The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 17, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 676 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.' and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 19-RC-2421. February 17, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wm. Gilbert Nowell, 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-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning].
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.2
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.
The Intervenor, Montana Traffic Employees Association, Inde-
pendent (herein called Association), contends that its current con-
tract with the Employer covering employees involved herein con-
stitutes a bar to the present proceeding.
Association's contract, which was executed June 5, 1959, to expire
October 1, 1960, was admittedly entered into during the existence of a
current contract between the same parties having a term from
December 13, 1957, until October 15, 1959. The Petition herein was
filed on August 13, 1959. The agreement of June 5, 1959, which pro-
longed the terminal date of the original contract, constituted a pre-
mature extension of that contract, and will not, therefore, under the
Board's Rules, bar a petition filed over 60 and not more than 150 days
before the terminal date of the original contract.' As the petition
herein was timely filed within the Board's Rules, we find no contract
bar to a present determination of representatives.
4. The Employer, a subsidiary of the American Telephone and Tele-
graph Company, furnishes local and long-distance telephone service to
users in eight States, including Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and IVyoming. Its facilities are intercon-
nected with those of other Bell System associates, and of various in-
dependent telephone companies.
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
7 Montana Traffic Employees Association , Independent , and Communications Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, each intervened on the basis of a contractual interest.
3 Deluxe Metal Furnsture Company, 121 NLRB 9'95.
'126 NLRB No. ,86.
THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO . 677
Historically, bargaining for the Employer's employees has excluded
Montana from an otherwise systemwide unit. Thus, all plant and
traffic employees in the seven States excluding Montana have for many
years been represented by the Intervenor, Communications Workers
of America, AFL-CIO (herein called CWA).
Within Montana, all plant employees are represented by the
Petitioner. Montana traffic employees are currently represented in
several different units : those in Butte and Missoula have, since about
1918, been represented by locals of the Petitioner in separate units,'
and all others have, since 1935, been represented by the Intervenor
Association.5
The Petitioner seeks an election among all the Employer's traffic
employees in Montana except those in Butte and Missoula, i.e., all
those currently represented by the Intervenor. The Employer alleges
that the smallest appropriate unit of its traffic employees would be a
Montana-wide unit, including employees in Butte and Missoula. If
an election in such a unit cannot presently be directed, the Employer
would have the petition dismissed. CWA's position conforms es-
sentially to that of the Employer. CWA would direct an election in
a unit no smaller than that comprising all the Employer's traffic em-
ployees in the State of Montana. Such an election, CWA contends,
would permit it, if successful, to represent all traffic employees of the
Employer in a systemwide unit, alleged by CWA to constitute the
optimum unit in the telephone industry. Association agrees generally
with Petitioner's unit contention, as it conforms to the unit for which
Association is currently recognized as bargaining representative.
The Employer's operations are for the most part organized on a
systemwide basis. The Employer's vice president in charge of per-
sonnel, with headquarters in Denver, formulates personnel policies
and practices for the entire company, including Montana. Each State
has its own traffic manager, who coordinates with the vice president
in charge of personnel, and administers the central personnel policy
in his area of responsibility. The Employer attempts to maintain uni-
form benefits and policies throughout its system, but there are some
variations due to the separate negotiations with the several labor
organizations involved. With one or two exceptions, employees
transferring between offices maintain continuous seniority.
It is true, as urged by CWA, that Board policy has been to favor
systemwide units in the public utility field. However, the Board has
not taken the position that such a unit is at all times and in all circum-
4 Petitioner 's Local 65 represents the Employer 's traffic employees in Butte ; Local 408
represents the traffic employees in Missoula . Petitioner ' s contract for Butte traffic em-
ployees expired on July 1, 1959 , and at the time of the hearing was open for negotiation.
Petitioner 's most recent contract for Missoula traffic employees was executed on June 2,
1959 , and runs until October 1, 1960.
s The Employer operates approximately 35 offices in Montana , of which Butte and
Missoula are among the largest.
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stances the only appropriate unit in this field.' Collective-bargaining
history and existing bargaining relationships have, for example, been
considered by the Board as bearing on the question of an appropriate
unit.' In the present case, the Employer's Montana traffic employees,
other than those in Butte and Missoula, have for more than two
decades enjoyed collective-bargaining representation apart from the
Employer's other traffic employees.' The foregoing collective-
bargaining history clearly supports the appropriateness of the unit
suggested by Petitioner.
The Employer and CWA contend that an election should be directed
among all of the Employer's traffic employees in Montana, including
those in Butte and Missoula . However, because of their long history
of separate representation the traffic employees in Butte and Missoula
may not be polled or included in a larger unit without a self-
determination election.9 The Petitioner, which is already recognized
as collective-bargaining representative for such employees, does not
desire an election among them," and no other labor organization
interested in this proceeding has made a showing of interest which
would warrant the direction of such an election. Accordingly, we
find no merit in the aforementioned contention."
In view of the above, particularly the long history of separate bar-
gaining for employees in such unit, we find that the unit sought by
Petitioner is appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.12
Certain classifications of employees are in dispute, as follows:
Supervisors: There are employed approximately 37 persons classi-
fied as supervisors,13 who the Employer contends should be excluded as
possessing supervisory authority. Each of the Employer's offices has
a chief operator, and under her one or more supervisors, depending on
the size of the office. Larger offices may also have an assistant chief
operator. Supervisors are primarily responsible for training and
assisting operators in the performance of their duties. Operators
o The Houston Corp , 124 NLRB 810 ; Western Light & Telephone Company, Inc., 109
NLRB 630
7 General Telephone Co. of Ohio , 112 NLRB 1225 , footnote 3; The Hartford Electric
Light Company, 122 NLRB 1421
8 See The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 30-RC-1127 (May 1956, un-
published ), where the Board recognized the historical separation, for collective -bargaining
purposes, of the Employer's Montana traffic employees
0 Upper Peninsula Poice^ Company , 110 NLRP. 1082 ; Great Lakes Pope Line Company,
92 NLRB 583 . See also Brooklyn Union Gas Company , 123 NLRB 441.
10 See General Telephone Co. of Ohio , supra at p 1228
ii The Hartford Electric Light Co, supra ; Pennsuleanoa Electric Company, 110 NLRB
1078 , 1080 In view of our determination herein, we do not pass on the question raised
by CWA , whether Petitioner 's current contract covering the traffic employees in Missoula
would bar a current election among such employees
19 See Montana-Dakota Utilities Co , 110 NLRB 1056; General Telephone Co. of Ohio,
suprd.
18 These individuals are known as service assistants in the Employer 's offices outside
Montana Supervisors are currently excluded from the Employer's collective -bargaining
agreement with the Association , but are included in IBEW's contracts covering Butte and
Missoula.
THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO . 679
normally refer to their supervisors problems that arise, and do not
deal directly with the chief operator. On weekends, and at certain
other times during the week when chief operators and their assistants
are not on duty, supervisors are placed in charge of the offices, and
then assume the authority of chief operators. On such occasions,
which arise with relative frequency, supervisors may relieve operators
of their duties, and may impose other forms of discipline. Even when
chief operators are present, supervisors may and do reprimand opera-
tors for improper performance. When chief operators are busy, or
absent from the job, supervisors interview applicants for employment,
and their recommendations on hiring are given substantial weight.
During an operator's initial training period, her supervisor is expected
to observe and appraise her potential as an operator, and a supervisor's
recommendation of dismissal will normally result in the trainee's dis-
charge. On the basis of the above, and the entire record, we find
that supervisors possess the authority to discipline other employees,
and effectively to recommend their hire and discharge. Accordingly,
we shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors within the meaning
of the Act.14
Supervisory assistant for toll-line engineering; instructors, State
and district; service observers and clerks in the State office: The
Intervenor 'CWA would include all the aforementioned categories of
employees, while the Employer and the Petitioner would include only
the service observers and clerks in the State office. The record indi-
cates that the above classifications may properly belong in the unit
found to be appropriate. However, it also appears that these
employees have heretofore been excluded from the existing bargaining
unit, and under Board law they may not be included in that unit with-
out being given a chance to express their wishes in a self-determination
election; 15 as no labor organization seeking these employees has made
a separate showing of interest among them warranting the direction
of a self-determination election, we shall exclude them from the unit.16
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All traffic employees of the Employer in the State of Montana,
except those in the Butte and Missoula offices, and excluding service
14 General Telephone Co. of Ohio, supra at p . 1229; Ozark Central Telpehone Company,
83 NLRB 258 Cf. San Marcos Telephone Company, 81 NLRB 314
CWA contends that the Regional Director erroneously denied its motion for a continu-
ance, thereby depriving it of adequate time to prepare its case on the question of
supervisors . CWA moves therefore that supervisors be permitted to vote subject to
challenge We deny this motion. CWA was present at the hearing, participated fully
in examining witnesses regarding the inclusion or exclusion of supervisors , and the record
contains ample evidence pertaining to this issue.
15 The Zia Co ., 108 NLRB 1134.
1A Illtinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109 . See also Adams Coal Company, Inc,
118 NLRB 1493.
,680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
observers, clerks in the State office, the supervisory assistant for toll-
line engineering, instructors, State and district, confidential stenogra-
phers, professional employees, guards, the State secretary, the super-
visory assistant in charge of routing supervisors, chief operators,
assistant chief operators, night chief operators, and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election " omitted from publication.]
11 Intervenor CWA has not indicated that it is unwilling to appear on the ballot in the
limited unit sought by Petitioner , and found above to be appropriate . Accordingly, we
shall include its name on the ballot , with the right to withdraw upon notification to the
Regional Director within 10 days to this Decision and Direction of Election.
Douglas H . McDonald, Trustee of Evansville Television, Inc.,
Debtor 1 and Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians
Union, Local No. 1225, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1710.
February 17, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before George M. Dick, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed 2
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-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.3
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of engineers , cameramen,
directors, floormen, projectionists, and film department employees,
employed by the Employer at its television studio in Evansville, In-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's request, joined in by the
majority stockholder , that action be deferred on the petition because the Trustee's appoint-
ment under chapter x of the Bankruptcy Act is now being challenged in court . Whether
the challenge will be successful is speculative ; therefore we conclude that its pendency
does not warrant delaying an election
0 Ferris Traylor, majority stockholder and chief creditor was permitted to intervene at
the hearing without objection of the other parties.
126 NLRB No. 88.