New England Telephone and Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1980

247 N.L.R.B. 1277 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company and
Local 2324, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO. Cases 1-RC-16447 and 1-
RC-16448
February 21, 1980
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND TRUESDALE
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Francis X. McDo-
nough. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region I
transferred this case to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, the Employer and Petitioner filed briefs.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. Petitioner and Intervenors are labor organiza-
tions claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
representation of employees within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer is a public utility with 3.5 million
customers in a five-state area. Its principal office is in
Boston, Massachusetts. It has stipulated that its
operating departments are divided into four segments:
residence, business, network, and corporate planning
and support service.' The residence segment, whose
employees in the Massachusetts Western Division are
here involved, functions "to meet telecommunications
needs of residence customers."
The residence segment is administered by the
Employer by States: Maine, New Hampshire, Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, with each area
headed by a general manager. However, in the more
populous Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Em-
ployer has further subdivided its residence operations
into five divisions, each with a division manager:
North, Northeast, South, Southeast, and Western.
Petitioner here seeks to represent the approximately
333 residence segment employees in the Western
Division.' Their job titles are: service representative
(227), general clerk (91), and commercial attendant
' A reorganization which resulted in the creation of the four operating
segments was completed in January 1979, after the hearings in New England
Telephone and Telegraph Company, 242 NLRB 793 and 940, where petitions
for units of certain residence and commercial employees in individual offices
within districts were dismissed. Chairman Fanning and Member Truesdale
dissented: they would have found the units appropriate.
247 NLRB No. 161
(15). They work at 12 locations, most of which are
residence service centers or phone centers. Employees
engaged in this sort of work for the Employer have
never been represented, and no union seeks to repre-
sent them on a broader basis.' At the time of the
hearing the Employer had agreed to an election among
a unit of such employees in the State of New
Hampshire.
The Employer considers the optimum collective-
bargaining unit for the residence segment to be
companywide, as for plant employees, traffic employ-
ees, and certain others, but here takes the position that
any unit less than a statewide area is inappropriate. In
so contending, the Employer emphasizes the high
degree of integration of company operations "and the
centralized control regarding a general manager." As
explained by the Employer at the hearing: "The
division, one step below the general manager, is too
small." In its brief it contends that the recent
reorganization "consolidated greater authority in the
general managers of the states," making a "division
size" unit even less appropriate.
Petitioner contends that the Employer's residence
segment has, in effect, been divided into nine "area
divisions"--each composed of districts-with the
Western Division of Massachusetts being not only
well-defined geographically but "specifically correlat-
ed" administratively by the Employer, and immediate-
ly supervised by managerial personnel with the divi-
sion. The record shows the following:
With respect to the four-state area:
Districts
Maine 2
New Hampshire 2
Vermont 1
Rhode Island 2
Reporting
Locations
7
7
4
7
Employees
203
201
101
194
With respect to the five divisions of Massachusetts:
Western
(at issue here)
Northeast
North
South
Southeast
12
2
2
2
3
9
8
8
12
333
299
232
209
369
Thus, each of the five Massachusetts divisions has
more employees and reporting locations than any one
' The Intervenors. Communications Workers of America AFL-CIO and
Telecommunications International Union, took no position on the scope of
the unit.
' That election has since resulted in a no-union vote. The Excelsior list
showed 202 employees in the State of New Hampshire unit, working at 7
locations.
1277
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the four-state area. In addition, based upon attach-
ment vi of the Employer's brief (an attachment
submitted on the issue of interchange which shows the
boundaries of States and of divisions), it appears that
each of the nine area divisions is characterized by
geographic continuity consistent with its administra-
tive organization.
The job of service representative, according to the
Employer, is no different in western Massachusetts
than in Boston, and all service representatives are
similarly trained. Training of employees is a matter of
company policy,' and the employment standard policy
is determined centrally and approved by the vice
president in charge of the residence segment. How-
ever, the training takes place within the division and
actual hiring for the Western Division occurs at the
two employment offices within it: one at Springfield
and one at Worcester.' And, though the division
manager may have "no say" in denying an applicant
employment, it appears that he can effectively recom-
mend discharge, and has done so.
With respect to the issue of daily interaction of
"nonmanagement employees between residence divi-
sions within Massachusetts and the adjoining States
Areas" the record shows that these consist of tele-
phone contacts and the written memoranda made at
each end of the telephone contact. These calls from
one company office to another concern customer
requests for change of service to other locations, as
required by change of domicile, or temporary vacation
service in areas such as Cape Cod or in the Berkshires,
for example. We view this "interaction" as typical of
the service function of any multilocation business
enterprise and have indicated that it is not to be
equated with employee interchange in the telephone
industry.6
The Employer urges the applicability of the opinion
of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in
N.L.R.B. v. Purity Food Stores, Inc., 376 F.2d 497
(1967), but has here failed to demonstrate the "fre-
quent interchange" of employees that characterized
that case.' In fact, its Exhibit 5 shows only four
employees "borrowed or loaned" by the Western
Division during the first 6 months of 1979. During
that period the State of New Hampshire had five
employees borrowed or loaned.
With further reference to the cases involving this
Employer in footnote I of this Decision, their dismis-
sal by a majority of the Board was based upon the
view that the units sought were too narrowly based,
lacking geographical and administrative continuity.
' The wage policy, though centrally determined, is not standard for the
system as a whole. There are three zones of wages.
' Massachusetts has four employment offices: each of the other States has a
single employment orice. At these offices vacancies are filled by applicants for
transfer within the company, as well as by applicants for hire.
For example, in New England Telephone and Tele-
graph, 242 NLRB 793, where the Board reversed the
decision of the Regional Director, the unit sought
consisted of two offices in Manchester, New Hamp-
shire, located in the southern district of that State but
concerned with customer payments throughout the
State, including the northern district. Also, there was
some employee interchange with the Nashua and
Dover offices whose employees were not sought,
though located in the same southern district. Immedi-
ate supervision was supplied by a commercial manager
at one location and an assistant manager at another,
both lacking substantial autonomy in controlling day-
to-day employee activities such as existed in the
Michigan Bell cases therein discussed: 192 NLRB
1112 (1971) (involving Battle Creek) and 217 NLRB
424 (1975) (involving Jackson).
Similarly, in New England Telephone and Tele-
graph, 242 NLRB No. 121, the Employer's offices
located in various districts were sought in 10 petitions,
covering Maine (one office), New Hampshire (three
offices), and Massachusetts (eight, with two located at
Springfield). The Board majority considered these
"local offices" lacking in autonomy, "particularly with
respect to hiring which is done through several
employment offices."
Here, by contrast, the residence segment employees
of the Western Division of Massachusetts constitute a
geographically cohesive unit of all such employees
within a major administrative division of the Employ-
er's total operation. This Western Division of Massa-
chusetts is larger in terms of employee complement in
the employment categories sought than any in the
four-state area (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
and Rhode Island) currently utilized by the Employer
for purposes of administration. In one of these state
areas-each of which has a single employment of-
fice-the Employer has consented to an election. The
Western Division of Massachusetts has two such
employment offices of the four existing in Massachu-
setts at the time of hearing. Although the Employer's
employment policy is centralized, that fact offers no
basis for finding the Western Division an inappropri-
ate unit. The manager of the Western Division
approves requests for additional employees although it
appears that he may not veto the selection of an
employee. With respect to discharge, the Employer's
sole witness could recall no instance where the
division manager's decision to discharge an employee
had been questioned.
See Michigan Bell Telephone Company. 192 NLRB 1212, 1213 (1971).
The court, referring to the chain of seven stores, spoke of the
"independence" of the single store being sought as amounting to "no more
than a few miles of physical separation," and the importance of an
administrative "or" geographical area for an appropriate bargaining unit.
1278
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
While it is clear from the record that the Employer
makes centralized policy decisions, the record does not
show that any of the five Massachusetts divisions, and
the Western Division in particular, lacks autonomy
comparable to that of a statewide area in applying
labor relations policy. The record does not contrast
the responsibilities of the general manager for Massa-
chusetts with that of the managers of the five sizable
divisions into which Massachusetts is divided, and
particularly those of the manager of the Western
Division. Nor is there evidence supporting the Em-
ployer's contention in its brief that the reorganization
completed in 1979 "consolidated greater authority in
the General Managers of the States." Therefore, we
conclude that the residence segment employees of the
Western Division constitute a unit appropriate for
bargaining from the standpoint both of geography and
· See Connecticut Light and Power Company. 222 NLRB 1243 (1976),
finding appropriate divisionwide units. Then-Member Fanning agreed there
with the Regional Director that elections should be directed in the district-
wide units sought.
We would here note that the Employer's affirmative action program on
of administrative control, and shall direct an election
in that unit.'
Accordingly, we find the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All residence segment employees employed by the
Employer in the residence service centers, phone
centers, the pick up point and the C.C.U in the
Western Division of Massachusetts, but exclud-
ing public service employees, presently represent-
ed employees, occasional employees, part-time
employees working less than 20 hours per week,
managerial employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
equal employment opportunity has been addressed to nine divisions which,
practically speaking, coincide with the present four-state, five-divisions-
within-Massachusetts basis on which the Employer is organized administra-
tively.
1279