The Ohio Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 30, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 1555 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, EMPLOYER
AND PETITIONER and OHIO FEDERATION OF TELEPHONE WORKERS,
UNION
Cases Nos. 8-RM-19, 8-RM-20, 8-ISM-21, and 8-RM-22.Decided
December 30, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Bernard Ness, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. Communications Workers of America, CIO (herein called CWA-
CIO)1 and Southwestern Ohio Telephone Workers, Inc.,2 are labor
organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer and OFTW have collective bargaining agreements
covering employees of the Employer's traffic department in the North-
eastern and Southwestern Divisions, the plant department in the
Northeastern Division, and the accounting department, which func-
tions on a system-wide basis. These agreements were effective Sep-
tember 19, 1948, and are to terminate March 18, 1950.
'The petition herein named the Ohio Federation of Telephone Workers, Inc. (herein
called OFTW), and Ohio Division No. 12, Communications Workers of America, CIO
(herein called Division No. 12), as the labor organizations involved. However, see dis-
cussion infra paragraph 3, and footnote 13.
'Southwestern Ohio Telephone Workers, Inc., inadvertently received no notice that a
hearing was to be held and therefore was not present at the hearing. Subsequent to the
hearing this union was notified of this proceeding and requested permission to intervene
on the basis of its current contract with the Employer, waiving all rights to any further
hearing in this matter. The motion to intervene is hereby granted.
87 NLRB 161.
877359-50-vol. 87-100 1555
1556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In May 1949, OFTW conducted a referendum among its members
on the question of affiliation with CWA-CIO. The results of the
balloting showed that a preponderance of the members favored affilia-
tion with the CWA-CIO, and in June 1949 at the CWA convention
OFTW formally applied for a charter from CWA-CIO. An appli-
cation fee and 1 month's per capita dues were paid at that time to
CWA-CIO. On June 17, 1949, OFTW received a charter from
CWA-CIO effective July 18, 1949, designating it as Division No. 12,
CWA-CIO. However, at the time of the hearing the transition from
OFTW to Division No. 12 had not been completed. Division No. 12
has no officers, bylaws, or members, and collects no dues. A court order
prohibits any further action in this regard "pending final determina-
tion of the issues between the parties now pending before the National
Labor Relations Board or until further order of the Court."
On July 18, 1949, the Employer was notified of the change of affilia-
tion and filed the instant petitions for the units covered by its current
contracts with OFTW. At the hearing OFTW, Division 12, and
CWA-CIO were jointly represented by the same counsel. All parties
waived any right to raise the contracts between the Employer and
OFTW as a bar to a present determination of representatives.3 In
these circumstances, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employer requests that a separate bargaining unit be estab-
lished for each of the following groups : 4
(a) All employees in the Employer's plant department in the
Northeastern Division; 5
(b) All employees of the Employer's traffic department in the
Northeastern Division;
(c) All employees of the Employer's traffic department in the
Southwestern Division;
(d) All employees of the Employer's accounting department.
3 Southwestern Ohio Telephone Workers, Inc., has a contract with the Employer cov-
ering employees in the Employer's Plant Department in the Southwestern Division which
was executed in March 1949 and is to terminate February 25, 1951. This union contends
that that contract constitutes a bar to any present determination of representatives
among these employees. In the light of our findings hereinafter that a system-wide unit
is the only appropriate unit, the contract covering only Southwestern Division employees
is no bar to the instant proceeding. See Duquesne Light Company, 57 NLRB 770; North
America Creameries, Ine., 57 NLRB 795 ; Dolese d Shepard Company, 56 NLRB 532.
4 These groupings conform to the units covered in the current contracts with OFTW.
8In each case the Employer would exclude confidential and professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 1557
CWA-CIO contends initially that the only appropriate unit is a sys-
tem-wide unit composed of all employees of the Employer excluding
confidential and professional employees' and supervisors as defined in
the Act. If the Board should deem this unit inappropriate CWA-
CIO requests a system-wide unit of the same employees described
above less the Southwestern Division plant department employees.
As its second alternative, CWA-CIO desires that two separate units
be found appropriate, one covering all employees in the Northeastern
Division and the other covering all employees in the Southwestern
Division less the plant department employees and exclusions noted
above. If none of these three are found appropriate CWA-CIO re-
quests a consolidated unit of the four separate groups it currently
represents.
The Employer is an Ohio corporation furnishing telephone service
in the greater part of the State of Ohio. The Employer's main office
is in Cleveland, Ohio, but it has exchanges located throughout the
State. It employs approximately 18,725 employees.
The Employer has established two divisions, corresponding in geo-
graphic scope to the principal areas of its operations : the Southwestern
Division and the Northeastern Division. Within each division, there
are operating departments organized on a functional basis, vie: the
plant department which constructs and maintains telephone facilities
and equipment; the traffic department which handles both local and
long distance telephone calls; the commercial department which
handles the sales and collections in its area; and the engineering de-
partment which designs the plant lay-out and performs other engineer-
ing functions. There are, in addition, certain nonoperating depart-
ments which do not function within a geographical division but are
established on a system-wide basis. These include the accounting de-
partment, the financial department, the directory department, and the
administrative department.
In each of the two geographical divisions there is a vice president
and general manager who is responsible for all operations in his di-
vision, and the various department heads in his division report directly
to him. The division general manager, in turn, reports directly to the
Employer's operating vice president who reports directly to the com-
pany president. The heads of the nonoperating departments also re-
port directly to the president. The president is responsible for the
general operation of the company and determines its policies. The
6 The parties stipulated at the hearing that attorneys in the Employer's legal depart-
ment were professional employees.
1558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer concedes that the nature of the work of the operating de-
partments is the same in both divisions.
The wages, hours, and general working conditions of the accounting
and commercial departments employees are similar and the wages paid
traffic department employees are comparable to those paid in the other
two departments. There are frequent transfers from the traffic de-
partment to the commercial department and from the commercial de-
partment to the accounting department. During the first 6 months
of 1949 approximately 71/2 percent of all personnel transfers of the
Employer were interdepartmental. There is a common labor rela-
tions policy for both divisions which emanates from the vice president
in charge of personnel, who has in the past conducted negotiations with
the unions. There are common pension, sickness and disability, va-
cationi, and leave of absence plans for all employees. Pay rolls are
prepared by the financial department and all employees are paid by
checks issued by this department. There is a wage progression sched-
ule established which is identical for similar jobs in different depart-
ments.
Collective bargaining between the Employer and OFTW has gravi-
tated toward a system-wide basis.' Since 1937, there has been a general
agreement covering both operating and clerical employees in both di-
visions, relating to conditions of work, e.g., vacations, leaves of ab-
sence, lay-offs, departmental transfers, check-off of dues, grievance
and collective bargaining procedure, and sickness and disability bene-
fits. Although wages are generally established in separate depart-
mental contracts, since 1946 the general system-wide agreement has
included a wage progression schedule. Moreover, since 1940, the
traffic department employees. of both the Northeastern and South-
western Divisions have been covered by a single agreement establishing
wages and hours as well as general working conditions. In 1941, and
each year thereafter, the Employer and OFTW executed bargaining
agreements for employees in the accounting department, which func-
tions on a system-wide basis.
As noted above, the Employer requests four separate bargaining
units following departmental lines within each of the Employer's two
administrative divisions. We do not find such units appropriate in
the circumstances of the case. In public utilities where, as in this
case, the Employer's operations are highly integrated and interde-
pendent, and there exists similarity of tasks and employment condi-
tions throughout the system, with centralized control of personnel
° As noted above , however, the Employer and Southwestern Ohio Telephone Workers, Inc.,
have had agreements confined to plant department employees in the Southwestern
Division.
THE OHIO BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 1559
policies, we have found a system-wide unit the most appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining." We have reached this con-
clusion even when there exists a bargaining history on a less compre-
hensive basis.9 In this case, as noted above, the bargaining history,
if anything, militates in favor of a system-wide unit. Accordingly,
in view of the foregoing, we find that the departmental units requested
by the Employer are inappropriate.
However, the request of CWA.-CIO for a system-wide unit, made
at commencement of the hearing, does describe an appropriate unit.
Moreover, in view of the fact that the Employer's petition and the
position taken by the unions involved herein placed in issue the unit
status of all the Employer's employees, and in the interest of avoid-
ing another proceeding in which the issues would duplicate those in-
volved here, we regard CWA-CIO's claim as timely and shall treat it
as a cross -potition.10
CWA-CIO seeks the inclusion of traffic, plant, and clerical per-
sonnel in a single system-wide unit. The Board has previously
sanctioned the grouping of clerical and traffic employees in a single
bargaining unit.11 Moreover, recognizing the special degree of inte-
gration inherent in the operations of the telephone industry and the
common interest of all employees in this industry in serving the public,
the Board has declared that the optimum unit in this industry em-
braces the employees in all departments.12 For these reasons, we con-
clude that the system-wide unit including traffic, plant, and clerical
employees is appropriate.
We find, therefore, that all employees in the Employer's plant
department, traffic department, commercial department, and engineer-
ing department in both the Southwestern and Northeastern Divisions,
and all employees in the accounting, financial, directory, and admin-
istrative departments, but excluding confidential and professional
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
8 See Pacihce Telephone and Telegraph Company, 85 NLRB 713; The Ohio Associated
Telephone Company, 82 NLRB 972; Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company,
55 NLRB 1059; People's Telephone Corporation, 69 NLRB 540; West Coast Telephone
Company, 66 NLRB 1073; Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company, 61 NLRB 447 ;
Laclede Gas Light Company, 80 NLRB 839 . Cf. Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company,
86 NLRB 437.
9 Niagara Hudson Power Corporation , 79 NLRB 1115; Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
87 NLRB 257.
10 Continental Bus System., Inc., 84 NLRB 670. We are administratively satisfied that
CWA-CIO' s showing of interest in the broader unit is substantial.
11 San Marcos Telephone Company, 81 NLRB 314; Southwestern Associated Telephone
Company, 76 NLRB 1105.
1z Athens Home Telephone Company , 85 NLRB 618; Ohio Associated Telephone Com-
pany, supra; West Coast Telephone Company, supra; Illinois Consolidated Telephone
Company, supra.
1560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by
Communications Workers of America, CIO, or by Southwestern Ohio
Telephone Workers, Inc.,13 or by neither.
13 The Employer asserts that , although it has no objection to either CWA-CIO, or Divi-
sion No. 12 appearing on the ballot in any election directed , OFTW, as the current con-
Etracting union, should also appear. As noted above, all three organizations were jointly
represented at the hearing , and their representative stated that CWA-CIO is the only
one which desires to be placed on the ballot. OPTW is in the process of dissolution into
Division No. 12. Division No. 12, however , is not a functioning labor organization at this
time . In these circumstances we find that CWA-CIO is the real party in interest and we
shall place its name on the ballot . See Cribben & Sexton Company, 82 NLRB 1409 ;
Mathews Manufacturing Company, 65 NLRB 601.