Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 19, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 407 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Commu-
nications Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case 14-UC-53
January 19, 1976
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed on December 26, 1974,
under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer F. Rozier Sharp, at St. Louis, Missouri, com-
mencing on February 18, 1975, and continuing
through various dates thereafter until closing on May
14, 1975. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Region-
al Director for Region 14, this case was transferred to
the Board for decision. Thereafter, both parties sub-
mitted briefs.'
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 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, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer, Southwestern Bell Telephone
Company, is one of 19 companies associated with
American Telephone and Telegraph (ATT) and is
engaged in the business of providing telecommunica-
tions services to five states in the central southwest-
ern United States-Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Kansas, and Missouri. It has its principal offices in
St. Louis, Missouri, and has various other facilities
located throughout the States in which it does busi-
1 With its brief, the Employer also submitted a motion to correct the
transcript in numerous places . Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a statement
in opposition to certain of the Employer 's proposed changes Still later, the
Employer submitted an affidavit from William Hightower, one of the
Employer's key witnesses at the hearing, wherein he avers to certain word
changes having been made in his testimony as reflected in the transcript
Thereafter, the Union responded by submitting a brief and affidavits sup-
porting its position in opposition to certain of the Employer's proposed
changes.
Having carefully considered the Employer's motion and Petitioner's
statement in opposition, we have decided to grant the Employer's motion to
change the record to the extent that the changes proposed have not been put
into issue by Petitioner In those instances where the proposed changes are
disputed by Petitioner, we find it unnecessary to make a definite ruling since
we find that the changes are not of the nature as to affect the outcome of
our decision in any event
407
ness. The parties stipulated that during the past 12-
month period, the Employer derived gross revenues
in excess of $1 million and has purchased and re-
ceived goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were
shipped directly to its Missouri facilities from points
outside the State of Missouri.
It is not disputed, and we find, that the Employer
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. It is not disputed, and we find, that Petitioner is
a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act and that Petitioner claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. For years the Employer has recognized the
Union in a companywide unit of some 53,000 em-
ployees in the following departments: Accounting,
Commercial and Marketing, Plant, and Traffic. The
most recent contract was executed in July 1974. In
November 1974, the Employer established the posi-
tions of account executive (AE) and senior account
executive (SAE) and began the process of screening
and appointing individuals-some of whom had pre-
viously been in the bargaining unit and some who
came from managerial or supervisory classifica-
tions-to fill these positions. Upon learning of the
establishment of these new positions, the Union im-
mediately claimed that they were in the unit. The
Employer took the position that they were not in the
unit, asserting that they were either managerial, su-
pervisory, or lacking a community of interest with
the other bargaining unit classifications. Consequent-
ly, the Union filed its petition herein to clarify the
unit and include these disputed classifications.
The Employer's decision to establish the AE and
SAE positions evolved over a period of several years.
Prior to 1974 the Employer had combined its selling
and servicing functions in the commercial and mar-
keting department. Most of the servicing work was
then performed by the bargaining unit classifications
of service consultant and senior service consultant.
With respect to selling, however, several classifica-
tions of employees were involved. Service consult-
ants and senior service consultants frequently tried to
sell new or additional equipment or service to cus-
tomers while engaged in servicing customer accounts
pursuant to calls for service help. The employer re-
fers to this as demand-selling, since ordinarily it is
brought about by the customer's demand for addi-
tional service. However, the Employer also attempt-
ed to increase its sales by anticipating customer
needs before service problems arose for its custom-
ers. The Employer refers to this type of selling, which
it engages in at its own initiative and not in response
222 NLRB No. 55
408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to requests for service from customers, as analytical
selling. Firstline managerial classifications of ac-
count managers, communications marketing manag-
ers, and marketing managers were used in analytical
selling. There were instances, however, when the Em-
ployer formed analytical selling groups composed of
both bargaining-unit and managerial employees to
deal with the peculiar problems of a particular indus-
try.
As a result of a 1968 Federal Communications
Commission decision which opened up to competi-
tion the business terminal telecommunications mar-
ket, ATT contracted with a nationally known con-
sulting firm to conduct a study and make
recommendations with respect to improving its sell-
ing efforts in this market. One of the recommenda-
tions which eventually resulted from the study was to
separate the selling and servicing functions and to
make both more professional. ATT attempted to be-
gin implementing these recommendations by distrib-
uting to its associated companies in early 1974 its
tentative sales operation guide (SOG). While the
SOG directed all the associated companies to sepa-
rate the functions of selling and servicing, it provided
each associate company with a great deal of discre-
tion as to how they were going to implement this
policy within their own differing organization struc-
tures. It was as a result of its effort at compliance
with this broad,directive that in November 1974 the
Employer created the approximately 300 account AE
and SAE positions here in dispute.
By prior agreement of the parties, much of the evi-
dence relating to the Employer's present organization
plan is in the record under a confidential seal marked
"Trade Secrets." Because it is obvious that much of
this evidence does indeed constitute trade secrets, we
will not describe the Employer's reorganization plans
beyond what is necessary to understand our decision
in this case.
Suffice it to say that the Employer established the
AE and SAE positions to be specialists in the analyti-
cal selling of the Employer's product;2 that by the
time of the hearing in this case, the Employer had
already selected and notified the vast majority of in-
dividuals who would fill these positions, and that
most of those chosen were previously employed in
non-bargaining-unit classifications considered to be
supervisory/managerial. At the hearing the Employ-
er indicated that it contemplated that these individu-
als will each be assigned to a given segment of indus-
try and will receive extensive training in the
communications problems of that industry; that un-
2 Demand-selling primarily will continue to be done by service and senior
service consultants.
like the Employer's previous practice of assigning ac-
counts based on customer size without regard to in-
dustry, the AE's and SAE's will be assigned all the
accounts in their specific industry, e.g., hotel-motel,
insurance, etc., regardless of customer size, and will
be held accountable for the annual revenue objec-
tives that will be established for that industry.
The Employer put into evidence the job summaries
of the AE and SAE positions. These summaries ap-
pear to be identical except that the job summary of
the AE's specifies that they will be assigned accounts
"with no complicated or complex equipment config-
uration," while that of the SAE's specifies that the
latter will be assigned accounts "with complicated or
complex equipment configuration." In other respects
the job summaries indicate that the AE's and SAE's
duties will be divided into various functions. They
will spend 20 to 25 percent of their time planning
sales activities, including qualifying accounts, devel-
oping sales programs, establishing sales objectives
and monthly plans, and reviewing the planned ser-
vicing activities; and 20 to 30 percent of their time
will be occupied in arranging to have service consult-
ants gather and summarize data on accounts pro-
grammed for sales activity, analyzing that data and
the customer's communication system, identifying
competitive activity, and arranging to have the ser-
vice consultant prepare computerized toll studies for
customers considering WATS service. They will
spend 40 to 60 percent of their time developing and
presenting sales recommendations to customers for
improving their communications systems, including
specific changes in the customer's method of opera-
tion. They will use 5 to 15 percent of their time for
developing a complete plan of implementation and
directing and assigning work to service consultants,
marketing representatives, and/or marketing project
clerks, including outlining to,the service consultant
the systems sold to the customer, introducing the ser-
vice consultant to the customer, chairing conversa-
tion meetings made up of plant, traffic, engineering,
services, and other management personnel, checking
with the service consultant and customer during the
implementation process to insure no problems are
developing, and contacting the customer after instal-
lation of the service to insure customer satisfaction.
They will spend 5 to 10 percent of their time on other
account activities, including investigating customer
requests for new service or relocation and monitoring
assigned accounts for indication of customer dissatis-
faction. In addition, 10 to 20 percent of their time
will be required for the performance of administra-
tive activities, including maintaining a customer in-
formation file on assigned accounts, keeping abreast
of changing market trends and competitor activities,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
new products, etc., preparing correspondence to cus-
tomers, providing feedback and coordinating with
upper management, and representing the Company
in industry-orientated association meetings. The job
summaries of both positions end with a brief descrip-
tion of the "scope and nature of supervision." Under
this heading, it is provided that "no subordinates re-
port to this position, however, incumbent directs and
assigns work to employees on a project basis (i.e.,
conversion activities, stations reviews, etc.)"; and
further, "incumbent has the authority to commit the
telephone company to large expenditures connected
with sales."
In addition to the job summaries, the Employer
adduced testimonial evidence as to the contemplated
authority and functions of the AE's and SAE's. Thus,
according to these witnesses, AE's and SAE's will
have the authority to direct the work of service con-
sultants, senior service consultants, and other non-
managerial employees assigned to work on the" AE's
and SAE's accounts, and the latter's orders and di-
rections will ordinarily prevail even when an
individual's immediate service supervisor has given
conflicting work directions. They also will have the
authority to grant these employees overtime in order
to work on their accounts; remove an employee as-
signed to work on their accounts where they do not
think that employee is performing at a satisfactory
level; and make effective recommendations to an
employee's service supervisor concerning the
employee's work performance. There was further tes-
timony that AE's and SAE's will have the authority
to authorize expenditures up to $300 and manage
their own time and set their own hours, authorize
their own traveling expenses, and commit the Em-
ployer to the installation of specific equipment for
the customer which may entail substantial capital ex-
penditures for the Employer. Finally, there was testi-
mony that in many other respects the Employer will
treat the AE's and SAE's as managerial employees,
providing them with a salary and other fringe bene-
fits comparable to that of first and second-level man-
agerial employees.
As against this evidence as to what the Employer
has planned for AE's and SAE's to be doing in the
future, the Petitioner subpoenaed an individual to
testify who had, for several years, worked for the
Employer as a special representative (later merged
into the service consultant and senior service consult-
ant classifications) and who was appointed as an AE
shortly after these positions were created. This indi-
vidual essentially' testified that in many respects the
skills involved in demand-selling as a special repre-
sentative were little different from those required of
her now as an AE responsible for analytical selling,
409
but that as an AE she will now be held accountable
for her assigned accounts and meeting the revenue
objectives established for her accounts, and that she
will be better prepared in the particular communica-
tion problems of the industry to which she is as-
signed. In addition, she testified that when she was in
the special representative position she was aware of
the other service consultants who engage in analyti-
cal selling, but that this ceased with the creation of
the AE and SAE positions. She further testified that,
unlike the situation when she was a special represen-
tative, she now performs no servicing functions; that
any servicing requests that might come in to her she
refers to the marketing office supervisor, who, she
says, is at the same level in the organization as the
AE; that the marketing office supervisor and service
supervisor report to the service manager; and that,
organizationally, the AE reports to the sales manager
who is at the same level as the service manager.
With respect to directing the work of others, she
testified that she was told that she could refer work
directly to the service consultant without having to
go through that individual's service supervisor; that
such a request would be treated by the service con-
sultant similarly to a request made direct from a cus-
tomer in that it would be logged on his work sched-
ule book just as any other demand request from a
customer would be logged and scheduled; and that
the service consultant's log book is reviewed once a
week by the service manager. She admitted, however,
that she was never told that she could direct the work
of a service consultant while the latter was directly
employed in servicing an account on the customer's
premises.
With respect to committing the Employer's re-
sources, she was told that as an AE she will have the
authority to determine what vehicle best serves the
customer's needs. This contrasts with the past prac-
tice when the engineering department had the final
authority to make such a determination, based on
economic considerations, regardless of whether the
special representative thought that vehicle was best
or not. She testified that such a decision may well
entail a higher capital expenditure for the Company
by way of the vehicle the AE ' selects. She also testi-
fied, however, that, under the reorganization, the ser-
vice consultant will have the same authority while
engaged in demand-selling to select the' most appro-
priate vehicle to serve the customer's needs.
With respect to the discretionary authority of an
AE, this individual testified that her working hours
were fixed and that nobody told her that she could
set her own hours; she further 'testified that her ex-
pense account authority as an AE is no greater now
than it was when she was a special representative.
410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Finally, with respect to her training, this AE testi-
fied that she has received some brief training to pre-
pare her for her present position, but that the special-
ized training which will prepare her for her assigned
industry will not be given until later in 1975. She
testified that the little training she has received in-
volved becoming familiar with some of the newest
equipment on the market and a communications
workshop which, among other things, included in-
structional materials for management people on how
to get along with the Union.
Contentions of the Parties
The Employer contends first that the petition
should be dismissed as premature. Citing language in
the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Aerospace 3 for
the principle that it is the employee's actual job re-
sponsibilities, rather than the job title, that should
determine the individual's managerial status, the Em-
ployer contends that at the time of the hearing in this
case the newly created positions of AE and SAE
were still in the initial training phase and, as a result,
the individuals named to fill these positions were still
confused as to what their actual authority and re-
sponsibilities were. The Employer asserts that the pa-
rameters of; these new positions can only be mea-
sured "after [AE's and SAE',s have] received their
specialized training, been assigned to properly cate-
gorized industry accounts or markets, supplied with
the respective Market Plans and acquire a clear un-
derstanding of their intended role."
In the alternative, the Employer contends that if
the Board determines to resolve the unit placement
issue in this proceeding, then it must rely on the evi-
dence provided by the Employer as to what it intends
for these positions to be at this time. The Employer
states that this is best reflected in the testimony of
the Employer's managerial witnesses who are directly
responsible for structuring and implementing these
positions, and in the Employer's tentative job de-
scriptions for these positions.
The Employer argues that, as in cases where an
individual's status as a supervisor is being chal-
lenged, the determination must be made on the exis-
tence of authority rather than its' actual exercise.
Thus, the Employer claims that the AE's and SAE's
are either supervisors or managerial employees, or
that they otherwise lack a community of interest with
other bargaining unit classifications assertedly be-
cause (1) they have the authority to "direct, redirect,
or terminate work" of the service consultant and se-
3 N.L R B v Bell Aerospace Company, Division of Textron, Inc, 416 U S
267 (1974).
mor service consultants, and to authorize or deny
those individuals and other bargaining unit employ-
ees overtime; (2) they have the authority and respon-
sibility to make effective recommendations with re-
spect to the quality of performance of the service
consultant assigned to their accounts, thereby affect-
ing that individual's career progression with the Em-
ployer; (3) they have the, discretion to manage their
own time, pledge the Employer's credit, and affect
capital expenditure in substantial amounts; (4) they
are responsible for formulating, the Employer's mar-
keting policy by developing programs on their as-
signed markets, have the discretionary authority to
make changes in the Employer's overall plan with
respect to their own assigned accounts, and in all
respects make the decisions with respect to the imple-
mentation of that policy; (5) they make decisions
with respect to forecasting the Employer's manpower
needs, capital expenditures, and yearly revenues with
respect to their assigned accounts, and determine the
appropriate service vehicle and installation time for
their customers; (6) they have direct access to highly
confidential trade secrets, not otherwise available to
bargaining unit employees; and (7) they are treated
by the Employer in all respects as managerial em-
ployees.
Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the
case is ripe for determination. It argues that the
Employer's establishment of the AE and SAE posi-
tions is really little different from other changes the
Employer has made over the years with respect to its
marketing approach, including the change which led
to the creation of the service consultant and senior
service,consultant positions; that the Employer will
likely continue to make changes with respect to its
marketing policy in the future; and that the Employ-
er does not suggest a more appropriate time for the
Board to make its determination.
On the merits, Petitioner contends that selling has
always been considered a bargaining unit function;
that the, AE and SAE functions today are much like
the functions previously performed by the bargaining
unit classification of service consultant and senior
service consultant, the only difference being that now
the SC's and SSC's will perform the implementation
and servicing functions while the AE's and SAE's
will perform the selling function; that contrary to the
assertions made by the Employer's witnesses, there is
no evidence that the AE's'and SAE's have been noti-
fied that they have the authority to responsibly direct
employees or sufficient discretion to act on behalf of
the Employer to establish that they are either super-
visory or managerial; and, finally, because of their
close working relationship with the SC's and SSC's,
they have a closer community of interest with the
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
bargaining unit than they do with management.
Discussion and Conclusion
As we view the case, there are essentially two is-
sues before us:
1. Is the case ripe for determination by the Board
as to the unit placement of the newly created AE and
SAE positions?
2. If the Board finds the case is ripe for determina-
tion, are the AE and SAE positions properly a part of
the bargaining unit?
Having carefully considered the parties' conten-
tions, we conclude, for the reasons developed below,
that the case is ripe for determination and that the
newly created positions of account executive and se-
nior account executive are a part of, the existing bar-
gaining unit.
With respect to issue 1 above, we see no reason to
defer a determination of the unit placement of these
newly created positions until some later time when
the Employer asserts the functions and authority of
these positions will be more definitely established.
Although it appears that the ultimate responsibilities
of the AE and SAE positions in dispute here may still
go through some refinements, the record shows that
the broad contours of the positions have been estab-
lished and that most of the individuals that will be
assigned to act as account executives and senior ac-
count executives have already been named. Further,
there should be compelling reasons for dismissing a
petition as premature when to do so will have the
effect it would here of leaving, the parties in a state of
confusion as to the parameters of their bargaining
obligations with respect to individuals actually per-
forming in the disputed positions. We find no such
compelling reasons presented by the Employer here.
Considering the Union's clarification petition on
the merits, we, find that the newly created AE and
SAE positions are natural outgrowths of the bargain-
ing unit positions of service consultant and senior
service consultant. Indeed, most of the ;functions now
assigned to these new positions were previously per-
formed by the SC classifications on an industry and/
or geographic basis. All that has happened by the
Employer's establishment of the AE and SAE posi-
tions is that some of the functions previously per-
formed by SC's and SSC's or other occupational bar-
gaining unit classifications on the marketing side of
the department, were reorganized and given height-
ened recognition and some additional accountability,
so as to add a competitive factor to improve overall
sales performance. Although we recognize that many
of the individuals selected to'fill these new positions
were previously employed in classifications which
411
were not considered to be in the bargaining unit, the
record is not clear as to why they were previously
excluded. The record does suggest, however, that
some if not all of these individuals either did actually
exercise supervisory authority or substantial discre-
tion in the formulation of marketing strategy for the
Employer, which would of course have accounted for
their exclusion from the unit as managerial/supervi-
sory employees. However, that is to be contrasted
with the authority and discretion of AE and SAE
positions as presently situated. From the testimony
of the individual presently performing as an AE,
there is nothing to establish that she has been dele-
gated or is exercising supervisory authority or mana-
gerial discretion. Hence, the fact that the AE and
SAE positions have been filled with ,individuals pre-
viously not in the unit is of little or no significance.
With respect to the evidence adduced by the Em-
ployer as to the AE's and SAE's supervisorial respon-
sibilities and/or their managerial discretion to make
decisions involving substantial sums of money, suff-
ice it to say that there is no evidence in the record
that the individuals filling these positions are actually
performing such supervisory functions or that they
have any substantially greater authority to commit
the Employer's resources than is provided the SC's
and SSC's under the reorganization. And contrary to
the employer's contention, unlike the determination
of an individual's supervisory status in a position
which has ,been in existence for some time, in a unit
clarification proceeding such as this, evidence that
the individuals in the disputed classifications actually
perform the functions asserted is the only real way to
determine whether they have indeed been assigned
additional responsibilities and authority which ele-
vate them to the ranks of a supervisor or manager.
While it may be, as the Employer asserts, that these
positions will eventually possess supervisorial author-
ity or managerial discretion, our determination as to
the proper unit placement at this time must be based
on what the individuals filling these classifications
actually do now, as opposed to what they specula-
tively may be doing some time in the future 4
For all the above reasons, we find the account ex-
ecutive and senior account executive positions are in-
cluded in the Union's bargaining unit and will clarify
the unit accordingly.
ORDER
It cis hereby ordered that the existing recognized
companywide bargaining unit of accounting depart-
4 Ramona's Mexican Food Products, Inc, 217 NLRB No 153 (1975), and
cases cited in the ALJD in that case
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meat , commercial department and marketing depart-
ment , plant department, and traffic department em-
ployees employed by Southwestern Bell Telephone,
St. Louis, Missouri, and represented by Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO, be, and it
hereby is, clarified to include the job classifications
of account executives and senior account executives.
CHAIRMAN MURPHY dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent from my colleagues'
finding that the Employer's newly created classifica-
tions of account executive and senior account execu-
tive should be included in the Union's existing bar-
gaining unit. I would instead dismiss the petition as
premature.
I have difficulty making any kind of informed
judgment on the present state of the record. Al-
though it appears that the Employer has appointed
most of the individuals that will fill these positions,
few if any of those selected were performing the full
range of functions that the Employer contemplated
for these positions at the time of the hearing in this
case . Thus, most were still at the initial stages of
learning what their new roles will be, screening out
and qualifying their assigned industry accounts, and
preparing for their intensive industry training, which
most of them had not received as of that time. The
only AE to testify at the hearing, whose testimony is
relied on in large part by my colleagues, admitted
that there was still a great deal of confusion among
the AE's as to the contours of their jobs, and she
further stated:
... everybody connected with the sales side of
the house is new, there has been a lot of regroup-
ing, a lot of directions that was [sic] rescinded
and changed. None of us really understood, or
we tried to understand, but we weren't totally
familar with or knew what we were doing .. . .
She further testified:
When we first started this, a lot of us were inter-
preting the SOG one way and somebody was
interpreting it another way. There was difficulty
in getting a firm interpretation. We weren't sure
how we were to interface with service. We
weren't sure exactly where our job began. We
still, may I say, are not at a stage where anybody
is absolutely sure. When we first started, a lot of
us got involved in things that we probably
shouldn't have ... .
My colleagues state that there should be compel-
ling reasons to dismiss a petition as premature where
the effect of doing so is to leave the parties unsure of
their bargaining obligations. I would agree with that
principle in a proper case, such as one where the in-
dividuals filling the newly created positions were pre-
viously represented and would be left in a no-man's
land ' with respect to the existing contract were the
Board to defer its determination until the new posi-
tions were fully developed. This is not such a situa-
tion. Rather the great majority of individuals selected
to fill the AE and SAE positions have come from
classifications which performed many of the same
duties as are included in the AE's and SAE's job
descriptions and were never previously considered to
be in the bargaining unit. In these circumstances the
Board should tread carefully before making a deter-
mination to sweep into a unit a group of individuals
who had no previous relationship with the bargaining
unit, and with respect to whom no consideration was
given in the existing contract.
According to the testimony of the Employer's wit-
ness responsible for establishing these new positions,
the individuals named to fill the AE and SAE posi-
tions have commenced a lengthy training period at
the end of which they will perform duties, such as
responsibly directing and evaluating the work of
others, which will make them supervisors, and/or ex-
ercise the authority to commit the Employer's re-
sources and formulate company policy to such an
extent as to qualify them as managers. If the posi-
tions do so develop-and there is no present reason
to believe that they will not-my colleagues' determi-
nation here is the equivalent of finding that individu-
als being trained to become supervisors or managers
or both are nonetheless in the unit until they actually
acquire managerial authority and responsibility. Yet
Board precedent has consistently excluded such indi-
viduals from a unit as lacking a community of inter-
est,' even where the training periods are for lengthy
periods of time .6
The fact that most of the individuals selected to fill
the AE and SAE positions were previously employed
in classifications which have long been considered to
be outside the bargaining unit on the basis of their
being either managerial and/or supervisory concerns
me for yet another reason. This fact in itself goes a
long way toward confirming the testimony of the
Employer's witnesses that analytical selling before
5 See, e g., The May Department Stores Co, d/b/a The M O'Neil Compa-
ny, 175 NLRB 514, 517 (1969), cf Loretto Heights College, 205 NLRB 1134
(1973), where the Board excluded the newly created classification of pro-
gram director on the ground that said directors had the same supervisory
authority as the divisional chairman they replaced. Similarly, here it may
well be that after their positions have been fully clarified and developed, the
AE's and SAE's will have the same or similar responsibilities to the first-
and second -level managerial classification of account managers , marketing
managers , and communications marketing managers they have in large part
replaced, all of which classifications were previously outside the bargaining
unit
6 See, e g ., Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno, 160 NLRB 1504, 1510 (1966)
(where the trainees were scheduled to go through a training period of 1-1/2
years in duration).
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO.
reorganization was done almost exclusively by the
classifications from which these employees came be-
fore their appointment as AE's and SAE's. If that
indeed be the case, then the history of bargaining
between these parties has been to exclude the classifi-
cations performing this type of analytical selling
work. Consequently, apart from any consideration of
supervisory-managerial capacities of AE's and
SAE's, under well established Board precedent,7 a
question concerning representation may exist here in
which case individuals would be entitled to a self-
7 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 142 NLRB 317 (1963), and cases cit-
ed in fn. 4 therein.
413
determination election to determine whether they de-
sire to be added to the existing bargaining unit.
However, I do not think the record is sufficiently
clear on any of these issues to make a definitive de-
termination at this time. At the time of the hearing,
the newly created AE and SAE positions had not yet
been sufficiently developed or refined to support a
finding either that a question concerning representa-
tion exists, or that the individuals selected to fill these
positions were in a training program leading to their
becoming managerial or supervisory employees, or
that they appropriately should be included in the ex-
isting unit.
Under these circumstances, I would dismiss the
petition as premature.