Gulf States Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1039 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

GULF STATES TELEPHONE COMPANY 1039
On the basis of the entire record, we are satisfied that the factual
findings of the hearing officer are amply supported. Because the
revised tally shows that a majority of the votes has been cast for the
Petitioner, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.'
[The Board certified the General Drivers, Warehousemen and
Helpers Local Union No. 968, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFT,
CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees at
the Employer's Houston, Texas, plant in the unit found appropriate.]
I On June 29 , 1957 , the Employer moved to dismiss this proceeding on the ground that
more than a year had elapsed since the election . The cases relied on by the Employer
were overruled . by The American Thread Company, 96 NLRB 956. In Mike Persia Chevro-
let Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 377, the Union lost the election and filed objections which were
consolidated with a pending unfair labor practice proceeding . As more than a year would '
have elapsed from the time of the election to the end of the posting period respecting unfair
labor practices found by the Board , the Board held that no useful purpose would be served
in deciding the issue raised by the objections as the Union was able under the Act to obtain
a new election in any event . This case is therefore inapposite . Barby's Frosted Foods,
Inc., 0 NLRB814,`is likewise inapposite.
Gulf States Telephone Company and Local Union 1692 , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 16-I?C-2138. Augu8t 16,1957
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 John C. Crawford, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Jenkins]
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 parties stipulated that the record and briefs in Case No . 16-RC-2078 ( not re-
ported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders ) be incorporated in the present
proceeding . That case was dismissed by the Board for failure of the Petitioner to renew
compliance under Section 9 (g) of the Act . The instant petition , which seeks the same
unit as in the prior case, was filed as a result of that dismissal.
In Case No . 16-RC-2078 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders)
the Employer had moved to dismiss the petition for failure to join the Communication
Workers of America, hereinafter referred to as CWA, as a necessary party and to serve it
with notice of hearing . As the CWA in the instant proceeding was served with process,
the Employer has withdrawn its motion to dismiss.
2 The Board asserts jurisdiction over telephone companies whose annual revenues are in
excess of $ 200,000. Hanford Broadcasting Company, KNGS, 110 NLRB 1257, 1258.
118 NLRB No. 141.
1040 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The issue of the appropriate unit for this Employer was considered
by the Board in 1952.3 In that proceeding, the Petitioner was the
CWA which sought to represent the employees in a systemwide unit,
excluding those employees already represented by it or the IBEW,
the present petitioner .4 Alternatively, the CWA was willing to add
the employees in the requested unit to those it represented at Hamilton
and Stephenville, Texas. The Employer took the position that the
broad, single unit was inappropriate and that the unit should be
limited to the individual exchanges or in the alternative to the Em-
ployer's administrative districts. We found in that case, as in all
cases involving public utilities, that the systemwide unit is the most`
appropriate. We therefore directed an election for the residual group,
not theretofore represented, to permit such employees to be added to
those of Hamilton and Stephenville. The CWA lost the election.
In the instant case, Petitioner IBEW seeks an election in a system-
wide unit excluding those employees, who it is currently representing
under a collective-bargaining contract which does not expire until
March 1, 1958. The Employer generally takes the same position on
the unit issue as in the preceding case, supra, except that its first choice
is a unit based on its district organization, and secondly, on an indi-
vidual exchange basis.'
The Employer concedes there is no dispute concerning the facts of
the Employer's organization and operation. As it does not appear that
there has been any material change pertaining to such facts since the
preceding decision, supra, we perceive no reason for departing from
the Board's established policy with respect to public utilities, namely
that the systemwide unit is the most appropriate.' As noted above,
the employees of four of the Employer's exchanges are already repre-
sented by the petitioner and covered by a current contract. All other
employees, as requested by the Petitioner, constitute the residue of a
systemwide unit. In order to afford these employees an opportunity
3 Gulf States Telephone Company , 101 NLRB 270.
4 The IBEW had been certified to represent the employees at Athens, Commerce, Cooper,
and Kaufman, Texas.
5 The Employer urges in the alternative that if the Board finds the overall unit ap-
propriate , it should nevertheless direct ( 1) separate elections for those employees who had
never voted for any bargaining agent and ( 2) separate election for employees at Hamilton
and Stephenville , individually or in a group , to determine if they wish to be represented
by the Petitioner. As it does not appear that the Petitioner has made any showing of in-
terest in either of these groups and as no labor union seeks to represent them separately,
we find no necessity for considering these unit proposals of the Employer.
13 Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 108 NLRB 1106, 1108.
GULF STATES TELEPHONE COMPANY 1041
to be represented, we shall direct an election for the residual group.
As it is the policy of the Board to favor the largest feasible unit, a
majority vote for the Petitioner will be taken as an indication of the
employees' desire to be included in a unit along with the employees
of Athens, Commerce, Cooper, and Kaufman, now represented by the
Petitioner, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein
is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
We shall now consider the question of including or excluding certain
disputed classifications.
Commmercial representative-cashiers : The Employer would exclude
seven' employees falling within this classification. Each of these is
the sole person in charge of the exchange. They handle customer
complaints, which they have the authority to adjust, they collect bills,
keep and report all money collected, accept telephone orders and take
orders for discontinuing the service, and they deal with the general
public on all company problems. We find on the basis of the above
that these are managerial employees and exclude them.'
Beginners : 9 The Employer would exclude beginners. These are
defined as employees without prior experience who work for 90 days
or less. As it appears that these employees are learners and that they
have a reasonable expectancy of permanent employment after their
trial period, we believe they have a community of interest with the
other employees. Accordingly, we shall include them in the voting
group.'°
Temporary employees: These are defined as employees employed
to fill a full- or part-time job with the definite understanding that the
employment may be terminated at any time. However, any temporary
employee who remains in continuous service for a period longer than 1
year is no longer classified as temporary. We find that the contingency
of permanent employment is insufficient to warrant the inclusion of
the temporary employees, as such. Consequently, only temporary
employees who have achieved permanent status prior to the eligibility
date are eligible to vote and are included in the voting group.ll
Occasional employees: These employees ordinarily are not inter-
ested in permanent employment. They are subject to call at irregular
intervals and have no assurance of continued employment. While
working, they enjoy all the benefits of the regular employees except
those dependent upon seniority and unbroken service. We find, in
accordance with established policy, that all such employees who have
4 Seagoville , Kemp, Mabank , Malakoff , Brownsboro , Eustace, and Arp.
8 General Telephone Company of Ohio, 112 NLRB 1225, 1229.
9 This classification and those following , such as temporary and casual workers , are ex-
cluded from coverage by the current contract.
10 Two States Telephone Company, 90 NLRB 2008, 201.1.
11 Individual Drinking Cup Company, Inc., 115 NLRB 947, 949.
450553-58-vol. 119-67
1.042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
no reasonable expectancy of permanent employment are excluded from
the voting group.12
Janitors and janitresses: The Employer would exclude the part-
time janitors who work from 1 to 2 hours a days or from 6 to 12 hours
a week.13 As it is clear that these are regular part-time employees,
we shall, in accordance with our established policy, include them in
the voting group.
Confidential employees: Edythe Rafferty is secretary to the presi-
dent. The president has overall supervision of labor relations. His
secretary, in addition, is also the assistant treasurer of the company.
We shall therefore exclude the secretary on the ground of her man-
agerial and confidential status. Linda Thornton is secretary to Vice
President Morris S. Burton. As this vice president is active in the
formulation and effectuation of labor policy, we shall exclude his
secretary as a confidential employee. Mildred Dunn is secretary to
Vice President Oscar Burton. This vice president has had 50 years
of service with the company and is now in a more or less retired status.
The Employer would exclude Dunn on the ground that she has access
to Mr. Burton's personal files and other files of the company. As it
appears that this vice president is no longer actively engaged in labor
relations work and that he does not have the responsibility of formu-
lating and effectuating general labor policy, we shall include the
secretary in the voting group. Danaf.aye Kortman is secretary to
the plant superintendent. Kortman is also secretary to the equipment
supervisor and the directory supervisor. The evidence shows that
sometime in the past the superintendent had participated in contract
negotiations with the Union, limited to the plant department. As it
does not appear that the superintendent has the responsibility of
formulating and effectuating the Employer's general labor policy,
we find I(ortman is not a confidential employee and include her in
the group.
Payroll and related clerks: The Employer would exclude three
employees (Strait, Gillespie, and Maxey) on the ground that they
prepare the payrolls, run audits on time records, and have access to
similar files. As it does not appear that these employees work for
officials who are engaged in formulating and effectuating labor
policies, we include them in the voting group.
Employees at exchanges to be converted to dial: The evidence shows
that the exchanges at Fosse and Chandler will be converted to un-
attended dial early in 1958; that a similar conversion will occur at
Hico, late in 1958. The employees there have been notified that their
future employment is uncertain. As these employees are presently
13 Central Dlutual Telephone Company, Inc., 116 NLRB 1663, 1667.
13 These janitors work at Gatesville, Groesbeck , Overton, Stephenville , Troup , and Tyler.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1043
employed and the date of their separation from the service is specu-
lative, we perceive no basis for excluding them from the voting group.
We shall accordingly direct an election in the following voting
group : All traffic, plant, and commercial employees of the Employer
at several places of business in Texas, including beginners, part-time
janitors and janitresses, the secretary to Vice President Oscar Burton,
the secretary to the plant superintendent, payroll clerks and employees
at exchanges at Fosse, Chandler, and Hico, Texas, but excluding com-
mercial representative cashiers, temporary employees, occasional em-
ployees, the secretary to the president, the secretary to Vice President
Morris S. Burton, all employees at Athens, Commerce, Cooper, and
Kaufman, Texas, professional employees, corporate offiicers,14 watch-
men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.15
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
It The chairman of the board, the president, vice presidents, general manager, secretary-
auditor, treasurer, assistant treasurer, and assistant auditor.
It The Employer would exclude the wire chief at Stephenville. As the record shows that
this person has the authority to discipline, to grant time off, and assign people working
under him to various crews, we find he is a supervisor and exclude him from the voting
group.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Sharon Westinghouse
Employees Association , affiliated with Federation of Westing-
house Independent Salaried Unions ,' Petitioner . Cases Nos. 6-
RC-1807 and 6-RC-1808. August 19, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert Schutzman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's Sharon Works two groups of
salaried employees: (1) Employees of the tool engineering depart-
ment, including stenographers, designers, draftsmen, and clerks; and
I The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing.
118 NLRB No. 135.