Middle States Utilities Co. of Missouri

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 416 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of MIDDLE STATES UTILITIES COMPANY OP MIssotn I,
CLINTON COUNTY TELEPHONE COMPANY AND ANDREW COUNTY Mu-
TUAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and UTILITY WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, LOCAL 305, PETITIONER
Case No. 17-UA-598.Decided January 31, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Kansas
'City, Missouri, on June 16, 1948, before Margaret L. Fassig, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Separate motions
to dismiss the petition were filed on behalf of the three operating
companies and were referred to the Board for decision. These mo-
tions are denied for reasons hereinafter stated under Sections I
and IV.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
The Employers are Missouri corporations engaged in the opera-
tion of telephone plants, exchanges, and systems in the State of Mis-
souri. All of the common stock of Middle States Utilities Com-
pany of Missouri and Clinton County Telephone Company, and 91
percent of the common stock of Andrew County Mutual Telephone
Company, is owned by Middle States Utilities, Inc., a Delaware cor-
poration. The Employers furnish telephone service and connections
to approximately 12,900 stations and 11,800 subscribers through 36
telephone exchanges located in the State of Missouri.
Before 1947, the companies operated direct lines which crossed
the Iowa-Missouri State border and connected with the lines of Middle
States Utilities Company of Iowa, which is also controlled by Middle
States Utilities, Inc. After destruction of the interstate lines by
sleet storms in January 1947, they were abandoned and the companies
secured reclassification by the Federal Communications Commission
81 N. L. R. B., No. 72.
416
MIDDLE STATES UTILITIES CO. OF MISSOURI 417
as "connecting carriers" engaging in interstate commerce solely
through physical connections with other carriers neither directly nor
indirectly controlled by them.' Since that time, telephone calls to
parts of Missouri not served by the companies and calls to points lo-
cated in other States have been made through connections with the
ones of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.
The gross revenue of the three companies for the year ending
December 31, 1947, from all telephone service rendered, amounted to
approximately $380,000. In the same year, gross revenue from mes-
sages sent paid, or received collect, over Bell Telephone lines was ap-
proximately $76,000, of which $20,000 was revenue derived from inter-
state messages. The companies serve subscribers who are engaged
in interstate commerce, including railroads, oil companies, public
utilities, and chain stores. They purchase supplies and materials
amounting to $130,000 yearly, from warehouses and suppliers located in
Kansas City, Missouri. These supplies include hardware, line ma-
terials, telephones, cords, batteries, paper, and stationery. No record
is kept of the source of these supplies although it appears that an
indeterminate percentage of them is manufactured in other States.2
Accordingly, and contrary to the contention of the Employers,
we find that the Employers are engaged in commerce within the mean.
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.3
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em••
ployees of the Employers.
I The Employers contend that the action of the Federal Communications Commission
reclassifying them and relieving the companies of regulation by the Commission except
as to communications over the lines of interstate carriers , is a conclusive showing that
the Employers are not engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act.
They also contend that inasmuch as the companies are subject to the Public Utility Labor
Law of Missouri, the Board should not exert jurisdiction . We find these contentions
to be without merit. Without ruling on the applicability of the Federal Communications
Commission's findings to these proceedings , it is noted that the reclassification was not
a finding by that agency that the Employers did not engage in interstate commerce.
Neither does the existence of the Public Utilities Labor Law of Missouri constitute a
bar to our jurisdiction herein. Section 10 (a) of the Act, which is relied upon by the
Employers , only allows the Board to cede jurisdiction to State agencies in certain cases.
2 The Employers contend that the facts herein are distinguishable from those in cases
involving telephone companies we have found engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act, because of the lack of evidence as to the percentage and value of materials
and supplies manufactured in other States and shipped to the Employers in interstate
commerce . As the Court stated in National Labor Relations Board v . Central Missouri
Telephone Company, 115 F. (2d) 563, it is sufficient basis for such a finding if there has
been participation in interstate transmission of messages through connections with other
lines and it is not necessary for the Board to base its finding that the Employer is engaged
in commerce upon the percentage or value of purchases of materials shipped in interstate
commerce.
3 See Matter of Elyrta Telephone Company, 58 N. L R. B . 402 ; Matter of Newark Tele-
phone Company, 59 N L. R B. 1408, 1410.
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING A UNION-SHOP AUTHORIZATION ELECTION
In 1944, the Petitioner was certified by the Board as the collective
bargaining representative of a unit composed of the employees of the
three companies concerned herein and also including the personnel
of Middle States Utilities Company of Iowa 4 Contractual relation-
ships between the Employers and the Petitioner have been continuous
since 1945. By contract dated August 6, 1947, the employees of the
Iowa company were separated from the original unit .5 Following
the termination of a contract in February 1948, several interim,
monthly agreements were made, culminating in the present contract,
which was signed on April 29, 1948, for a period of 1 year with pro-
vision for automatic renewal in the absence of 60 days' prior notice.
Under this contract the Employers recognize the Petitioner subject
to certain stated conditions,' as the exclusive bargaining representa-
tive of employees within a unit composed of the employees of all
three companies.
The Employers contend, in support of motions to dismiss the pe-
tition, that the bargaining unit covered by the contract is no longer
appropriate, and that there should be three separate units, each con-
fined to the employees of a single company. Despite their contract,
the Employers also apparently contend that the Petitioner's asserted
status as statutory bargaining agent is open to question if three sep-
arate units, rather than one, are regarded as appropriate. However,
for the reasons indicated in Section IV, below, we find that the three-
company unit advocated by the Petitioner remains the appropriate
unit for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of See-
i ion 9 (b) of the Act, and that the three separate units recommended
by the Employers are inappropriate.7 Accordingly, we find, further,
that there exists no question concerning the representation of the Em-
ployers' employees in the appropriate unit.8 The preliminary re-
quirements for a union-shop authorization election, set forth in
Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act, are therefore satisfied in this case.
4 58 N L. R B 482.
5 The Petitioner testified that the separation of Middle States Utilities Company of Iowa
employees from the unit was due to differences in the laws of Iowa and Missouri affecting
negotiations.
6 The stated conditions concern the Board's jurisdiction and the bargaining unit. The
Employers reserve the right to contend , in this case , or "by any appropriate proceedings"
that the employees of the three companies should not be in a single bargaining unit and
that the separate companies or any one of these are not under the Board ' s jurisdiction.
7 The Employers offered evidence , which the hearing officer rejected , to show that the
employees of the Andrew County Company do not desire the Petitioner as their bargain-
ing representative . We have sustained the hearing officer's ruling . The proffered evidence
is immaterial , especially in view of our findings above.
8 The Employers concede that the Petitioner is the statutory bargaining agent of their
employees in "the unit as it now stands."
MIDDLE STATES UTILITIES CO. OF MISSOURI 419
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a union-shop election in a unit composed of
all employees of the Employers, including cashiers, wire chiefs, and
the cable splicer, but excluding those persons employed on an agency
basis, construction foremen,9 and managerial, supervisory, and con-
fidential employees including the general manager, the commercial
manager, the plant manager, the president of the Employers, the
secretary-treasurer of the Employers, the traveling auditor, book-
keeper, secretary to the general manager, stenographer to the com-
mercial manager, stenographer to the plant manager, chief operators,
combination cashier-chief operators and all other supervisors within
the meaning of the Act. This unit is the same as that covered by the
current contract, but the Employers contend that the employees of
each of the three companies should comprise a separate unit.
As noted under Section I, supra, the operating companies have com-
mon ownership through the stock holdings of Middle States Utilities,
Inc., despite their separate corporate structures. The exchanges op-
erated by the companies extend through the upper tiers of counties in
the State of Missouri, in areas that are largely agricultural. As a
result there is considerable geographical separation between the ex-
treme eastern and extreme western exchanges. However, there are
connections between all the exchanges in the Andrew and Clinton
County systems, and many, though not all, of the exchanges of the
Middle States Utilities Company of Missouri are interconnected.
There is a toll line connection between the latter company and the
Clinton County system. The companies have connections, also, with
other independent telephone systems and with Southwestern Bell
Telephone Company.
Excluding agency operations, there are approximately 195 em-
ployees in the 3 companies, of whom 164 are in the proposed unit. Of
these, 126 are employed by Middle States Utilities Company of Mis-
souri ; 20 by Andrew County Mutual ; and 18 by the Clinton County
Telephone Company. The president and secretary-treasurer of
Middle States Utilities Company of Missouri serve in the same capac-
ities for the other companies. The general manager, plant superin-
tendent, commercial superintendent, assistant general manager, and
the auditor are employed jointly by all 3 companies. The general
manager has final control over the discharge of employees of each of
the companies although hirings are initiated at the local level. There
is some interchange of personnel among the companies and in the
9 The petition originally requested the inclusion of the construction foremen in the
unit However, the Petitioner, at the hearing, agreed to the exclusion of the foremen
as supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
829595-50-vol 81 28
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cases of the journeyman, the switchboard man, and the cable splicer,
the employee is carried on the pay roll of 1 company while his services
are utilized by all 3. There is also interchange of supplies and ma-
terials and this interchange is more common between these companies
than between the companies and other telephone systems.
The Employers base their contention that three units rather than
one are appropriate on the grounds that the companies have become
decentralized under present ownership; that the working conditions
at the three companies differ; that there is a geographical separation of
the employees leading to localized interests and that the smaller com-
pany employees could be outvoted by those of the larger. We find no
merit in these contentions. Although there have been attempts at de-
centralization during the past few years, there remains a substantial
integration of ownership, control, and management, as well as integra-
tion of operation in the form of interchange of supplies and personnel.
Job classifications are similar for the three plants, and while there
are differences in the physical conditions at the various exchanges, the
record shows these differences are minor and do not negate the mutual-
ity of interests among the employees of the three companies as demon-
strated by the bargaining history. The important differences between
the companies appear to be that they vary in their financial expecta-
tions and that their rates are subject to some variations according to
size . However, in our opinion, diversity of financial need, different
requirements as to improvements, repairs and maintenance, and un-
equal attraction to capital do not outweigh the integration of the com-
panies and the similarity of skills and working conditions throughout
the proposed unit, existing now and at the time of our previous unit
determination.
In view of the Employers' common ownership, control, manage-
ment, and operation, the mutuality of interest among all their em-
ployees, and the history of successful bargaining on the basis of a
single unit , we are convinced that there is no warrant for altering
the presently established three-company bargaining pattern 10 Absent
extraordinary circumstances that are not here present," it follows that
the same unit is the appropriate one for purposes of a union-shop
referendum.
We find that the following employees of the Employers herein
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of Section 9 (e) (1)
of the Act : all employees, including cashiers, wire chiefs, and the
cable splicer, but excluding those persons employed on an agency
basis, construction foremen, and managerial , supervisory, and con-
See Matter of Rosslyn Gas Company, 69 N. L. R B 843.
" See Matter of Giant Food Shopping Center, 77 N. L. R B 791 ; Matter of Benjamin
Eastwood Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 1383.
MIDDLE STATES UTILITIES CO. OF MISSOURI 421
fidential employees, including the general manager, the commercial
manager, the plant manager, the president of the Employers, the
secretary-treasurer of the Employers, the traveling auditor, the book-
keeper, the secretary to the general manager, the stenographer to
the commercial manager, the stenographer to the plant manager,
chief operators, combination chief operators-cashiers, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to determine whether or not a union-
shop agreement with Middle States Utilities Company of Missouri,
,Clinton County Telephone Company and Andrew County Mutual
Telephone Company, Plattsburg, Missouri, is authorized, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
-supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, and
subject to Section 203.61 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid
off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
-the date of the election, and also excluding those employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not
-they desire Utility Workers Union of America, CIO, Local 305, to
make an agreement with Middle States Utilities Company of Missouri,
Clinton County Telephone Company, and Andrew County Mutual
'Telephone Company, Plattsburg, Missouri, requiring membership in
the aforesaid labor organization as a condition of employment in
.such unit.