Hawaiian Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1970

186 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

HAWAIIAN TELEPHONE CO. I
Hawaiian Telephone Company and Local Union 1260,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 37-UC-9
October 15, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Dennis R. MacCarthy, Hearing
Officer. All parties appeared at the hearing, and were
given full opportunity to participate therein. On July
13, 1970, the Regional Director for Region 20 issued
an order transferring the case to the National Labor
Relations Board. Thereafter, briefs were timely filed
by the Petitioner and the Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They 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 and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Employer, a Hawaii corporation, provides
telephone services to the residents of the State of
Hawaii and to foreign countries. In 1943, the
Petitioner was certified by the Board as the collective-
bargaining representative of all employees of the
Employer on the Island of Oahu. Subsequently, the
Petitioner and Employer agreed to expand the unit to
encompass all of the Employer's operations in the
State of Hawaii.
While not specifically described in the unit certifica-
tion, service assistants have been included in the
collective-bargaining unit.' On November 16, 1969,
the Employer replaced the classification of service
assistants with the new classification of traffic
supervisors. Those employees who were service
assistants then became traffic supervisors. The Peti-
tioner has requested that the unit be clarified to
include traffic supervisors. The Employer opposes
this petition, contending that this job classification is
a supervisory position, and, therefore, it should be
excluded from the unit.
Traffic supervisors perform essentially the same
duties as were previously performed by service
assistants. Miss Lau, the only traffic supervisor who
testified, stated that she is assigned a group of
approximately 15 operators. She stated that a traffic
supervisor is responsible for observing the operators,
seeing that work is performed properly and watching
the flow of traffic. Additional duties consist of
training and monitoring operators and taking over
difficult calls. Traffic supervisors do not participate in
the hiring or firing of employees, and do not assign
work.
The Employer contends that the classification of
traffic supervisor was created for the purpose of
increasing the number of "first line" supervisors. The
Employer supports this contention by relating the
additional "supervisory" responsibilities given to
traffic supervisors. They are now responsible for
appraising each operator every 9 months. The
appraisal is reviewed by the assistant chief operator
and then discussed by the supervisor with the
employee. The Employer's general traffic manager
testified that he did not know what use was made of
the appraisal information, and the record does not
otherwise indicate. Traffic supervisors are also re-
sponsible for "approving" step increases in wages.
The record shows that the personnel department
prepares a list containing the names of employees
eligible for step increases under the union agreement.
This list is sent to the chief operator for her approval.
The traffic supervisor reviews the list and places her
initials next to each increase unless she chooses not to
initial an increase in which case an explanation is
written on the form. This list is then reviewed by the
assistant chief operator and chief operator who decide
whether the increase should be given. This decision is
further reviewed by the department manager and the
vice president of personnel. The record does not show
that the traffic supervisor's initialing results in an
effective recommendation.
The Employer also contends that traffic supervisors
have supervisory authority with regard to discipline.
A traffic supervisor can give an initial warning to an
operator and recommend disciplinary action. If such
a recommendation is made, the assistant chief
operator will make an independent investigation of
the situation and then decide what action is to be
taken. There is no evidence that traffic supervisors
have made effective recommendations regarding
discipline. Their function is simply to report discipli-
nary problems, at which point the assistant chief
operator then represents management in the investi-
gation and correction of the problem.
Although the Employer has enlarged the responsi-
bilities of the job in issue and devised a new title, we
find that the additional responsibilities are not such as
to confer supervisory authority. The recommenda-
1 They are specifically listed in the contract which expired April 30,
1970.
186 NLRB No. 2
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions concerning discipline and reward are not shown
to be effective or to result in personnel action being
taken without resort to independent investigation by
higher authority.2 As shown here, the position of
traffic supervisor appears to be that of a work leader.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude
that traffic supervisors do not possess any indicia of
supervisory authority and, therefore, are not supervi-
sors as defined in Section 2(l1) of the Act, as
amended. We therefore, conclude that the traffic
supervisors are properly placed within the present
bargaining unit, and we shall, accordingly, clarify the
certification to include them.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the certification heretofore
issued to Local Union 1260, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO be, and it
hereby is, clarified by specifically including therein
the position of traffic supervisor.
2 Cf General Telephone Company of Michigan, 112 NLRB 46