The basis of the inquiry is not what the Employer would like to do with the position,

but what work and responsibilities currently are performed by the business manager and

whether her relationship with the general manager is of a confidential nature.(18)

         Maintaining personnel files ... and having advance access to other forms of
         confidential labor relations information is not sufficient to exclude an individual
         from the unit absent the clear demonstration of a confidential relationship with a
         person who formulates, determines and effectuates the Employer labor relations
         policy.. It is the confidentiality of such a relationship, not the confidentiality of
         the information, that is determinative. Grayhound Lines.  Inc., supra [257 NLRB
         477 (1981)]; Ernst & Ernst              National Warehouse. 228 NLRB 590 (1977), John
         Sexton & Co., supra [224 NLRB 1341 (1976)].  Similarly, (the Business Manager's ]
         work on budgetary and manpower studies, . . . is not the type of information
         contemplated in Pullman Standard Division of Pullman.  Incorprated, supra [214
         NLRB 762 (1974)] as justifying a confidential finding.

PTI Communications, 308 NLRB at 92l.(19) No one would charactefize the relationship between the

General Manager and the Business Manager as confidential.  In fact, the General Manager

testified that she did not have a confidential relationship and could not because Ms. Wong was

in the leadership of the Union. (T., p. 58 LL. 5-12) Accordingly, the Hearing Officer should

rule that the business manager is not a confidential employee and deny the Employer's petition.

         The Employer's argument that the business manager is a managerial employee likewise 

fails.  There is no evidence that Ms. Wong has the authority to hire, evaluate, discipline, 

direct, or assign work to, or grant time off to other employees or effectively recommend such 

actions.

___________________________________________________________

         18   The Employer tried to introduce evidence as to what duties it would like to assign
to the Business Manager. (T., p. 58 L. 12 - p. 59 L. 16) The Hearing Officer properly excluded
such evidence.  American Radiator & Standard Sanitation Corporation, supra, 119 NLRB at 1719.

         19   In Pullman Inc., supra, the Board excluded employees who were privy to the precise
labor rates to which the Employer would be willing to agree in future collective bargaining
agreement and were the only employees in additional to clear management personnel who had
that information.  The Business Director in the instant case has none of this information. and
the General Manager of WBAI has made certain that the Business Director would not have
access to such information. (T., p. 58 LL. 5-12)



                                             36

Previous Page ---------- Next Page