Wisconsin Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 368 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY and THE TELEPHONE
GUILD OF WISCONSIN-NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TELEPI30NE
WORKERS
Case No. 13-R-3123.-Decided January 10, 1946
Mr. Francis J. Hart, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Company.
Mr. Edwin R. Hackett, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Ray F. Dryer, of
Milwaukee, Wis., for the Guild.
Padway and Goldberg, by Mr. Alfred G. Goldberg; and Mr. E. J.
Fransway, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the A. F. L.
Mr. Robert E. Tehan, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Independent.
Miss Katharine Loomis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by The Telephone Guild of Wisconsin-
National Federation of Telephone Workers, herein called the Guild,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Wisconsin Telephone Company, Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Leon A. Rosell, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Mil-
waukee, Wisconsin, on August 21 and 23, 1945. The Company, the
Guild, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L.,
herein called the A. F. L., and Independent Union of Telephone Oper-
ators, herein called the Independent, appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The Trial Examiner's-rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were af-
forded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
65 N. L R. B., No 68.
368
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 369
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Wisconsin Telephone Company, a Wisconsin corporation having
its principal office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is a wholly owned subsid-
iary and associate of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, a
corporation. The latter company and its associate companies are pop-
ularly known as the Bell System. .
The Company is engaged in the business of furnishing local and
long distance telephone communication service throughout the State
of Wisconsin where it owns and operates approximately 95 exchange
offices. In the operation of its system, the Company maintains con-
nections with the facilities of several hundred exchanges in the State
owned by other companies. In addition to furnishing local service,
the Company, as an integral part of the Bell System, furnishes sub-
scribers with long distance service to all parts of the United States
and to several other countries.
During peacetime years the Company's total annual purchases of
materials and equipment amounted in value to more than $1,000,000,
of which amount 50 percent represented purchases made outside Wis-
consin. During 1944, the Company's operating revenues exceeded
$25,000,000, more than 10 percent of which was derived from furnish-
ing interstate service.
We find, and the Company does not deny, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Telephone Guild of Wisconsin, affiliated with the National Fed-
eration of Telephone Workers; International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor; and
Independent Union of Telephone Operators, unaffiliated, are all labor
organizations admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
At the hearing the Company stated that it refused, without Board
certification, to recognize the Guild as the bargaining agent for em-
ployees in the unit the Guild seeks, since it is presently bargaining
with the -Independent and the A. F. L. for some of these employees.
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The relations between the Independent and the Company
The Independent, under its contract of October 25, 1942,1 and former
contracts with the Company '2 represented certain employees of the
Company's Traffic Department at all the Company's exchanges except
those located at Racine, Kenosha, Janesville, and Superior. The Oc-
tober 1942 contract provided that "it shall continue until June 1, 1944,
and thereafter shall continue from year to year unless terminated as
hereinafter provided." The provision for termination read as fol-
lows: "Either party shall have thq right to terminate this agreement
at the end of the first period, or any subsequent yearly period, by giving
to the other party notice in writing, on or before sixty (60) days prior
to the expiration of the then current term." By letter dated March
24, 1944, the Independent notified the Company that it desired "to
terminate the present agreement and to negotiate a new contract to
become effective as of June 1, 1944." Thereafter, on May 31, 1944, the
Company and the Independent entered into a supplemental agreement
which provided that, notwithstanding the cancelation of the contract
of October 25, 1942, "the Company and the [Independent] agree that
the terms and provisions of said canceled contract shall govern the
relations of the parties until either a new labor agreement is volun-
tarily entered into between the Company and the [Independent] or
in the event a dispute has been submitted to it the War Labor Board
decides the disputed issues and orders terms and conditions of employ-
ment which shall govern the relations of the parties." On August 1,
1944, the parties submitted certain issues in dispute between them to
the War Labor Board. In September 1944 the Guild, the Independ-
ent, and the Company entered into a consent election agreement in
regard to the employees at the Racine and Kenosha exchanges whereby
these employees were to cast ballots in two separate voting groups, each
limited to an exchange, and if either group chose the Independent it
would, be considered as part of the unit then bargained for by the
Independent. Elections were held, pursuant to this agreement, on
September 14, 1944, as a result of which the Independent was chosen
as the bargaining representative for both groups of employees.3
Thereafter, during February 1945, a series of hearings was held be-
fore the National Telephone Commission of the War Labor Board in
regard to wage issues in dispute between the Independent and the
Company, these parties having agreed to attempt to resolve the non-
wage issues themselves. On April 9, 1945, the Independent and the
Company having reached an agreement on the non-wage issues, a doc-
1 The contract, although "deemed to be effective" as of October 25, 1942, was not exe-
cuted until January 8, 1943.
2 The Independent entered into its first contract with the Company in 1939.
Case No. 13-R-2538.
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 371
ument designated as a memorandum agreement was executed between
them with respect to these issues. This agreement had no termination
date. It was stated therein : "Item 7 relating to demand that all pro-
visions of the last contract not in conflict with present demands or
agreements be incorporated in a new draft was originally a Union
demand which has been agreed to by the Company." 4
On May 31, 1945, the Guild filed its petition in the instant proceed-
ing.
On July 9, 1945, the National Telephone Commission of the War
Labor Board issued a Directive Order dated June 21, 1945, in which
it decided the dispute between the parties, and ordered that "the fol-
lowing terms and conditions of employment shall govern the relations
between the parties." It provided that "the foregoing terms and con-
ditions shall be incorporated in a signed agreement reciting the inten-
tion of the parties to have their relations governed thereby" and also
that "the contract between the parties shall run for 1 year from the date
of this directive order."
After September 1944 the parties, in discussing and negotiating with
respect to the issues in dispute, included the employees at Racine and
Kenosha as part of the unit represented by the Independent and the
War Labor Board's Directive Order included those employees as part
of the group of employees covered by it.
The Independent contends in its brief that at the time of the hearing
a contractual relationship existed between it and the Company, the
relationship being based upon the "unchallenged portions" of the Oc-
tober 1942 agreement, the provisions of the memorandum agreement
of April 9, 1945, and the terms and conditions of the Directive Order
of the War Labor Board under date of June 21, 1945. It further con-
tends that "on May 31, 1945, when petitioner filed, and on August 21
and 22, 1945, the days of the hearing, there was in existence" between
it and the Company "a contract which by its terms, exists from June
1, 1944 to June 21, 1945, and that such contract is a bar to a present
determination of representation." In addition, it urges that, despite
the fact that it has negotiated prior bargaining contracts with the
Company, the reasoning underlying the Board's decisions in the Allis-
Chalmers 5 and Taylor Forge o cases should govern the decision here.
On March 24, 1944, the Independent gave seasonable notice to the
Company of its desire to cancel the October 1942 agreement, thus
terminating it as of June 1, 1944, and preventing the operation of the
automatic renewal clause. The supplemental agreement of May 31,
* The agreement of April 9 , 1945, also stated
This memorandum heretofore made has specifically disposed of Items 1 to 19, inclusive,
and shall be the basis of a stipulation to be sent to the War Labor Board advising
said Board that the only items of dispute between the Company and the Union are
Items 20 to 30, inclusive
"Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 N. L R B 306
6 Matter of Taylor Forge and Pepe Works , 58 N L It B. 1375
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1944, was of indefinite duration, and the memorandum agreement of
April 9, 1945, was made in furtherance of the understanding under-
lying the 1944 supplemental agreement and was for the same uncer-
tain term. Therefore, when the Guild filed its petition on May 31,
1945, there was no contract in existence between the Independent and
the Company which could constitute a bar to this proceeding.' As-
suming that the War Labor Board's Directive Order of June 21, 1945,
was tantamount to an agreement it was issued and hence was not
"made" until after the Guild's petition was filed. Consequently, it is
no bar.8 Moreover, it merely directed the parties to execute an agree-
ment in the future and did not, in itself, actually constitute a contract.
Nor are we persuaded by the Independent's contention that the
reasoning underlying our decision in the Allis-Chalmers case leads to
a similar conclusion here. There, the initial bargaining efforts of a
newly certified representative had resulted in prolonged proceedings
before the War Labor Board and we dismissed the petition of a rival
union.° The principle enunciated in that case is applicable only in
cases concerning newly recognized or newly certified bargaining rep-
resentatives who have had no real opportunity to function effectively
as exclusive bargaining agents, inasmuch as their initial bargaining
efforts, following recognition or certification, have resulted in pro-
ceedings before the War Labor Board.10 It is clear that the Inde-
pendent is not such a newly certified or newly recognized agent, as it
has bargained under successive contracts since 1939 for all the em-
ployees it represents, except those at Racine and Kenosha.',
The relations between the A. F. L. and the Company
The A. F. L. has, since 1939, represented the Traffic Department
employees of the Company at Janesville and Superior in two sepa-
rate units . 12 It claims that there are in existence contracts covering
1 A contract of indefinite duration does not constitute a bar to a representation pro-
ceeding. See Matter of International Harvester Company, Canton Works, 61 N. L. R. B.
1199
8 See Matter of The Liquid Carbonic Corporation , 38 N L R B. 1065, and Matter of
Globe Mills, Inc , 41 N L R. B. 94.
9 In Matter of Taylor Forge & Pipe Works , supra, we dismissed the petition of a rival
union under similar circumstances.
1° See Matter of General Metals Corporation , 59 N. L. R B 1252
11 No contention is made that the Allis-Chalmers doctrine is applicable to the Racine and
Kenosha employees as a separate group. Nor would such a contention have merit, for
these employees were merged in 1944 into the larger unit then represented by the Inde-
pendent, and, as hereinafter noted, the Independent agrees that they form part of a more
comprehensive grouping.
12 In a prior representation proceeding concerning the Company's employees the Board
found that the Traffic Department employees at the Company 's Racine, Kenosha , Janes-
ville , and Superior exchanges, respectively, constituted separate appropriate units and
certified the A F L as the bargaining representative in all four units . See 12 N L. R. B.
375. Shortly thereafter, the A F L and the Company entered into bargaining contracts
with respect to the Janesville and Superior units. Despite its certifications in the Racine
and Kenosha units , the A. F. L never bargained for the employees therein, and, as noted
above, they chose the Independent as their bargaining agent in 1944 , when they became
part of a larger unit represented by the Independent at that time.
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 373
the employees in each of these units which bar the instant proceeding
insofar as it concerns these employees.
The latest contract between the A. F. L. and the Company concern-
ing the unit at Janesville 13 stated that it "shall take effect" on October
25, 1942,14 "for the period up to and including" February 29, 1944,
"and shall continue in full force and effect from year to year thereafter
unless written notice is given by either party" on or before 90 days
prior to the "expiration of the then current term, requesting that the
Agreement be canceled or amended." The agreement further provided
that "if one party notifies the other that it wishes amendments made
to this Agreement, then either party shall have the right to submit to
the other party in writing within the first thirty (30) days of the
ninety (90) days aforesaid, the contents of the proposed amendments.
Negotiations on any proposed amendments shall begin as soon as prac-
ticable after receipt of the written list of amendments desired and in
any case not less than forty-five (45) days prior to the end of the then
current term of the Agreement." By letter dated November 26, 1943,
the A. F. L. notified the Company that it "once again desires to open
said Agreement for further adjustments." In another letter dated
December 5, 1943, it submitted amendments regarding wage increases
and other changes "which we would like to have included in our new
Agreement for the ensuing year."
It is plain that in 1943 the A. F. L. gave the Company timely notice
of its desire to amend, thereby forestalling the automatic renewal of
the contract. Although the A. F. L. indicates in its brief that a notice
to terminate the agreement was necessary in order to bring it to an
end, this is contrary to the unequivocal terms of the contract. We
find that the February 1943 contract does not preclude a current deter-
mination of representatives.
The latest contract between the A. F. L. and the Company concern-
ing the unit at Superior 15 provided in Article II that it "shall take
effect" October 25, 1942,16 "for a period up to and including" April 1,
1944, and "shall continue in full force and effect from year to year
thereafter unless written notice is given by either party hereto to the
other, on or before ninety (90) days prior to the termination date of
the initial period or prior to any annual expiration date thereafter,
requesting that the Agreement be canceled or amended . . . If one
party notified the other that it wishes amendments made to this Agree-
13 The A F L represents the Janesville employees through Janesville Telephone Oper.
ators' Union, Local #B-969
14 The contract was executed on February 16, 1943. We shall designate it herein as the
February 1943 contract.
15 The A F L represents the Superior employees through Superior Telephone Operators'
Union. Local ##B-201.
11 This contract was executed on April 20, 1943. We shall designate it herein as the
April 1943 contract.
374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, then either party shall have the right to submit to the other
party within the first silty (60) days of the ninety (90) days aforesaid,
the contents of the amendments desired." By its letters dated Febru-
ary 27,1944, and February 28,1944, the A. F. L. notified the Company
that it wishes "further amendments" to the agreement between them
and set forth requests for wage increases and other changes similar to^
those requested at Janesville. The Company, by letter of March 13,
1944, questioned whether notice had been given in conformity with
the contract. However, in a letter dated March 22, 1944, one of its
officials stated as follows: "In accordance with the terms of Article
II, I am proposing the following amendments which it is desired to
have included in our agreement."
The A. F. L., in giving notice of its desire to amend the April 1943
contract for the Superior unit, did not adhere strictly to the provisions
of Article II of that contract in that its letters of February 27 and 28,
1944, did not give the required 90 days' notice "requesting that the
agreement be canceled or amended." However, it is clear that the
Company waived the 90 days' notice requirement in its letter of March
22, 1944, by its proposal of amendments "in accordance with the terms
of Article II." Therefore, the April 1943 contract was terminated on
April 1, 1944, the parties having effectively prevented the automatic
renewal of the contract for another year. It is equally clear with
respect to the April 1943 contract that, contrary to the assertion of the
A. F. L., a flat notice to terminate was not required to end this agree-
ment. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the contract of April
1943 does not constitute a bar to dpresent determination of repre-
sentatives.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Guild represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit it alleges to be appropriate.17
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
This proceeding is concerned solely with the employees of the
Company's Traffic Department. The Traffic Department employees
are distributed among the Company's 95 exchanges throughout the
State of Wisconsin. The administration of the Traffic Department
"The Field Examiner reported that the Guild submitted 1,667 application -for-member-
ship cards , bearing the names of 1 ,420 employees , listed on the Company ' s pay roll of
June 3, 1945 . At the hearing the Guild submitted in evidence 491 additional application-
for-membership cards.
There are approximately 4,707 employees in the alleged appropriate unit
The Independent and the A F. L relied upon their contracts as evidence of their inter-
ests in the proceeding.
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 375
is centralized in the general tragic manager's office in Milwaukee from
which decisions on matters of policy affecting working conditions of
employees emanate. The general traffic manager is the executive
head of the Traffic Department. The Traffic Department is divided
into eight districts, four of which are in Milwaukee and are headed
by district traffic superintendents. The other four districts which
comprise the rest of the State are headed by district traffic managers.
The district traffic superintendents and district traffic managers report
to the general traffic manager in Milwaukee.
The geographical scope of the unit or units
The Guild seeks a unit of all employees of the Company's Traffic
Department including those at the Janesville and Superior exchanges.
The Independent and the Company agree that the unit should include
the Janesville and Superior employees. The A. F. L. contends that
separate units at Janesville and Superior are appropriate.
The Company, in support of its position that the employees of its
Janesville and Superior exchanges should be included in a State-
wide unit, urges the functional coherence of operations at all ex-
changes throughout the State and the similarity in the duties of
employees wherever located. Although the Independent states its
belief that the unit should be coextensive with all the exchanges of
the Company, it does not urge this position as strongly as the Com-
pany. The A. F. L. bases its contention for separate units at Janes-
ville and Superior on the Board's prior finding of the appropriateness
of such units."' and the bargaining history based thereon.
The integration of operations at all exchanges indicates that the
employees at Janesville and Superior might properly be represented
in the unit considered appropriate by the Independent and the Com-
pany. However, each exchange operates with some degree of func-
tional autonomy. This fact, the Board's previous unit determinations,
and the history of collective bargaining since 1939 between the A. F. L.
and the Company indicate that the employees at Janesville and
Superior may also continue to bargain in separate units. Accordingly,
we shall afford the employees in each of these two groups an oppor-
tunity to express their desires in self-determination elections before
making a finding as to the appropriate unit or units.
The inclusion of non-central office employees
All parties agree to the inclusion of all central office employees of
the Traffic Department. The Guild would include non-central office
employees, whom the Independent and the Company would exclude
because they have never been covered by the collective bargaining
Is See footnote 12, supra.
376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
d
agreements existing between the Independent and the Company 19
The A. F. L. takes no position with regard to iron-central office em-
ployees since it is interested only in the employees at the Janesville
and Superior exchanges, which do not have any non-central office
employees.
The central office or operating room employees work in the operating
rooms of the central offices at the various exchanges of the Company 20
and come under the supervision of the chief operators. They are, for
the most part, telephone operators, clerks, junior supervisors, and
supervisors." The non-central office or non-operating room em-
ployees are largely comprised of administrative and clerical employees,
matrons, and cooks. They do not work in the operating rooms nor come
under the supervision of the chief operators. However, both central
office and non-central office employees comprise the personnel of the
Traffic Department; this department is a well-defined division of the
Company; and all employees of this department are under the ulti-
mate supervision of the general traffic manager. Under these circum-
stances, both central office and non-central office employees may prop-
erly be represented in one unit. But, inasmuch as non-central office
employees were not included in prior bargaining contracts between
the Independent and.the Company, they might also constitute a sepa-
rate bargaining unit. Therefore, we shall afford the non-central office
employees an opportunity to express their desires in a self-determina-
tion election before making a finding as to the appropriate unit or
units.12
The composition of the voting group of non-central ogee employees
The parties are agreed that certain categories of non-central office
employees should be excluded as confidential or supervisory employees.
These employees are listed on Appendix A, annexed hereto. They are
in dispute, however, as to certain other categories of non-central office
employees. The Guild would include the disputed categories, whereas
In the contract of October 1942, discussed under Section III, supra, the Company
recognizes the Independent as "the exclusive bargaining agency for the Company's Central
Office employees" at certain of the Company's exchanges
20 Although at some places in the record "central office" appears to be used interchange-
ably with "exchange," the testimony of the general traffic manager makes clear that an
exchange may include more than one central office, the city of Milwaukee being a single
exchange with 17 or IS central offices
21 Supervisors and junior supervisors assist operators in the completion of calls They
do not have supervisory power over operators and do not possess disciplinary power nor
the right to hire and discharge. They are not to be confused with employees designated as
supervisory employees
22 See Matter of Pittsburgh Equitable Meter Company, 61 N L. R. B. 880, and Matter
of Eastern Tool & Mfg. Co., Inc., 61 N. L R. B 1315.
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 377
the Company contends that they should be excluded as supervisory or
confidential employees.23
The Company contends that the following employees are super-
visory :
District and training instructors. The 11 district and training
instructors instruct the chief operators in methods of training oper-
ators. They appear to be the intermediaries between the district
traffic managers and the chief operators and to occupy a position in
the Company's supervisory hierarchy at least equal to and probably
higher than that of chief operator. Although these employees do
not have authority to hire or discharge, they can recommend dis-
ciplinary action with reference to chief operators. We shall exclude
the district and training instructors.
Traffic supervisory assistants. The five traffic supervisory assist-
ants assemble information with regard to future traffic loads and the
number of employees that will be required to take care of such loads.
The record fails to disclose that these employees have ever exercised
any authority to hire, discharge, or discipline other employees, or
to recommend such action. We shall include them.
Supervising clerks. The Company employs five people within this
classification. These employees all direct the work of two or more
people and possess authority to discharge or discipline. We shall
exclude the supervising clerks.
Traffic supervisory assistant and instructress. One employee with
this classification spends part of her time training teletypewriter
attendants of the Company's customers. Another part of her time is
devoted to training the district and training instructors. Since the
record indicates that her position in the Company's supervisory hier-
archy is higher than that of the district and training instructors
whom we have excluded, we shall exclude her.
The Company contends that the following employees are confi-
dential :
Traffic engineering assistant. This employee assembles informa-
tion contained in operating room records which is used in determin-
ing whether a central office should change from manual to dial equip-
ment. Although through her duties she gains knowledge of future
plans of the Company, access to such important information, not
directly pertaining to the Company's labor relations, is not sufficient
in itself to justify her exclusion. We shall include her .24
23 The Independent also took a position as to these categories, apparently only on the
assumption that non-central office employees might be placed in the same unit as central
office employees . Its position was the same as the Guild ' s. As noted above, the Inde-
pendent wishes to exclude non-central office employees from a unit of central office em-
ployees . Moreover , it does not appear that the Independent desires to represent non-
central office employees in a separate unit.
24 See Matter of Creamery Package Company ( Lake Mills Plant ), 34 N. L . R. B. 108;
Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company , 61 N. L. R. B. 854.
378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District traffic clerks. There are eight employees within this clas-
sification and they act as private secretaries to the eight district traffic
managers and district traffic superintendents. Since the latter are
among the Company's exedutives who handle labor relations, their
secretaries are in a position to obtain advance information of a confi-
dential nature on matters directly relating to the Company's labor
policies. We shall, therefore, exclude the district traffic clerks.25
Service observers. The Company has 23 employees in this classifi-
cation who observe the work of the operators in the central offices.
The information obtained by these employees from their observations
does not appear to be used in such a way as to bear upon the employ-
ment status of individual employees, but rather as a basis for apprais-
ing the efficiency of each central office. We shall include the service
operators.
Service observing clerks.26 The three employees within this classi-
fication assemble the information gained by the service observers. We
shall include them.
Clerks. One of these clerks acts as stenographer to the general
traffic employment supervisor and another acts in the same capacity
to the general traffic supervisor. Since these two employees, like the
district traffic clerks, are in a position to obtain advance information
of a confidential nature directly bearing on the Company's labor pol-
icies, we shall exclude them.
The two remaining clerks within this classification either make or
handle records regarding illnesses and accidents among employees
of the Traffic Department. Since their duties do not give them access
to confidential information directly concerning the Company's labor
relations , we shall include them .27
As has been previously indicated, we shall make no final determina-
tion at this time with respect to the appropriate unit or units, but
shall direct that the question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the employees
in the following groups who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein,
excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, subject to the limita-
tions and additions set forth in the Direction : 28
s See Matter of The Press Company, Inc., 57 N L It. B 266
26 These employees , and the category mentioned immediately below , were grouped to-
gether in a list furnished by the Company as "confidential clerks " The record indicates
that they are carried on the Company's pay roll as we have designated them.
n See Matter of Geneial Cable Corporation , 55 N L . R. B 1143, 1145.
28 All parties agi ee to the exclusion of chief operators , assistant chief operators , evening
chief operators , and night chief operators.
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 379
1. All employees of the Traffic Department at the Company's Janes-
ville exchange, excluding chief operators, assistant chief operators,
evening chief operators, and night chief operators;
2. All employees of the Traffic Department at the Company's Su-
perior exchange, excluding chief operators, assistant chief operators,
evening chief operators, and night chief operators;
3. All non-central office employees of the Traffic Department, includ-
ing traffic supervisory assistants, the traffic engineering assistant,
service observers, service observing clerks, and the two clerks who
make or handle records regarding illnesses and accidents among Traffic
Department employees, but excluding district and training instruc-
tors, supervising clerks, the traffic supervisory assistant and instruc-
tress, district traffic clerks, the two clerks who act as stenographers for
the general traffic employment supervisor and the general traffic
supervisor, and the employees listed in Appendix A; and
4.' All remaining central office employees of the Traffic Department,
excluding chief operators, assistant chief operators, evening chief
operators, and night chief operators.
Upon the results of these elections will depend, in part, our deter-
mination of the appropriate unit or units.
The Company calls upon former telephone operators to render serv-
ices upon occasion. The parties all took the position, with which we
agree, that such employees, who are termed "occasional" employees,
should be ineligible to vote. The Company also has 300 to 400 "part-
time" employees. None of these employees works less than 16 hours
a week or more than 24 hours a week. Full-time employees of the
Company work 40 hours a week. Part-time employees, however, work
under the same conditions and enjoy the same privileges as full-time
workers. Although the unions took the position that only those part-
time employees who average 20 hours or more of work a week should
be entitled to vote, we are of the opinion that all the part-tine em-
ployees spend a sufficient amount of time weekly and have a sufficiently
substantial interest in wages, hours, and working conditions, to entitle
them to vote.29
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRE CTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Wisconsin Tele-
' See Matter of F. J. Kress Box Company, 64, N.L. R.,B. 124; Matter • of The Rational
Machinery Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 481.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
phone Company, Milwaukee , Wisconsin , separate elections by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not later than sixty
(60) days from the date of this Direction , under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, act-
ing in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and it, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees of the Company in the following groups
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said pay -roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off , and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls , but ex-
cluding 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 , as well as all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees , or effectively recommend such action :
1. All employees of the Traffic Department at the Company's Janes-
ville exchange , excluding chief operators , assistant chief operators,
evening chief operators , and night chief operators , to determine
whether they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., by The Telephone Guild of Wis-
consin-National Federation of Telephone Workers, or by Independ-
ent Union of Telephone Operators, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by none of these organizations ;
2. All employees of the Traffic Department at the Company's Su-
perior exchange , excluding chief operators, assistant chief operators,
evening chief operators , and night chief operators , to determine
whether they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, A. F. L.,•by The Telephone Guild of Wiscon-
sin-National Federation of Telephone Workers , or by Independent
Union of Telephone Operators , for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, or by none of these organizations;
3. All non-central office employees of the Traffic Department, in-
cluding traffic supervisory assistants , the traffic engineering assistant,
service observers , service observing clerks, and the two clerks who make
or handle records regarding illnesses and accidents among Traffic De-
partment employees , but excluding district and training instructors,
supervising clerks, the traffic supervisory assistant and instructress,
district traffic clerks , the two clerks who act as stenographers for the
general traffic employment supervisor and the general traffic super-
visor, and the employees listed in Appendix A, to determine whether,
or not they desire to be represented by The Telephone Guild of Wis-
WISCONSIN TELEPHONE COMPANY 381
consin-National Federation of Telephone Workers, for the purposes
of collective bargaining; and
4. All remaining central office employees of the Traffic Department,
excluding chief operators, assistant chief operators, evening chief
operators, and night chief operators, to determine whether they desire
to be represented by The Telephone Guild of Wisconsin-National
Federation of Telephone Workers, or by Independent Union of Tele-
phone Operators, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
Mx. GERAxn D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
APPENDIX A
General Traffic Manager
General Traffic Employment
Supervisor
Traffic Employment Methods
Supervisor
Milwaukee Traffic Manager
District Traffic Superintendents
District Traffic Managers
Traffic Superintendents
Milwaukee Traffic Supervisor
Assistant District Traffic Manager
General Traffic Supervisor
General Traffic Engineer
Dial Traffic Engineer
Manual Traffic Engineer
Toll Line Engineer
Operators ' Quarters Engineer
Traffic Engineers
Traffic Supervisory Assistants
(male)
Supervisor of Private Branch Ex-
change
Supervisor of Force Requirements
Personnel Supervisor (male)
Personnel Supervisors (female)
Traffic Engineering Assistant
Stenographers
Nurses
Chief Clerks
Supervisor of Dining Service
Chief Service Observer
Supervisors of Employment
Employment Interviewers
Chief or Head Matrons