New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1979

242 N.L.R.B. 940 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company and
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO
Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, Locals 2324, and 2320, Petitioner.
Cases 1-RC-15994, 1-RC-15998, 1-RC-16006, I-
RC-16007, I-RC-16015, 1-RC-16021, I-RC-
16022, 1-RC-16023, 1-RC-16024, and I-RC-
16040
June 11, 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consoli-
dated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Regi-
nald J. Gagnon.' Following the hearing and pursuant
to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements ot Pro-
cedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board for de-
cision. The Employer and Petitioner filed briefs.2
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case,' including a
stipulation of facts by the parties, the National Labor
Relations Board finds:4
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
2. The Petitioners are labor organizations claiming
to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question concerning commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
I International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as IBEW, and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as CWA, were permitted to intervene with respect to
petitions filed by the other on the basis of a showing of interest,
2 In New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 242 NLRB 793
(1979) (I RC- 15897) IBEW filed a motion to withdraw brief on ground that
it no longer wished to adhere to the position it set forth in such brief that
only an employer-wide unit is appropriate. The Board denied IBEW's mo-
tion to withdraw brief, but without prejudice to consideration herein of the
attached amicus curiae brief, which was directed to the consolidated proceed-
ing herein and sets forth IBEW's contention that districtwide units may be
appropriate. In dismissing the petitions here we make no determination as to
what, if any, alternative units may be appropriate in view of the parties'
positions. CWA has indicated no interest in units larger than those here
dismissed. IBEW has switched from its original agreement with the Em-
ployer on a systemwide unit for commercial employees to urging district
units consistent with the Employer's organizational scheme: in the meantime
two locals of IBEW have sought single-office units that are here dismissed. In
the circumstances we will not consider the I BEA"s arnicus brief in this pro-
ceeding.
3 During the course of the hearing, the parties agreed to incorporate by
reference the complete record in the prior case, N'ew England Telephone and
Telegraph Compoany, 242 NLRB 793 (1979) (I RC 15897), which involved
the Employer's commercial department offices in Manchester. New Hamp-
shire, at two locations,
' The Employer requested oral argument in its brief of December 8, 1978.
We hereby den)y the Employer's request for oral argument, as the record,
including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the
parties on the issue of "office" units of commercial department employees.
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Act, for the reasons stated below.
Petitioners, CWA and IBEW,5 Locals 2320 and
2324, seek to represent 10 units in all, for a total of
approximately 395 commercial office employees em-
ployed in certain residential service centers, business
service centers, residence business offices, phone cen-
ters, and pickup points, or combinations thereof, at
cities in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
There is no history of collective bargaining in the
units sought.
Case -RC-15998. CWA petitioned to represent
approximately 29 employees employed as gen-
eral clerks, service representatives, and commer-
cial attendants who work at Employer's residence
office and phone center located in Nashua, New
Hampshire.
Case -RC-16023. CWA petitioned to represent
approximately 38 commercial office employees
employed as general clerks, service representa-
tives, and commercial attendants who work at
Employer's residence office and pick-up point lo-
cated in Dover, New Hampshire.
Case -RC-16015. IBEW Local 2320 petitioned
to represent approximately 25 commercial office
employees employed as general clerks, service
representatives, and commercial attendants who
work at Employer's residence office and phone
center located in Keene, New Hampshire.
The Dover and Nashua offices are part of Employ-
er's New Hampshire southern district, while the
Keene office is part of the New Hampshire northern
district. The geographic area served by the Keene
residence office is also served by the Concord business
center and the Manchester centralized cash unit. The
geographic areas served by the Dover and Nashua
residence offices are also served by the Manchester
business service center and centralized cash unit. See
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 242
NLRB 793 (1979) (1-RC-15897), dismissing CWA's
request for a unit of commercial employees at Man-
chester, New Hampshire.
Case -RC-16006. IBEW Local 2324 petitioned
to represent approximately 32 commercial office
employees employed as general clerks, service
representatives, and commercial attendants who
work at Employer's business office and phone cen-
ter located in Holyoke, Massachusetts.
Case l--RC-16007. IBEW Local 2324 petitioned
to represent approximately 35 commercial office
employees employed as general clerks, service
-The IBEW International intervened in the case at Hyannis: its Local
2320, in the cases in Nashua and Dover; and its Local 2327, in the case at
Portland,
242 NLRB No. 121
940
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
representatives, and commercial attendants who
work at Employer's business office and phone cen-
ter located in Northampton, Massachusetts.
Case I -RC-16022. IBEW Local 2324 petitioned
to represent approximately 51 commercial office
employees employed as general clerks, service
representatives, service order assistants, and
commercial attendants who work at Employer's
business service center, residence office, and phone
center, located at 1000 Wilbraham Road. (Breck-
wood Park Office) Springfield, Massachusetts.
Case -RC-16021. IBEW Local 2324 petitioned
to represent approximately 32 commercial office
employees employed as general clerks, service
representatives, and commercial attendants who
work at Employer's residence office and phone
center located at 285 Worthington Street, 1000
Wilbraham Road, and 4 Maple Street in Spring-
field, Massachusetts. However, there are no com-
mercial employees at 285 Worthington Street
and the employees at Wilbraham Road are set
forth in Case 1-RC-16022.
Case -RC-16040. IBEW Local 2324 petitioned
to represent the approximately 10 commercial
office employees employed as service representa-
tives and general clerks who work at Employer's
residence office and phone center located in North
Adams, Massachusetts.
The offices in Holyoke, North Adams, and North-
ampton are part of Employer's Northampton district,
while the offices in Springfield are part of Employer's
Springfield district. The offices sought above are part
of the Employer's Massachusetts western division.
Case I-RC-15994. CWA petitioned to represent
the approximately 69 commercial office employ-
ees employed as general clerks, service represen-
tatives, commercial attendants, clerical assis-
tants, and service order assistants who work at
Employer's residence office, business service cen-
ter, and phone center located in Hyannis, Massa-
chusetts.
The Hyannis residence office, business service cen-
ter, and phone center are part of the Employer's New
Bedford district in the southeastern division of Mas-
sach:isetts. The geographic areas served by the New
Bedford and Falmouth, Massachusetts, residence of-
fices are also served by the Hyannis business service
center.
Case -RC- 16024. CWA petitioned to represent
the approximately 74 commercial office employ-
ees employed as general clerks, service represen-
tatives, commercial attendants, and service order
assistants who work at Employer's residence of:
fice, business service center, and pick-up point lo-
cated at Portland, Maine.
The Employer has divided the Maine area into two
districts. One district (business district) includes two
business service centers, a main collection office, and
a centralized cash unit. The other district (residence
district) includes six residence offices, five phone cen-
ters, and one pickup point. The geographic area
served by the Biddeford, Lewiston, and Portland resi-
dence offices are also served by the Portland business
service center.
The Employer notes that. subsequent to the filing
of the 10 petitions herein, IBEW filed a petition (Case
I-RC-16053) to represent approximately 16 commer-
cial office employees in Greenfield. Massachusetts.
and that CWA also filed a petition to represent ap-
proximately 70 commercial office employees in Ban-
gor, Maine. It appears that those cases are being held
in abeyance in the Region.
The Employer contends that only a systemwide
unit of all commercial department employees (ap-
proximately 2,900) throughout the five-state area ser-
viced by the Employer is appropriate. CWA con-
tends, and IBEW apparently agreed based on the six
petitions filed by its locals, that less then systemwide
units are appropriate.
For the reasons set out below. we find that the units
requested by the Petitioners are, under the circum-
stances, too narrow in scope and that they are there-
fore inappropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing. The relevant facts, pursuant to a stipulation at
this consolidated hearing, are as follows:
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
is a public utility incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York, with its principal office in Boston,
Massachusetts. The Employer is engaged in the fur-
nishing of communication services to about 3-1/2
million customers in the five New England States of
Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
and Rhode Island, and it has approximately 40,500
employees.
The CWA and IBEW have both petitioned to rep-
resent certain employees in the Employer's commer-
cial department, which had approximately 2,948 non-
management employees as of June 30, 1978.
The commercial department is headed by an assist-
ant vice president whose office is located at the corpo-
rate headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. He is the
"spokesman" for the commercial department at the
corporate level and administers its wage and person-
nel policies.
Hiring is centralized for all departments of the Em-
ployer. In the State of New Hampshire there is only
one employment office, and that is located in Man-
941
DECISIONS OF NA I IONAL LABOR RELA lIIONS BOARD
chester. The employment office in Maine is located in
Portland. In the western division of Massachusetts
there are two employment offices, located in Spring-
field and Worcester, respectively. In the southeastern
division of Massachusetts the employment office is
located in Brockton.
Petitioners seek to represent certain employees
classified as general clerk, service order assistant, ser-
vice representative, clerical assistant, commercial at-
tendant, and service evaluator. Employees so classi-
fied work in the 62 residence offices, 5 business offices,
54 phone centers, 24 business service centers, 7 cen-
tralized cash units, 3 main collection offices, and 5
picku!p points located in Portland, Maine; Nashua,
Keene, and Dover, New Hampshire; and Holyoke,
Northampton, Springfield (two separate locations),
North Adams, and Hyannis, Massachusetts. Employ-
ees in the six categories sought receive standardized
training and perform their jobs in accordance with
practices and procedures issued by the assistant vice
president in charge of the commercial department.
Each business service center is supervised by a
commercial manager, a position at the second level of
management.6 Each business service center is respon-
sible for accepting and processing orders for tele-
phone service from all business accounts within its
geographical area of responsibility and for maintain-
ing existing business accounts, including the handling
of customer billing claims as well as the collection of
revenues.
The Employer's residence offices and business of-
fices are supervised by commercial managers. These
offices accept and process orders for telephone service
from all residence and business accounts within their
geographical areas of responsibility. Additionally,
each office is responsible for maintaining existing res-
idential or business accounts, which includes the han-
dling of customer billing claims and the collection of
revenues.
Phone centers are supervised by assistant manag-
ers, at the lowest (first) level of management. Assist-
ant managers report to commercial managers. Pickup
points are supervised by either a manager (Portland,
Maine) or an assistant manager (Dover, New Hamp-
shire). Pickup points are responsible for accepting
and distributing telephone equipment to customers
who visit them.
While there has been no history of bargaining be-
tween the Employer and any union representing com-
mercial employees, in 1973 IBEW, in Case I-RC-
12671, petitioned for a unit of all commercial depart-
ment employees in the five-state New England area.
An election was conducted following agreement by
the parties to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
6 An assistant manager is the first level, then commercial manager, then
district manager, then division manager, and then assistant vice president.
Consent Election. IBEW failed to win the election,
and the results were certified on June 5, 1973.
Both CWA and IBEW represent companywide
units of employees other than the commercial depart-
ment employees, such as traffic, plant, accounting, di-
rectory, etc.; six such companywide units have been
certified by the Board.
The commercial department has personnel prac-
tices and policies which apply throughout the Em-
ployer's five-state system. Fringe benefits are the
same for all employees, regardless of work done. The
Employer's employment offices are located through-
out the five-state area. Commercial managers initiate
hiring by submitting a requisition for an additional
employee for approval by the district and division
managers. Thereafter, the requisition is forwarded to
the employment office, which decides whether a cur-
rent employee should be transferred from another lo-
cation or a new employee hired.
The training and duties of the employees in the
classifications in issue are similar throughout the Em-
ployer's system. Service representatives are engaged
in contact with customers on questions relating to col-
lections, service, and billing. General clerks perform a
variety of secretarial and clerical functions. Commer-
cial attendants are essentially switchboard operators.
Service order assistants deal with customers, formu-
lating complex service orders.
Commercial managers and assistant managers have
authority to give oral warnings, recommend further
discipline and discharge, and grant or deny promo-
tions and wage increases. Assistant managers assign
work and schedule work hours in consultation with
commercial managers. Although vacations are
granted by seniority, commercial managers or assist-
ant managers determine the number of employees
who may take vacations at any particular time.
Like most utilities, the Employer maintains a
highly integrated and centrally controlled operation.
Labor relations policies, including wage rates, wage
progression, fringe benefits, working conditions, hir-
ing, and training procedures are all centrally deter-
mined.
The Board has held that because of the highly inte-
grated nature of public utility operations, a system-
wide unit is appropriate.7 It has also found that less
than a systemwide unit may also be appropriate in
the telephone industry, as illustrated by the Board's
decisions in the Michigan Bell Telephone Company8
cases.
'e-ew England Telephone and Telegraph (Company, 90 NLRB 639 (1950).
Michigan Bell T lephone Company, 192 NLRB 1212 (19711. and Mlchi.
gan Bell Telephone Company,. 217 NLRB 424 (1975), where the Jackson com-
mercial office, an administrative subdivision of the employer. was found
appropriate, but essentially not distinguishable from the Battle Creek com-
mercial office found appropriate in the earlier case.
942
NEW ENGLAND EI.EPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
In the first Michigan Bell case, the Board found
that a unit of commercial department employees at
its Battle Creek, Michigan. office was appropriate.
The Board relied on the facts that the Battle Creek
office was a clearly defined geographical area encom-
passing six towns, no other commercial office serviced
the area, the requested employees worked together at
one location with no contact with commercial em-
ployees at other locations, there was no interchange
between offices, and a work stoppage at the Battle
Creek commercial office would not impair the opera-
tions of other commercial offices of the employer. The
Board also noted the lack of any history of bargaining
for commercial department employees in the last 20
years and the fact that no labor organization was
seeking to represent a broader unit.
We find here, as we did in New England Telephone
and Telegraph Company,l° that the factors relied upon
by the Board in Michigan Bell" are not present and
that the petitioned-for units are therefore inappropri-
ate.
While centralized control of policies is common to
public utilities and does not alone constitute grounds
for finding less than systemwide units in public utili-
ties inappropriate, where, as here, such centralization
results in a lack of autonomy of Employer's local of-
fices, particularly with respect to hiring which is done
only through the several employment offices, it is
clear that Michigan Bell does not govern the determi-
nation of the unit.
The record here shows that hiring is centralized in
seven employment offices: one in New Hampshire,
one in Maine, one in Vermont, one in Rhode Island,
and three in Massachusetts. where applications are
9
192 NLRB 1212 (1971).
10 242 NLRB 793 (1979) (I RC 15897].
n Supra.
processed and employees are hired. Commercial man-
agers must submit requisitions for new employees to
district and division managers for approval. Although
commercial managers and assistant managers have
authority to give oral warnings, recommend further
discipline and discharge. and grant or dens promo-
tions or wage increases, the% have no authority 1o hire
or transfer employees.
Unlike :lichigan Bell, in the units sought here the
commercial managers have significantly less auton-
omq in controlling the day-to-day activities of the em-
ployees sought, it is not clear from the record that a
work stoppage at any of the offices petitioned for
would not impair the operations of other commercial
offices of the Employer, and there appears to be a
degree of temporary interchange of employees
throughout the system tending to negate a separate
community of interest limited to the separate offices
sought.
Accordingly, we find that the petitioned-for units
are inappropriate and shall dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in Cases
I RC 15994, 1 RC 15998. -RC-16006, 1-RC-
16007, 1-RC-16015, I-RC-16021. 1-RC-16022, I
RC 16023, I RC-16024. and -RC-16040 be. and
they hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN FANNING and MEMNIBER TRUESDAI . dis-
senting:
We would direct elections in the separate units
sought herein. See our dissent in New England Tele-
phone arnd Telegraph Compan. , 2 finding appropriate a
unit of the commercial employees at Manchester,
New Hampshire.
"2242 NLRB 793 (1979)
943