The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 3, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 483 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

THE CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF MD. 483
The Chesapeake & Potomac, Telephone Company of
Maryland and Maryland Outside Telephone Plant
Engineering Association (Unaffiliated), Petitioner.
Case 5-RC-7586
August 3, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly,filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended,-a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer August A. Denhard,
Jr. 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
Petitioner, the Employer, and Communications
Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor
herein, filed briefs.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) 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-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 affirmed.
Upon the entire record. in this case, -including the
briefs filed herein, the Board finds:
1: The Employer,-is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
policies of 'the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations' involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. - No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning, of Sections 9(cXl) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer is a Maryland corporation engaged
in providing intrastate and interstate telecommunica-
tions. The Petitioner herein seeks to sever from an
existing unit employees described as all outside plant
engineering assistants and building industry consult-
ants employed by the Employer and excluding all
such outside plant engineering assistants and building
industry consultants who are located in the Maryland
portion of the Washington Metropolitan area, all
engineering assistants circuit-lay out, and all other
employees as well as office clerical employees, guards
and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended.
For over 20 years the employees sought to- be
severed herein have, been covered by contracts
between the Employer and the Intervenor in a, unit
which includes all plant department-and commercial
department employees, over 5,000 in number.
_ The Petitioner contends that the employees sought-
to be severed (herein called engineering assistants) are
professional employees who-have never been accord-
ed an opportunity to vote for or against inclusion in
the production and maintenance unit as provided in
Section 9(b)(1) of the Act. The intervenor contends
that the employees sought are not professionals as
defined in the Act and therefore the petition should be
dismissed. -
In, 1950 engineering assistants working for ,the, Em-
ployer petitioned to- be severed from „theproduction
and maintenance unit as professional employees.2 In
that case, 'the Board listed-,the; main duties of-,the
engineering assistants-generally as follows:
(1) To make a preliminary survey J or the
approval of the -plant engineer, showing, the
location, size,- and ,type of poles, wires, cables,
circuit. layouts, switchboards, and any other,
equipment required for a,proposed project; (2), to
make field surveys of existing and future facilities
for new projects showing, the areas.,to be covered,
probable type of construction _to.be used, whether
aerial-or -underground,, location -of, rroutes, to be
followed, and the estimated `cost of_materials and
labor involved; (3) -on occasion, to obtain rights-
of-way from private owners.
In dismissing the petition,-the Board noted that of the,
89 engineering assistants, _ 12 were college, graduates,,
32 -had, done some college work, 9 completed some,
kind of post-high school -training -in a night technical
school, 21 were high school graduates, and 15 had less
than a high school education. The ;record. failed to
show whether those, who had college work took
courses in engineering. Nor did it show how many, if
any, were members of, engineering societies. Ad-
vanced education was not aprerequisite for the duties
to be performed and there was no specific-job
classification-for this category of employees. Further,
the engineering assistants were , in the, main, -selected
from other departments of the .plant on' the, basis of
their ability and potentialities to do the work and they
were trained on the job. Although the Company
introduced a course of study for these engineering
assistants consisting of 120 hours of attendance, only
some 30 percent enrolled for that course. Further, the
engineering assistants were hourly paid for both their
regular and overtime work and had always been
covered under previous contracts with the rank and
1 The Petitioner also filed a motion to designate the Employer as
"hostile." The Board finds that this motion is lacking in merit , and it is
hereby denied.
2 Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore, 89 NLRB
231,233.
192 NLRB No. 67
484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
file of plant department employees. Citing the general
education prerequisites for professional,classification,
as 'enunciated in the Act, the Board found' that the
engineering assistants were not -required to have
obtained this - type of education or to perform' duties
requiring .such aeducation
Petitioner contends that the Board should now find
that-'the , engineering' assistants are professional em-
ployees just as it, found that engineering associates
and right-of-way agents were professionals in New
England ° Telephone ' and Telegraph Company, 179,
NLRB N&-93.-In finding, that the - engineerin
associates and right-of-way agents could constitute 'an-
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining the -Board noted that the record M' that
case showed that the employer` required new employ-
ees ` to - have at least -, 2 years of , formal 'college
education; that the employer provided classroom and
on-the-job training forboth, xengineering;associates
and right-of-way agents;-that 82 percent of the 388
erigineeriing''associates and-right-of-way agents were
college graduates or had -education 'beyond high
school. Further theywere required to know aspects of
mathematics,, fundamentals of ^ electricity" and `elec-
tronics, strength of materials, structures, geology; site
planning, design and construction of foundations,
architecture, surveying;- highway engineering, me-
chanical drawing, English composition, public speak-
ing, engineering economy, principles of accounting,
contract preparation, and real estate fundamentals.
The record herein warrants ' -a " finding 'that the
engineering ^ assistants should,- not be classified as
professional employees. Although many changes have
taken place in-outside plant engineering since 1950,
such as the use of greater nuinb'ers, and more varied,
types,'of cables and` other`materials and the introduc-
tion , of `computers in many areas of the engineering
assistants ' work, the record fails to'show that these
changes ha'^e altered the basic type of work of the
engineering - assistant . Rather, the - introduction of -
computers and the advanced technology evident in
other materials : used by the engineering' assistants
have aided _ in relieving them of" much of the manual
work and mental computation which was a necessary
part of-their work in, 1950.
The engineering assistants are ,: paid on -an-,hourly
basis for regular time "and- overtime,, and, are-the
highest, paid employees in the unit 'of which they are
now a part. They are selected' .from' within the
Company, mostly from the skilled crafts, on the basis
of scores they receive in tests-given by the Employer'
which reveal basic ability and potentiality, and on the
basis of personal interviews with supervisors.
There are no educational requirements an employee
must meet to be an engineering assistant, and the
work is learned by on-the-job experience. Of the 159
engineering assistants, only 5 are college graduates,,6
have 2 years, of college, 12. have less than 2 years of
college, 130 are high school 'graduates, and 6 did'not
graduate from high school. The;. record fails to- show
that the engineering,-assistants are,-required to know
the sciences or skills- which the Board,, found. wore,
required of the engineering, associates in New England_
Telephone, " supra. Also, there is no evidence that any
engineering assistants - belong _to, ^any_ engineering
societies. The record -does.-revealLrthat in 1965 ,and
1967, the Employer conducted 3-week courses for
engineering assistants, with attendance on a voluntary
basis. A,total of only 72,attended the two,courses.
Engineering assistants must use some judgment and
discretion in their work, but they are required at all
times to do each job in accordance with the methods
laid out in the extensive, ' printedi r Bell,-,, Systems
Practices,, or to have any, deviation from these
practices approved by a supervisor. Also, they are not
allowed to authorize the expenditure of any moneys
without supervisory approval.
Based. on the foregoing ! ; facts, we find that the
engineering assistants do not possess, the degree of
education or scientific knowledge which is`character-,,,
istic of a professional employee, nor does the "work
require such education or :knowledge; The prerequi-
sites necessary' for a finding that theyare profession-
als within the meaning of the Act have- notbeen met.
We shall therefore,dismiss, the--,petition.-
ORDER-
' It is ' hereby ordered that the -petition in Case
5-RC-7586 be, and ithereby is,-dismissed.