General Telephone Co. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 413
At Schmidt 's, it is clear that a responsible union agent caused employees to delay for a few
minutes the unloading of Vann's truck. It is clear that a responsible Union agent tried to induce
employees , but was unsuccessful , not to load his truck.
At Scott and Grauer 's, only by crediting somewhat dubious evidence , can it be found that
Walker, the union steward , induced employees not to unload Vann. 6 Gannon 's testimony is to
the effect that he declined, of his own volition, to load Vann's truck.
Even if the evidence be viewed in a light most favorable to General Counsel's allegation,
the incidents were of such short duration and were so trivial and isolated , that the Trial
Examiner is of the opinion that that complaint should be dismissed . Particularly , it appears,
should dismissal be recommended in view of the fact that considerably more tlian a year has
passed since the material events occurred , and no evidence was brought forward to show that
the instructions of Lanni , a high official of the Union, have since then been violated by any
steward in the Philadelphia area.
On the merits of the case , therefore , the Trial Examiner will recommend that the complaint
be dismissed.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent Local Union No. 830 , Brewery and Beer Distributor Drivers , Helpers,
and Platform Men, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. The Respondent has not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8As a witness , called by General Counsel , employee Julian Matkowski said at one point
that sometime before December 27, Walker told him to check all union books, and if a man
was not a member not to unload him. He later changed his testimony and denied that Walker
told him not to unload.
GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA (for-
merly ASSOCIATED TELEPHONE COMPANY, LTD.)and
COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No.
21-RM-189. July 28, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER AMENDING CERTIFICATION
On July 25, 1951, following a consent election, the Regional
Director for the Twenty-first Region certified the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in
the following unit:
All employees classified in classifications presently
compensated on a daily wage basis , excluding all other
employees , guards, professional and supervisory em-
ployees [sic ] as defined in the Act.
On August 23, 1951, the Union and the Employer entered
into a contract ending June 30, 1952, in which the Employer
recognized the Union in a unit of "all of its daily wage - earning
employees." The contract covered employees who received
a supervisory differential as part of their daily wages. At
collective -bargaining meetings in May and June of 1952, the
106 NLRB No. 77.
414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer, for the first time, contended that daily wage-earning
employees receiving supervisory differentials, herein, the
disputed employees, were supervisors within the meaning of
the Act. The Union contested this position and on July 1, 1952,
called a strike over this issue. On July 13, 1952, the strike
was terminated by a "Memorandum of Agreement" in which
the parties agreed, inter alia, to submit the question of the
supervisory status of the disputed employees to the Board for
determination.
On October 22, 1952, the Employer and the Union submitted
to the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region a joint
"Petition for Supplemental Determination of Representation."
On November 24, 1952, the Regional Director forwarded the
petition to the Board with the recommendation that it be
entertained and a hearing directed. On December 29, 1952,
the Board issued an Order directing "that a hearing be held
herein for the purpose of resolving the question of the super-
visory status" of the disputed employees. Pursuant to this
Order, a hearing was held before Ernest L. Heinmann, hearing
officer. All parties appeared and participated in the hearing,
although the Union elected to rest upon the completion of the
evidence introduced by the Employer.[ Bothpartiesfiledbriefs
on the issues raised by the hearing. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.:
Upon the basis of the evidence adduced at the hearing and
on the entire record in the case,3 the Board" hereby makes
the following findings:
The Company employs between 5,400 and 5,500 employees,
of whom approximately 4,900 are compensated on a daily
wage basis. The dispute between the Company and the Union
concerns the supervisory status of some 400 individuals in
the following 31 job classifications:5
I As the Union had ample opportunity to cross-examine and to call witnesses , we find no
merit to its objections that the Company prejudicially chose to call witnesses who could
testify on more than one category of employees rather than calling the disputed employees
themselves.
2 The hearing officer properly required evidence which would permit a determination of
the status of the employees at this time, rather than at the time either of the election or of
the agreement to submit the question to the Board for determination. See Southwestern
Electric Service Co., 89 NLRB 114, 117.
3 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied because the briefs and the
record adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
4Pursuant 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peter-
son].
s Three categories, on which the Board directed a hearing are no longer used, namely,
garage mechanic (SD), general clerk, jr. (SD), and instrument shopman (SD). We therefore
make no findings concerning them
GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA
Job title (number involved)
Supervising Operator (100)
Matron (Supervisory Dif-
ferential) (hereafter SD)
(4)
Chief Switchman (SD) (22)
Switchroom Foreman (27)
Equipment Foreman (35)
PBX Foreman (8)
Splicing Foreman (4)
Heavy Gang Foreman (40)
Light Heavy Gang Foreman
(30)
Installer (SD) (15)
Facility Man (SD) (1)
Testboardman (SD) (3)
Combinationman (SD) (1)
Janitor (SD) (4)
Garage Foreman (8)
Garage Helper (SD) (1)
415
Commercial Representative
(SD) (4)
Service Representative (SD)
(50)
Cashier (SD) (3)
Engineering Assistant (SD)
(2)
Draftsman (SD) (7)
Pressman (SD) (1)
Control Clerk (SD) (2)
Instrument Shop Foreman (6)
Storeman (SD) (4)
Supply Clerk (SD) (1)
Utility Foreman (5)
Toll Biller (SD) (1)
Administrative Clerk (SD)
(1)
Accounting Clerk (SD) (1)
General Clerk (SD) (4)
We have carefully considered the voluminous evidence
adduced at the hearing concerning the functions and respon-
sibilities of the disputed employees in the classifications
listed above . These classifications were created to provide
some assistance to the salaried supervisors in the super-
vision of the rapidly growing employee force . ' Certain char-
acteristics appear to be common to all classifications. All
disputed employees receive, and have received since 1949,
a pay differential above the wage scale paid to employees
with the same seniority who report to them because, in the
language of the contractual provision for such differential,'
they are "designated to supervise the work of other em-
ployees." In one degree or another they are all responsible
for training , " supervising," assigning , and directing the work
of others.' They all have initial responsibility in rating their
subordinates every 6 months on the "1654 Form."
The Employer argues that the collective - bargaining con-
tracts, which show that the parties regularly have regarded
the disputed employees as supervisors , the notice of job
6At the end of 1945 , the Company employed between 1,400 and 1,450 employees; at the
present time, the Company employs between 5,400 and 5,500 employees. The record shows
that there are only 280 salaried supervisors
7 I.e., the contracts negotiated by the Union in 1949, 1950, and 1951, which contained this
provision regarding the disputed categories.
8In view of our finding herein, we need not, and do not, determine the extent to which they
responsibly direct the work of their subordinates
416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vacancy forms,9 and the rating of the 1654 forms by the
disputed employees should of themselves be sufficient to
establish beyond peradventure of doubt that all the disputed
employees are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2
(11) of the Act.
Since 1949, the disputed employees have had responsibility
for rating their subordinates each 6 months on the "Progres-
sive Wage Increase Form," or the "1654 Form." These
forms, which become part of the personnel records of the
Company, list 12 factors--quality of work, quantity of work,
progress on job, attitude, conduct and work habits, personal
appearance, safety habits, care of tools and equipment,
initiative, and leadership--to be rated within 5 degrees of
performance: poor, fair, average, above average, or excep-
tional.
The Union contends that these forms are without effect on
pay increases and layoffs because such rights are controlled
by the contract and that they, in any event, are mere perform-
ance reports containing merely an expression of the disputed
employee's opinion after an occasional inspection of the work
of another. Although the form is designated as a "Progressive
Wage Increase Form," the Working Rules and Practices,
Personnel Administration, Papers and Forms § 2.7.1, provide
that termination notices should be originated whenthe increase
is not justified. One stated purpose of the form is "to have
data on file so that recognition can be given when transfers
and promotions are being considered." The form is therefore
filled out on employees who have passed the last contractual
progressive wage increase. Although the contract does provide
for posting of job vacancies and that transfers and promotions
shall be made on the basis of seniority, the contract requires
that the applicant have also the "necessary qualifications."
The personnel manager testified, without contradiction, that
these ratings are always considered when jobs are filled from
the inside. Accordingly, we find that the authority to rate
employees according to the 1654 form is authority effectively
to recommend or effect changes in the status of the employees
rated. io
The Union apparently contends that the disputed employees
are, in any event, not solely responsible for the rating. The
testimony shows that the ratings made by the disputed em-
ployees on the 1654 forms are in many cases discussed with
9In 1951, during the collective-bargaining conferences, the Union requested and the
Company agreed that all notices of job vacancies which were posted should be uniform
throughout the Company. Accordingly, early in 1952, uniform job vacancy notices were
prepared and distributed to all districts of the Company. Virtually all of the existing forms,
prepared for only some of the disputed categories, indicate that the incumbent must be
qualified to train, supervise, and direct the work of others. Although we do not rely upon
these forms for our finding of status, we do accept them as evidence of the propriety of
systemwide findings concerning status
loSee Art Metal Construction Company, 75 NLRB 80, 84; Aragon-Baldwin Mills, Inc.,
Aragon Plant, 80 NLRB 1042, 1044.
CLEARFIELD CHEESE COMPANY, INC. 417
a salaried superior who himself must sign and approve the
form, and in many cases the salaried superior and the disputed
employee jointly participate in the rating. In some cases,
particularly with respect to employees rated by the installers
(supervisory differential) and the equipment foremen, a com-
posite rating is necessary because the employee being rated
has worked under several foremen in the 6-month period
covered by the rating. On infrequent occasions the salaried
superior may suggest a change in rating or request an explana-
tion of a particular rating. But the evidence is clear that the
effective rating is in all cases made by the disputed employee.
While the matter is otherwise by no means free from doubt,
we accordingly find that the role of the disputed employees in
rating their subordinates is such as to make them all super-
visors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act.11
We therefore find that the disputed employees are properly
excluded from the unit.12 We shall, accordingly, amend our
certification with respect to these classifications of individuals.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Certification issued herein
to Communication Workers of America, CIO, be, and it hereby
is, amended specifically to exclude from the certified unit, as
supervisors, the supervising operators and all daily wage
earners who receive a supervisory differential, employed by
the Employer.'
11 As the performance report involved in Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 87 NLRB 40, did
not affect the status of the rated employees, that case on which the.Union relies is clearly
distinguishable.
12 As the record establishes that the garage helper (supervisory differential) has authority
to rate his subordinates on the 1654 form, it is immaterial that he has not had occasion
because of the rate of turnover of garage helpers to do so.
13 This is not to be construed as a new certification.
CLEARFIELD CHEESE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED STONE
AND ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO.
Case No. 6-CA-513. July 29, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 30, 1953, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
ing that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not
engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and
recommended a dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the
106 NLRB No. 80.