Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 424 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Communica- tions Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 7-RC-11581 and 7-RC-11603 April 18, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On April 23, 1973, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued his Decision, Order and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of all com- mercial department employees employed by the Em- ployer at its Jackson, Michigan, commercial office.' Thereafter the Employer filed a timely request for re- view of the Regional Director's decision on the grounds that the Regional Director committed error in finding the unit appropriate. By telegraphic Order dated November 15, 1973, the Board granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter both the Employer and the Petitioner filed 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 of the parties, and hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Regional Director as set forth in his Decision,' pertinent parts of which are attached hereto as an appendix. Accordingly we shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, except that the eligibility payroll period shall be that immediately preceding the issuance date of this Decision on Review.' MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting: For the reasons set forth in my dissents in Michigan Bell Telephone Company reported at 216 NLRB No. 145 (1975), and 192 NLRB 1212 (1971), I would dis- miss this petition. The unit in which my colleagues I Neither party filed exceptions to the Regional Director's action in dismissing the petition which sought a similar unit at the Employer's Hol- land office, in Case 7-RC-1 1603 2 In finding appropriate the unit sought herein, the Regional Director cited as precedent Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 192 NLRB 1212 (1971), wherein the parties litigated the appropriateness of a unit identical to the one sought herein. On February 27, 1975, the Board, after taking additional evidence on the same unit question in that case affirmed its pnor decision and again found the unit appropriate See 216 NLRB No 145 (1975) Our review of the record in this case leaves us unpersuaded that there is evidence sufficient to warrant reversal of the Regional Director's finding that the commercial office sought herein is appropriate. See also Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 217 NLRB No 74 (1975). 3 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication] direct an election herein may accommodate the Union's efforts at piecemeal organizing of the Em- ployer's commercial department, but it does not consti- tute an appropriate unit for bargaining in my opinion. APPENDIX * 4. The instant petitions represent the third occasion for dispute between the same parties over the issue of the geographic scope of an appropriate unit of Com- mercial Department employees. In Case 7-RC-10176, Petitioner sought a unit consisting of all Commercial Department employees employed at the Employer's Battle Creek Commercial office. In that case, as in the instant case, the Employer contended that the geographic scope of the sought-after unit was too narrow, and that the unit was therefore inappropri- ate. The Board, however, affirmed the then Regional Director, and found a unit of Commercial Department employees limited to the Battle Creek Commercial of- fice to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' Thereafter, in Case 7-RC-1 1334, the par- ties again litigated the appropriateness of a unit consist- ing of and limited to the Commercial Department em- ployees in the Battle Creek Commercial office. In this matter, the [Regional Director], on September 27, 1972, again found that a unit of Battle Creek Commer- cial Office employees was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. On October 30, 1972, the Board denied Request for Review of the aforesaid deci- sion. Petitioner now seeks in Case 7-RC-11581 to repre- sent approximately forty employees employed by the Employer in its Jackson Commercial Office consisting of two geographically separated installations both located in Jackson, Michigan; while in Case 7-RC-1 1603, Petitioner seeks to represent approxi- mately ten Commercial Department employees em- ployed by the Employer in its Holland, Michigan, facilities. The Employer, maintaining that both peti- tioned-for units are inappropriate, asserts that the nar- rowest appropriate unit would be a unit consisting of all Commercial Department employees in the Southern Division.' Despite their conflict concerning the appropriate geographic scope of any unit in the Commercial De- partment, the parties are in agreement that with respect to functional employees inclusions and exclusions a unit consisting of all Commercial Department em- ployees, including service representatives, clerical em- ployees, and outside representatives, but excluding marketing employees, directory sales employees, 4 This proposed unit would encompass approximately 400 employees 217 NLRB No. 73 MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY guards and supervisors as defined in the Act would constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. The Employer, a Michigan corporation headquar- tered in Detroit, Michigan, is in the business of provid- ing telephone service to some 2,500,00 accounts located throughout the State of Michigan. The Em- ployer's corporate hierarchy, instituted to perform its business functions, is headed by the chief executive officer, the President. Under the chief executive officer are eight functional groups, each headed by a vice presi- dent, seven of which perform staff functions and one which is engaged in line operations. Among the seven staff groups are Finance and Comptroller, Legal, Reve- nue and Planning, Corporate Services and Secretary, and Personnel. In toto, approximately 3,000 employees are employed within these seven staff groups. The eighth group, Operations, employs approximately 27,000 employees. Of this total, approximately 4,500 em- ployees are categorized under the title Operations Staff and Engineering and perform particularized staff sup- port for the balance of the employees, who are em- ployed in actually providing telephone service to the customers. The Operations group is divided into three geographic areas-Metro, employing approximately 14,700, Northern, employing approximately 3,500 and Southern, employing approximately 4,100 employees, for a total of approximately 22,000 employees. These geographic operating areas are in turn divided into functional operating departments: Marketing, Plant, Traffic, Switching Systems, and Commercial. Each of these departments appears to report on a staff basis to the corresponding Operations Staff at the Employer's Detroit headquarters and to report on a line basis to the Employer's area operations manager at the area head- quarters. The Southern Commercial Department, as are. the other functional operating departments in all the three geographic areas, is divided further into geo- graphic districts and is further subdivided into local offices. The Employer's Southern Commercial Department, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, consists of six districts: Benton Harbor, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Kalamazoo (in which is situated the Battle Creek office found appropriate in the two prior cases), Jackson (site of the Jackson office which is the subject of the petition in Case 7-RC-11581), and Grand Valley (in which is situated the Holland facility, the subject of the petition in Case 7-RC-11603). The Jackson Commercial Office, which appears to be conterminous with the Jackson Commercial District, consists of two business offices located respectively at 817 W. High Street, Jackson, Michigan, and 304 S. Jackson Street, Jackson, Michigan, both of which are supervised by a commercial manager. The Jackson 425 Street location employs only approximately four em- ployees, while the balance, or approximately 35 em- ployees are employed at the High Street location. As was the case with the Battle Creek Commercial Office, business office supervisors, the lowest level of supervi- sion in the Employer's hierarchy report to the commer- cial manager. The Jackson commercial manager in turn reports directly to the Jackson district commercial manager, who is also situated in Jackson, Michigan. The Employer's Grand Valley Commercial District is, like the Southern area itself, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Employer's organizational charts reveal that the Grand Valley District is com- posed of three Commercial Offices located in Holland, Greenville, and Ionia, each headed by a commercial manager equivalent in position to the Jackson or Battle Creek commercial manager . It appears that there are no business office supervisors, or first level supervisors, at any of the Commercial Offices which make up the Grand Valley District. Holland, Michigan is located approximately 20 miles southwest of the city of Grand Rapids, the headquarter site of the Southern area and of the Grand Valley District. Greenville is located ap- proximately 20 miles northeast of Grand Rapids, and is situated approximately 40 miles from Holland. Ionia is situated approximately 20 miles east of Grand Rap- ids and lies 50 miles distant from Holland. A total of approximately 16 employees are employed in the Hol- land Commercial Office, which appears to consist of two physical locations or business offices-Holland, located at 190 River Street, Holland, Michigan, the petitioned-for unit consisting of approximately ten em- ployees, and Grand Haven, located at 501 Washington, Grand Haven, Michigan, at which approximately six employees are employed and which is not the subject of the petition in Case 7-RC-11603. Like most public utilities, and in common with many other non-utility employers, the Employer maintains a highly integrated and centrally controlled operation. The Detroit headquarters formulates labor relations policies, determines upon and administers plans con- cerning illness and accidents benefits, death benefits, pension, group life insurance, hospital and medical in- surance; determines normal working hours and work days, holidays, vacations, separation pay and termina- tion pay. Hiring and training procedures, wage rates and wage progression schedules for Commercial De- partment employees are formulated by the General Personnel Department in Detroit. Thus, all Commer- cial Department employees are subject to common em- ployment policies applied on a state wide basis. Like- wise, job interviewing, testing, and potential placement of newly hired employees is at present administered in the Southern Division by the Employer's Personnel Department, located in various cities in the Southern 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Division, whereas prior to September 1972 these inter- viewing and testing functions were administered by the Traffic Department, located at the same locations as before. This change in administration has produced no change in the identity of the interviewers at the employ- ment offices, but rather only a change in their ultimate supervision. The change in administration appears to have produced one change in the employment process insofar as it applies to either potential new employees and commercial managers. Whereas previously the em- ployment office sent a group of candidates to the com- mercial manager and commercial manager chose one to be hired, now the employment office sends but one candidate to the commercial manager who may reject the candidate. The above-cited evidence would, of course, support the contention that a system-wide or an area division- wide unit of the Commercial Department would be appropriate units; and, perhaps, that such broad units would be the optimum unit, especially in view of the Board's preference for system-wide units in the public utilities -industry. New England Telephone and Tele- graph Company, 90 NLRB 639 (1950); Gulf States Telephone Company, 118 NLRB 1039 (1957). The Board, in the prior Battle Creek case, however, has already determined that units system-wide or area-wide in scope are not the only appropriate units of this Em- ployer's Commercial Department employees. Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 192 NLRB 1212 (1971). Based upon the record as a whole I find that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a reversal of that con- clusion of the Board as it relates to the appropriateness of commercial office units in the Employer's Southern Division. Thus, with respect to the Jackson Commercial Office employees, they provide typical commercial services for present and future customers in a number of speci- fied exchanges in a clearly defined geographic area en= compassing Jackson, Albion, Pleasant Lake, Henrietta, Clark Lake, Leslie, Napoleon, Jacksonville, Hillsdale, Charlotte, Eaton Rapids, Nashville, and Vermontville. No other commercial office plays any part in servicing these customers. The petitioned-for employees in the Jackson Commercial Office work together at two loca- tions, both within the same municipality, and no other commercial or business offices appear to be located within the Jackson Commercial District. As the bounds of the Jackson Commercial District appear to be conterminous to those of the Jackson Commercial Office, both the commercial office manager and the commercial district manager in Jack- son represent the Employer in the communities which are serviced by the Jackson Commercial Office. It fur- ther appears that day-to-day job contact between the commercial employees in Jackson and commercial em- ployees in other offices of the Employer is limited to telephonic communication whereby information is sub- mitted or received, and further that this intercommuni- cation does not differ in kind from the interchange of information between Jackson commercial employees and commercial employees of other employers located outside of Michigan. Similarly, interchange of em- ployees on a temporary basis between the Jackson Commercial Office and other commercial offices ap- pears to be minimal, if not nonexistent. Further, only two occasions of permanent transfer to or from the Jackson Commercial Office appear to have occurred during 1972. The record reveals that the Jackson Com- mercial Office manager exercises substantially the same authority as that revealed to be exercised by the Battle Creek Commercial Office manager without diminution and that he has a substantial degree of automony in directing the day-to-day operations of the Jackson Commercial Office. Accordingly, _I am unpersuaded either that the Battle Creek Commercial Office is, no longer appropriate or that there are sufficient factors to distinguish the situa- tion rendering the Battle Creek Commercial Office to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining from the circumstances present at the Jackson Com- mercial Office. Accordingly, on the basis of record as a whole, including the substantial autonomy of the Jackson Commercial Office manager, the absence of substantial interchange or contact with other commer- cial employees, the sufficient cohesiveness of the Jack- son Commercial Office, the discrete, self-contained service area of the Jackson Commercial Office, the ab- sence of any recent history of bargaining, and the fact that a work stoppage at the Jackson Commercial Office would not impair the operations of the other commer- cial offices of the Employer to any greater degree than a work stoppage among commercial employees of another telephone company, and in view of the fact that the Jackson Commercial Office constitutes an adminis- trative subdivision of the Employer, I find that the employees of the Jackson Commercial Office share a community of interest sufficiently separate and distinct from that shared by them with other employees of the Employer. Accordingly, I find that a unit limited to the Employer's Jackson Commercial Office is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 192 NLRB 1212 (1971); Com- munications Satellite Corporation, 198 NLRB 1204 (1972); Central Power & Light Company, 195 NLRB 743 (1972). Thus, for the reasons set forth above, I shall direct an election in the appropriate unit set forth be- low: All Commercial Department employees employed by the Employer at its Jackson Commercial Of- fice, located at 817 W. High Street and 304 S. MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Jackson , Jackson, Michigan, including service representatives , clerical employees , and outside representatives ; but excluding marketing em- ployees, directory sales employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. With respect to the petition in Case 7-RC-11603 , I find, however, that despite the presence of certain of the factors present in both the instant Jackson and the prior Battle Creek units , the peti- tioned-for unit is inappropriate for the following rea- sons . First, it appears from the record that the Holland, Michigan, location or business office, although servic- ing a specified geographic area not shared with any other business office, is not an administrative subdivi- sion of the Employer but really only a part. Rather, it appears that the Holland business office and the Grand Haven business office in reality form and compose the Holland Commercial Office, despite the fact that they are some twenty miles apart , service different areas and do not experience any significant employee inter- change , either permanent or temporary. Further, the 427 Holland location employees and the Grand Haven lo- cation employees are immediately supervised by one and the same commercial manager who spends half of his time at the one business office and the balance of his time at the other. Accordingly , because the Holland facility is not di- rectly and independently supervised by supervision separate and apart from the commercial employees of any other locality, and in view of the fact that the Holland location is not an administrative subdivision of the Employer, but is only a segment of one commercial office, I find that, although the Holland Commercial Office, consisting of the Holland and Grand Haven locations or business offices, may be appropriate, the Holland business office standing alone does not consti- tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . Accordingly, as the ' Petitioner has in- dicated an unwillingness to participate in any election broader than the petitioned -for Holland location, the petition in Case 7-RC-11603 must be dismissed,-and I shall so order.