Smith Alarm Systems & Central Station Alarm Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 22, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 835 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

SMITH ALARM SYSTEMS
Smith Alarm Systems & Central Station Alarm Co.
and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local 59, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
16-RC-6282
March 22, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING
CHALLENGED BALLOTS AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
By CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on June 1, 1973,1 under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for Region 16
among the employees in the unit described below.
Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of
51 ballots cast, 25 cast ballots were for, and 24 cast
ballots against, the Petitioner. Two ballots were
challenged. The challenged ballots are sufficient to
affect the results of the election.2
In accordance with the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Acting Regional Director for Region 16 conduct-
ed an investigation and, on July 11, issued and duly
served on the parties his report.
In his report, the Regional Director recommended,
in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, that
the challenge to the ballot of Bobby Mills be
sustained on the ground that he is in fact a
supervisor. He directed that a hearing be held for the
purpose of resolving the status of George South.
Pursuant to the Regional Director's report, a
hearing was held on August 15 before Hearing
Officer Thomas P. Sheridan. Pursuant to Section
102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Hearing Officer, on October 31, issued and duly
served on the parties his report, in which he
recommended that the challenge to the one remain-
ing challenged ballot be overruled. Thereafter, the
Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Hearing
Officer's report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
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.
I All dates herein are for calendar year 1973
x Objections to the election were timely filed by Petitioner. However,
835
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All installers, maintenance, storeroom, board-
room operators, and janitorial employees at
Employer's locations at 2627 Flora St., Dallas,
Texas, 108 Arthur St, Fort Worth, Texas,
Arlington, Texas and Longview, Texas. Excluding
all clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Board has considered the Hearing Offi-
cer's report and the Petitioner's exceptions thereto
and finds merit in said exceptions.
We agree with the Hearing Officer's factual
findings as to the duties performed by South for the
Employer. However, we are of the opinion he has
placed too much reliance on the indicia included in
Section 2(11) of the Act. Thus, having determined
that South was not a supervisor, he concluded that
South had a community of interest with the other
employees in the unit since South was in his view a
boardroom operator.
We are of the view that a determination of South's
inclusion in the unit does not turn solely on the
question of whether South is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. Covington, one of the Employ-
er's supervisors, testified that there is no other
employee of the Employer that has duties compara-
ble to the duties performed by South. His testimony
is supported by the record evidence.
The record indicates that in Fort Worth the
Employer has established a branch boardroom office
located in the Electric Building. This office is
equipped with office furniture, telephone, typewriter,
electronic equipment such as, burglar and fire
alarms, two-way radio, and an electric device which
records telephone messages from customers and
other employees in South 's absence. South is in sole
charge of this office.
In Dallas, the Employer's boardroom, a much
larger operation than that in Fort Worth, has 6 or 7
supervisors over approximately 30 boardroom em-
ployees, not all of whom are boardroom operators.
The Dallas employees work three shifts, 7 days a
week on either manual or computer systems. On all
Petitioner subsequently requested withdrawal of the objections and its
withdrawal was approved by the Regional Director.
209 NLRB No. 132
836 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
three shifts there is a supervisor present. During the
daytime shift all of the boardroom employees
including supervisors are under the supervision of
Chief Boardroom Supervisor Covington. During the
day shift the supervisors' duties are chiefly adminis-
trative, and judgment functions are referred to
Covington. These administrative functions consist of
disbursing telephone line orders, installation of new
jobs, procurement of operating information, testing
with servicemen out on operations, and dispatching.
However, on the other two shifts the supervisors
must oversee the entire operation and exercise all or
any judgment functions that may apse.
South is in sole charge of the Fort Worth room and
is charged with and performs all of the same duties
performed by the Dallas boardroom supervisors. In
addition, South since the start of his employment in
1962 has had his duties gradually expanded to
include functions not performed by boardroom
operators and not within the ambit of Covington's
supervision. These duties, performed at the request of
either the Employer's operation manager or account-
ing department manager, include performing public
relations work in connection with complaining
customers, collection of delinquent accounts, and
recommending the cancellation of bad accounts.
South also is the only employee who has a company
car assigned to him, which he keeps in his possession
at all times and uses in his work and for transporta-
tion to and from his home.
The record also discloses that South places adver-
tisements in the local newspaper seeking applicants;
interviews applicants and has them fill out applica-
tion forms; sends the applicants to a laboratory for
truth verification testing; and refers newly hired
employees to the Fort Worth Police Department for
ID cards which are required by police department
regulations. The record discloses that on one occa-
sion South hired an employee.
On the basis of the foregoing facts, it is clear that
South's duties at the Electric Building facility have
considerably increased since his original employ-
ment, and have evolved to a point where it is clear
that he no longer performs the same duties or
functions as the other employees included in the unit.
We are persuaded that the separate location of his
employment, together with his duties and responsi-
bilities, establishes that he is more closely related to
management than to the employees in the unit. Thus,
he does not have a community of interest with the
unit employees. Accordingly, we conclude and find
that the challenges to the ballot of George South
should be sustained.
The challenges to the ballots of Bobby Mills and
George South having been sustained and it appear-
ing therefore that the Petitioner has obtained a
majority of the valid votes cast in the election, we
shall certify the results of the election.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that a majority of the valid
ballots have been cast for International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local 59 , AFL-CIO, and that,
pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended , the said labor organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all the
employees in the unit found appropriate herein for
the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to
rates of pay , wages, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment.