Hawaii National Bank

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1974

212 N.L.R.B. 576 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Hawaii National Bank , Honolulu and ILWU Local
142, Petitioner . Case 37-RC-1921
July 26, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On February 22, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate the requested unit of branch bank em-
ployees at the Employer's Hilo location. Thereafter,
the Employer filed a request for review of the Region-
al Director's Decision on the ground that, in making
his unit determination, he departed from officially
reported precedent in finding less than an employer-
wide unit appropriate. The Employer also requested
oral argument.
By telegraphic order dated April 3, 1974, the Board
granted the request for review and leave to file amicus
briefs, denied the Employer's request for oral argu-
ment, and stayed the election pending decision on
review. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner
filed briefs on review, and the San Diego Employers
Association, Inc., and the Mountain States Employ-
ees Council, Inc., filed amicus briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, including
the briefs on review and amicus briefs, and hereby
adopts the findings and conclusions of the Regional
Director as set forth in his Decision, attached hereto
as an appendix. We would not, contrary to our con-
curring colleague, except the banking industry from
the customary single-location unit presumption which
affects other chain operations and, in fact, all multiple
location operations. We see nothing in the decision of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
(Wayne Oakland Bank v. N. L. R. B., 462 F.2d 666,
1962)-a divided opinion on which our colleague ap-
parently relies-to imply judicial suggestion of such
change in the approach to Board unit determinations.
With specific reference to the Employer's contention
for a statewide unit in Hawaii because separation "by
water" is no more meaningful than "by congested
freeways, turnpikes and tunnels," we agree that all
these barriers are factors which the Board should, and
does, take into consideration in granting single- or
multiple-location units. In this connection see Lou de
Young's Market Basket, Inc., 159 NLRB 854, 858
(1966). There the Board found the appropriateness of
a single-store unit not overcome though Respondent
took the position that its two stores, both in Michigan,
constituted the only appropriate unit. One of the fac-
tors relied on by the Board was the 22-mile distance
between the two, with the only accessibility a drive of
half an hour by freeway.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the Re-
gional Director for the purpose of conducting an elec-
tion pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election, except that the payroll period for determin-
ing eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the
issuance date of this Decision on Review.'
CHAIRMAN MILLER , concurring separately:
I concur in finding the unit petitioned for here-
namely a unit confined to employers at the
Employer's Hilo branch bank-to be an appropriate
unit. But because the Regional Director appears to
me, in some portions of his Decision, to be interpret-
ing previous decisions of the Board as establishing
some kind of rule-or at least presumption-that sin-
gle branch bank units are appropriate, I find it neces-
sary to elaborate somewhat more fully on the
rationale behind my conclusion in this particular case.
Because of the highly integrated functional opera-
tion of banks generally I think the Board ought to
make clear that we do not apply any presumption of
appropriateness of single branch units as we do, for
example, in the case of single stores in typical multi-
store or chain store operation.
Instead it would be my view that we ought to close-
ly scrutinize the facts in each individual case arising
in the banking industry, applying no preconceived
notions or presumptions and with particular atten-
tion to the following factors: (1) the extent of the
centralized control of the commercial and administra-
tive aspects of the business, (2) the extent of central-
ized or decentralized control of labor policy
(including not only where the overall level of wage
and fringe benefits is determined but also where other
working conditions of real importance to employees
are determined, such as decisions on hiring, individu-
1 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote , all parties
to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which
may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc, 156
NLRB 1236 (1966), N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 (1969)
Accordingly, it is hereby directed that a revised election eligibility list, con-
taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters , must be filed by
the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 37 within 7 days of the
date of this Decision on Review The Regional Director shall make the list
available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list
shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circum-
stances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting
aside the election whenever proper objections are filed
212 NLRB No. 82
HAWAII NATL. BANK, HONOLULU 577
al increases, promotions, discipline, and the like), (3)
the extent of employee interchange among the
branches, (4) the amount of personal contact be-
tween employees of the branches (or, to state the con-
verse, whether personal contact is limited strictly to
the employees of the particular branch), and (5) the
extent of geographic separation of the particular
branch petitioned for from other branch banks in the
operation.
Our failure to give careful attention to each of these
factors has, on occasion, been criticized by the courts,
even to the extent of our having been found guilty of
an abuse of discretion in making appropriate bargain-
ing unit determinations in this industry. The Wayne
Oakland Bank v. N.L.R.B., 462 F.2d 666 (C.A. 6,
1972).
Applying those factors to the instant case: The Em-
ployer contends, and the Regional Director found,
that the Employer's banking operations are highly
centralized and its procedures integrated insofar as its
functional business operations are concerned.
As to the second factor, there are a number of labor
policy matters such as the overall level of wages and
fringe benefits which have been centrally determined.
On the other hand, decisions with respect to hiring,
discipline, discharges, evaluation of employee perfor-
mance, and resultant recommendations as to salary
increases and promotions are, in fact, in large part
effectively determined by the branch manager. While
the recommendations of the branch manager in virtu-
ally all of these areas are theoretically subject to re-
view and final determination at the head office, it is
apparent upon this record that the branch manager's
recommendations with respect to each of these items
are given such weight that they must of necessity be
characterized as "effective recommendations." As a
result, the record supports the conclusion that in vir-
tually all cases determinations as to these kinds of
working conditions are for all practical purposes ef-
fectively made at the local level. Under these circum-
stances it does not seem that the local management of
the branch has been so restricted that effective bar-
gaining as to many significant areas of real concern
to employees cannot appropriately take place at the
branch level. If the bank's desire for uniform policies
in certain areas may predictably lead it to resist bar-
gaining demands as to certain subjects of bargaining
which might be advanced by a representative of em-
ployees of the branch, that is a factor which any labor
organization seeking to organize the bank's employ-
ees may well take into account in making a judgment
about what scope of organization might be desirable
in terms of maximum effective representation. But
when there are as many areas as here in which a
representative of the employees of a single branch can
clearly engage in meaningful discussions with the
branch management I am of the view that this Board
should be careful not to prejudge the situation too
hastily by concluding, essentially speculatively, that
no effective local, bargaining can take place.
Indeed in the Federal service there are many sub-
ject areas which cannot be effectively bargained
about on a single agency or single locality basis be-
cause of certain uniform governmental personnel and
wage and salary policies. But we nevertheless do not
have only governmentwide bargaining units. Instead
we have learned that there are many other employee
concerns which can be and are being bargained about
in areas where the separate government agency or the
separate local governmental authority does have dis-
cretion and effective authority. It is therefore my
opinion that, as to this factor, there is sufficient effec-
tive recommendatory local authority with respect to
sufficient subjects of bargaining so that I cannot con-
clude that the centralized authority as to certain other
matters would automatically doom to failure any at-
tempt at branch level bargaining.
With respect to interchange, while the Employer
introduced evidence of some interchange among
other branches, there is almost no evidence of inter-
change of employees between the Hilo branch here in
question and other branches in the system.
As to contact between the employees of the Hilo
branch and employees of other branches, there may
be some telephonic contact, but I do not find in this
record any substantial evidence of personal contact
between the Hilo branch employees and employees of
the other branches. Conversely, as one might expect,
the Hilo branch bank employees do have regular and
frequent contact with their fellow employees at Hilo
and with their local supervisors. This occurs both in
the daily performance of their tasks and in branch
staff meetings which are held monthly. It would seem,
therefore, that the effective group within which the
employees have regular work contacts and within
which there is a genuine knowledge of mutual work-
related problems (any or all of which may well be-
come the subjects of bargaining) is the group of em-
ployees located at the Hilo branch.
This is quite a different situation from that which
the court found prevailed in Wayne Oakland Bank,
supra, where the record disclosed substantial employ-
ee interchange, some on a permanent basis and some
on a temporary basis. It also distinguishes this case
from Bank of America, 196 NLRB 591 (1972), where-
in, as pointed out by the dissenting member in that
case, there was substantial evidence of interchange of
employees-a factor which led me to be concerned
about the result reached there, but which there I
found was offset by the substantial local autonomy
578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidenced on that record. Here, there is somewhat less
autonomy but there is virtually no interchange, so far
as Hilo branch employees are concerned.
With respect to geographic considerations, as
pointed out by the Regional Director, all other
branches are over 200 air miles away from the Hilo
branch.
While the Employer argues, with some force, that
there ought not be a separate "Hawaii rule" with re-
spect to bargaining units, and while the Employer also
points out that there is frequent and relatively inex-
pensive air travel, it is nevertheless true that the em-
ployees at Hilo are effectively geographically isolated
from employees working in other branches of the
bank. Indeed, the facts above mentioned concerning
the minimal amount of interchange between the Hilo
bank and other banks in the system suggests that the
Employer itself may have found it impractical to in-
terchange employees in view of the considerable geo-
graphic distance, whereas much more interchange
occurs among the branches not thus isolated.
While there is merit in the Employer's contention
that geography alone should not be controlling in unit
determinations, it is nevertheless a practical factor
which cannot be totally ignored. The Court of Ap-
peals for the Sixth Circuit, in reversing this Board in
the Wayne Oakland Bank case, supra, distinguished
the Wayne situation, where all of the business loca-
tions were within 25 miles of the main office, from
that in Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno v. N. L. R. B.,
390 F.2d 110 (C.A. 1, 1968), where the Board had
been sustained by the First Circuit in finding appro-
priate a branch bank in Puerto Rico which was geo-
graphically remote from all of the other branches. In
Banco Credito, as here, there was an almost complete
absence of interchange of personnel between the re-
mote branch in question and the other parts of the
system.
Having thus weighed all the relevant factors, I con-
cur with my colleagues in their determination that the
Hilo branch constitutes an appropriate separate bar-
gaining unit. It seems hardly necessary to state-al-
though I do so because there continues to be some
misconceptions in this area-that this determination
does not mean that there might not be more appropri-
ate or indeed more workable bargaining unit than the
one here proposed. As pointed out by the Employer,
there are many islandwide units in Hawaii. It may
well be that the most effective bargaining for employ-
ees of the Hawaii National Bank could take place on
a broader basis than that which we are authorizing
here. But, as we have long held, the Board is not called
upon to determine what the most appropriate unit
would be, but only whether a unit petitioned for is an
appropriate unit. In my judgment this unit meets that
test on the basis of the record facts and without bene-
fit of any presumptions whatever.
APPENDIX
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a peititon duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 the Regional Director.
Upon the entire record 1 in this case, the Regional Direc-
tor finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act .2
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: 3
i The Employer 's unopposed motion to correct the transcript is hereby
granted.
2 An administrative investigation , conducted pursuant to the Employer's
request , confirmed the adequacy and validity of the Petitioner 's showing of
interest.
3 Contrary to the Petitioner , the Employer contends that a unit hunted to
the employees of its Hilo branch bank is inappropriate and asserts that a
statewide unit of employees at its head office and all 10 branch offices is the
only appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. There is no
prior bargaining history as to any of the Employer's branch banks in the State
of Hawaii.
The Employer has 10 branch banks in the State of Hawaii ; 9 on the island
of Oahu and 1, the Hilo branch , on the island of Hawaii . Its headquarters
office is located at 120 South King Street , in the city of Honolulu.
The main office in Honolulu provides a number of services to the branches
and administers and coordinates much of the branch office operations.
Branch managers may not deviate from the comprehensive procedures and
policies which are set forth in the Hawaii National Bank manuals. The
headquarters office closely regulates all the fiscal aspects of the branch office
operations The branch banks send in daily reports to the head office and
receive reports in return From the Hilo branch , a courier delivers any neces-
sary records to the airport for air transport to Honolulu, where they are
picked up and delivered to the head office by another courier. Each of the
branch banks is in direct communication with the Honolulu office by means
of a WATS telephone line. Records involving the status of savings and
checking accounts and loans are maintained at the head office The issuance
of real estate , commercial and personal loans, and the lending authority of
the branch managers are strictly regulated and limited. The testimony re-
vealed that many loans which originated in Honolulu were later entered on
the books of the Hilo branch.
The Employer's headquarters in Honolulu provides centralized services for
purchasing of all supplies , advertising, travelers checks , printed material,
forms, etc Data processing for all the branches is done by a separate , private
company located in Honolulu , and therefore all Hilo branch checks, deposit
slips, and other records of transactions are sent to Honolulu and then re-
HAWAII NATL. BANK, HONOLULU 579
All clerical employees employed by the Employer at its
branch in Hilo, Hawaii, including tellers, secretartes,4
bookkeepers, new accounts and loan clerks, and proof
machine operators ; excluding all other employees,
guards and supervisors 5 as defined in the Act.
turned directly to the Hilo branch. No branch office has its own budget, as
the operating expenses for all are paid by the head office . Uniform personnel
policies for all branches are formulated at and administered from the
Employer's headquarters in Honolulu The payroll for all branch office em-
ployees is prepared by the head office and the employees' payroll checks are
deposited to their individual personal checking accounts , provided by the
Employer. Employee fringe benefits such as insurance , retirement plan, and
vacations are uniform throughout the system . The personnel committee at
the headquarters office sets the standards for hiring and administers job
classification and salary programs
The Hilo branch bank is located on "the big island" of Hawaii All other
branches are on the island of Oahu approximately 216 air miles away The
unit sought by Petitioner at the Hilo branch consists of approximately 10
employees. The work of all 10 employees is concerned primarily with the
customer or paperwork connected only with the Hilo branch , which services
a specific geographical area The Hilo employees, who have little or no
personal contact with employees of other branches, work directly under the
Hilo branch manager, assistant manager , and operations supervisor, and
look to these individuals for their direction.
The Hilo branch manager is in direct charge of the day-to-day operations
of the branch and operates pursuant to general directions and practices
determined and administered by headquarters . Although his discretion is
limited , the branch manager has been delegated lending authority for
amounts up to $5,000 unsecured, $7,500 to $15,000 secured, and $25,000 real
estate . Loans of greater amounts must be submitted to the head office for
approval Although all personnel actions are subject to final approval by the
head office , the Hilo branch manager makes effective recommendations in
regard to hiring, promotions, salary increases, and terminations Applicants
fill out their job applications at the Hilo branch bank and are interviewed
by the branch manager, who makes an appropriate recommendation to the
head office . After the head office completes its investigation , the applicant
is notified by the branch manager as to when he or she is to begin work and
at what salary.
Supervisory personnel at the Hilo branch are responsible for training new
employees, making performance evaluations , and authorizing overtime. The
branch manager attempts to resolve any conflicts that arise during vacation
scheduling before he submits his recommended schedule to the head office
Any remaining problems are resolved on the basis of bankwide seniority. Up
to the present, all grievances and most discipline problems have' been re-
solved at the branch level in Hilo. While all personnel records are kept at the
head office , the Hilo manager maintains an employment history card on each
employee. At least once a month there is a Hilo branch staff meeting at which
matters of importance to the entire bank or the branch may be discussed.
While it is clear from the foregoing summary of facts that the Employer's
banking operations are highly centralized and its procedures integrated, a
bankwide unit is not the only appropriate unit here The Hilo branch employ-
ees constitute a viable , stable unit appropriate for collective bargaining. The
centralized recording aril overall administrative control do not militate
against a finding that the Hilo branch employees are a homogeneous , identi-
fiable group , with sufficient community of interest to comprise an appropri-
ate bargaining unit . Moreover, the record indicates that the Hilo branch has
a stable core of employees . Transfer in and out of the branch appears mini-
mal In late 1969, when the branch opened, two unit employees were hired
by the head office to work at the Hilo branch Otherwise, no transfers of
employees have occurred between Hilo and any other branch.
Although the Employer's personnel policies are centrally controlled, the
Hilo employees are separated , both geographically and functionally in their
day-to-day duties, from employees of the Employer's other branch banks and
its head office. The Employer contends that modern air transportation facili-
ties travel between the Hawaiian islands , and that statewide bargaining units
are not uncommon in the islands , but the Hilo branch is nevertheless some
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omitted
from publication.]
215 miles away from the other branches and the round trip fare of $52 cannot
be said to facilitate contact among employees of the Hilo and Oahu branches
The Hilo employees ' job functions and their, daily responsibilities and inter-
ests relate to the customers of the Hilo branch , There appear to be virtually
no day-to-day personal contacts between and among Hilo employees and
employees of other branch banks. The Hilo branch employees look to their
own branch manager and other immediate supervisors for work guidance,
and their progress and success on the job depend on the recommendations
and evaluations of the Hilo branch supervisors.
Drawing analogies to retail and fast-food chains , the Employer contends
in its brief that the flow of paperwork in this bank is evidence of a high degree
of functional integration sufficient to rebut the presumption of a single
branch unit being appropriate. Although all transactions and the attendant
paperwork of the branches flow to Honolulu, the Hilo branch opens almost
all of its own accounts, marls out its own checking statements, collects on
loans, notifies delinquents , avails itself of the services of a local attorney, and
deals directly with consumers in providing its services In any event, reliance
on analogies would appear to be unnecessary here, as the Board has consis-
tently found appropriate single-branch units of multibranch banking sys-
tems, systems which differ only in size and number of branches from the
Employer herein Save for an unpublished decision of almost 14 years ago,
The Bank of California, National Association, Case 20-RC-4084, issued July
5, 1960, Board decisions in banking system cases factually similar to the
instant matter have uniformly favored single-branch units, Bank of America
National Trust and Savings Association, 196 NLRB 591 (1972), Wells Fargo
Bank, 179 NLRB 465 (1969), The Wayne Oakland Bank, 192 NLRB 362
(1971), enforcement denied 462 F 2d 666 (C.A. 6, 1972); Pacific National
Bank of Washington, 192 NLRB 1046 (1971); Banco Credrto y Ahoro Ponceno,
160 NLRB 1504, enfd 390 F 2d 110 (C.A. 1, 1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 832
(1968), Central Valley National Bank, 154 NLRB 995 (1965).
On the basis of the above and the entire record, it is concluded that the
Employer's Hilo branch functions sufficiently as a distinct entity for its
employees to constitute a separate unit for collective -bargaining purposes
The Hilo employees clearly share a community of interest which distin-
guishes them from other employees of the Employer. The Hilo branch is an
identifiable unit of employees with common working interests, and common
direct supervision, geographically remote from other employees of the'Em-
ployer. Accordingly, it is found that the Hilo branch unit sought by the
Petitioner is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining.
Contrary to the Employer, the Petitioner contends that Blossom Kelu is
a confidential employee The record revealls that Kelu , the former operations
supervisor, is a secretary at the Hilo branch. Her duties include answering'
telephones and typing correspondence She has no access to personnelfiles
and does not assist or act in a confidential capacity to any person who
exercises managerial functions in the field of labor relations . She has,`on
occasion, during the absence of the new operations supervisor, performed the
latter's duties . However , Kelu neither has nor exercises any supervisory
authority and her infrequent substitution for a supervisor is not sufficient to
exclude her from the unit. Accordingly, Keln is found to be an eligible voter
and included in the unit
5 The parties stipulated, and the record supports the conclusion, that Theo-
dore Sasamura , the branch manager, Melvin Matsunaga, the assistant man-
ager, and Janet Ichinose , the operations supervisor , are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act . All three individuals evaluate employees , assign overtime
and responsibly direct the work of the branch employees Accordingly, they
are found to be supervisors and are excluded from the unit.