Wisconsin Bell, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 27, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 1165 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

WISCONSIN BELL 1165
Wisconsin Bell , Inc. and Deborah Hollis and Local
4603, Communications Workers of America,
AFL-CIO. Case 30-RD-858
27 May 1987
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN AND BABSON
On 17 June 1986 the Regional Director for
Region 30 of the National Labor Relations Board
issued an order withdrawing notice of representa-
tion hearing and dismissing petition in the above-
titled proceeding. The Regional Director found
that Wisconsin Bell, the Employer, and Communi-
cations Workers of America, Local 4603, the
Union, had entered into an agreement on 24 Sep-
tember 1984 to amend their then current collective-
bargaining agreement to merge the newly certified
unit of Public Service Center employees at the
Kossow Road location into a larger unit of em-
ployees,' and that therefore the unit petitioned for
in this proceeding was not appropriate for purposes
of a decertification election. Thereafter, in accord-
ance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Petitioner filed a timely request
for review of the Regional Director's dismissal. By
order dated' 17 December 1986, the Board granted
the request for review, as it raised substantial issues
with respect to whether there had been a merger
of the originally certified unit sought here into a
larger unit that could best be resolved on the basis
of record evidence. On 20 January 1987 a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Gary Prochnow.
Thereafter, on 21 January 1987, the case was trans-
ferred to the Board for decision in accordance with
its 17 December 1986 order.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this
proceeding, including the briefs of the parties, and
has decided to affirm the Regional Director's dis-
missal.
The Employer and the Union have had an ongo-
ing collective-bargaining relationship for many
years. The first contract covering a unit of com-
' The Union maintains that the agreement between the parties merged
the Public Service Center employees at the Kossow Road location into
an overall unit of employees, comprising all 4000 Wisconsin Bell employ-
ees represented by the Union In the alternative, the Union claims that
the Kossow Road unit merged into a single unit of all commercial em-
ployees set forth in appendix D of the collective-bargaining agreement
We find that the evidence establishes at least that the Kossow Road em-
ployees were merged into a unit with the employees in appendix D of the
collective-bargaining agreement, and find it unnecessary to pass on
whether the unit in appendix D was merged into a larger unit of all Wis-
consin Bell employees
mercial employees was effective either in 1974 or
1977.2 Since that time, there have been a series of
successive 3-year contracts, the most current of
which is effective 10 August 1986 through 12
August 1989. Each of ,the contracts has consisted
of a main body with common clauses and four sep-
arate appendices. Historically, appendix D has cov-
ered commercial employees. Prior to the 1983
agreement, each of the commercial units Was listed
separately in the appendix by geographic area and
was considered a separate bargaining unit. During
bargaining for the 1983 agreement, however, the
Union and the Employer agreed that all existing
units in appendix D would be combined into one
overall unit represented by the Union. The parties
further agreed that any newly certified groups of
commercial employees in the future would be in-
cluded in the overall commercial unit described in
appendix D. These changes were reflected in the
1983 agreement by the deletion of the phrase "sep-
arate bargaining units," which appeared in the 1980
contract.
On 13 September 1984 the Union was certified as
the collective-bargaining representative for a group
of eight commercial employees whd worked at the
Employer's Public Service Center on Kossow
Road in Waukesha, Wisconsin. The 1983 contract
was then amended by letter dated 24 September
1984 to include the Kossow Road employees in the
overall commercial workers unit sel. forth in appen-
dix D. This 'change was later incorporated into the
1986 collective-bargaining agreement between the
parties. It is undisputed that the Kossow Road em-
ployees have been paid in accordance with wage
rates listed in appendix D and that other contrac-
tual benefits and provisions have been applied to
them. The instant petition was filed on 22 May
1986, requesting a decertification election in a unit
limited to all Public Service Center employees at
the Kossow Road location.
The Board has long recognized the "merger doc-
trine" under which an employer and union can
agree to merge separately certified or recognized
units into one overall unit.3 This doctrine was re-
cently affirmed in our decision in Gibbs & Cox, 280
NLRB 953 (1986). Where such an agreement has
been reached, the larger, merged unit is the only
unit appropriate for purposes of a representation
election. Here, the Employer and the Union
reached an agreement that merged the Kossow
Road employees into the larger unit set forth in ap-
pendix D of the 1983 and 1986 collective-bargain-
2 Commercial work generally encompasses such duties as sales, serv-
ice, marketing, and bill collecting
3 See, e g , White-Westinghouse Corp, 229 NLRB 667 (1977), General
Electric Co, 180 NLRB 1094 (1970)
283 NLRB No. 179
1166 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing agreements. Accordingly, as the petitioned-for
unit is not coextensive with the currently recog-
nized and established bargaining unit, the petition
shall be dismissed.4
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would reverse the
Regional Director's dismissal of the petition, and
would instead reinstate the petition and remand the
case to the Region for further appropriate action,
including the scheduling of an election in the peti-
tioned-for unit. The Board determined that the em-
ployees in the Public Service Center at the Kossow
Road location constituted a separate appropriate
unit for bargaining when it directed a representa-
tion election and thereafter certified the Union as
the collective-bargaining representative on 13 Sep-
tember 1986 in that unit. The Regional Director
found, and the majority agrees, that this unit is
now inappropriate for purposes of a decertification
election because of the Employer and the Union's
agreement to merge this eight-person unit into the
much larger unit set forth in appendix D to the
1986 collective -bargaining agreement . I disagree.
The , employees in the Kossow Road unit ex-
pressed an interest in union representation in mid-
1984. At no time was there any mention of the fact
that their small unit of approximately eight em-
ployees would be merged into a larger unit of Wis-
4 See- Green-Wood Cemetery, 280 NLRB 1359 (1986), Westinghouse
Electric Corp, 227 NLRB 1932 (1977)
consin Bell employees. At an organizational meet-
ing prior to the election in September 1984, the
employees specifically asked if they would be able
to decertify the Union "if it ever came to that
point." The response was that they would be able
to have a decertification election at any time
through proper procedures and filing a petition.
The Kossow Road employees were not given a
copy of the then-current collective-bargaining
agreement prior to the election. Neither were they
informed at any time of the 24 September 1984
letter of agreement between the Employer and the
Union that purported to merge them into the larger
overall unit.
As set forth in former Member Dennis' and my
dissent in Gibbs & Cox, I cannot adhere to a policy
that so callously ignores the specific right of em-
ployees to reject or change their bargaining repre-
sentative. The situation here clearly illustrates the
inherent unfairness of placing the employees' col-
lective-bargaining fate in the hands of the Employ-
er and the Union. These employees, who have not
been represented by counsel, cautiously inquired as
to their rights. They received a Delphic response. I
cannot state strongly enough my view that the
only proper accommodation of employees' Section
7 rights with the policy of stability in labor rela-
tions requires that "any unit that was appropriate
for the purpose of selecting a bargaining represent-
ative remains appropriate for the purpose of reject-
ing that representative or obtaining a new one."1
Accordingly, I dissent.
' Gibbs & Cox, 280 NLRB 953 (1986)