Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 2, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 726 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company,
Employer-Petitioner and Order of Repeatermen
and Toll Testboardmen , Local 1011, IBEW,
AFL-CIO and Communication Workers of
America, AFL-CIO . Case 19-UC-48
October 2, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING
CERTIFICATIONS
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition for clarification of unit duly filed
by Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company on
November 4, 1968, a hearing was held on January 2
and 3. 1969, before Wesley M. Wilson, Hearing
Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. On
January 13, 1969. the Acting Regional Director for
Region 19 issued an Order transferring the case to
the Board. Thereafter. briefs were timely filed by
the Petitioner and the Unions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(h) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-mefnber panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. "they are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds-
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Unions involved herein are both labor
organizations within the meaning of the Act, and
both claim to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The Employer. successor in interest to the
Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company, is a
public utility engaged in the business of furnishing
telephone, teletypewriter, telegraph, radio, television.
and other communications service The Order of
Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local 1011.
IBEW, AI- L-CIO (hereinafter ORTT) represents
"all toll maintenance employees of the Company in
the Washington-Idaho area, including PBX
teletypewriter repairmen, but excluding supervisory
employees." The Board found this unit appropriate
in 1944 i All other plant department employees,
including clericals, not represented by ORTT, are
represented by the Communication Workers of
America, AFL-CIO (hereinafter CWA).
In this proceeding, the Employer-Petitioner is
seeking clarification of the bargaining units, since
ORTT has asserted that, as part of its existing unit,
the Board found that this could be an appropriate craft unit and
directed a self-determination election Pacific Telephone & Telegraph
Company. 58 NLRB 1042, 1048 , and 1050
it should represent Complex Plant Assigners and
Facility Assigners in the Circuit Layout Bureau,
Room 1022 Exchange Building, Seattle,
Washington. These employees are currently
represented by C WA. ORTT claims that these
employees spend at least 51 percent of their time
working on toll circuits, and therefore should be
included in its unit. Petitioner refused to bargain
with ORTT concerning its right to represent these
employees, but instead filed the petition for
clarification.' CWA, allowed to intervene at the
hearing, disputes ORTT's claim, but contends as a
separate proposition that it is entitled to represent
Supervisors' Assistants in the Circuit Layout
Bureau , employees who are currently represented by
ORTT.
Petitioner's Circuit Layout Bureau was originally
established in 1930 for the purpose of executing the
needs of customers for service. The Bureau currently
has 93 employees under the supervision of the toll
service supervisor Of the 93 employees. 21 are
management supervisors, 12 are supervisor's
assistants (represented by ORTT), 8 are complex
plant assigners, 10 are facility assigners, and the
remainder are reports clerks (all represented by
CWA).
In 1966, CWA bargained with the Petitioner to
upgrade employees who held the title of "Line
Assigner." A line assigner is engaged in assignment
work at plant service centers and chooses the proper
wire facilities and equipment to connect a
customer's service with the switching system On
February 12, 1967, Petitioner agreed to establish the
title of complex plant assigner for the complex
portion of the line assigning job that involved the
designing of very complex circuits and to pay top
wages for this title. Petitioner also agreed to
establish the title of facilities assigner for the
mid-portion of the line assigning job, which requires
judgement but not the skills necessary to design the
circuit, and to pay mid-portion wages for this title.
The change in titles did not result in any change in
work for these employees historically represented by
C W A.
The issue to he determined is whether or not
complex plant assigners and facility assigners should
be included in the unit of toll maintenance
employees if they spend at least 51 percent of their
time designing toll rather than local circuits.
In deciding that toll maintenance employees
constituted an appropriate unit in 58 NLRB 1042,
the Board described the duties of these employees in
detail. Basically, it found that they tested, repaired,
and maintained equipment used for long distance
transmissions, physically set up telegraph and
teletypewriter circuits, dealt with customers who
purchased teletypewriter and telegraph sere fee from
'We reject ORrrs contention that this is a question of contract
interpretation that should be deferred to the arbitration provisions of the
contract , and find that this proceeding is properly betorc the Board for
resolution Caret v Westinghouse Electric Corp . 375 U S 261
178 NLRB No. 118
PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE CO. 727
the employer, made transmission tests, operated
mobile emergency radio equipment, and kept
records associated with their work. The Board found
that the practice of the employer was to classify its
employees as "toll" or "central office" depending
upon the type of equipment on which each employee
regularly spent 51 percent or more of his time. The
Board considered as "toll maintenance" only those
employees classified by the employer as such, and
specifically excluded those employees whose
combination work did not entitle them to the
classification of "toll maintenance " by their
employer.
The record indicates that toll maintenance
employees perform the same duties now as in 1944
with a few minor exceptions.' There has been no
showing that the test used for determining which
employees should be included in the toll
maintenance unit in 1944 is no longer valid.
Complex plant assigners and facility assigners do
not and can not perform any of the duties
performed by the toll maintenance employees.
Neither are they classified as "toll maintenance" by
their employer Clearly they do not belong to the
unit of toll maintenance employees found to he
appropriate by the Board.
AS to the supervisors' assistants, we find no merit
in CWA's position. They have been included in
ORTT' s unit since the 1944 proceeding, formerly
under the title of "Senior Man." The present
designation was adopted in the September 1963,
contract between the Employer and ORTT.' As it
appears that their duties have not changed in any
way, there is no basis for concluding that they
should now be included within CWA's unit.
In view of the above , we find that complex plant
assigner,, and facility assigners are properly within
the unit represented by CWA and should not be
included in the unit of employees represented by
ORTT, and that supervisors ' assistants are properly
within the unit represented by ORTT and should not
he included in the unit represented by CWA. We
shall, therefore , clarify the units accordingly.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that Petitioner's request for
clarification be granted, and the unit represented by
Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, is
hereby clarified by specifically including the
categories of complex plant assigner and facility
assigner, and by specifically excluding the category
of supervisor's assistant. while the unit represented
by Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen,
Local 1011, IBEW, AFL-CIO, is hereby clarified by
specifically including the category of supervisor's
assistant and by specifically excluding the categories
of complex plant assigner and facility assigner.
in 194T-toil maintenance employees used the Morse Telegraph Lode for
communication between toll olliccs This is no longer the case In addition
they now maintain microwave equipment
'Thc title "Supervisor' s Assistant" was applied to transmission men
performing certain work operations in the Circuit Layout Bureau, and the
contract of 1966 gave official recognition to this fact by providing that
"The title may also be used to provide assistance to a supervisor in staff
lunctions or to perform circuit design work in the Circuit Layout Bureau"