The Detroit Edison Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 21, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 704 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Detroit Edison Company and International Broth-
erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local No. 614, Petitioner.
Case 7-RC- 12446
February 21, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
On July 5, 1974, the Regional Director for Region
7 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding in which he found appro-
priate, in accord with the parties' stipulation,' a
systemwide unit of the Employer's service planning
department employees, but rejected the Employer's
contention that the A-10 classifications of senior
district engineering designer "A" and senior service
planner, and the A-9 classifications of senior district
engineering designer "B" and area planners, referred
to herein as A-10's and A-9's, should be excluded as
supervisors. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer
timely filed a request for review of the Regional
Director's decision, on the grounds, inter alia, that in
resolving the aforementioned supervisory issues he
made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous.
The Petitioner filed opposition to the Employer's
request for review.
On August 20, 1974, the National Labor Relations
Board by telegraphic order granted the Employer's
request for review and stayed the election pending
decision on review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a
brief on review.
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.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Employer's brief on review, and makes
the following findings:
The Employer is a public utility engaged in
supplying electrical energy in the southeastern part
of Michigan. The Employer's service planning
department, involved herein, plans and designs the
establishment, extension, or improvement of electri-
cal services within a given geographical area, and
issues the necessary job orders to the Employer's
construction units. For such purposes, the service
planning department is divided into six geographical
districts. It is also responsible, through its mapping
I Local Union 17, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, and Utility Workers Union of America are Intervenors.
section, for the maintenance and operation of the
Employer's mapping system. Each district is headed
by an A-14 district supervisor. Reporting to the
A-14's are 18 A-12 agreed supervisors. There are 249
other employees in the 6 districts; 43 A-10's, 33
A-9's, and 173 others classified as "0" group
employees. Within each district, there is a further
geographical area breakdown, generally by town-
ships. A group comprised of an A-10 or an A-9 and
one to five "0" group employees is assigned to
handle the workload of each of these areas. Three of
the districts have a single office; two have two
offices; and one, the Thumb district, has five offices.
All offices have one or more A-12's except for three
of the five Thumb district offices where the ranking
employee is an A-10. There is no contention that the
supervisory responsibilities of the A-10's and A-9's
differ in any material respect by reason of their
different classification or office assignment.
The A-10's and A-9's receive work from the
Employer's marketing division, as well as directly
from architects, developers, or other outside sources
who have been referred to them by the division.
Upon receipt of the work, the A-10 or A-9 assigns
priority to it, and then, without consulting the A-12
over him, he either assigns the work to an "0"
employee or performs it himself. In making these
assignments he considers the workload of the "0"
employees under him, their qualifications and abili-
ties, and how the new job fits into the work already
assigned to them. If the work assigned is not
progressing satisfactorily for some reason, the A-10
or A-9 may reassign it to another "0" employee or
complete it himself. They may also assign "O"
employees to help other A-10's or A-9's without
consulting the A-12.
In addition, A-12's require the A-10's and A-9's to
submit periodic 6-month evaluations of the "0"
employees under them. These evaluations rate the
"0" employees as to their attitude, ability to work
with others, receptiveness to new ideas, efficiency,
attendance record, ability to learn, future potential,
performance in job-related courses, and their con-
tacts with other utilities or other outside agencies;
and they may include recommendations for wage
increases or as to readiness for promotion to
available higher classifications. The evaluations
become the basis for formal recommendations
prepared by the A-12's who pass them on to the
A-14 in charge of the district; and eventually they
are placed in the employees' files . There is testimony
that the wage increase recommendations of the
A-10's and A-9's are followed 95 to 99 percent of the
time , and that only rarely is an independent
216 NLRB No. 132
THE DETROIT EDISON CO. 705
investigation made. The A-10 or A-9 selects an "0"
employee to act in his stead in case of illness or
vacation. At such times, the "0" employee is paid at
a higher rate.
The A-10's and A-9's also schedule vacations for
"0" employees under them, after first consulting
with the other A-10's and A-9's in the office to
ensure that sufficient "0" employees will be present
at all times . They also check the timecards of "0"
employees and, in some offices , initial them before
turning them in. They verbally admonish "0"
employees whose work performance is inadequate, or
if their attendance is poor. If this action is ineffectu-
al, the A-10's or A-9's are expected to report the
matter to the A-12 for more stringent disciplinary
measures.
Based on the foregoing, and the record as a whole,
particularly the facts that the A-10's and A-9's are
placed in charge of one or more "0" employees with
regard to work to be done in a given geographical
area , that they exercise independent judgment in
assigning work to those employees, and that they
periodically evaluate their work performance and
make wage increase recommendations which are
given considerable weight by the A-12's and A-14's,
we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the
A-10's and A-9's are supervisors as defined in the
Act.2
We shall therefore exclude them from the unit
found appropriate herein, as described below:
All full-time and regular part-time employees in
the following classifications employed in the
Employer's Service Planning Department: service
planners, special clerks, typists clerks, senior
engineering technicians, engineering technician
associates, project planners, draftsmen estimators,
switchboard clerks, group leader-section map
and typography, senior draftsmen, house number
coordinators, draftsmen, operations planners,
standard development planners, senior operations
-planners, senior standards development plan-
ners, senior statistical planners, junior draftsmen,
service planner assistants, service planners in
training, project planner assistants, project plan-
ners in training, service planner associates; but
excluding all other office and clerical employees,
other technical employees, other training person-
nel, engineers, temporary employees, irregular
part-time employees, professional employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and
all other employees.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 7 for the purpose of
conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and
Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that
the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be
that immediately preceding the date of this Decision
on Review.3 This election is subject to the following
limitation. Since the unit found appropriate herein is
substantially smaller in size than the unit petitioned
for, the Regional Director shall not proceed with the
election unless he is satisfied administratively that an
adequate showing of interest has been made to
support an election in the appropriate unit. The
Regional Director shall issue an order dismissing the
direction of election herein without prejudice if such
a showing of interest is not submitted.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
In my judgment, an examination of the record fully
supports the Regional Director's Decision and
Direction of Election. Like him, I would include the
A-10's and the A-9's in the unit of service planning
department employees. Accordingly, as I would
affirm the Regional Director's decision in its entirety,
I dissent from the decision of the majority to exclude
the A-10's and A-9's from the unit found appropri-
ate.
2 While the ratio of supervisors to nonsupervisory employees is a factor
which the Board considers in determining supervisory issues, and the ratio
here is admittedly high , such factor is outweighed where , as in this case.
there is persuasive evidence that the individuals in question clearly have and
exercise one or more of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority.
Moreover, in view of the parties ' agreement that the authority of the A-10's
and A-9's is the same , regardless of location or the number of "0"
employees under them , variations between them based on these factors have
been discounted . See Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Company, Inc., 209
NLRB 325 (1974).
3 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
addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966); N.L R B. v Wyman-Gordon Co,
394 U.S. 759 (1969) Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an amended
election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible
voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region
7 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review 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 extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed.