employer's legal department, which assists them in drafting contracts. The Purchasing Specialists are authorized to negotiate deals up to $100,000 without seeking approval.

The Employer requires that all of its Purchasing Specialists have a bachelor's degree and encourages them to obtain a master's degree. In fact, nine of the Employer's Purchasing Specialists have acquired a master's degree or are working toward such a degree. All of the Purchasing Specialists belong to the National Association of Purchasing Management, a professional purchasing organization, and eleven of the purchasing specialists have either achieved professional certification as a Certified Purchasing Manager or are in the process of obtaining such status. The Employer's current complement of Purchasing Specialists have either been hired from outside of the Employer's workforce, or have transferred from positions that were not represented by the Petitioner.

The Purchasing Specialists receive salaries ranging from $45,000 to $60,000 and are not eligible for overtime compensation. In addition to their salary, the purchasing specialists are eligible to receive biannual performance bonuses under the Employer's short-term incentive plan and annual performance-based raises.

The Employer currently employs three represented employees in its Global Purchasing Organization, who support the Purchasing Specialists by enter pricing data, clearing blocked invoices, and purchasing low dollar value items that do not require a contract such as packaging material and hand tools. Within the last decade, however, the Employer has reduced the number of represented employees in its Global Purchasing Organization.

Until 1997, the Employer utilized represented employees who were classified as Procurement Associates, Assistant Buyers, or Buyer Assistants. Witness Harold Cook served as an Assistant Buyer for the Employer from 1993 until his retirement in approximately 1997. The Assistant Buyers' main responsibility was to interact with engineers when they encountered problems with an order. Additionally, the Assistant Buyers possessed authority to place orders of $25,000 without approval.(3) The Assistant Buyers also negotiated with suppliers on behalf of the Employer concerning product delivery dates and material prices. The Assistant Buyers did not negotiate contracts, and they did not discuss contract terms with suppliers. Although the Assistant Buyers had authority to sign purchase orders, they could not sign a contract on the Employer's behalf.

The Employer required its Assistant Buyers to have obtained an Associate Degree or equivalent credits in production operations or inventory control management. Additionally, Assistant Buyers were required to have 24-months' previous experience as a Materials Management Analyst. Although the Assistant Buyers received on-the-job training, none of the Assistant Buyers had college degrees, nor did they possess any professional certifications.

In June 2000, the Employer established a Customer Care Center (Care Center) at its Omaha facility. The Care Center currently includes approximately 20 Customer Service Representatives (CSRs), who assist the Employer's domestic customers in placing and monitoring their orders. The CSRs are assigned to a specific customer and provide the customer with information concerning which products the Employer offers and which products will fit the customer's needs. The CSRs enter customers' sales orders, which include the pricing information and the transportation terms. Once a CSR reviews an order and inputs it, the order is transferred through SAP, the Employer's manufacturing control software, to a Materials Management Analyst, who schedules the production and ensures that the Employer can meet its customers' production requirements. The CSRs then communicate with the Materials Management Analysts to monitor the status of the production on behalf of the customer.

The CSRs work in a secured area, which is separated from the Employer's manufacturing areas. The CSRs work staggered eight-hour shifts to ensure that the Employer's phones are monitored the entire time the Care Center is open. The CSRs' salaries range from $35,000 to $60,000, but they do receive overtime compensation. In addition, the CSRs are eligible to receive biannual short-term incentive bonuses and annual merit salary increases.

Prior to establishing the Care Center, the Employer operated a Customer Service Center in St. Louis, Missouri. The Employer's 70 customer service representatives in St. Louis, along with the customer service centers in the Employer's regional offices, interacted directly with the Employer's customers and were responsible for entering the customers' sales orders.

The Employer also maintained a customer service staff of approximately 10 Materials Management Analysts in Omaha (Omaha service representatives), who were responsible for ensuring that the orders were properly transmitted to the Omaha facility from St. Louis and the Employer's regional offices. After receiving the orders, the Omaha service representatives were responsible for communicating with the materials management group (also Materials Management Analysts) to monitor the status of the products that were being manufactured. The Omaha service representatives received numerous calls from St. Louis or the regional offices to determine whether it was possible for the Employer to ship orders earlier or whether an order could be cancelled. Although the Omaha service representatives would occasionally manually enter orders and communicate with the Employer's external customers, they were not privy to pricing information. They could not quote prices, and they did not resolve payment discrepancies.

In December 2001, the Employer established its Asset Management Group, which currently includes three employees, Accounting Assistants, Monique Gunn and Michelle Wilmers, and CSR Teri Pitschmann.(4) The Asset Management employees' responsibilities include accounting matters such as ensuring that the Employer receives customers' payments, crediting payments to the proper customer accounts, establishing lines of credit and transportation terms, and resolving disputes concerning customers' shipments. The Asset Management employees also work with the Employer's Finance Department to write off bad debts, place holds on delinquent accounts, and grant customers credit for items they return. Their job duties include checking records, preparing invoices and vouchers, typing, filing, posting ledger and general journal entries, and balancing accounts.

The Employer does not require that its Asset Management employees have a degree or any formal training. It does, however, expect them to have strong analytical skills and a familiarity with accounting. The Employer estimates that it requires on-the-job training of approximately 6 to 12 months before an Asset Management employee can become completely competent to perform the work.

The Employer currently has five represented employees, called Cost Accountants, in its Finance Department, who receive and key in vouchers for accounts receivable and accounts payable. Additionally, they receive, record, and deposit customers' checks, perform general journal entries, analyze account balances, and perform verifications.

The Employer created the Inventory Administrator position in November 1999, coinciding with its implementation of SAP. Prior to implementing SAP, the Employer did not have a formal program to manage inventory on its production floor. Now, however, the Employer is able to more closely monitor its inventory and identify problems on the production floor.

The Employer currently employs five Inventory Administrators, Cyndi Stastny, Chuck Leyendecker, Clayton Heavican, Chris Walker, and Linda Lawrence, who are responsible for monitoring the accuracy of the Employer's inventory through random cycle counts, a process whereby the Employer's computer system generates a list of areas to be inventoried. The Inventory Administrators compare manual inventory counts, which are performed by production and maintenance employees, to the amount of inventory listed in the SAP system. If the counts do not match, it is the Inventory Administrators' responsibility to determine the reason for the discrepancy. In so doing, they analyze all of the SAP transactions to determine which transaction was not processed properly. Once the Inventory Administrators determine the problem, they inform a Materials Management Analyst, who makes the correction.

The Inventory Administrators have considerable autonomy--they are instructed which materials need to be cycle counted and then they are responsible for ensuring that the count is completed. The Inventory Administrators also spend approximately 10 percent of their time providing training on the Employer's delivery process to other employees.

The Employer requires that its Inventory Administrators have a bachelor's degree or equivalent experience in material planning. The Inventory Administrators also receive extensive SAP training. The Inventory Administrators receive the same benefits as the non-represented employees, including eligibility for the Employer's short-term incentive program and annual salary merit increases. The Inventory Administrators are not eligible for overtime, and their salaries range from $35,000 to $55,000.

Two of the Inventory Administrators transferred from the materials management department, two were initially hired as contract employees, and the remaining Inventory Administrator transferred from the production department. None of the current Inventory Administrators were represented by the Petitioner prior to assuming their current positions.

Ron Hassler is a Senior Materials Management Analyst, who holds the title of Cycle Inventory and Results Investigator. Whereas the Inventory Administrators are responsible for monitoring the Employer's inventory on the production floor, Hassler ensures inventory accuracy in the Employer's warehouse and receiving dock. Hassler performs inventory checks on a daily basis, as the Employer's RFN computer system designates 1,000 locations to be inventoried each week. Like the Inventory Administrators, Hassler relies on the Employer's production employees to perform the inventory counts and to enter the discrepancies into the SAP database. If the manual count and the SAP system do not match, Hassler investigates the discrepancy. Once Hassler discovers the problem, he adjusts the inventory accordingly.

The APM works under the direction of the Employer's Product Line Managers to coordinate the manufacturing of new products. The APM participates in decision-making sessions concerning whether to implement a new project. The APM is responsible for tracking all of the work that is being performed by the Employer's engineers and Materials Management Analysts to ensure that they meet the Employer's deadlines. Accordingly, the APM maintains a detailed checklist of all of the steps that must be performed to successfully produce a new product. The APM is also responsible for developing ramp plans, which establish how the Employer will phase out its old products as it introduces new products. The APM's responsibilities cease, and she exits a project, when the product is ready to be manufactured.

The APM position requires a bachelor's degree and project management experience. The APM receives a salary of approximately $44,000 to $48,000 per year and is not eligible for overtime. The APM is eligible for biannual short-term incentive bonuses and annual salary merit increases. Prior to transferring to the APM position, Granderson was a represented Materials Management Analyst.

Darrel Sudduth was employed as a represented Senior Materials Management Analyst in the Employer's New and Change Design Organization until his retirement on September 22, 2000. As a Senior Materials Management Analyst, Sudduth worked under the direction of a Product Line Manager and was responsible for ensuring that the Employer obtained the proper materials and completed all of the necessary steps to manufacture its new products. To accomplish his duties, Sudduth maintained and monitored a comprehensive checklist that listed all of the steps necessary to manufacture a new product.

In approximately June 2000, the Employer created the position of Blocked Invoice Coordinator to resolve blocked invoices. Although the Employer initially staffed the position with three employees, currently only Linda Fuska occupies the position. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator is responsible for monitoring the invoices that have been blocked for an extended period. Using SAP, the Blocked Invoice Coordinator generates a report that lists which invoices have been blocked. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator then investigates to determine why the invoices are blocked. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator is also responsible for developing procedures that Materials Management Analyst can follow to resolve blocked invoices. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator sets goals, presents progress updates, and participates in developing training.

The Employer does not require the Blocked Invoice Coordinator to have a college degree. Although the Employer has provided the Blocked Invoice Coordinator with training specific to blocked invoices, the main job requirements are the ability to understand the Employer's SAP system and to troubleshoot problems.

The Blocked Invoice Coordinator receives a salary of approximately $35,000 to $45,000 and does not receive overtime compensation. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator is eligible for biannual discretionary bonuses under the Employer's short-term incentive program, is evaluated under the Employer performance management platform, and is eligible for an annual salary merit increase.

The Materials Management Analysts' responsibilities also include resolving blocked invoices. The Materials Management Analysts utilize the list of the blocked invoices to investigate and determine why the invoices in the area are blocked. If an invoice remains blocked for an extended period and is in jeopardy of becoming past due, the Materials Management Analysts are expected to enlist the Blocked Invoice Coordinator's assistance.

Before deciding whether the classifications in issue should be included in the unit, it is first necessary to determine whether the petition was timely filed. The Employer contends that, with respect to the Purchasing Specialists and APM, the petition was not timely filed, and should therefore be dismissed, because it established the Purchasing Specialist and APM positions before the parties executed their most recent collective-bargaining agreement. As explained below, I do not find that the facts warrant dismissing the petition.

This is not an issue of contract bar, for an executed contract does not necessarily bar the filing of a unit clarification petition. See Edison Sault Electric Co., 313 NLRB 753, 753 (1994). Typically, the Board will dismiss a petition for unit clarification, which, during the term of a collective-bargaining agreement, attempts to modify the composition of a unit that is clearly defined in such agreement. See Bethlehem Steel Corp., 329 NLRB 241, 241 (1999); Safeway Stores, Inc., 261 NLRB 819, 819 (1975). Under such circumstances, the Board has reasoned that it is inappropriate and even disruptive to change a contract mid-term. See Wallace-Murray Corp., 192 NLRB 1090, 1090 (1971). A unit clarification petition is appropriate, however, to resolve ambiguities concerning the unit placement of a newly established classification or a classification that is not otherwise clearly covered by the contract. See Premcor, Inc., 333 NLRB No. 164, slip op. at 2 (2001); Bethlehem Steel, 329 NLRB at 242; Edison Sault, 313 NLRB at 753.

Turning first to the APM, the record testimony is equivocal with respect to precisely when the Employer established the position and when the Petitioner knew of its creation. Senior Manager Marj Garrean testified that the Employer interviewed applicants in February 1998 and that it staffed the position thereafter----"probably March-April time frame." Senior Manager Gretchen Riemersma, who interviewed for an APM position, concurred that the Employer staffed the position in or around April 1998, and Material Management Analyst Darrel Sudduth, who worked in the same department as the APMs, testified that the position was created in early 1998. Although Sudduth further testified that he informed the Petitioner of the new position shortly after it was established, Petitioner's President Corrine Aesoph-Mangiaruca and Vice President Sharon Justsen testified that they were unaware of the creation of the APM position during the most recent negotiations, which took place in April 1998. Justsen recalled that she had a discussion with Sudduth about the APM position; however, she testified that their conversation occurred sometime after the parties executed the most recent collective-bargaining agreement.

Although it appears from the record that the Employer created, and most likely staffed, the APM position before the execution date of the current collective-bargaining agreement, the evidence is insufficient to warrant dismissing the petition. The parties' collective-bargaining agreement does not functionally describe the unit; thus, the APM classification is not clearly covered by the contract. See Bethlehem Steel, 329 NLRB at 242. More importantly, because the Petitioner was not aware of the position at the time the parties negotiated the current agreement, they did not discuss whether the APM classification would be included or excluded from the unit. See Edison Sault, 313 NLRB at 753. Accordingly, there is no evidence on which to conclude that the APM position has been historically excluded from the unit. See Bethlehem Steel, 329 NLRB at 242; Wallace-Murray Corp., 192 NLRB at 1090.

Turning now to the Purchasing specialists, the evidence is likewise somewhat ambiguous. Senior Purchasing Manager Stan Mason testified that the Employer has had employees performing a function similar to the Purchasing Specialists for more than a decade at the Omaha facility. According to Mason, the Purchasing Specialists have, at various times, been called Buyers, Assistant Buyers, and Procurement Specialists. The record is not clear, however, when the position shifted titles or what effect, if any, this had on the job description. For example, Employer's Exhibits 7 and 25 show that, from at least May 21, 1993 until some time prior to 1996, the Employer had a position labeled Purchasing Specialist. Employer's Exhibits 23 and 24, which are organizational charts for the Employer's Purchasing Department, dated 1994 and 1996 respectively, contain the position title Procurement Specialist and no position titled Purchasing Specialist.

To complicate matters somewhat more, in October 2001, the Employer reduced the Purchasing Specialist's purchase authority from $400,000 to $100,000. Arguably, the Purchasing Specialists' authority now more closely resembles former unit members' authority, which, as former Assistant Buyer Harold Cook testified, was $25,000.

Based on the ambiguity concerning the Purchasing Specialists' title and the recent change concerning their purchase authority, it is difficult to determine whether the parties have historically excluded the Purchasing Specialists from the unit. Although Employer's Exhibit 7 suggests that the Employer has treated the Purchasing Specialists as professional management employees since at least 1996, as the Petitioner notes, there is no indication on Employer's Exhibit 7 whether that classification applied to the Omaha facility.(5) Based on the record, there is simply insufficient evidence to conclude that the Purchasing Specialists have been historically excluded from the unit. Accordingly, I find that it is appropriate to determine the Purchasing Specialists' unit placement through the present unit clarification petition.

In determining whether a new classification belongs in a bargaining unit, the Board examines whether the new classification is "performing the same basic functions as a unit classification historically had performed." See Premcor, 333 NLRB No. 164, slip op. at 2. If the record establishes that the new classification is performing basic bargaining unit functions, then it "is properly viewed as belonging in the unit rather than being added to the unit by accretion." Id.; Developmental Disabilities Institute, Inc., 334 NLRB No. 143, slip op. at 3 (2001). Conversely, "if the new classification is not performing the same basic functions as a unit classification historically had performed," it is necessary to determine, based on a community of interest analysis, whether accretion is appropriate. See, e.g. Developmental Disabilities, 334 NLRB No. 143, slip op. at 4 (concurring opinion).

In determining whether accretion is appropriate, the Board balances various factors including: integration of operations, centralization of managerial and administrative control, geographic proximity, similarity of working conditions, skills and functions, common control of labor relations, collective-bargaining history, and employee interchange. Gould, Inc, 263 NLRB 442, 445 (1982). The Board observes "a restrictive policy in finding accretion because it forecloses the employees' basic right to select their bargaining representative." Towne Ford Sales, 270 NLRB 311, 311 (1984); Melbet Jewelry Co., 180 NLRB 107, 110 (1969). Accordingly, the Board will not find an accretion, unless the evidence establishes that the new employees have common interests with members of the existing bargaining unit and "would have been included in the certified unit or covered by the current collective-bargaining agreement." Gould, Inc., 263 NLRB at 445.

As an initial matter, the Employer employs two Senior Purchasing Specialists, Joe Zaborowski and Carlos Palacios. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Zaborowski and Palacios do not share a sufficient community of interest with the remaining Purchasing Specialists such that it would be appropriate to include them in the unit. Accordingly, I will exclude Carlos Palacios and Joe Zaborowski from the bargaining unit. Additionally, the parties stipulated, and I agree, that Purchasing Supervisor Karen Anderson exercises the requisite supervisory authority and is a supervisor as defined by Section 2(11) of the Act. Thus, I will also exclude Anderson from the unit.

The Petitioner contends that the remaining Purchasing Specialist perform the same basic functions that were performed by the Materials Management Analyst who, until 1997, operated as Assistant Buyers. The Petitioner submits that, much like the Purchasing Specialists, the Assistant Buyers were authorized to purchase materials up to a strict dollar limit. The Petitioner argues that the Employer's distinction between Purchasing Specialists and the unit Assistant Buyers is merely semantics, noting that Senior Purchasing Manager Mason testified that, at various times, the Purchasing Specialists have been called both Buyers and Assistant Buyers.

As mentioned above, the record is somewhat ambiguous concerning the title Purchasing Specialist. Nevertheless, I find that the Purchasing Specialists' responsibilities surpass those of the former represented Assistant Buyers. The Purchasing Specialists have greater authority to authorize purchases, and they also negotiate contracts, evaluate potential suppliers, and monitor current suppliers. The record contains no evidence that the represented Assistant Buyers performed any of those tasks. Rather, the testimony of former Assistant Buyer Harold Cook establishes that the represented employees' main responsibilities were to work with the Employer's engineering department to resolve order problems. Although the represented Assistant Buyers also possessed limited purchasing authority, there is no other evidence which suggests that they performed the same functions as the Purchasing Specialists.

Likewise, the record does not support adding the Purchasing Specialists to the unit by accretion. There is no evidence of interchange between the Purchasing Specialists and unit employees, nor does the record reveal that they have any common day-to-day supervision. SeeTowne Ford Sales, 270 NLRB at 311-312. The Purchasing Specialists have unique skills and qualifications, perform distinct functions, and operate under working conditions that vary considerably from those of the unit employees. The Purchasing Specialists generally receive greater compensation than do unit employees, and they are not eligible to receive overtime. The Purchasing Specialists also maintain their own offices, and perform autonomous tasks. Accordingly, I find that it would be inappropriate to include the Purchasing Specialists in the unit.

As a final matter, although the Employer contends that the Purchasing Specialists are professionals as defined in Section 2(12) of the Act, my decision does not rest on this conclusion. On the contrary, although the Purchasing Specialists might be professional employees, the record fails to meet the strict standards for professional employees proposed by the Act. See The Sun, 329 NLRB 854, 862 (1999).

Before determining whether the CSRs in issue should be included in the unit, it is necessary to address several preliminary matters. The CSRs are supervised by Customer Service Coaches Ernest Boamah Wiafe, Carolyne Devereaux-Cordell, and Alyssa Wernlund. The parties stipulate, and I agree, that Wiafe, Devereaux-Cordell, and Wernlund are supervisors under Section 2(11) of the Act as they have authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees or effectively to recommend such actions. Accordingly, I will exclude Wiafe, Devereaux-Cordell, and Wernlund from the unit. Additionally, the Employer employs one International Service Representative, Leo Torres, at its Omaha facility. Although Torres performs duties that are similar to those of the CSRs, his responsibilities are related exclusively to supporting the Employer's international responsibilities are related exclusively to supporting the Employer's international customers. This requires Torres to perform additional duties involving the export of materials and limits his professional interaction with the remaining CSRs. Thus, neither party contends that Torres should be included in the unit. In fact, the record demonstrates that the parties have resolved any issues surrounding his unit placement through the resolution of a grievance that the Petitioner filed after the Employer established the position in Omaha nearly five years ago. I therefore find that it is appropriate to exclude Torres from the unit.

The determination of whether the remaining CSRs perform the basic functions of the represented Omaha service representatives is complicated somewhat by the fact that the CSRs perform duties that are a hybrid of the former St. Louis facility employees, who were not represented by the Petitioner, and the represented Omaha service representatives. With the implementation of SAP, it was no longer necessary for the Employer to maintain separate groups of customer service representatives in St. Louis and in Omaha. The Employer therefore established its Care Center and incorporated the tasks that were performed in St. Louis with those that were performed in Omaha. The CSRs now communicate directly with the Employer's customers, as did the St. Louis customer service representatives, and they also interact with the Materials Management Analysts, as did the Omaha service representatives.

The Employer contends that the CSRs' responsibilities are unique and have never been performed at the Omaha facility. The CSRs speak with the Employer's external customers; they have access to the customer's pricing information; and they are even authorized to quote prices to customers. Although the record demonstrates that the CSRs have responsibilities that, in some instances, differ from those of the former Omaha service representatives, I nevertheless find that the CSRs perform the same basic functions.

Like the Omaha service representatives, the CSRs interact on a daily basis with the Materials Management Analyst to monitor the status of customer orders. Materials Management Analyst Jan Glennon, a former Omaha service representative, testified that she spends approximately 50 percent of her time interacting, by phone or email, with CSRs resolving questions that they receive from customers.

The record also reveals that, like the CSRs, the Omaha service representatives entered customer orders, albeit on a less frequent basis. Although, unlike the Omaha service representatives, the CSRs have access to customers' pricing information and are authorized to quote prices to customers, those are not appreciable distinctions. The CSRs do not establish the price that a customer must pay. Rather, they only access the price through the SAP system and then communicate it to the customer.

It is also not persuasive that the CSRs appear to speak more frequently with the Employer's external customers. As the Employer notes, it is not clear with what frequency the Omaha service representatives spoke with external customers. This ambiguity is created mainly because the Omaha service representatives did not know with whom they were speaking. As the record establishes, the Omaha service representatives spoke with both internal and external customers and could not distinguish one from the other. Accordingly, any distinction based on caller identity appears illusory.

Finally, I reject the Employer's contention that the CSRs' job functions are more complex than those of the Omaha service representatives. Ten of the current CSRs were formerly Omaha service representatives, and the Employer does not require its CSRs to receive any customer service training prior to entering the position. Even though the newly created CSRs' responsibilities are not entirely similar to the represented Omaha service representatives, I find that they perform the same basic functions and that it is appropriate to include them in the unit.

The Petitioner contends that the Asset Management employees perform the same basic functions that historically had been performed by the represented accountants in the Employer's Finance Department. The Employer argues that the Asset Management employees, although possessing similar skills, perform different functions. In disagreement with the Employer, I find that the record demonstrates that the Asset Management Employees perform the same basic functions as were performed by the represented accountants.

The Employer notes that, before it established the Asset Management Group, an outside contractor had performed the Asset Management employees' duties, which primarily involve customer collections. Although it is undisputed that, until October 2001, the until October 2001, the Employer outsourced its customer collections, Sharon Justsen, a represented accountant testified that, after the Employer decided that it would no longer outsource its collection work, the represented accountants in the Employer's Finance Department performed a majority of the functions that the Asset Management employees now perform. Justsen further testified that in the last year, the Employer has transferred many of the represented accountants' duties elsewhere, and it has decreased the number of represented accountants in the Finance Department from 12 to 5.

The Employer also contends that the record establishes that the represented accountants "do not go out and collect money from people." Although the Employer is correct, there is likewise no evidence that the Asset Management employees physically collect payment from customers. Although it appears that the Asset Management employees have a more pronounced role in collecting customer payments, there is evidence that the represented accountants were also involved in collections. In fact, the represented accountants resolved customers' invoices and made determinations with respect to evaluating a customer's ability to pay. Moreover, even though the Asset Management employees focus on collections, they nevertheless perform accounting functions such as writing off bad debts, preparing journal entries, and balancing accounts.

Before addressing the Inventory Administrator position, I note that they are supervised by Inventory Administration Supervisor Todd Perchal. The parties stipulate, and, I agree, that Perchal is a supervisor as defined under Section 2(11) of the Act as he possesses authority to hire, fire, and discipline employees or effectively to recommend such actions. Accordingly, I will exclude Perchal from the unit.

The Petitioner contends that the Inventory Administrators perform the same work with respect to inventory on the Employer's production floor as unit employees perform in the Employer's warehouse. The Employer, on the other hand, maintains that the Inventory Administrators perform different and more complex functions. Although the record establishes that the Inventory Administrators' responsibilities are relegated to the production floor, I find that they perform the same basic functions as those historically and currently performed by unit employees.

Represented employee Ron Hassler is responsible for the inventory in the Employer's warehouse. The record establishes that, like the Inventory Administrators, he directs and monitors random cycle counts to ensure inventory accuracy. The record contains few distinctions--other than the location of the inventory--between Hassler's duties and those of the Inventory Administrators. Additionally, the Inventory Administrators also perform tasks that Hassler used to perform, such as making scrap adjustments for damaged products. In fact, although the Employer did not have an established method for counting its production floor inventory prior to implementing SAP and establishing the Inventory Administrator position, discrepancies in the warehouse inventory would, on occasion, require Hassler to inventory the material on the production floor.

I reject the Employer's contention that it is somehow significant that the Inventory Administrators monitor inventory on the production floor as opposed to the warehouse. The record establishes that there is a clear connection between the Employer's warehouse stock and production floor stock. When the Employer receives materials, it stores them in the warehouse until they are needed on the production floor. When the Employer transfers the material to the production floor, it requires Hassler to decrease the warehouse stock. As Hassler testified, he is frequently required to contact the Inventory Administrators when, based on the inventory in the warehouse, he believes there is a problem with the production floor inventory count.

The Employer's contention that the Inventory Administrators have a more comprehensive understanding of SAP that allows them to train Materials Management Analysts also does not warrant their exclusion. Even to the extent the Inventory Administrators have greater SAP expertise, I do not find that their increased technical knowledge warrants their exclusion from the unit. See Premcor, 333 NLRB No. 164, slip op. at 2; Brockton Taunton Gas Co., 174 NLRB 969, 971 (1969). I therefore shall include the Inventory Administrators in the unit.

The Petitioner contends that the APMs perform work that had been performed by represented Materials Management Analysts in the Employer's New and Change Design Organization. On the contrary, the Employer contends that, although the APM has some of the same responsibilities, she performs them with greater frequency and proficiency, making the APM's inclusion in the unit inappropriate. I find that the APM's responsibilities, which include the same basic functions that were formerly performed by represented employees, warrant her inclusion in the unit.

The record establishes that the APM performs work that was performed by unit employees, specifically retired Materials Management Analyst Darrell Sudduth. Sudduth testified that he performed all of the functions that the Assistant Project Manager now performs. The Employer does not dispute that Sudduth performed such functions. It contends, however, that Sudduth was only capable of performing those functions because he had worked for the Employer for many years and was, therefore, an anomaly. First, even though it appears that Sudduth was the most knowledgeable Material Management Analyst performing project management functions, the record establishes that there were three additional unit employees performing the same functions. Moreover, even to the extent that Sudduth was particularly qualified for the position because of his experience, he was still a unit employee at the time he was performing the work, and his increased experience has no bearing on whether the functions in question historically have been performed by unit members.

I also reject the Employer's argument that the APM performs project management functions more frequently than the represented Materials Management Analyst. Although the record does not explicitly establish how frequently Sudduth performed the functions in issue, Sudduth worked in the New and Change Design Organization and performed project management duties for approximately three years before his retirement. Accordingly, it appears that Sudduth performed project management functions for a sufficient period of time to conclude that those were in fact his job duties. Like the APM, Sudduth's position required him to communicate with Product Line Managers; to attend pre-production meetings; and to develop ramp plans. Accordingly, I find that there is sufficient evidence that the newly created APM position is performing the same basic functions as the former unit Materials Management Analysts in the New and Change Design Organization, and I will include it in the unit.

The Petitioner seeks to include the newly created Blocked Invoice Coordinator position, contending that its responsibilities include work that the represented Materials Management Analysts historically have performed. The Employer argues that the Blocked Invoice Coordinator performs work that is fundamentally different from any of the represented employees' duties. In agreement with the Employer, I find that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the Blocked Invoice Coordinator performs the same basic functions that were performed by unit employees.

It is undisputed that, even before the implementation of SAP, Materials Management Analysts have been responsible for resolving invoice discrepancies. In fact, the record establishes that the Employer still relies on the Materials Management Analysts as its "first line of defense" in resolving blocked invoices. When the Employer implemented SAP, the number of blocked invoices increased, and the Employer eventually responded by creating the Blocked Invoice Coordinator position to provide assistance to Materials Management Analysts, who were encountering difficulties with blocked invoices. Unlike the Materials Management Analysts, the Blocked Invoice Coordinator's primary focus is on resolving blocked invoices. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator meets with the Materials Management Analysts to determine what problems they are having and attempts to develop procedures that will allow them to resolve blocked invoices. The Blocked Invoice Coordinator also tracks the number of invoices that are blocked and analyzes which of the Employer's suppliers present the problem.

Although the Materials Management Analysts continue to resolve blocked invoices, that does not establish that the Blocked Invoice Coordinator is performing historical bargaining unit work. Rather, it is undisputed that prior to establishing the Blocked Invoice Coordinator, Lisa Grabenbauer, the Employer's Business Process Manager, was coordinating the resolution of Blocked Invoices. Accordingly, I find that the Blocked Invoice Coordinator's distinct responsibilities militate against find that she is performing functions that historically have been performed by bargaining unit employees.

The evidence also does not support a conclusion that the blocked Invoice Coordinator is an accretion to the existing unit. Although, as the Petitioner notes, the Blocked Invoice Coordinator frequently interacts with Materials Management Analysts and receives a salary that is less than many of the unit employees, the balance of the evidence reveals that the Blocked Invoice Coordinator does not share a sufficient community of interest with the unit employees such that it would be appropriate to add her to the existing unit.

The Blocked Invoice Coordinator does not work in the same area as the Materials Management Analysts or share common supervision. See Towne Ford Sales, 270 NLRB at 312 (find lack of common day-to-day supervision particularly significant); see also Renzetti's Market, 238 NLRB 174, 175-176 (1978). Additionally, the Blocked Invoice Coordinator does not receive overtime and is eligible for biannual discretionary bonuses and annual performance-based raises. Finally, as discussed above, the functions performed by the Blocked Invoice Coordinator are different than those performed by the Materials Management Analysts. Unlike the Materials Management Analysts, the Blocked Invoice Coordinator monitors the number of blocked invoices, develops procedures to clear invoices, and trains employees to enable them to resolve blocked invoices. Accordingly, considering the Board's restrictive policy concerning accretion, I find that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that it would be appropriate to include the Blocked Invoice Coordinator in the unit. See, e.g. Melbet Jewelry, 180 NLRB at 109-110.

Based on the record and established Board precedent, I find that the Customer Service Representative, Asset Management Group, Inventory Administrator, and Assistant Project Manager are newly created positions that perform the same basic functions as historically have been performed by bargaining unit members.

For the reasons set forth above, I shall grant the petition to clarify the existing bargaining unit of salaried employees at the Employer's facility located at 120th and I streets, Omaha, Nebraska to include the Customer Service Representatives, Asset Management Group, Inventory Administrator, and Assistant Project Manager.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner's petition for unit clarification is granted, and the bargaining unit of employees employed at the Employer's facility located at 120th and I Streets, Omaha, Nebraska is hereby clarified to include the Customer Service Representatives, Asset Management Group, Inventory Administrator, and Assistant Project Manager.

(4) Teri Pitschmann is the most recent addition to the Asset Management Group. The Employer transferred Pitschmann, a CSR, to the group because it needed to devote a significant amount of time to a particular customer whose account was in disarray. Pitschmann received on-the-job training to enable her to perform limited asset management work. She is still classified as a CSR, and the Employer anticipates that she will resume that position within the next 3 to 6 months.