Unit Determination - University of California Technical (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) (PERB 0241HB)

STATE 	OF CALIFORNIA
DECISION 	OF 	THE
PUBLIC 	EMPLOYMENT 	RELATIONS 	BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF:
UNIT DETERMINATION 	FOR TECHNICAL
EMPLOYEES, LAWRENCE LIVERMORE
NATIONAL LABORATORY, 	OF THE
UNIVERSITY 	OF 	CALIFORNIA
PURSUANT 	TO CHAPTER 	744
OF 	THE STATUTES 	OF 	1978
(HIGHER 	EDUCATION 	EMPLOYER-
EMPLOYEE 	RELATIONS 	ACT)
)
) 	Case Nos.
SF-RR-1002-H et 	al.
PERB Decision No. 	241b-H
March 	8, 	1983
Appearances: 	Philip E. 	Callis, 	Attorney 	for 	California State
Employees Association; 	Patrick J. 	Szymanski, Attorney 	(Beeson,
Tayer, 	Kovach 	& Silbert) 	for 	Brotherhood 	of Teamsters 	and Auto
Truck Drivers, 	Local No. 	70; 	Jerrold C. 	Schaefer 	and Judith
Droz Keyes, Attorneys 	(Corbett, Kane, Berk & Barton) 	and
James N. 	Odle, 	Associate Counsel 	for 	the Regents of 	the
University 	of 	California.
Before: 	Tovar, Jaeger, Morgenstern and Burt, Members.*
DECISION
On September 	30, 	1982, 	the Public Employment Relations
Board 	(PERB or 	Board) 	issued 	a 	decision1 under 	the Higher
*Chairperson Gluck 	did 	not 	participate 	in 	this 	decision.
1Unit 	Determination 	for 	Technical Employees 	of 	the
University of 	California Pursuant 	to Chapter 	744 of 	th~e
Statutes 	of 	1978 	(Higher 	Education Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act) 	(9/30/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	241-H. 	See also 	the decision
concerning 	requests 	for 	reconsideration 	and 	judicial 	review,
Unit Determination 	for 	Technical Employees; 	Clerical Employees;
Service Employees; 	Professional Scientists 	and Engineers,
Lawrence 	Livermore National 	Laboratory; 	Professional
Librarians; 	and 	Professional Patient Care Employees of 	the
University of California; 	Pursuant 	to Chapter 	744 of 	the
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
_____________ )

Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations 	Act 	(HEERA)2 creating
three 	units of 	technical employees 	at 	the 	University of
California 	(UC). 	The 	units 	consist of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory 	(LLNL) 	technical employees, 	systemwide
technical employees, 	and 	patient 	care 	technical employees. 	A
hearing 	was 	held 	to 	determine 	whether 	certain employees 	and
classifications 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical unit 	are 	supervisory or
confidential.
In 	the 	LLNL 	technical 	unit, 	the parties 	have 	stipulated 	to
the 	exclusion of employee Barbara McDonald, 	Computer 	Support
Technologist 	(Class Code 525.2), 	as supervisory. 	This
stipulation 	is 	approved 	by 	the Board 	based 	upon 	the 	facts
presented 	by 	the 	parties 	in 	their 	stipulation dated
August 25, 	1982.3
Statutes 	of 	1978 	(Higher 	Education Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act) 	(2/4/83) 	PERB Decision Nos. 	241a-H 	and 	244a-H 	through
248a-H.
2The 	HEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	Government 	Code 	section 	3560
et 	seq. 	All 	statutory 	references 	hereafter 	are 	to 	the
Government 	Code 	unless 	otherwise 	indicated.
3The 	Board 	does 	not 	specifically 	designate 	as 	supervisory
the employee 	the 	parties 	have 	agreed 	to exclude. 	In 	the State
Employer-Employee Relations Act, 	Phase 	III, 	Unit 	Determination
Proceeding 	(10/18/79) 	PERB Order No. 	Ad-79-S, 	the Board 	stated
that 	it:
. 	. 	. 	views 	the 	focus of 	the Phase III unit
determination proceedings 	to be 	a
determination 	of 	those 	rank 	and 	file
employees 	who 	are 	to be 	included 	in 	the
designated 	appropriate 	units. 	However, 	the
burden 	is on the 	. 	. 	. 	party which may 	seek
22

The 	remaining 	exclusionary 	issues 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical
employees 	unit 	are 	decided 	herein.
DISCUSSION
The 	terms 	"supervisory 	employee" 	and 	"confidential
employee" 	are 	defined 	in 	subsection 	3580.34 and 	subsection
to 	exclude 	employees 	from 	units 	because 	of
alleged managerial, 	supervisory or
confidential 	status—to 	affirmatively
justify 	their 	exclusion. 	This 	can 	be 	done
by 	showing 	evidence 	of 	actual 	job
requirements 	which 	would 	disqualify 	the
subject 	employees 	from placement 	in
representation 	units 	irrespective 	of 	which
exclusionary 	category 	those 	employees 	may
fit.
Thus, 	the 	Board only approves 	the 	exclusion of 	the 	employee
from 	the 	unit, 	and 	not 	the specific 	basis 	for 	the exclusion,
4Section 	3580.3 	provides:
"Supervisory 	employee" 	means 	any 	individual,
regardless 	of 	the 	job description or 	title,
having authority, 	in 	the 	interest of 	the
employer to hire, 	transfer, 	suspend, lay
off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
reward, or discipline other 	employees, 	or
responsibility 	to direct 	them, 	or 	to adjust
their 	grievances, 	or 	effectively to
recommend such action, 	if, 	in connection
with 	the 	foregoing, 	the exercise of 	such
authority 	is 	not 	of 	a merely routine or
clerical nature, 	but requires 	the 	use of
independent 	judgment. 	With 	respect 	to
faculty or 	academic employees, 	any
department 	chair, 	head 	of a 	similar 	academic
unit or 	program, 	or 	other 	employee who
performs 	the 	foregoing duties primarily 	in
the 	interest 	of 	and 	on 	behalf 	of 	the members
of 	the academic department, 	unit or 	program,
shall 	not 	be deemed 	a 	supervisory 	employee
solely 	because of 	such duties; 	provided,
that 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	University of
W
	3

3562(e),5 respectively.6 The 	statutory 	language 	of 	these
sections 	essentially 	parallels 	the 	definitions 	of 	supervisory
and 	confidential 	employees 	found 	in 	the 	State Employer-Employee
Relations Act 	(SEERA).7 In 	resolving 	the 	exclusionary 	issues
California and Hastings College 	of 	the 	Law,
there 	shall 	be 	a 	rebuttable 	presumption 	that
such 	an 	individual 	appointed 	by 	the 	employer
to 	an 	indefinite 	term 	shall 	be 	deemed 	to 	be
a 	supervisor. 	Employees whose 	duties 	are
substantially 	similar 	to 	those 	of 	their
subordinates 	shall 	not 	be considered 	to 	be
supervisory 	employees.
5Subsection 3562(e) 	provides:
"Confidential 	employee" 	means 	any 	employee
who 	is 	required 	to develop or 	present
management 	positions 	with 	respect 	to meeting
and 	conferring 	or 	whose 	duties 	normally
require 	access 	to 	confidential 	information
which contributes 	significantly 	to 	the
development of 	such management 	positions.
6Confidential employees 	are 	excluded 	from coverage 	under
HEERA 	in 	subsection 	3562(f). 	Supervisory 	employees 	have
limited 	rights 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	section 	3580 	et 	seq.
7The 	SEERA 	is 	codified 	at 	section 	3512 	et 	seq.
"Supervisory 	employee", 	as defined 	in 	section 	3522.1 of
SEERA, 	does 	not 	contain 	the 	department 	chairperson 	language 	of
HEERA. 	"Confidential 	employee," 	as defined 	in subsection
3513(f) 	of SEERA, 	refers 	to 	individuals who develop or present
management 	positions 	with 	respect 	to 	"employer-employee
relations" 	as 	compared 	to 	"meeting 	and 	conferring."
Section 	3522.1 provides:
"Supervisory 	employee" 	means 	any 	individual,
regardless 	of 	the 	job description or 	title,
having 	authority, 	in 	the 	interest of 	the
employer, to hire, 	transfer, suspend, lay
off, recall, promote, discharge, assign,
44

in dispute, 	we 	find 	no 	reason 	to depart 	from the Board's
conclusions 	regarding 	exclusionary 	issues 	set 	forth 	in Unit
Determination 	for 	the State 	of California Pursuant 	to Chapter
1159 of 	the 	Statutes of 	1977 	(State Employer-Employee Relations
Act) 	(12/31/80) 	PERB Decision No. 	110c-S.8 	Thus, 	we conclude
that 	the 	burden of 	proving 	an 	exclusionary 	claim 	rests 	with 	the
party 	asserting 	it.9 Stipulations 	of 	fact 	submitted 	by 	the
parties 	are 	accepted 	as 	conclusive. 	See 	additionally 	the
reward, or discipline other employees, 	or
responsibility 	to direct 	them, 	or 	to adjust
their 	grievances, 	or 	effectively 	to
recommend such action, 	if, 	in connection
with 	the 	foregoing, 	the exercise of 	such
authority 	is 	not of 	a merely 	routine 	or
clerical nature, 	but requires 	the 	use of
independent 	judgment. 	Employees 	whose
duties 	are 	substantially 	similar 	to 	those 	of
their 	subordinates 	shall 	not be 	considered
to 	be 	supervisory employees.
Subsection 	3513(f) 	provides:
"Confidential employee" 	means 	any employee
who 	is 	required 	to 	develop or present
management positions 	with 	respect 	to
employer-employee 	relations 	or 	whose 	duties
normally 	require 	access 	to 	confidential
information 	contributing 	significantly 	to
the 	development of management positions.
8Unit 	Determination 	for 	Employees 	of 	the California State
University 	and 	Colleges 	Pursuant 	to Chapter 	744 	of 	the 	Statutes
of 	1978 	(Higher 	Education 	Employer-Employee 	Relations Act)
(9/22/81) 	PERB Decision No. 	173-H and 	(11/17/81) 	PERB Decision
No. 176-H.
9See 	also 	In Re: 	The 	State 	Employer-Employee 	Relations
Act, 	Phase 	III y 	Unit Determination Proceeding 	(10/18/79) 	PERB
Order No. Ad-79-S.
55

detailed 	discussion 	regarding 	the 	definition of 	supervisory
employee 	and 	the 	functions of 	the 	laboratory 	in 	Unit
Determination 	for 	Professional Scientists 	and Engineers,
Lawrence 	Livermore 	National 	Laboratory f 	of 	the 	University of
California Pursuant 	to Chapter 	744 	of Statutes 	of 	1978 	(Higher
Education Employer-Employee Relations Act) 	(3/8/83) 	PERB
Decision No. 	246b-H, at p. 	8 et seq.
Confidential 	Employees
The Board 	has 	stated 	that:
. 	. 	. 	the employer, 	in order 	to fulfill its
statutory 	role 	in 	its 	employer-employee
relations, must be assured of 	the 	undivided
loyalty of 	a 	nucleus of 	staff 	designated 	as
"confidential 	employees."10
Subsection 	3562(e) 	of 	HEERA provides 	that 	a 	confidential
employee 	is 	one 	who 	is 	required 	to develop or 	present
management positions 	with 	respect 	to 	"meeting 	and 	conferring."
This 	term, 	like 	the 	term 	"employer-employee 	relations" 	in
subsection 3513(f) 	of SEERA, 	includes, 	at the least, 	the
processing 	of 	employee 	grievances 	as 	well 	as 	employer-employee
10Sierra 	Sands 	Unified 	School 	District 	(10/14/76) 	EERB
Decision No. 2~, at p. 3~. 	That case was decided under
subsection 3540.1(c) 	of 	the EERA, 	which provides:
"Confidential employee" means 	any employee
who, 	in the 	regular 	course of his 	duties,
has 	access 	to, 	or possesses 	information
relating 	to, 	his 	employer's
employer-employee 	relations.
66

negotiations.11 The 	frequency 	with 	which 	an 	employee 	has
access 	to or 	possesses 	information of 	a 	confidential 	nature 	is
not controlling, 	if 	it 	is 	in the 	regular 	course of 	the
employee's 	duties 	and 	is 	more 	than 	a 	happenstance.12
However, 	more 	than a 	fraction of 	the 	employee's 	time must 	be
spent 	on 	confidential 	matters.13
DISPUTED 	SUPERVISORY 	POSITIONS
Robert Butcher 	- Lead Operator-Printing 	Services 	(Class 	Code
584.3)
Several of 	the 	disputed 	employees 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical
unit work 	in 	the Graphics 	Division 	of 	the 	Technical 	Information
Department. 	Robert C. 	Berlo, 	the manager 	of 	the graphics
division, 	testified 	regarding 	its organizational 	structure.
Within 	the division, 	there 	are 	three 	groups: 	the photography
group 	including 	camera 	operations 	section 	and 	the 	photo 	lab
section, 	the 	printing plant 	group 	and 	the multi-media group.
Robert Butcher 	is 	the 	lead 	operator 	in 	the 	printing 	plant
group. 	He 	and 	eight 	other 	printing 	plant 	employees 	are
11Fremont 	Unified 	School District 	(12/16/76) 	EERB
Decision No. 	6, 	at p. 	11; Marin Community College District
(6/26/78) 	PERB Decision No. 	55, 	at p. 	20; 	Rio Hondo Community
College District 	(12/28/82) 	PERB Decision No. 	272.
1 2 San Rafael City Schools 	(10/3/77) 	EERB Decision No. 	32,
at p. 	3.
13Campbell 	Union High 	School District 	(8/17/78) 	PERB
Decision No. 	66, at pp. 	3-4.
7

supervised 	by Cliff 	Hilts, 	who 	is 	the 	printing 	plant
supervisor.14 Berlo 	is 	Hilts' 	supervisor.
Berlo 	testified 	that 	Hilts 	and 	Butcher 	would 	consult 	with
each 	other 	before 	making 	hiring, 	firing 	or 	disciplinary
recommendations 	to Berlo. 	However, 	he also 	testified 	that no
such 	actions 	have 	been 	taken 	as 	long 	as Hilts 	and Butcher 	have
worked 	together, 	and 	that 	Hilts' 	authority 	would 	override
Butcher's 	in any event.
Butcher 	assigns 	work 	to 	the 	printing 	plant 	employees 	on 	the
basis of 	time 	constraints 	imposed 	by 	the 	customer 	making 	the
order 	and 	the 	type 	of machine 	required 	to 	perform 	the 	work. 	He
also 	oversees 	the 	quality of 	the 	finished 	product.
Butcher 	determines 	overtime 	according 	to 	the 	time 	required
for 	an 	individual project 	and 	the 	willingness of 	the 	customer
to pay 	the 	overtime premium. 	Overtime 	is 	allotted on a
voluntary 	basis 	with 	the 	only 	restriction 	being 	that 	no
individual can 	work more 	than 	16 	hours 	a week 	overtime.
Butcher 	will 	fill 	in on 	any machine 	or 	operation 	in 	the print
plant 	if 	someone 	is 	missing or 	the 	order 	requires 	extra 	labor.
The 	record 	does 	not 	indicate 	the 	extent 	to 	which Butcher
performs 	substantially 	the 	same 	duties 	as 	the 	other 	printing
plant 	employees.
14Hilts' 	supervisory status is not in question.
88

Butcher 	may discuss 	evaluations 	with 	Hilt 	but 	they 	are
primarily 	the 	responsibility of 	the 	print 	plant 	supervisor 	who
both 	writes 	and 	signs 	them.
This 	record 	indicates 	that 	Robert 	Butcher's 	exercise 	of
assignment, 	work direction 	and quality control 	functions 	is
based 	upon 	his 	printing 	craft 	expertise 	and 	experience 	as 	lead
operator. 	He 	exercises 	control 	solely 	over 	work processes.
His 	administrative 	functions 	are 	routine 	and 	clerical.
Butcher's 	participation 	in personnel 	decisions made 	by Hilts
and 	higher 	supervisors 	do 	not 	involve 	the 	exercise 	of
independent 	judgment, 	nor 	do 	they 	create 	a 	serious potential
for 	a conflict 	of 	interest 	with 	bargaining 	unit 	members.
Based on 	these 	facts 	and discussion, 	the Board 	finds 	that
Robert Butcher, 	Lead Operator-Printing Services, 	is 	not a
supervisor. 	He 	is 	therefore 	included 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical
unit.
Dick Rau, 	Jerry Wood, Jack Austin, 	Bennie Walker, 	Floyd Rupp -
Photographic Specialists 	(Class 	Code 	582.4)
The 	general 	supervisor 	of 	the 	photography 	group 	of 	the
graphics division 	is Ken Hall. 	The supervisors of 	the
subordinate 	photo 	lab and 	camera 	operations 	sections 	are
Peter 	Griffen 	and 	Howard 	Alford, 	respectively.15 The
disputed 	photographic 	specialists 	work 	in 	the 	subsections 	of
both 	sections.
15The 	parties 	agree 	that Hall, 	Griffen 	and Alford 	are
excluded 	from 	the 	unit 	as 	supervisors.
99

In 	the photo lab section, 	Dick Rau 	is 	leader 	of 	the color
print 	subsection which has 	three 	other 	employees. 	Jerry Wood
is 	leader 	of 	the 	black 	and 	white 	print 	subsection which
includes 	one 	other 	day 	shift 	employee. 	Jack Austin 	is 	leader
of 	the 	black 	and 	white 	print 	subsection 	swing 	shift 	which 	has
three 	other 	employees.
In the camera operations 	section, 	Bennie Walker 	is 	leader
of 	the 	still 	and 	motion 	picture 	photography 	subsection 	which
has 	four 	other 	employees. 	Floyd Rupp 	is 	leader 	of 	the 	graphics
and visual 	arts 	production 	subsection 	which 	has 	five 	other
employees.
All 	of 	these 	photographic 	specialists 	may participate 	in
hiring 	interviews 	of 	individuals 	designated 	for 	their
subsections. 	However, 	both 	section 	supervisors Griffen and
Alford 	testified 	that 	the 	subsection 	leaders' 	recommendations
are 	only 	a 	factor 	in 	hiring 	decisions 	and 	that 	the 	section
supervisors 	have 	the 	final 	hiring 	authority.
The 	subsection 	leaders 	train 	the 	other 	subsection
employees, 	schedule 	their work, monitor quality control, 	and
are 	responsible 	for 	the 	timely performance 	of work. 	They only
participate 	in 	the 	evaluation process 	in 	that 	they orally
consult 	with 	the 	section 	supervisor 	before 	the 	section
supervisor 	writes 	and 	signs 	the 	performance 	evaluation.
Employees 	are 	routinely 	traded 	among 	the 	three 	subsections
within 	the 	photography department 	depending 	on 	workload. 	Such
10

temporary 	transfers 	require 	only 	agreement 	among 	the 	subsection
leaders. 	However, 	any permanent 	transfer 	into or 	out of 	the
photography 	group 	would 	have 	to 	be 	approved 	by 	section
supervisors Griffen 	or 	Alford. 	The 	assignment of 	overtime 	and
approval of vacation 	time 	is 	done 	in a routine and 	clerical
manner 	based 	upon 	well 	established 	principles 	and 	policies 	of
the 	lab.
Each 	subsection 	leader 	performs 	the 	technical duties 	of 	the
other 	employees 	for 	varying 	lengths of 	time. 	Three 	perform
such 	duties 	as 	much 	as 	80 	percent of 	the workday. 	The
-
remainder 	of 	the 	time 	they 	are 	occupied 	with 	customer 	service,
supplies 	and 	other 	administrative 	functions. 	Rau 	is 	the
temporary 	section 	supervisor 	of 	the 	photo 	lab 	when Griffen 	is
sick 	or 	on vacation, 	and Rupp 	is Alford's 	substitute 	in 	the
camera operations 	section 	in his 	absence.
The 	record 	indicates 	that 	the 	authority exercised 	by
photographic 	specialists 	results 	from 	their 	positions 	as
subsection 	lead 	persons 	with 	superior 	knowledge 	and 	experience
in 	their 	field. 	Only 	the 	section, 	division 	and department
heads 	exercise 	true 	supervisory 	authority 	over 	the 	subsection
employees. 	The 	photographic specialists, 	like Butcher 	in 	the
printing 	plant, 	do not exercise 	independent 	judgment 	in
significant personnel functions. 	Rather, 	their 	tasks of 	work
scheduling, 	training 	and 	quality 	control 	involve 	control only
over 	work processes. 	The 	supplemental 	supervisory 	capacity of
11

Rau 	and 	Rupp 	does 	not 	invest 	either 	employee 	with 	supervisory
authority. 	The 	sporadic 	and 	atypical exercise 	of 	supervisory
duties 	will 	not alone 	result 	in 	the exclusion of 	an employee.
Based 	upon 	the 	foregoing 	facts 	and 	discussion, 	we 	find 	that
the 	five 	photographic 	specialists 	acting 	as 	subsection 	leaders
must 	be 	included 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical unit.
Anthony 	Oravetz 	- 	Printroom Operations 	Specialist 	(Class 	Code
585.3) 	and 	Dorothy Mendoza - Senior 	Technical Coordinator
(Class Code 	538.3)
Anthony Oravetz 	is 	a printroom 	operations 	specialist 	in 	the
printroom of 	the Communications 	Section 	in 	the 	Engineering
Department. 	George Wagner 	supervises 	the printroom.
Cliff 	Bishop, 	supervisor 	of 	the 	communications 	section,
testified 	regarding 	the 	nature 	of Oravetz 1 duties.
The printroom performs 	three 	functions: 	1) 	record 	keeping,
2) 	camera operations, 	and 3) 	duplication of drawings, diagrams
and blue prints. 	There 	are 	27 employees 	in 	these 	three areas,
including 	the 	head 	of each 	subsection. 	Anthony Oravetz 	is 	the
head of 	the 	duplication subsection. 	Dorothy Mendoza 	is 	the
head 	of 	the 	record 	keeping 	subsection. 	Both 	subsections 	have
seven employees 	and 	both 	heads 	report 	to Wagner.
Oravetz 	is 	an 	hourly employee 	who 	receives 	a seven percent
higher 	wage 	than 	the 	other 	employees 	in 	the 	group. 	He 	receives
the 	same 	benefits, 	and qualifies 	for 	and 	receives overtime 	as
the 	other 	duplicating employees. 	He spends 	50 percent of his
time operating 	one 	of 	the 	duplication machines.
12

Bishop 	testified 	that 	Oravetz 	recommended 	the 	one 	person
who 	has 	been 	hired 	in 	the 	duplication 	subsection since 	he
became 	subsection 	head. 	However, 	he also 	indicated 	that
Oravetz 	may 	recommend 	several candidates 	for 	a 	single 	position
to Wagner 	who gives 	the 	recommendations 	to Bishop. 	Bishop has
the 	final 	hiring 	authority 	to 	select 	from 	the candidates.
Bishop also 	testified 	that 	Oravetz 	has 	issued 	one 	written
warning. 	However, 	the 	incident 	took place when Wagner 	was
absent. 	Bishop directed Oravetz 	to 	take 	care of 	the matter 	and
Bishop 	reviewed 	the 	warning 	before 	it 	was 	delivered.
Oravetz 	contributes 	to 	the 	performance 	evaluation process
but 	his 	comments 	are 	incorporated 	into 	a 	report 	written 	by
Wagner 	and 	reviewed 	by Bishop. 	He 	assigns 	customer 	orders
based 	upon 	his 	recognition of 	the 	complexity of 	the 	job and
expertise of 	the 	available employees. 	As 	subsection 	lead,
Oravetz 	schedules 	vacations 	and 	approves 	overtime 	based 	on 	the
criteria 	that a 	full 	crew must be 	available 	to do 	the 	work
within 	the 	time 	required. 	Overtime 	is 	limited 	to 	a set 	amount
of 	hours 	per 	week 	for 	each 	employee. 	Extra 	overtime must be
approved 	by 	higher 	authority. 	Temporary 	transfers 	are 	another
routine 	function 	in 	which 	the 	three 	subsection 	heads 	trade,
share 	or 	shift 	employees 	among 	the 	areas 	depending on 	the
requirements of 	the 	workload. 	Any 	actual dispute 	concerning
transfers 	within 	the 	printroom would 	be 	resolved 	by 	Wagner.
Transfers 	outside of 	the 	printroom must be 	approved 	by 	higher
authority.
13

The 	record 	reveals 	that 	Oravetz 	has 	very 	limited 	personnel
action 	functions. 	The 	one 	written 	warning 	issued 	by Oravetz
was 	not 	a typical or 	normal part of his 	duties. 	The sporadic
and 	atypical exercise 	of 	supervisory duties 	will 	not 	alone
result 	in 	the exclusion of 	an employee. 	Oravetz 1 assignment
and 	quality 	control 	responsibilities 	are 	based 	upon 	his
competence 	and 	experience 	as 	a 	lead 	person 	rather 	than on
supervisory 	authority. 	The 	additional 	scheduling 	and
administrative 	duties 	he 	performs 	in 	the 	duplication 	subsection
are 	routine 	functions 	performed 	within 	the 	narrow 	requirements
of 	laboratory 	policy.
Based 	on 	these 	facts 	we 	conclude 	that Anthony Oravetz 	is
not 	a 	supervisor 	and 	therefore 	include him 	in 	the 	LLNL
technical unit.
Senior 	technical coordinator 	Dorothy Mendoza 	is 	the
functional equivalent of 	Anthony Oravetz 	in 	the 	record 	keeping
subsection of 	the printroom. 	She 	has 	20 	years 	seniority 	in her
subsection. 	She does 	the 	work of 	the 	other 	employees within
her 	section 	and 	more 	advanced 	technical work 	about 	65 	percent
of 	the 	time. 	The 	rest of 	her 	time 	is 	taken 	up with
consultations 	with 	other 	employees 	and 	performance 	of
administrative 	functions. 	She meets 	with customers of 	the
subsection 	and 	sees 	that 	"service 	requests 	are 	properly
handled."
14

Mendoza may 	participate 	in hiring 	interviews 	conducted 	by
Wagner. 	Together 	they 	recommend 	candidates 	to Bishop who 	has
the 	authority 	to make 	final 	hiring 	decisions.
Wagner 	writes 	performance 	evaluations 	which 	are 	reviewed 	by
Bishop. 	Bishop 	testified 	that Mendoza 	has 	the power 	to 	issue 	a
written 	reprimand 	but 	in practice over 	20 	years 	she has 	never
issued 	one. 	She 	has 	authority 	to 	trade employees 	among 	the
subsections 	of 	the 	printroom 	in 	consultation 	with 	other
subsection 	leaders. 	She 	has 	no 	authority 	to 	transfer 	people 	in
or 	out of 	the 	printroom or 	communications 	section.
Mendoza's 	administrative 	responsibilities 	include 	signing
time cards, 	approving overtime 	and 	scheduling vacations. 	She
has 	training 	responsibility 	for 	new 	employees 	hired 	into 	her
section.
The 	foregoing 	facts 	indicate 	that 	Dorothy Mendoza, 	like
Anthony Oravetz, 	is 	a lead person. 	She spends 	a substantial
amount 	of 	time doing 	work 	similar 	to 	the other 	employees 	in 	the
bargaining 	unit. 	As 	the 	most knowledgeable person 	in 	the
record 	keeping 	subsection, 	her 	authority 	is 	limited 	to 	the
control of 	work processes 	rather 	than personnel 	functions.
Participation on 	a hiring 	panel with 	a higher 	supervisor 	is
insufficient 	to demonstrate 	supervisory 	authority. 	The
transfer 	function 	actually 	involves 	the 	routine 	cooperation of
subsection leads 	in shifting employees' 	assignments within 	the
printroom depending 	upon 	the 	requirements 	of 	the 	workload.
15
.

Mendoza's 	other 	duties, 	such as 	signing 	time cards 	and
scheduling 	vacations, 	are 	also 	routine 	and 	clerical because
they 	are 	performed 	within 	the 	narrow 	confines 	of 	LLNL policy.
Based 	on 	the 	foregoing 	facts, 	we 	find 	that 	Dorothy Mendoza
is 	not 	a 	supervisor 	and 	therefore 	include 	her 	in 	the 	LLNL
technical unit.
Gerald 	Belluomini 	and 	Leland 	Fox 	- 	Designers 	(Class 	Code 	534.3)
Gerald 	Belluomini 	and 	Leland 	Fox 	are 	designers 	who 	each
have 	16 	years 	seniority 	in 	the drafting 	section of 	the Division
of Mechanical Engineering. 	They 	are 	the 	only 	two group 	leaders
of 	12 	in 	the 	drafting 	section 	who 	are 	not 	professionals 	and 	who
UC 	seeks 	to exclude 	from 	the 	technical 	unit. 	They 	receive 	the
same 	pay 	scale 	and 	benefits 	as 	other 	designers 	within 	the
drafting 	department 	who 	are 	not group 	leaders.
Belluomini 	is 	the 	leader 	of a group consisting of a
designer 	and 	a 	design drafter. 	Fox 	is 	the 	leader 	of a group
consisting 	of a designer, 	a design drafter 	and 	a drafter. 	Both
Belluomini 	and Fox 	work 	50 	percent of 	the 	time doing 	work
substantially 	the 	same 	as 	that of 	their 	subordinates. 	Both
work 	for 	project 	engineers 	who 	are 	professional employees 	but
have 	no 	supervisory 	authority.
Roy Robataille, 	the drafting 	supervisor, 	supervises 	the
designers. 	He 	testified 	that 	he makes hiring, 	firing 	and
transferring 	decisions 	with 	approval of 	the 	division 	head.
Belluomini 	and 	Fox 	write 	performance 	evaluations 	and 	rank 	the
16
•

employees 	in 	their 	respective areas. 	However, 	the 	final
ranking 	is 	done 	in a meeting with 	all 	12 	group leaders.
Robataille may 	resolve disputes 	in 	the meeting 	and 	he
determines 	salaries 	according 	to 	the 	ranking 	hierarchy. 	He
testified 	that 	Belluomini 	and 	Fox 	have 	authority 	to 	issue
verbal or 	recommend 	written 	warnings 	to 	the 	employees 	in 	their
groups. 	In practice, 	however, 	neither 	has 	ever 	issued a verbal
warning 	or 	recommended 	a written warning.
Both 	Belluomini 	and 	Fox may 	assign work 	to 	their
subordinates 	based 	upon 	the 	expertise 	of 	their 	crew 	and 	the
time 	restraints 	imposed 	by 	the project engineer. 	However, 	if
they 	are 	not 	present 	the 	project 	engineer 	may assign work 	to
members 	of 	the 	crew. 	Overtime 	is 	limited 	by laboratory
policy. 	The 	drafters 	work 	according 	to 	the 	time 	requirements
of 	the project 	and 	submit 	their 	hours. 	Robataille 	receives 	a
"run-out 	chart" 	on 	the 	drafting 	organization 	and 	checks on 	the
overtime 	hours.
Based on 	these 	facts, 	it 	is concluded 	that Belluomini 	and
Fox 	should 	be 	included 	in 	the 	technical 	unit. 	They do work
substantially similar 	to 	that 	of 	the 	other 	designers 	and
drafters. 	While 	they 	assign work 	and 	oversee 	the 	quality of
work within 	their 	groups, 	drafting 	supervisor 	Robataille makes
all 	significant 	personnel 	recommendations 	to his 	supervisor.
Neither 	Belluomini 	nor 	Fox has 	ever 	exercised 	the 	power 	to
recommend 	a 	written warning.
17

As with other 	group 	leaders, 	the 	functions 	of work
assignment 	and 	control of 	work 	processes 	are 	based 	upon 	their
greater 	experience 	and 	competence 	as 	lead 	persons. 	They 	assign
work 	based 	upon 	the 	complexity of 	the 	job 	and 	the 	availability
of 	the 	individual qualified 	to do 	the 	work. 	Quality control 	is
a 	function of 	their 	expertise 	within 	the 	field 	rather 	than
supervisory 	authority. 	The 	project 	engineer 	may 	also 	review
work 	and 	send 	it 	back 	for 	revision. 	The 	other 	paperwork
obligations 	of 	the 	group 	leaders 	such 	as 	overtime 	are 	purely
routine 	and clerical 	functions.
The Board, 	therefore, 	finds 	that Belluomini 	and Fox 	are 	not
supervisors 	and 	are 	appropriately 	included 	in 	the 	LLNL
technical unit.
Max Allison, 	Doug 	Dickson 	and J. 	Michael Spink 	- Senior
Computer 	Technologist 	(Class 	Code 	526.3)
UC 	seeks 	to 	exclude 	the 	entire 	classification of 	senior
computer 	technologist, 	which 	currently 	has 	three 	incumbents.
Senior 	computer 	technologists 	Max Allison, 	Doug 	Dickson 	and
J. 	Michael Spink 	work 	in 	the operations 	division of 	the
National Magnetic 	Fusion Energy Computer 	Center. 	Their 	working
title 	is 	shift 	supervisor. 	Allison works on 	the 	day 	shift,
Dickson 	on 	swing 	shift 	and 	Spink 	on 	graveyard. 	They 	report 	to
Marilyn 	Richards 	who 	is 	the 	operations 	division manager.16
16Marilyn 	Richards 	is 	a computer 	scientist/math programmer
(Class Code 	285.0). 	She 	has been placed 	in the LLNL
professional 	unit. 	Unit 	Determination 	for 	Professional
18

Richards 	in 	turn reports 	to Hans Brujines, 	who is 	the deputy
director 	of 	the 	center. 	Richards 	testified 	that 	she 	is 	in
charge 	of 	the 	operations 	division 	seven days 	a week,
twenty-four 	hours 	a day.
Each 	shift 	has 	a 	senior 	computer 	technologist 	and 	three
other 	employees 	in 	lower 	level 	technical 	classes. 	Richards
testified 	that 	Allison, 	Dickson 	and 	Spink 	perform work 	similar
to 	their 	subordinates 	10 	to 15 percent of 	the 	time. 	The 	rest
of 	the 	time 	they monitor 	the operation of 	the machines. 	They
also monitor 	the 	computer 	log 	to 	insure 	that 	entries 	have 	been
made 	correctly.
Richards 	testified 	that 	the 	shift 	leaders 	assign work 	to
the 	three 	employees on 	their 	shifts 	as part of 	their
supervisory responsibilities. 	She 	later, 	however, 	testified
that 	the 	swing 	and 	graveyard 	shifts 	have 	standing 	orders 	and
that 	assignment 	to 	tasks 	that must 	be done 	periodically are
made 	week 	by week 	by 	the 	shift 	leaders.
The 	swing 	and 	graveyard 	shift 	leaders 	are 	the 	highest
classification on 	that 	shift, 	yet Richards 	indicated 	that 	she
is 	in 	charge 	around 	the 	clock 	and 	that 	she meets with 	the 	swing
shift 	supervisor 	daily 	and 	the 	graveyard 	leader 	weekly.
Scientists 	and Engineers, 	Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, 	of 	the University of California, 	supra, 	PERB
Decision No. 	246b-H.
19

Richards' 	testimony 	indicates 	that 	supervisory 	authority
exercised 	by 	the 	shift 	leaders 	in 	relation 	to personnel
decisions 	is 	minimal. 	In 	the 	last 	three 	years only 	four 	new
employees 	have 	been hired. 	Allison 	was present 	at 	two of 	the
four 	interviews. 	Richards 	testified 	that 	he was 	invited 	to
those 	interviews 	because 	she 	wanted 	his 	opinion. 	At 	the 	other
two 	interviews 	no 	shift 	supervisor 	was 	invited.
Richards 	testified 	that 	each 	shift 	leader 	has 	the 	power 	to
recommend 	written 	warnings, 	and 	that 	she 	has 	followed 	the
recommendations 100 percent of 	the 	time. 	However, 	in 	three
years 	there 	has 	only 	been 	one 	written 	warning. 	That 	warning
was 	reviewed 	and 	signed 	by Richards 	as 	well 	as 	the 	shift 	leader
On 	one 	occasion 	an 	employee 	from 	the 	swing 	shift 	was
disciplined 	by discharge. 	Supervisors 	higher 	than both
Richards 	or 	Dickson made 	the 	decision 	without 	consultation with
Dickson. 	He 	was 	not 	in 	any 	way 	involved 	in a grievance which
was 	subsequently 	filed 	by 	the 	employee.
All 	three 	shift 	leaders 	write 	and 	issue 	annual performance
evaluations. 	Richards 	may 	and 	has 	changed 	an 	evaluation 	issued
to 	an employee. 	The 	evaluations 	are 	only one 	tool 	used 	in 	the
salary 	setting 	process. 	The 	shift 	supervisors meet 	with
Richards 	and 	by 	consensus 	arrive 	at 	a 	ranking 	for 	the 	nine
employees 	on 	the 	three 	shifts. 	Richards 	then 	sets 	salaries
based 	upon 	the 	ranking 	system 	and 	sends 	the 	salary
recommendation 	to 	her 	supervisor. 	Richards 	has 	the 	authority
20
.

to make 	the 	final 	determination on 	the 	ranking 	and 	the 	salary
recommendation.
Job 	and 	task 	assignments 	of 	the 	shift 	crews 	are 	routinely
performed 	as 	part of a 	set pattern. 	The 	shift 	leads may
approve 	overtime 	and 	call 	in off-duty personnel 	in order 	to
maintain 	required 	staffing 	levels. 	The 	administrative 	duties
of maintaining 	a 	full crew 	are 	again clerical 	functions 	set
within 	standard 	laboratory 	practice 	and 	policy.
The 	evidence 	does 	not 	establish 	that 	the 	shift 	leaders make
personnel 	decisions 	or make effective 	recommendations. 	Only
once 	has 	a shift 	leader 	recommended 	a written 	warning 	and 	when
more 	serious 	disciplinary 	action 	was 	taken 	the 	shift 	supervisor
was 	not 	consulted.
The 	annual performance 	evaluations 	do 	not 	have 	an 	impact on
the 	employees 	on 	the 	separate 	shifts 	except 	as 	they 	apply 	in
salary 	setting. 	These 	processes 	involve 	the shift 	leaders 	but
the 	actual effective 	recommendations 	and 	decisions 	begin with
Richards 	and 	rise 	up 	the 	supervisory chain of 	command.
We 	find 	based 	on 	the 	record 	that 	UC 	has 	not 	demonstrated
that 	the 	class 	of 	senior 	computer 	technologist 	is 	supervisory.
It 	is, 	therefore, 	included 	in 	the LLNL technical unit.
Fire 	Captains 	(Class 	Code 	651.3) 	and Fire 	Lieutenants 	(Class
Code 	651.2)
The 	fire 	captains 	and 	fire 	lieutenants 	work 	in 	the
emergency 	operations 	section of 	the 	Fire 	Safety 	Division within
the Hazards 	Control Department. 	The 	chain of 	command 	starts
21

with 	the 	head of 	the 	department. 	Under 	the department 	head 	is
the 	fire 	chief 	in charge 	of 	the division. 	The 	assistant 	fire
chief 	is 	the 	leader 	of 	the 	emergency operations 	section. 	This
section 	is 	the 	laboratory's 	fire 	fighting 	operation.
There 	are 	two 	stations 	filled 	on 	24-hour 	shifts 	by 	30
employees 	with 	seven 	firefighters 	and 	three 	officers on 	each
shift. 	Five of 	the nine officers 	are 	lieutenants 	and 	four 	are
captains. 	Station number 	one, 	which 	is 	the 	laboratory station,
has 	an 	engine 	crew 	and 	a 	ladder 	truck 	crew. 	A captain 	is 	in
charge 	of 	each 	shift 	and 	works with 	the 	three 	firefighters on
the 	engine 	crew. 	A 	lieutenant 	is 	in 	charge of 	the 	ladder 	truck
crew 	which 	consists 	of 	two 	firefighters. 	The 	second 	station
has only one 	crew which, 	depending on 	the 	shift, 	has 	either 	a
lieutenant or 	a captain 	in charge 	of 	the 	two 	firefighters
stationed 	there.
Captains 	and 	lieutenants 	work 	24-hour 	shifts 	during 	the
week. 	Their 	duties 	are 	nearly 	identical. 	They 	rotate 	from
station 	to 	station and 	crew 	to 	crew, 	although a captain 	is
always 	in 	charge of 	the 	laboratory 	station 	and 	the 	engine
crew. 	In 	non-emergency 	situations 	firefighters 	perform 	the
routine 	functions of 	the 	stations 	such 	as 	approving 	welding
permits, 	preparing 	emergency 	response 	cards, 	and 	testing
hydrants 	and 	fire 	hoses. 	The 	captains 	and 	lieutenants perform
the 	administrative 	record 	keeping 	associated 	with 	the 	permits,
safety 	checks 	and other 	routine 	duties performed 	by 	the
firefighters.
22

In 	emergency 	situations 	the 	crews 	are 	sent 	out 	depending
upon 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	emergency. 	Assistant Chief Chandler 	is
available 	at 	least 	eight 	hours of 	each 	shift 	during 	the 	week.
During 	the 	rest 	of 	these 	shifts 	and 	on weekends 	he 	is 	on
24-hour 	call 	and 	will be 	notified 	in 	the 	event of 	an
emergency. 	He may 	decide 	to 	come 	to 	the 	station and 	take
charge of 	the 	situation or 	decide 	that 	it 	is 	not 	serious 	enough
to 	warrant 	his 	direct attention. 	One of 	the captains or
lieutenants 	will 	then be 	in 	charge of 	the 	crew or 	crews
dispatched. 	If 	the 	assistant 	chief 	takes 	charge 	the captain or
lieutenant performs 	work 	similar 	to 	that of 	the 	firefighters.
They 	also 	perform 	any 	crew 	tasks 	required 	by 	an 	emergency
situation.
Personnel decisions, 	except verbal warnings, 	are
recommended 	to 	the 	assistant 	chief 	when he 	is 	on 	duty 	and 	taken
only 	with 	the 	review 	and 	approval of 	the 	division 	leader 	and
department head. 	Hiring, 	transfers, 	promotions 	and written
warnings 	are 	signed 	by 	the 	division 	leader 	and 	department
head. 	Captains 	and 	lieutenants may 	issue 	verbal 	warnings 	for
such 	things as 	tardiness 	and 	poor 	performance. 	They may
recommend 	a written warning 	to 	the 	assistant 	chief 	who, 	if 	he
concurs, 	will 	prepare 	the 	papers 	and 	pass 	them on with 	his
recommendation 	to 	the division 	leader. 	The written 	warnings
most often 	issued 	are 	for 	tardiness. 	These warnings, 	according
to 	department practice, 	are 	triggered 	automatically 	by a given
number 	of 	incidents.
23

The 	record 	indicates 	that 	captains 	and 	lieutenants 	write
annual performance 	evaluations, 	but 	is 	unclear 	as 	to 	the effect
of 	these 	evaluations. 	Wage 	increases 	come 	in automatic 	step
increments. 	Poor 	performance 	appraisals 	may be 	used 	to
withhold 	the 	step 	increase. 	However, 	only 	one 	employee 	has
been held 	back 	in 	three 	and a 	half 	years 	and 	it 	was 	an
extraordinary 	situation 	which 	ended 	in 	the 	termination of 	the
employee.
While 	the 	record 	does 	support 	the 	conclusion 	that 	the 	fire
captains 	and 	lieutenants 	are 	crew 	leaders 	and 	do 	have
administrative 	and 	ministerial 	duties 	and 	authority 	at 	the 	fire
stations, 	it does 	not support 	the 	conclusion 	that 	they are
supervisors. 	It 	is 	the 	assistant 	fire 	chief who exercises 	true
supervisory 	authority.
The 	authority 	exercised 	by 	these 	captains 	and 	lieutenants
is 	not 	significantly different 	from 	that 	exercised 	by 	the 	fire
captains 	the Board 	found 	to 	be 	included 	in 	the 	bargaining 	unit
in 	the Unit Determination 	for 	the State of California, 	supra,
PERB Decision No. ll0c-S, at p. 	42. 	The 	assignment of 	tasks
during 	an 	emergency 	and 	the distribution of 	routine 	duties
during 	the 	workday 	involves 	the 	control of 	work 	processes 	and
not personnel 	decisions. 	The 	other 	administrative 	duties 	are
routine 	and 	clerical. 	We 	therefore 	find 	that 	fire 	captains 	and
fire 	lieutenants 	are 	included 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical 	unit.
24

Fire 	Lieutenant, 	Forty-Hour 	(Class Code 	652.2)
The 	record 	reveals 	that 	the 	forty-hour 	fire 	lieutenant
works 	a 	five-day, 	40-hour 	work 	week 	as 	the 	administrative
assistant 	to 	the 	assistant fire 	chief. 	In addition 	to 	the
administrative 	duties, 	the 	lieutenant 	oversees 	and directs 	four
dispatchers 	who work 	in 	the 	emergency 	operations 	section. 	The
dispatchers 	are 	not 	a part of 	the 	technical 	unit. 	These 	facts
do 	not 	establish 	that 	this 	employee 	is 	a supervisor. 	The Board
therefore 	finds 	that 	UC 	has 	not met 	its 	burden of 	proof 	and
orders 	the 	inclusion of 	the 	forty-hour 	lieutenant 	in 	the 	LLNL
technical 	unit.
DISPUTED 	CONFIDENTIAL 	POSITIONS
Edward 	Short 	and 	William 	Tapley 	- 	Computer 	Programming
Technologists 	(Class 	Code 	524.2)
The parties 	agree 	in 	their post-hearing briefs, 	and
evidence 	exists 	in 	the 	record 	to 	support 	the 	exclusion of
computer 	programming 	technologists 	Edward 	Short 	and 	William
Tapley as 	confidential employees. 	Short 	works primarily 	for
the employee 	and 	labor 	relations 	department 	at 	LLNL. 	Tapley
works 	primarily 	with 	the 	compensation 	analysis 	division. 	Their
work 	requires 	not only 	access 	to confidential 	information, 	but
discussion 	and 	close 	cooperation 	with 	UC management 	to 	provide
information 	requested 	and 	necessary 	for 	the 	development of
management positions. 	The Board 	therefore 	excludes 	both Short
and 	Tapley 	from 	the 	LLNL 	technical 	unit.
25

Janice Waechtler 	- Computer 	Programming 	Technician 	(Class 	Code
524.1)
John McCall 	is 	the 	deputy manager 	for 	the 	Information
Technology 	Division of 	the Administrative 	Informations 	Systems
Department. 	He 	testified 	that Janice Waechtler 	is 	a computer
programming 	technician 	whose 	responsibilities 	involve
monitoring 	the 	presence, 	accessibility 	and 	control of 	the
information used 	in 	the 	department. 	She 	has 	access 	to all of
the 	information 	in 	the 	system 	including 	the 	confidential
information used 	by Short 	and Tapley. 	However, 	she 	has 	no
authorization 	to 	"browse" 	through 	this 	information 	in 	the
computer. 	McCall 	in 	fact 	testified 	that 	she 	could 	be
disciplined 	for 	such 	activity. 	The 	distinction 	between
technologists 	Short 	and 	Tapley 	and 	technician Waechtler 	is 	that
while 	the 	technologists 	develop programs 	and 	use 	the
confidential 	information, 	the 	technician's 	responsibility 	is 	to
assure 	that 	the 	body 	of 	information 	is 	present 	and 	accessible
in 	the system.
Waechtler 	is 	also 	in charge 	of 	the 	auditing 	of 	personnel
action 	forms 	(PAF). 	These 	are 	routine 	forms generated 	by
supervisors 	prior 	to 	any personnel action being 	taken. 	They
are 	generally 	actions of 	which 	employees 	are 	already 	aware,
such 	as 	transfers 	and 	changes 	of address. 	The PAF's 	are 	not
used 	in 	formulating 	labor 	relations policy 	or 	management
positions. 	McCall 	testified 	that 	the 	only 	item of 	collective
bargaining 	interest 	submitted 	on 	the 	PAF 	would 	be 	the
26
•

designation 	of 	whether 	an 	employee 	was 	excluded 	from 	or
included 	within 	the 	bargaining 	unit. 	This 	information 	would 	be
of 	little 	consequence 	to 	bargaining 	positions 	or 	management
policy 	once 	the 	determination 	has 	been 	made.
Waechtler 	may 	occasionally, 	perhaps 	six 	times 	in 	the 	last
year, 	work 	as 	backup 	for 	Short or 	Tapley. 	However, 	McCall
testified 	she 	would 	only 	substitute 	on 	a 	technical 	level. 	She
would 	run 	a 	program 	which 	had 	already 	been 	developed.
From 	this 	record 	the 	Board 	finds 	that 	Janice 	Waechtler's
duties 	do 	not 	normally 	require 	access 	to 	confidential
information 	which 	would 	require 	her 	exclusion 	as 	a 	confidential
employee. 	She 	is 	therefore 	included 	in 	the 	LLNL 	technical 	unit.
ORDER
Upon 	the 	foregoing 	Decision 	and 	the 	entire 	record 	in 	this
case, 	the 	Public Employment 	Relations 	Board 	ORDERS 	that:
(1) 	Employee Barbara McDonald, 	Computer 	Support
Technologist 	(Class 	Code 	525.2) 	is 	excluded 	from 	the 	Lawrence
Livermore 	National Laboratory 	(LLNL) 	technical 	unit 	according
to 	the 	stipulation of 	the 	parties 	and 	based 	upon 	the 	facts 	and
reasons 	stated 	therein.
(2) 	The 	classification of Senior 	Computer
Technologist 	(Class 	Code 	526.3) 	and 	incumbents 	Max Allison,
Doug 	Dickson 	and 	J. 	Michael 	Spink 	are 	included 	in 	the 	LLNL
technical 	unit 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	foregoing 	Decision.
27

(3) 	The 	employees 	listed 	below 	are 	included 	in 	LLNL
technical 	unit 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	foregoing 	Decision.
Robert 	Butcher 	Lead 	Operator-Printing 	Services
(Class 	Code 	584.3)
Dick 	Rau
Jerry 	Wood
Jack 	Austin
Bennie 	Walker
Floyd 	Rupp
Photographic 	Specialists 	(Class
Code 	582.4)
Anthony 	Oravetz 	Printroom 	Operations 	Specialist
(Class 	Code 	585.3)
Dorothy Mendoza 	Senior 	Technical 	Coordinator
(Class 	Code 	538.3)
Gerald 	Belluomini
Leland 	Fox Designers 	(Class 	Code 	534.3)
Janice 	Waechtler 	Computer 	Programming 	Technician
(Class 	Code 	524.1)
(4) 	The 	classifications 	of 	Fire 	Captain 	(Class 	Code
651.3), 	Fire Lieutenant 	(Class Code 	651.2) 	and Fire Lieutenant,
Forty-Hour 	(Class 	Code 	652.2) 	are 	included 	in 	the LLNL
technical 	unit 	for 	the 	reasons 	stated 	in 	the 	foregoing 	Decision.
(5) 	The 	employees 	listed 	below 	are 	excluded 	from 	the
LLNL 	technical 	unit 	as 	confidential employees 	for 	the 	reasons
stated 	in 	the 	foregoing 	Decision.
Edward 	Short
William 	Tapley
Computer 	Programming 	Technologists
(Class 	Code 	524.2)
(6) 	Any 	technical 	errors 	in 	this 	Order 	shall 	be
presented 	to 	the 	director 	of 	representation 	who 	shall 	take
appropriate 	action 	thereon 	in 	accordance 	with 	this 	Decision.
By 	the 	BOARD
28