The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 536 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TIIE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and TELEPHONE WORKERS INDUSTRIAL UNION, PETI-
TIONER
Cases Nos. 19-R-2075 and 19-1-2076.Decided July 17, 1.947
McMiclcen, Rupp & Schv eppe, by Mr. John N. Rupp, of Seattle,
Wash., for the Employer.
Mr. Joseph D. Holmes, of Seattle, Wash., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Norman Leonard, of San Francisco, Calif., for the A. C. E.
Mr. Warren H. Leland, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed, the cases were,consolidated and hearing
was held at Seattle, Washington, on May 8 and 9, 1947, before Patrick
H. Walker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a California cor-
poration ', and its wholly owned subsidiary, the Bell Telephone Com-
pany of Nevada, are engaged in receiving and transmitting intrastate
and interstate communications in California, Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, and Nevada. The Employer, with its subsidiary, operates and
maintains a communication system of wire network which, as of De-
cember 31, 1946, consisted of approximately 3,060,966 telephones,
34,076 miles of pole lines, 12,641,402 miles of wire (excluding drop
and block wire), and 852 central offices. We are concerned in this
proceeding only with the Employer's operations in the Washington-
Idaho area.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 100.
536
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH- COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
537
The Petitioner is a labor organization sponsored by the National.
Federation of Telephone Workers, claiming to represent employees,of '
the Employer.'
Associated Communications Employees, herein called the A. C. E.,
is a labor 'organization, claiming to represent employees of the
..Employer.
III. THE QUESTION. CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees ' of the, Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the. representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7). of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The parties agree, generally, that the appropriate units should con-
sist of all the'non-supervisory employees in the commercial and traffic'
departments, respectively, in the Employer's Washington-Idaho area.
However, the Petitioner and the A. C. E. also seek to, include business
office supervisors, service engineers, staff clerks,. and staff assistants,
all of whom the Employer would exclude.
Business office supervisors: There are approximately'51 employees
in this classification whose duties are to assist the managers of the
larger business offices in the operation of the units under their control.
They supervise the training of employees, concern themselves with
service-operations, and generally guide subordinate employees in their
.work. Business office supervisors are vested with 'authority to employ
and discharge employees under their direction. Accordingly, we
shall exclude them as supervisory employees.
Service engineers: There are approximately. 16 employees in this
classification whose duties are to make surveys of industrial .establish=
'ments for the purpose of improving efficiency of telephone usage.
Upon completion of such service they make their recommendations too.
the Employer. They work without crews and without direct super-
vision of anyone during the time they conduct their surveys. The
record reveals that these employees at one time were bargained for
by labor organizations and included within the coverage of, collective
We find no merit to the A. C. E. contention that the Petitioner is.not a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, deny the A. C. E.'s motion to,
dismiss on this basis. - ' ,
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining agreements. It is clear that these employees do not possess
supervisory or managerial authority. Accordingly, we shall include
them in the unit.
Staff clerks: There are approximately 20 employees in this classi-
fication employed in the traffic department. Their work is essentially
clerical and they possess no supervisory authority. Accordingly, we
shall include them in the unit.
Staff assistants: There are approximately 9 persons employed in
this classification in the Employer's traffic department, and 27 in the
commercial department, who devote almost all their time to general
clerical duties. They gather and furnish the Employer with analytical
data and statistics concerning their respective departments. Although
approximately 30 percent of these employees occasionally work on
matters concerning labor relations, they do not assist or act in a con-
fidential capacity to anyone exercising managerial functions respect-
ing such.matters.2 Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit.
(1) We find that all employees in the Employer's commercial
department in the Washington-Idaho area, including staff assistants,
but excluding business office supervisors and all other supervisory
employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
(2) We find that all employees in the Employer's traffic depart-
ment in the Washington-Idaho area, including staff clerks, staff as-
sistants, but excluding all supervisory employees, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 3
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph Company (Washington-Idaho area), Seattle, Washington,
elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not
later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the
employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
2 See Matter of Line Material Company of Pennsylvania, 73 N. L R B 704; Matter of
Phillips Petroleum Company, 73 N. L. R. B. 236.
3 Any participant in the elections herein may, upon its prompt request to and approval
thereof by the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 539
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by Telephone
Workers Industrial Union sponsored by the National Federation of
Telephone Workers, or by Associated Communications Employees,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
[See, infra, Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections,
74 N. L. R. B. 981.]