New England Telephone And Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 30, 1986

280 N.L.R.B. 162 (N.L.R.B. 1986)

162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
and Local 2222, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner and
Local Unions 2323, 2324 and 2325, Internation-
al Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Joint-Petitioners. Cases 1-RC-18341 and
1-RC-18568
30 May 1986
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 15 February 1985 the Regional Director for
Region 1 issued a Decision and Order in Case 1-
RC-18341 in which he found inappropriate a unit
of all service representatives, service order assist-
ants, clerical assistants, and general clerks em-
ployed in the North/Northeast District of the busi-
ness division of the Employer's business marketing
department. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's deci-
sion on the ground that the decision substantially
departed from officially reported Board precedent.
The Employer filed an opposition to the request
for review. By telegraphic order dated 12 July
1985 the request for review was denied.
On 7 October 1985 the Regional Director for
Region 1 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in Case 1-RC-18568 in which he found appro-
priate a unit of all full -time, regular part -time and
temporary service representatives, clerical assist-
ants, and general clerks employed in the Western
Massachusetts/Rhode Island District of the Em-
ployer's residence marketing department. Thereaf-
ter, the Employer filed a timely request for review
of the Regional Director 's decision on the grounds
that the decision represents a significant departure
from officially reported Board precedent and con-
tains erroneous factual findings. The Joint-Petition-
ers filed an opposition to the Employer's request
for review. By telegraphic order dated 4 Novem-
ber 1985, the request for review was granted. In so
doing, the Board decided sua sponte to reconsider
Case 1-RC-18341. Both the Employer and the
Unions filed briefs on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
both cases 1 with respect to the issues under review
1 The Board has also considered the record in New England Telephone
4 Telegraph Co., Case 1-RC-18464, which was incorporated in Case 1-
RC-18568 by stipulation of the parties. In that case , the Regional Direc-
and has decided to affirm the Regional Director's
Decision and Order in Case 1-RC-18341, but to re-
verse his Decision and Direction of Election in
Case 1-RC-18568.
The Employer is a public utility incorporated
under the laws of the State of New York, with its
principal office in Boston, Massachusetts. The Em-
ployer is engaged in providing communication
services to approximately 3-1/2 million customers
in five New England States : Maine, New Hamp-
shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.
It employs approximately 29,000 employees. The
Employer's operating departments are divided into
the residence marketing , business marketing, net-
work, and corporate planning and support services
segments.
Case 1-RC-18341 involves the appropriateness
of a districtwide unit of nonmanagement employees
in the Employer's business marketing department.
That department consists of two divisions, one
headed by the division staff manager, the other
headed by the division manager-business . The divi-
sion manager-business is responsible for four dis-
tricts, each covering a specific geographic area and
each consisting of several offices which service
smaller business customers.2 The four districts are
the North/Northeast District, the South/Southeast
District, the Western Massachusetts/Rhode Island
District, and the Northern States District. Each
district is headed by a district manager who reports
to the division manager-business. Each of the of-
fices within a district is headed by an office manag-
er.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the approxi-
mately 200 nonmanagement employees of - the
North/Northeast District. This district consist of
locations in Brookline and Danvers, Massachusetts.
The Employer contends that the appropriate unit is
a companywide unit of nonmanagement employees
in its business marketing department or, in the al-
ternative, a divisionwide unit of nonmanagement
employees under the supervision of the division
manager-business. The Employer further contends
that the smallest appropriate unit is a statewide unit
of nonmanagement employees in both divisions of
the business marketing department who are em-
ployed in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.3
tor dismissed a petition filed by two of the local unions involved here for
an election in a unit of all clerical employees employed at the Employer's
residence service centers located in Springfield , Pittsfield , and Worcester,
Massachusetts. No request for review was filed.
2 Each district consists of sales development centers (SDCs), service
order entry centers (SOECs) and account inquiry centers (AICs) In ad-
dition , every district except the Northern States District includes admin-
istrative marketing groups. The responsibilities and functions of these of-
fices are the same wherever located.
8 The number of employees in the Employer's proposed units are 938,
819, and 749 , respectively
280 NLRB No. 16
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO.
The Employer maintains a highly integrated and
centrally controlled operation. Labor relations poli-
cies, including wage rates , wage progression, fringe
benefits, working conditions, and hiring and train-
ing procedures, are centrally determined. Most
training is conducted at one of the Employer's
three training centers. The job classifications and
duties of employees in the business marketing de-
partment are uniform throughout the Employer's
system. The employees perform their jobs in ac-
cordance with companywide practices and proce-
dures developed and issued by the general manag-
er's office. Regular hours of work and overtime are
established by the Employer's personnel policies.
District managers may approve overtime up to the
amount alloted for each district.
Staff levels throughout the department are deter-
mined and authorized by the general manager-busi-
ness . If a local office manager needs additional
help, the district manager can rearrange employees
within his district. If, however, additional employ-
ees are needed, the district manager must seek ap-
proval from the division manager . Vacancies are
then filled by a transfer from another office of the
business marketing department, which is processed
through the district manager of marketing person-
nel, or by a transfer from another department or
the hiring of new employees, both of which are
processed through the Employer's employment of-
fices in Salem or Boston, Massachusetts. Local
office managers, district managers , and division
managers are not involved in the hiring process.
Local office managers may issue verbal warn-
ings . District managers must approve written warn-
ings , and may impose suspensions of up to 10 days.
Suspensions of up to 30 days, final warnings, and
terminations must be approved by the division
manager. Leave of absence requests for periods
longer than 30 days must be approved by the Em-
ployer's corporate personnel relations office.
During 1984, there were a total of 22 temporary
transfers and 31 permanent transfers between the
various districts of the two divisions of the business
marketing department. There were 2 temporary
transfers from, and 12 temporary transfers into, the
North/Northeast District. There were five perma-
nent transfers from, and four permanent transfers
into, the North/Northeast District.
The Regional Director, based on the evidence of
centralized control of hiring and transfer of em-
ployees, the limited authority of the district manag-
ers, and the evidence of interchange between the
various districts and divisions of the business mar-
163
keting department, found the petitioned-for unit in-
appropriate and therefore dismissed the petition.4
Case 1-RC-18568 involves the appropriateness
of a districtwide unit of nonmanagement employees
in the residence marketing department. The resi-
dence marketing department is composed of two
parts. One part consists of a marketing district, a
methods district, and an administrative district,
each headed by a district manager who reports to
the division staff manager who in turn reports to
the general manager/residence. The second part
consists of five districts: the Western Massachu-
setts/Rhode Island District, the Metro District, the
Northeast District, the Southeast District, and the
Northern States District, each headed by a district
manager who reports directly to the general
manager/residence. There are 25 residence service
centers (RSCs) encompassed by these districts,
each headed by a resident office manager who re-
ports to the district manager for that district.
The Joint-Petitioners seek to represent the ap-
proximately 340 nonmanagement employees in the
6 RSCs in the Western Massachusetts/Rhode
Island District. These RSCs are located in Worces-
ter, Springfield, and Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and
Providence and South County, Rhode Island. The
Employer contends that the most appropriate unit
is a companywide unit of clerical employees in the
residence marketing department, excluding those
New Hampshire employees who are currently rep-
resented by the Communications Workers of
America (CWA). The Employer contends, in the
alternative, that a statewide unit of all clericals in
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is appropri-
ate.5
As discussed above in connection with Case 1-
RC-18341, the Employer maintains a highly inte-
grated and centrally controlled operation. Labor
relations policies and the classifications, training,
and duties of RSC employees are uniform through-
out the Employer's system. The district manager
for the Western Massachusetts/Rhode Island Dis-
trict has the authority to approve the issuance of
disciplinary warnings and short suspensions. Al-
though longer suspensions and terminations must
4 The Regional Director also noted that the unit requested did not en-
compass an entire state or division , and further noted that, with the ex-
ception of New England Telephone & Telegraph Co., 249 NLRB 1166
(1980) (appropriate unit consisted of all business service centers in New
Hampshire), the Board had never found appropriate a unit of the Em-
ployer's employees on less than a divisionwide basis . New England Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., 247 NLRB 1277 (1980) (appropriate unit consisted
of residence service centers in what was then the Western Massachusetts
Division). The Regional Director relied on New England Telephone &
Telegraph Co, 258 NLRB 1284 ( 1981) (unit of residence service centers
in what was then the Springfield District found inappropriate)
6 There are 1653 nonmanagement employees in the residence market-
ing department.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be approved by the general manager , the district
manager's recommendations are normally accepted.
When a vacancy needs to be filled, the district
manager requisitions a transfer from the Employ-
er's transfer bureau in Boston. If no transfer is
available, the position is filled by an employment
office within the district. The district manager can
make temporary transfers between offices within
the district, and he schedules all vacations. The dis-
trict manager can resolve grievances only to the
second step of the Employer's grievance proce-
dure.
During a 15-month period from April 1984
through 31 July 1985, there were 82 temporary
transfers between the Western Massachusetts/-
Rhode Island District and other districts. During
the same period, there were 14 permanent transfers
between the districts.
The Regional Director found the petitioned-for
unit appropriate based on his findings that the unit
constituted a "geographically cohesive unit" of all
employees within a major administrative district,
and that the district manager possessed "significant
autonomy" in implementing and effectuating the
Employer's employment policies.6 He noted that
there was no history of collective bargaining and
no labor organization sought to represent the em-
ployees on a broader basis. He further found that
the amount of interchange and transfers did not
warrant a different conclusion. Accordingly, the
Regional Director directed an election in the peti-
tioned-for unit.7
The Employer's and the Unions' arguments in
both cases are consistent . The Employer contends
that the petitioned-for units are inappropriate based
on the Employer's integrated and centralized oper-
ations, the limited authority of the district manag-
ers, the inconsistency of the Regional Director's
decision in Case 1-RC-18568 with earlier cases
finding a districtwide unit inappropriate, the sub-
stantial amount of employee interchange, the lack
of geographic cohesiveness, and the lack of a suffi-
ciently distinct community of interest among the
employees in the respective units. Conversely, the
Unions argue that the petitioned-for units are ap-
propriate based on the prior cases involving the
Employer and on the Employer's previous consent
to elections in less than systemwide units, as evi-
denced by CWA representation of employees in
the New Hampshire RSCs. The Unions further
argue that the units represent geographically well
The Regional Director relied on New England Telephone, above, 247
NLRB at 1277.
' The Board has been administratively advised that an election was
conducted on 4 November 1985 in the unit found appropriate by the Re-
gional Director and that the ballots were impounded
defined and distinct administrative segments of the
Employer's operation, the district managers have
substantial autonomy, and the evidence of employ-
ee interchange is not critical.
The Board has long held that in public utility in-
dustries a systemwide unit is optimal. New England
Telephone & Telegraph Co., 90 NLRB 639 (1950).
See also Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., 206 NLRB
199 (1973); Gulf States Telephone Co., 118 NLRB
1039 (1957). In Baltimore Gas & Electric, the Board
stated:8
That judgment has plainly been impelled by
the economic reality that the public utility in-
dustry is characterized by a high degree of
interdependence of its various segments and
that the public has an immediate and direct in-
terest in the maintenance of the essential serv-
ices that this industry alone can adequately
provide. The Board has therefore been reluc-
tant to fragmentize a utility's operations. It has
done so only when there was compelling evi-
dence that collective bargaining in a unit less
than systemwide in scope was a "feasible un-
dertaking" and there was no opposing bargain-
ing history.
We find no such compelling evidence here. On
the contrary, the record establishes a high degree
of centralization in the Employer's labor relations
and employment policies, with limited autonomy
on the part of the district managers in either the
residence or business departments. Moreover, there
is substantial evidence of employee interchange,
both temporary and permanent, between districts in
both departments. While each of the petitioned-for
units does constitute an administrative subdivision
of the Employer's operations,9 in neither case have
the Unions shown that the employees in the respec-
tive subdivisions share a sufficiently distinct com-
munity of interest to warrant bargaining on a less
than systemwide basis. Indeed, the record shows
that virtually all of the terms and conditions of em-
ployment, including hours, wage rates, wage pro-
gressions, fringe benefits, grievance procedures,
work rules, job classifications, and duties within
those classifications, are uniform systemwide. Ac-
cordingly, we conclude that the smallest appropri-
ate unit is a systemwide unit for each department
and thus that the petitioned-for units are inappro-
priate.10
8 206 NLRB at 201
9 We do not, however, agree with the Regional Director's character-
ization of the Western Massachusetts/Rhode Island District as "geo-
graphically cohesive "
10 Our decision may not be consistent with all prior cases involving
this Employer We need not decide, however, whether we would reach
Continued
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE CO.
Accordingly, we find the petitioned-for units in
Cases 1-RC-18341 and 1-RC-18568 inappropriate,
and we shall therefore dismiss the petitions.
the same conclusions in those cases if they were before us today. Since
those decisions , the Employer has undergone significant organizational
changes which have resulted in more centralized control of labor rela-
tions and a concomitant loss of autonomy on the local and district levels.
For example, in 1984 the RSCs in the Western Massachusetts Division
found appropriate in 1980 were combined with the RSCs in Rhode Island
to form the current Western Massachusetts /Rhode Island District Addi-
tionally , in both cases before us, the degree of employee interchange is
significantly greater than in prior cases in which a less than systemwide
unit was found appropriate
165
ORDER
It is ordered that the election conducted on 4
November 1985 in Case 1-RC-18568 is vacated
and that the petitions in Cases 1-RC-18341 and 1-
RC-18568 are dismissed.