The Mansfield Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 15, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 83 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of THE MANSFIELD TELEPHONE C0MPANY,1 EMPLOYER
and COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RU--905.-Decided November 15,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF F^LECTIQN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Garver,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1- The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act..
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent the employees in the Employer's
plant and equipment departments, excluding the employees in the traf-
fic department and all other employees. Local Union 688, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, the Intervenor herein,
and the Employer contend that the proposed, unit is inappropriate
because the employees in the traffic department are excluded there-
from.
The Intervenor is the successor of brother and sister locals of the
same International, namely, Local Union B-688, and Local U lion
B-1132, which prior to their amalgamation in 1949 or 1950 represented
in separate bargaining units the male and female employees of the
Employer, excluding office clerical employees. Since 1939, the Em-
1 The Employer ' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Because the last contract between the Employer and the Intervenor covering the em-
ployees petitioned for herein has expired and has not been renewed in writing, we find
it is no bar to this proceeding . Safeway Stores, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 295 , and cases cited
therein.
92 NLRB No. 19.
83
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plover has entered into series of successive contracts with Local Union
B-688 and Local Union B-1132 covering the Employer's male and
female employees respectively. The female employees covered by the
aforesaid agreements included -all the employees in the traffic depart-
ment, plus three female employees known as the repair and record
clerks who do clerical work for the equipment department. The con-
tracts covering the male employees included all the employees in the
plant and equipment departments, which departments do construction,
maintenance, and installation work for the Employer.
The company-wide unit of plant department and equipment depart-
ment el'nployees proposed by the Petitioner corresponds generally to
the unit -covered in previous contracts between the Employer and Local
Union B-688 and its successor, the Intervenor herein. No labor organ-
ization is seeking an election in any larger unit which would be appro-
priate.3 Accordingly, we find that the unit requested by the Petitioner
is presently appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.'
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All journeymen linemen, apprentice linemen, groundmen, cable
splicers, apprentice cable splicers, cable helpers, switchmen, apprentice
switchmen, installers, apprentice installers, troublemen, apprentice
troublemen, instrument repairmen and apprentice instrument repair-
men,5 record clerks, and repair clerks,6 excluding traffic department
employees, office employees, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 Cf. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company ; 85 NLRB 713 ; The Ohio J ssociatcd
Telephone Company, 82 NLRB 972.
9 The Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company , 55 NLRB 1361 ; Michigan Bell Telephone
Company, 63 NLRB 941 ; Southwestern Associated Telephone Company, 76 NLRB 1105;
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 90 NLRB 639 . Compare, Interstate
Telephone Company , 77 NLRB 637 , where the Board found , because of circumstances not
present in this case , that a proposed segregation of plant department employees of a
telephone company from other employees with whom they were closely allied in interest,
was artificial and inherently inappropriate.
5 The petition refers to " installation repairmen and aliprentice installation repairmen;"
whereas it appears from the record that the Petitioner intended to describe "instrument
repairmen and apprentice instrument repairmen."
6In including the record clerks and repair clerks in the unit we are, in part , ignoring
the collective bargaining history. Under the contracts between the. Employer and the
Intervenor, the record and repair clerks were excluded from the contractual unit covering
the plant and equipment department employees because of the difference in sex between
these employees and the other employees in the plant and equipment departments. How=
ever, such factor is not a valid determinant of the appropriateness of any unit. We
believe that the record and repair clerks should be included in the bargaining unit of
plant and equipment department employees with whom their employment interests are more
closely allied . F. S. R-oyster Guano Company, 71 NLRB 1465.