Public Case No. R 1994-002
(Cross Reference R 1981-015)Belton National Education Association/Education Support Personnel v.
Belton 124 School District, Belton, Missouri
In 1982, the Board excluded most of the District’s clerical employees from a support staff bargaining unit based on confidential status (R1981-015). In the present case, the Association sought to represent 15 of the clerical employees who were previously excluded from that bargaining unit. In addition, the District sought to exclude one Secretary from the bargaining unit who was previously included. Thus a total of 16 employees were at issue.
The Board held that its 1982 decision, concerning the same issue and the same parties, did not preclude re-litigation of the issue, given that the legal standard applied by the Board to determine confidential status had changed since 1982.
The Board applied the labor-nexus test. Under this test, employees who act in a confidential capacity to persons who formulate, determine, and effectuate management policies in the field of labor relations are considered confidential employees. Employees are excluded if they have access to advance information about management strategy, which might be used to the detriment of management. The Board found that two clericals met the test, while the remainder of the clericals did not.
The School District further argued that the Secretaries were supervisors or managers, and therefore, should be excluded for that reason. The Board, however, noted that they lacked most of the factors considered relevant in that determination. See City of Sikeston Case No. R 1987-012 (SBM 1987). The fact that the Secretaries did have the authority to call Substitute Teachers from an approved list was not sufficient to create supervisor status. The Board also found that the Secretaries were not managers, since they did not participate in the formulation, determination, and effectuation of management policy.
The Board found that 14 employees were eligible for inclusion in the bargaining unit. The parties stipulated at the hearing that a separate unit would not be created for these employees. Rather, should they vote for representation, they would be accreted to the existing support staff bargaining unit.