Illinois Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1275 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 1275
limitation of its powers imposed by its own constitution to negotiate
a binding contract'
Under these circumstances, we find that the contract is a bar to a
determination of representatives at this time and therefore that no
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. We shall dismiss the petition
filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Farrell-Cheek Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY and J. A. ELENTENY, AN INDI-
VIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF ALL COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERS,
PETITIONER and COMMERCIAL TELEPHONE WORKERS UNION, INTER-
VENOR . Case No. 13-RD-,86. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a decertification petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Irving M. Friedman, 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 Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Intervenor, although currently recognized as such, is no longer the
representative of certain of the Employer's employees as defined in
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The alleged question concerning representation :
The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Intervenor as representative of
a group of 92 employees, called communications engineers, who are
1 We find that the exclusion of Petitioner 's Exhibits 6 to 15 was not prejudicial. These
exhibits purport to show, at most, that some employees in other parts of the telephone
industry , resembling the communications engineers whom Petitioner seeks to sever from
the unit, function on the management level. The Petitioner concedes in his brief , however,
that the Employer's communications engineers are nonmanagerial . See Northwestern
Bell Telephone Company , 79 NLRB 549, 555.
93 NLB No. 226.
1276 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
now included in a contract unit composed of all employees in the
Employer's Chicago area commercial department. The Intervenor
opposes the petition, asserting that this group may not constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and there-
fore may not be severed from the established unit, which is appro-
priate.' The Employer takes no position as to the merits of these
conflicting claims.
The present unit was created in 1941 by the first of an uninterrupted
series of voluntary collective bargaining agreements executed by the
Employer and the Intervenor. The unit embraces all the employees
in the commercial department, the Employer's sales organization.
Other departments, with whose members we are not concerned, are
responsible for accounting, and for design, installation, operation, and
maintenance of the Employer's communications system.
There are more than 1,800 employees in the commercial department
unit. Approximately 500 are clerks, office boys, typists, and tellers,
whose functions and job skills are not unique to the communications
industry. In addition, there are about 700 service representatives ; 200
office assistants, observers, and instructors; 80 commercial representa-
tives; 180 coin collectors; 50 communications representatives "A" and
"B"; and the 92 communications engineers.
Service representatives, all of whom are women, are each responsible
for 800 to 4,000 accounts, handling matters pertaining to billing, toll
charges, records, and complaints. They accept and process orders
dealing mainly with residential and one-telephone business installa-
tions, referring requests for more complicated equipment to the ap-
propriate subdivision of the commercial department. They work
exclusively in the Employer's offices, dealing with the subscribers, for
the most part, by telephone. Commercial representatives do similar
work outside of the offices, making all personal calls necessary in con-
nection with the simple accounts.
More complicated equipment is the responsibility of communications
representatives and communications engineers. Representatives "B"
handle accounts of subscribers who have more than two lines, up to
and including push-button and key equipment. Representatives "A"
work with those subscribers who use key, one-position and two-position
nonmultiple switchboards. Commvunications engineers, the most ex-
perienced nonsupervisory group in the unit, are assigned to all cus-
tomers using such complex equipment as multiple switchboards, and
dial and teletype systems. Unlike representatives "A" and "B," most
communications engineers are permanently assigned to specific cus-
2 The Intervenor also asserts that this petition is barred by its contract with the
Employer. The petition was filed October 25, 1950, after cancellation of a preceding
contract between the parties , and before the present contract was executed . Accordingly,
we dismiss the contract bar contention.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 1277
tomers, and do not receive day-to-day assignments. Since the major
task of these engineers is to enable the Employer to render satisfactory
and efficient service to its subscribers, each engineer works primarily
with subscribers within the same industrial groups. For example,
some are assigned exclusively to railroad accounts, others to depart-
ment stores, and still others to teletype accounts. Their work requires
them to be completely familiar, not only with the various types of
equipment used by the Employer, but also with 'communications prob-
lems common to subscribers within the industrial group to which they
are assigned.
The Petitioner's assertion that the communications engineers should
be allowed to sever from the established unit is founded on two alterna-
tive theories. He asserts, first, that they are professional employees
and may not be included in a nonprofessional group without their
consent; and, second, that in any event their interests are so "ma-
terially different" from those of the other employees in the unit that
they should be given a self-determination election.
The record does not support either of these assertions. Although
communications engineers must be thoroughly familiar with the use
of complex communications equipment, and although their work is
predominantly intellectual and cannot be standardized in relation to
a given period of time, they do not meet the other criteria used to
measure professional status.3 They are not engaged in work requiring
knowledge of an advanced type customarily acquired by a prolonged
course of instruction and study in an institution of higher learning,
and the record shows that the formal classroom work required by the
Employer has emphasized practical salesmanship, not mathematics,
physics, or other subjects commonly associated with engineering train-
ing. Accordingly, we find that communications engineers are not pro-
fessional employees within the meaning of the Act.
There remains the question whether communications engineers are
to be severed from the existing unit because their interests and work-
ing conditions are so unlike those of the other employees in the com-
mercial department as to entitle them to form a separate unit if they
so desire. We find no such disparity. True, the engineers do much
of their work off the Employer's premises, deal largely with man-
agerial employees of the Employer's customers, and have little in com-
mon with some of the employees in the established unit. The record
shows, however, that communications engineers are not a homogeneous
group with interests and skills which set them apart from all others
in the unit. They differ from many of the other employees in the unit
3 See, for example, Jersey Publishing Company, 76 NLRB 467. See also, Sigmund Cohn
Manufacturing Co, Inc, 75 NLRB 177; Illinois Bell Telephone Company, 77 NLRB 1073
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 78 NLRB 814
' See Illinois Bell Telephone Company, supra , at 1077.
1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only in degree, not in basic interests. Inasmuch as the unit sought
thus, at the very least, fails to include all the employees currently rep-
resented by the Intervenor who have duties and interests in common,
we find that it is not appropriate for decertification purposes.,,
Accordingly, we must dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this case be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
° See Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., 92 NLRB 702.
BROWN EQUIPMENT & MANUFACTURING CO., INC . and DISTRICT 26,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No.
1-RC-1860. April 9,1951
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 Torbert H. MacDonald, hear-
ing 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
employees 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 desires to be certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative of all persons employed in repairing, servicing, and main-
taining equipment at the Employer's Bradley Field, Windsor Locks,
Connecticut, plant, excluding executives, office and clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The Employer and Local 404, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, the
Intervenor herein, oppose the petition on the ground that the pro-
posed bargaining unit is inappropriate because it does not include the
employees at the Employer's West Springfield, Massachusetts, plant.
The Intervenor has represented employees at the Employer's West
Springfield plant continuously since 1945, and during this period, has
entered into successive annual collective, bargaining agreements with
93 NLRB No. 223.