Globe Wireless, Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD. 1043
of a nervous condition ; and that when he asked Moss why McConville was not
hired, Moss "indicated that there were no jobs available. "
Moss testified that he did not hire McConville mainly because he had heard
"a lot of conversations and rumors around the place" to the effect that McConville
had "Red tendencies," and because it was "against the policy of the company"
to hire a person "on a leave of absence status, from another job."' It was
stipulated at the hearing "that during the months of August, September, and
October of 1951, a considerable number of new female employees were hired"
by the Respondent.
I find that the General Counsel has failed to sustain the burden of proving that
the Respondent's refusal to hire McConville was discriminatory. The under-
signed was impressed favorably with Moss as a witness. He appeared to be'
honest and reliable ; and, contrary to the contentions in the General Counsel's
brief, after a review of the record I do not find any serious conflicts in his testi-
mony which change my observations at the hearing. Accordingly, I credit Moss'
version of his conversations with McConville.
It is true that the Respondent sent letters to its employees urging them to vote
for "neither union." If, as contended by the General Counsel, this conduct shows
an antiunion bias, it is my opinion that it was dissipated by reason of the fact
that the Respondent thereafter entered into a union-shop contract with the
Union. Further, the alleged antiunion conduct was remote from the date of the
refusal to hire. The last letter was dated February 16, 1951, or approximately
7 months before the incident involved herein.
From all the evidence I find that the Respondent did not commit an unfair
labor practice by refusing to hire Dorothy Z. McConville on September 13, 1951,
and thereafter'
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
By failing and refusing to hire Dorothy Z. McConville on September 13, 1951,
and thereafter, the Respondent has not engaged in any unfair labor practice.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
2 Moss testified that he called Anderson in order "to find out what the status of Dorothy
Zabin (McConville) was with her previous employer-with the Union."
8 Moss also testified that there were several minor reasons for the refusal to hire. He
testified that McConville "lived a considerable distance from work," and that she had
"no packing experience for a period of around five or six years, and only with an ex-
perience at that time for a period of approximately two months."
4 Without passing upon the merits of Respondent's proposed finding relating to "Back-
ground" on page 3 of its brief, it is rejected. Respondent's second proposed finding re-
lating to the refusal to hire, on page 6 of its brief, is accepted.
GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD. and COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. °L0-RC-1.°&58. December 15, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerome H. Brooks, hearing
101 NLRB No. 1,76.
242305-53-67
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the transmission of international
radio communications at its principal office in San Francisco, and at
other offices in New York City, Honolulu, Seattle, Los Angeles, and
Washington, D. C. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all em-
ployees of the Employer including office and clerical employees,
located within the continental United States and Hawaii, with the
customary exclusions. The Employer agrees generally with the scope
of the unit sought by the Petitioner but would exclude certain sales
personnel. The Intervenor would exclude from the proposed unit
not only the sales personnel but also the office and clerical employees.
The parties are also in dispute with regard to certain alleged super-
visory classifications.
Commercial representatives: 2 The Employer employs seven com-
mercial representatives, two in San Francisco and one in each of its
other offices in New York City, Honolulu, Seattle, Los Angeles, and
Washington, D. C. These individuals are engaged in soliciting the
Employer's customers for traffic to route over the Employer's facilities.
They are chosen for their familiarity with the special types of selling
efforts which the communication industry requires. They spend
approximately three-quarters of their time away from the Employer's
offices calling upon customers.
All the parties agree to the exclusion from the proposed unit of the
commercial representative in Washington, D. C., who is a vice presi-
dent of the Employer, and of the commercial representatives in
Seattle and Los Angeles, who are the Employer's only employees in
' The Intervenor, American Communications Association, moved to quash the notice of
hearing and to dismiss the petition because of the Employer's alleged noncompliance with
the Board order and the circuit court of appeals decree in Case No. 20-CA-193. The hear-
ing officer referred this motion to the Board. The Board is administratively advised that
the Employer has complied with the Board order and the court decree. The Intervenor's
motion is therefore denied.
' These individuals are also referred to in the record as salesmen , sales representatives,
or solicitors.
GLOBE WIRELESS, LTD. 1045
those cities. The Petitioner would however include the remaining
commercial representatives in the unit. Upon the entire record, we
find that the commercial representatives lack sufficient community of
interest with the employees in the unit herein found appropriate to
warrant their inclusion in that unit.
Watch supervisors: The Employer employs three watch supervisors
in its San Francisco operation. The Employer contends that these
individuals are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, whereas
the Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that they should be included
in the unit. Each watch supervisor is in charge of an 8-hour shift
in the Employer's message center, which operates on a 24-hour day
basis. From four to seven teletype and automatic printer operators
work on each shift. The watch supervisors direct the work of the
operators and also work with them during peak periods. They have
authority to make recommendations with respect to new employees, to
suspend employees for cause, and to adjust grievances arising during
their watch. Upon the entire record, we find that the watch super-
visors are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and we shall
therefore exclude them from the unit.
Messenger supervisors: 3 There are two messenger supervisors in
the Employer's San Francisco office. They work two shifts and
direct the work of seven full-time and four part-time messengers.'
The Employer and the Intervenor would exclude the messenger super-
visors from the unit as supervisors. The Petitioner took no position
with respect to this classification. The record shows that the mes-
senger supervisors make effective recommendations with respect to
the retention of probationary messengers and that they may effectively
recommend discharge for cause. We find that they are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act and we shall exclude them from the
unit.
Office and clerical employees: 5 These employees are all those not
directly concerned with the handling of messages. The Employer
and the Petitioner would include these employees in the appropriate
unit whereas the Intervenor would exclude them.
In the Employer's San Francisco offices there is a billing clerk, a
key punch operator, a billing supervisor (who operates an IBM ma-
chine), a payroll clerk, an abstract clerk,° and a PBX operator. In
8 These individuals are also referred to in the record as messenger dispatchers.
'The parties stipulated that the part -time messengers in San Francisco work approxi-
mately 18 hours per week and the part-time messengers in New York work approximately
20 hours per week. They further stipulated that the part -time messengers are regular
part-time employees eligible to vote should an election be directed herein.
"These employees are sometimes referred to in the record as "nonlive " traffic employees
6 The abstract clerk abstracts messages which have been sent and received . One ab-
stract clerk works part time approximately 30 hours per week . The parties stipulated
that if the office and clerical employees are included in the unit, the abstract clerk should
be considered a regular part -time employee eligible to vote in the election.
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New York there are four employees, and in Honolulu three employees,
doing the same type of work that is done in the San Francisco office.
In San Francisco, traffic employees and office and clerical employees
work in one office. In New York they are separated by a partition
and in Honolulu, they are in adjacent offices. The record shows a
degree of integration of the Employer's operations which warrants
the grouping of the traffic and clerical employees in the same bargain-
ing unit .7
Accordingly, we find that all employees of the Employer, located
within the continental United States and Hawaii, including office
and clerical employees, but excluding commercial representatives, the
secretary to the Employer's vice president in charge of operations,8
guards, professional employees, the accountant in the San Francisco
district office, the accountants in the San Francisco administration
office," watch supervisors, messenger supervisors, and all other super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Cf. San Marcos Telephone Company, 81 NLRB 314 ; Ohio Associated Telephone Com-
pany, 82 NLRB 972.
6 The parties stipulated that this secretary is a confidential employee and should be
excluded from the unit.
9 The parties stipulated that the accountants should be excluded from the unit be-
cause of supervisory authority exercised by them and, as to one , because he is an officer
of the Employer.
G. W. EMERSON LUMBER COMPANY and NORTH IDAHO-EASTERN WASH-
INGTON DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, AFL,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL. Case No. 19-CA-5&0. December 15, 1952
Decision and Order
On May 8, 1952, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), 8 (a) (2), and 8
(a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, and recommending
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
101 NLRB No. 165.