American District Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1635 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF PENN
SYLVANIA, EMPLOYER and OPERATING DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES-
ASSOCIATION OF PITTSBURGH , PETITIONER
Case No. 6-RC-487.Decided May 95,1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Thackely,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
2. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner claims to represent employees in the operating de-
partment of the Employer's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, office. The
Employer contends that, on the basis of Board precedent,2 the Peti-
tioner is incapable of representing such employees, for the reason
that the Petitioner was. organized, and is presently controlled, by
supervisors.
The Petitioner was organized, about September 1949, by Albert
Charlier, Lester McMaster, and Gibeon Salsgiver. Charlier, Mc-
1 For the reasons stated in earlier decisions involving other wholly owned subsidiaries
of the same parent corporation , we find without merit the Employer 's contention that its
operations at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania , office do not affect commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act. See American District Telegraph Company, 84 NLRB 162, and cases cited
therein.
2 See Alaska Salmon. Industry , Inc., 78 NLRB 185, and cases cited therein . Cf. Allen
B. Dumont Laboratories , Inc., 88 NLRB 1296.
89 NLRB No. 214.
1635
889227-51-vol. 89-104
1636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Master, and William McCloskey solicited memberships in the Peti-
tioner. McCloskey is the Petitioner's president, Charlier its vice
president, and Salsgiver its treasurer. McCloskey and Charlier also
serve on the Petitioner's negotiating committee. The Employer
contends that McCloskey and McMaster, who are titled "service super-
visors,"- and Charlier and Salsgiver, who are titled "relief service
supervisor guard-operators," are supervisors as defined' in the Act,
and that their activities on behalf of the Petitioner bring this case
within the principle applied in the Alaska Salmon case 3 We agree
with the Employer that, if these four individuals are supervisors as
defined in the Act, their activities on behalf of the Petitioner were
and are such as to render the Petitioner incapable of acting as the
representative of the Employer's employees. We turn, accordingly,
to a consideration of their supervisory status.
The Employer's operating department, under the over-all super-
vision of the manager,4 functions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, on
three shifts. The total complement of the department consists of
three service supervisors, three relief service supervisor guard-
operators, six guard-operators, and two operators. One service
supervisor works on each shift, 5 clays each week. Each relief service
supervisor guard-operator works 2 days each week as a service super-
visor, and 3 days each week as a guard-operator. When working as
a service supervisor, a relief service supervisor guard-operator has
the same duties, authorities, and responsibilities as a service super-
visor. From one to three employees, other than service supervisors,
work on each shift.
Each service supervisor is responsible for the proper performance
of the Employer's services by his shift. Except when the manager
is in the office, no one superior in authority to the service supervisor
is on duty.5 Although the Employer's operations are largely routine,
and the employees are generally sufficiently experienced to be able to
perform their duties without detailed supervision, the service super-
visors have certain duties and responsibilities which require the ex-
ercise of independent judgment. These include, among others, (1)
determining whether a situation requires that an investigation be
8 Ibid.
4 The manager is normally present in the office only on.Mondays through Fridays , during
the 8 a. m. to 4 p. in. shift , and the first hour of the 4 p. in. to midnight shift ; however, he
is not always present during these periods . He is normally not present at night, or on week
ends or holidays , the most critical periods in the Employer ' s operations , when its sub-
scribers ' premises are normally closed. He does, however , occasionally visit the office at
such times ; and is generally available at such times , if needed , for consultation.
5 See footnote 4, supra . Thus , for more than two-thirds of each week , no one is on duty
at the Employer 's office who has authority superior to that of a service supervisor.
AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA1637
:made; (2) determining the order of priority for investigations, in the
event more concurrent investigations are required than there are
.guards available; and (3) determining the course of action to be fol-
lowed in situations which do not conform to the established routine.6
Although the matter is not entirely free from doubt, we conclude, on
the basis of the foregoing and on the entire record, that the service
.supervisors , have authority responsibly to direct the work of their
subordinates; accordingly, we find that they are supervisors as defined
in the Act." As noted above, the relief service supervisor guard-oper-
ators 9 regularly exercise the same authorities as the service supervi-
sors for 2 days out of each week. We find that as a minimum they
are supervisors during such time 10 and that the participation of the
relief service supervisors, Charlier and Salsgiver, in the organization
and operation of the Petitioner, together with that of the service super-
visors involved, was such as to bring this case within the Alaska
.iSalrnon rule.
As the Petitioner,was organized by supervisors, as memberships in
the Petitioner were solicited by supervisors, and as three of its four
officers and two of the three members of its-negotiating committee are
supervisors,11 we find that the Petitioner is incapable of serving as the
bargaining representative of the employees of the Employer. We
shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
s The record establishes that although the manager can usually be reached for consulta-
tion , emergency situations arise which require immediate decision and action , which cannot
be delayed until the manager can be consulted.
Including McMaster and McCloskey.
8 There is conflicting evidence as to whether the service supervisors also possess the
authority effectively to recommend personnel action. In view of the above, however, it is
unnecessary for us to make any findings in this regard.
U Including Charlier and Salsgiver.
'o Cf. The Texas Company , Salem Gasoline Plant, 85 NLRB 1211.
71 The Petitioner's secretary , who is also a member of its negotiating committee, is not
a supervisor.