Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1980

253 N.L.R.B. 795 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company and
Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen,
Local Union No. 1011, affiliated with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case 36-RC-4346
December 15, 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On August 1, 1980, the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding in which he found no
question concerning representation and dismissed
the petition.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner
filed a timely request for review of the Regional
Director's decision on the grounds, inter alia, that
he made erroneous findings of fact and departed
from officially reported precedent. By telegraphic
order dated September 12, 1980, the request for
review was granted.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Intervenor's2 brief on review, and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is part of the National Bell
System engaged in providing telephone and com-
munications services. Administratively, the Em-
ployer is divided into the Oregon Area and the
Washington-Idaho Area. The assignment of jobs in
these two divisions is split between bargaining units
represented by CWA and the Petitioner (herein-
after ORTT).
ORTT is the certified representative of the Em-
ployer's toll maintenance employees in the Custom-
er Service and Network Departments. CWA repre-
sents a multi-departmental unit which includes a
variety of job classifications. Employees represent-
ed by ORTT have jobs which are related to long-
' The Petitioner also filed a petition in Case 36-UC-79 seeking to clar-
ify its unit by the inclusion of the employees in issue. However, in its
brief to the Regional Director the Petitioner urged dismissal of its unit
clarification petition The Regional Director dismissed the petition find-
ing that the employees did not constitute an accretion to the Petitioner's
currently represented unit. The Petitioner's request for review did not
raise an issue relating to dismissal of this case
2 Communications Workers of America. AFL CIO (CWA), was grant-
ed intervention on the basis of its collective-bargaining relationship with
the Employer which covers some of the employees involved herein
253 NLRB No. 108
distance service, and are classified as "toll mainte-
nance"; those who perform duties related to local
service are represented by CWA, and are classified
as "central office" employees. The classification de-
pends upon the type of equipment on which the
employee spends 51 percent or more of his or her
time.
In April 1978, the Employer established the
Oregon power group consisting of 10 employees
whose responsibility is to perform preventive main-
tenance on heavy power equipment and respond to
"trouble calls." The employees are assigned geo-
graphical territories and are responsible for all
major maintenance and repair work on the heavy
power equipment within their area. The State is di-
vided into six territories with five employees serv-
icing the Portland area and one employee assigned
to service each of the five remaining areas. When
necessary, these employees work outside of their
assigned area.
Prior to April 1978, 9 of the 10 current power
group employees performed essentially the same
duties in the same geographical area involving the
same types of power equipment. 3 Commencing
April 1978, the Employer selected individuals to
comprise the power group, apparently without
regard to which labor organization they belonged.
As it happened, five employees were members of
ORTT and the other five employees were members
of CWA.
All power group employees perform work on
both toll and exchange equipment and are function-
ally interchangeable. They receive the same spe-
cialized training and use the same types of tools.
They are supervised by a single individual. During
the period June 1, 1979, to May 31, 1980, none of
these employees spent more than 51 percent of his
time working on toll equipment. Some CWA mem-
bers spent a greater percentage of their time work-
ing with toll equipment than did ORTT members.
The wages, hours, and working conditions of the
power group employees are controlled by the ap-
plicable collective-bargaining agreements.
The Petitioner argues that the doctrine set forth
in Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, 207
NLRB 1 (1973), compeis that a self-determination
election be directed. Pacific Northwest Bell also in-
volved a newly formed consolidated operation in
which employees interchangeably, under common
supervision, performed work on both "long-dis-
tance" and "local" circuits. The Regional Director
rejected the Petitioner's argument on grounds that
in Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, supra,
:' One employee has been hired as a replacement fir I of the original
10 members of the power group
795
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LAIBOR RELATIONS BOARD
there were newly established centers with new
equipment and a new complement of employees
who were to receive specialized training, whereas
here the only change appears to be in supervision.
Moreover, he found that the facts herein did not
warrant disrupting the longstanding bargaining his-
tory and dismissed the petition for an election
among the Oregon power group. Contrary to the
Regional Director, we find merit in the Petitioner's
argument.
In Pacifoc Northwest Bell, supra, the Board held
that the new operations constituted separate appro-
priate units, rather than accretions to either of the
bargaining units already represented. In our opin-
ion, the earlier Pacific Northwest Bell case is suffi-
ciently similar to this to be controlling. Though the
Board, as indicated, noted that new equipment was
involved, it also noted that the new centers would
be integrated operations, "utilizing personnel with
experience, background, and training drawn from
both units." The Board further observed that em-
ployees in the centers worked on both local and
toll lines, and were supervised by a single supervi-
sor at each center.
Similar facts are present here. Applying the
holding in Pacific Northwest Bell to the facts herein,
we find that the Oregon power group is a newly
formed administrative group of employees who are
functionally cohesive and perform work not per-
formed by other employees, in that they are the
only employees who work on high voltage equip-
ment and have received specialized training to
work on diesel motors. They are under separate su-
pervision, perform identical duties, and interchange
with one another within the group.
In the posture of this case, where the employees
in the group are equally drawn from the member-
ship of two labor organizations, and are subject to
their respective collective-bargaining agreements
containing several significantly different provisions,
it becomes readily pparent that there is a strong
potential for conflicts within the power group. In
our opinion, this split representation of' a homoge-
neous group does not comport with the statutory
scheme. While, as the Regional Director states, the
Board does not normally disrupt longstanding bar-
gaining relationships, we view the Oregon power
group as newly established; thus, bargaining history
is not controlling. 4
For the aforementioned reasons, we find that the
Oregon power group constitutes anll appropriate
unit separate and distinct from the units presently
represented by CWA and ORTT. Accordingly, as
4 11 ;Is s' lit, 1s itill.di, . i. pirtlry ha% requdsT. I i -'i... tf lhe Re-
gp ial )lrcclor's disrillsll if he unit clarification pert-ii ulrgilg that the
power group lhoutld he added lit one if the eistllng uIlits 'ithout an
electinll
there exists a question concerning the representa-
tion of the Oregon power group, we shall direct a
self-determination election in order that the em-
ployees in the group may decide whether they
desire to be represented by CWA or ORTT.
We find, therefore, that the following employees
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time power
group employees employed by Pacific North-
west Bell Telephone Company in the Oregon
Area, excluding all other employees.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
An election by secret ballot shall be conducted
among the employees in the unit found appropriate,
as early as possible, hut not later than 30 days from
the date below. The Regional Director for Region
19 shall direct and supervise the election, subject to
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended. Eligible to vote
are those in the unit who were employed during
the payroll period ending immediately before the
date below, including employees who did not work
during that period because they were ill, on vaca-
tion, or temporarily laid off. Also eligible are em-
ployees engaged in an economic strike which corm-
menced less than 12 months before the election
date and who retained their status as such during
the eligibility period and their replacements. Those
in the military services of the United States may
vote if they appear in person at the polls. Ineligible
to vote are employees who have quit or been dis-
charged for cause since the designated payroll
period; employees engaged in a strike who have
been discharged for cause since the commencement
thereof and who have not been rehired or reinstat-
ed before the election date; and employees engaged
in an economic strike which commenced more than
12 months before the election date and who have
been permanently replaced. 5 Those eligible shall
vote whether they desire to be represented for col-
s In order Ito assute hat all eligible voters Ilay have the opportunity to
le ifoined it te ieiis il the xcrtise of their statutory right to ote.
all parties the eleetirn s0ltild have ccess lit it ti f Vtlers arid their
addresses Lshlch rlil h
t
e isd It ctllililtlcate with thtrli I rvcelliror (I'n-
derwtcUtr Inc, 15 NRB 12 36 (11l66 .. L.R.B. Kymrun-(hrdon ( ,
394 I. S. 759 1 146'O AccerdiiTgly, it is herchy dirctiedl that al; electi, n
eligibhlity list, crlllllning tht naines ilnd addresses if all the eligible
voters, must he iled by the I rrplrvyer with the Reginal i )irector fitr
Regiol 19 itlhill 7 days of lhe ate of this I)recisin 1n Revitew and i)i-
rectiril oi lctl. ,.r Ihe Regional l)irector shall mlake this lisl available
1h Lill pa ities toi ilt electioll No cxltelnsi(l f tinie to filt this list shill be
granted bh tllr Rgitilal I)ltectror cxcept ill extra rdlir CITrCllms aTllicc
I-allll- to t climply wilh this requireltlelt sihall e grolilds lotr ettling aside
the lectioltl hClenver proper blecholils are filed
796
PACIFIC NORTHtW[SF tHE:LL TEI.P'HO(NF ((MPl'ANY 797
lective-bargaining purposes by Order of Repeater-
men and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union No.
1011, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO: by Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO; or by ni-
ther.