RCA Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1970

184 N.L.R.B. 554 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RCA Corporation ' and Local Union No . 24, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO & CLC, Petitioner . Case 5-RC-7080
July 20, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Harvey A.
Holzman. 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, this case was
transferred to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. The Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member 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 af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the National
Labor Relations 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 labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all computer
service representatives of Area "A" of the depart-
ment of field engineering of the Employer's Bal-
timore District, excluding office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The
Employer maintains that the unit requested by the
Petitioner is inappropriate and argues that only a
nationwide unit consisting of about 1,632 em-
ployees is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The Employer also contends, contrary
to the Petitioner, that its maintenance leaders are
not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and
should be included in any unit found appropriate.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any
of the employees sought by the Petitioner, and no
labor organization seeks to represent the employees
in a more comprehensive unit.
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
The Appropriate Unit
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, which
has headquarters in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is a
nationwide company engaged in the design,
development, manufacture, sale, installation, and
service of electronic equipment at various locations
in the United States, including a facility at Glen
Burnie, Maryland. Its field engineering operation is
administratively and approximately geographically
divided into four regions, and further successively
divided into districts and areas. The eastern region,
consisting of about 460 employees, is composed of
nine districts, one of which is Field Engineering
District Baltimore. This district has its office in
Glen Burnie, Maryland, and covers all of Maryland
and Virginia, with a few customers in Washington,
D.C. The district, consisting of 46 computer ser-
vice representatives and 6 maintenance leaders, is
comprised of 4 areas, A, B, C, and D, of which A is
the one petitioned for. The district is headed by
District Manager J. Serena, and each area in the
Baltimore district has a separate area manager.
They do not have regular offices, but rather use
space at a customer location as an office and have a
telephone. Area A, supervised by Benjamin Aliquo,
covers the Baltimore area and Western Maryland
and consists of 13 computer representatives and 3
maintenance leaders. The areas are structured ac-
cording to the various customers along the lines of
the types of equipment installed and serviced, and
there is geographical overlapping of areas within
the district.
The employees sought are engaged in the instal-
lation and maintenance of electronic data
processing equipment sold or leased by the Em-
ployer's information systems division to its
customers at various sites or locations in Area "A."
The record reveals that employee relations poli-
cies such as wage scales, fringe benefits, and job
content are uniform throughout the Company. The
policies are developed and centrally administered
from the home office in Cherry Hill.
Computer service representatives are recruited
ordinarily by the placement of advertisements by
the personnel department in Cherry Hill and in the
local newspapers where the available position is
located. The applicant would be interviewed by the
district manager, or in some cases, the area
manager, who would then make the recommenda-
tion whether the applicant is to be hired. In the
absence of the personnel office in Cherry Hill
developing disqualifying information, the applicant
would be hired on the recommendation of the dis-
trict manager or area manager.
184 NLRB No. 63
RCA CORPORATION
Once a man is hired, he is under the charge of
the area manager, except when he is sent to one of
the two regional training schools for a minimum of
8 weeks. The area manager then makes all requests
and recommendations for raises for employees and
initiates all discharge actions subject to the ap-
proval of the district manager and the home office.
If an employee wanted time off or was sick, he
would contact his area manager, who has authority
in these matters. The area manager also has the
responsibility for taking disciplinary measures, such
as warnings or probation.
As to the interchange of employees, Regional
Manager Johns testified that an employee would
average two trips per year to another district in
order to provide some type of emergency assistance
on a temporary basis. Specifically with regard to
Area "A," Area Manager Aliquo testified that only
three men in the area transferred temporarily to
another district, although many temporary transfers
were made to and from other areas within the Bal-
timore district. As far as permanent transfers, on a
national level, Johns testified that about 5 percent
of the work force was relocated during the year
preceding the hearing.
The Employer urges that a nationwide unit is the
optimum unit for purposes of collective bargaining
because the record shows: (1) high degree of cen-
tralization and uniform control of the whole opera-
tion; (2) centralized system of personnel and em-
ployee relations policies; (3) centralized and
uniform programs for employee training; (4) sig-
nificant interchange; and (5) limitation of the
authority of the area manager to the application of
policies and procedures established by the central
office. We do not agree.
While the Employer's operations are integrated
and interdependent, and some of the factors relied
on by the Employer would, in part, suggest that a
nationwide unit is appropriate in this case, the
Board has recognized that units of lesser scope are
also appropriate in certain situations in other non-
retail industries.2 Upon consideration of all of the
above factors, we find merit in the Petitioner's con-
tention that a unit limited in scope to the em-
ployees of Area "A" of the Employer's Baltimore
district is appropriate.3
The record is clear that the area manager has
considerable authority over the daily activities of
the employees. The area manager is responsible for
the physical scheduling of the workloads and has
considerable authority with respect to promotion
t See Wells Fargo Bank, 179 NLRB 465 (Banking), Monongahela Power
Company, 176 NLRB 913 (Public Utility), Fireman's Fund Insurance Com-
pany, 173 NLRB 982 (Insurance Claims)
In view of our findings herein, and the fact that the Petitioner seeks
555
and disciplinary matters. He may grant leave
without home office approval. There is a minimum
amount of interchange involving Area "A," and
what interchange occurs is limited largely to emer-
gency situations.
Accordingly, in view of the wide geographical
separation between the Baltimore district and other
districts, the infrequent interchange of employees,
the separate immediate supervision, the absence of
any bargaining history, and the fact that no other
labor organization seeks a broader unit, we find, in
agreement with the Petitioner, that a unit restricted
to the employees in the Area "A," as described
below, is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of
the Act.
Unit Placement and Eligibility
As set forth above, the Employer, unlike the Peti-
tioner, contends that its maintenance leaders are
not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and
should be included in any unit found appropriate.
There are these maintenance leaders assigned to
Area "A." The maintenance leaders, like the com-
puter service representatives, are salaried, with the
minimum salary for a maintenance leader being ap-
proximately $1,400 per year higher than the
minimum salary for a computer service representa-
tive, although one computer service representative
in Area "A" earns more than a maintenance leader.
The maintenance leaders spend 80 percent of
their time performing the same work as the com-
puter service representatives, and they have no
authority to hire, discharge, suspend, layoff, repri-
mand or promote, or to make effective recommen-
dations concerning these or any other personnel ac-
tions. The maintenance leaders gain the position by
length of service and expertise.
On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire
record, we find that the maintenance leaders do not
possess or exercise supervisory authority as defined
in the Act, but that they are merely highly skilled
employees whose status as maintenance leaders
results from supervisor abilities and length of ser-
vice.' We shall, accordingly, include them in the
unit.
We find that the following employees of the Em-
ployer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All Computer Service Representatives and
only the Area "A" unit, and the Employer claims that only the nationwide
is appropriate, we find it unnecessary, and make no determination, whether
or not the district or region could be an appropriate bargaining unit
' Monongahela Power Company, 176 NLRB 913
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Maintenance Leaders employed in Area "A"
of the Baltimore District of the Employer's in-
formation System Division's Field Engineering
(Installation and Maintenance) Activity, ex-
cluding all District Engineers, Office Clerical
' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be
informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad-
dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un-
derwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S
759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con-
taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by
Employees, Guards, Professional Employees,
and Supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election 5 omitted from publica-
tion. )
the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 5 within 7 days of the
date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to
file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordina-
ry circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds
for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed