The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. of Virginia

In the Matter of THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE COM- PANY OF VIRGINIA, EMPLOYER and MARYLAND TELEPHONE TRAFFIC UNION, INC., AFFILIATED WITH T. W. O. C., C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 5-RC-154.-Decided April 6, 1949 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held on October 12 and 13, 1948, before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. On December 17, 1948, the Board, on its own motion, ordered that the record herein be reopened, and that the Regional Director provide for further hearing on the nature of the relationship between Telephone Workers Organizing Committee (herein called T. W. O. C.) and Con- gress of Industrial Organizations (herein called C. I. 0.) .1 This in- formation was necessary to enable the Board to determine whether the Petitioner could be certified in accordance with, inter aria, the re- quirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. Accordingly, a further hearing was held on January 24,1949, before a hearing officer of the Board. The hear- ing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed.2 Upon the entire record 3 in the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. Maryland Telephone Traffic Union, Inc., the Petitioner herein, is affiliated with T. W. O. C., which is in turn affiliated with the C. I. O. The Petitioner and Communications Workers of America, Virginia Division No. 33 (herein called the Intervenor) are labor organizations " By order dated December 31, 1948, the hearing in this matter was, for such limited purposes , consolidated with the hearings in Matter of Western Electric Company, Incor- porated, Case No. 2-UA-3661, and Matter of Ozark Central Telephone Company, Case No. 14-RC-509. 2 At the original hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought was inappropriate . The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board. For the reasons set forth hereinafter , this motion is granted. 8 The transcript herein has been corrected pursuant to the motions of the Petitioner and the Employer. 82 N. L. R. B., No. 94. 810 THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF VIRGINIA 811 claiming to represent employees of the Employer. The Petitioner and T. W. O. C. are in compliance with the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act; the C. 1. O. is not. In this case we are again confronted with the question whether a labor organization which is itself in compliance with the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, as amended, may invoke the jurisdiction of the Board when the parent federation with which it is ultimately affiliated is not in compliance with such requirements.4 In the Northern Virginia Broadcasters case, a majority of the Board held in 1947 that the control exercised by a parent federation (Amer ican Federation of Labor) over an affiliated national or international union (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) was re- mote; and, consequently, that the Act did not prohibit the Board from investigating questions concerning representation raised by comply- ing national and international unions affiliated with a parent federa- tion which was then 5 not in compliance with such requirements. In the American Optical case, on the other hand, a Board majority recently held that C. I. O. had direct control over the "destinies" of the petitioner (Optical and Instrument Workers Organizing Com- mittee, C. I. O.) ; accordingly, the majority held that the parent fed- eration (C. I. 0.) "must be regarded as a `national or international labor organization' rather than as a parent federation in its relation to this Petitioner, within the meaning of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act . . . " Consequently, although the optical organizing com- mittee was in compliance, it could not, because C. I. O. was not in compliance with the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, invoke the jurisdiction of the Board. Accordingly, in order to determine the right of the Petitioner in this case to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board, we must initially inquire into the relationship of T. W. O. C. to C. I. 0., with particular reference to the nature of the control, if any, exercised by C. I. O. over T. W. 0. C. T. W. O. C. was organized in 1947. Before T. W. O. C. was organ- ized, the Petitioner, a Maryland corporation which represents em- ployees in the telephone industry, and a number of other unions like- wise representing employees in the telephone industry, were affiliated with National Federation of Telephone Workers (herein called N. F. T. W.), an independent labor organization. About the time of the dissolution of N. F. T. W. in 1947, and in consequence of agreements between representatives of several unions formerly affiliated with a See Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters, Inc., Radio Station WARL, 75 N. L. R. B. 11 (Member Gray dissenting) ; Matter of American Optical Company, 81 N. L R. B. 453 (Chairman Herzog and Member Houston dissenting). American Federation of Labor is presently in compliance with such requirements. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD N. F. T. W. and representatives of C. 1. 0., T. W. 0. C. was established by Philip Murray, C. I. 0. president. The Petitioner affiliated with T. W. 0. C. in 1948 after approval of such action in a referendum vote of its membership. Structurally, T. W. 0. C. is a representative body, its membership consisting of (1) representatives designated by previously existing unions which have affiliated with it, generally after approval of such action by their respective memberships; (2) representatives desig- nated by affiliated unions which have been created by it; and (3) representatives designated by the president of C. I. 0 ." Between meetings of the full membership, which occur every 6 months, T. W. 0. C. is governed by its officers, elected by and from the mem- bership of T. W. 0. C., and consisting of two vice-chairmen and an executive board of seven members, including the vice-chairmen.' The chairman and the secretary-treasurer are designated by the president of C. I. 0.,8 but are neither members of the executive board nor deemed to be officers of T. W. O. C.9 T. W. 0. C. is governed according to its own written rules, which may be amended only by a majority vote of its members voting on the question."' Under the rules, representatives designated by the pres- ident of C. I. 0. may not constitute more than one-third of the mem- bership of T. W. 0. C. nor more than one-third of the executive board. T. W. 0. C. has been granted a certificate of affiliation by C. I. 0., and issues certificates of affiliation to its affiliated unions. It collects a per capita tax from its affiliated unions, who have authority to fix their own dues rates within the limits specified in the T. W. 0. C. rules. Under the C. I. 0. constitution, T. W. 0. C. is in the same category as national and international unions affiliated therewith with respect to the per capita tax which it pays to C. I. 0., the representation which it is accorded at C. I. 0. conventions and on the C. I. 0. executive board,11 and the power of C. 1. 0. to suspend or expel it. T. W. 0. C. has received some direct financial assistance from C. 1. 0. for organizing purposes, and other aid in the form of organizational guidance and assistance, the use of C. I. 0. organizers, and educational E The present membership of T. W. 0 C. consists of 18 representatives designated by affiliated unions and 7 representatives designated by the president of C. I. O. 7 The two vice-chairmen and the remaining four members of the executive board (there is one vacancy ) are representatives designated by affiliated unions. The secretary-treasurer, although designated as such by the president of C. I. 0., is also a representative on T. W. O. C designated by an affiliated union. 9 The Board will not go behind the affidavits identifying the officers of a labor organiza- tion to determine the truth of the information contained therein . Matter of Craddock-Terry Shoe Corporation, 76 N. L. R. B. 842. 10 The rules contemplate the ultimate supersession of T. W. O. C. by a national union, to be formed by a constitutional convention. 11 The T. W. O. C. rules provide that the T. W. O. C. representative on the C. I. O. executive board shall be a telephone worker. THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF VIRGINIA 813• material and statistical data.12 T. W. O. C. has its own bank account, owns its office equipment, and has its own paid clerical staff. With the exception of the secretary-treasurer, whose salary is paid in part by T. W. O. C. and in part by his own union, none of the representa- tives on or officers of T. W. O. C. receive any part of their salaries from T. W. O. C. The C. I. O. designees, who also have duties as. C. I. O. officers or employees, are paid by C. I. 0.; the representatives designated by the affiliated unions, who also have duties as officers of their respective unions, are paid by their respective unions. Members of the Petitioner receive membership cards made out in the name of the Petitioner, as affiliated with T. W. O. C., C. I. O. Col- lective bargaining negotiations are carried on by, and collective bar- gaining contracts are executed in the name of, the Petitioner, and are not subject to the approval or ratification of either T. W. O. C. or C. I. O. Nor does strike action require approval of T. W. O. C. or C. I. O. In the field of collective bargaining, the role of T. W. O. C. and C. 1. 0. is, with respect to the Petitioner, limited to that of advisors and coordinators, rather than active participants. In the American Optical case, supra, the Board majority found that the organizing committee, petitioner therein, was in some respects like a national or international union in its relationship to the C. I. 0., but that it was different in certain other important respects, particularly in regard to the high degree of control retained by the C. I. O. over the organizing committee. Such control was shown by the fact that the organizing committee in question had no separate constitution or bylaws, but operated under the constitution and bylaws of the C. I. O. Also, the organizing committee did not elect its own officers; rather,. all its officers were appointed directly or indirectly by the C. I. O. On the basis of this showing of C. I. O. power to control the functions of responsible officers of the organizing committee, the Board held that the committee was not an autonomous, self-governing entity, as was the labor organization involved in the Northern Virginia Broadcast- ers case, supra, but was rather to be regarded, despite some similarities to international unions, as a subordinate division or agency of the C. I. O. The Board thereupon concluded that, with respect to the organizing committee, the C. I. O. was a "national or international labor organization" within the meaning of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The organizing committee in the present case has the same similari- ties to national or international unions that were present in the Ameri- can Optical case, without, however, the elements of control by the C. L O. upon which the majority there relied. "It appears that C. I. O. furnishes similar assistance to acknowledged national and international unions. 814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD T. W. O. C., unlike the organizing committee in the American Optical case, operates under its own rules, which only it can amend. Although the governing bodies of T. W. O. C. include, or may include, representatives designated by, removable by, paid by, and beholden to C. 1. 0., such representatives are, and under the T. W. O. C. rules must always be, in a minority. Accordingly, unlike the situation in the American Optical case, effective control over the destinies of T. W. O. C., including the power to select the officers and amend the rules, rests with the majority of representatives, designated by the affiliated unions, and not with the C. I. O. designated minority. Lacking this control in the C. I. 0., we find that there exists to a substantial degree between the T. W. O. C. and the C. 1. 0. that insulation which normally exists between a parent federation and a full fledged international union. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we are of the opinion that T. W. O. C. is an autonomous, self-governing labor or- ganization and that with respect to the T. W. O. C. the C. 1. 0. is a par- ent federation .113 We conclude, therefore, that T. W. O. C. is, within the meaning of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, the national or international labor organization with which the Petitioner is affiliated 14 Consequently, the failure of the officers of C. I. O. to comply with the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act does not affect the right of T. W. O. C. or its affiliated unions to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board.15 As both T. W. O. C. and the Petitioner are in compliance with such requirements, we may consider the petition herein on its merits, 3. The alleged appropriate unit; the alleged question concerning representation : A. The contentions of the parties The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the Employer's Traffic Department in Accomac and Northampton Counties, Virginia, including employees at three agency-operated exchanges,16 excluding all supervisors. It contends that the unit sought is appropriate, because of the bargaining history affecting the employees involved, and such employees' geographical separation from the Employer's remaining employees; it further contends that the employees at the agency-operated exchanges are employees of the Employer, within the meaning of the Act. 13 See Matter of United States Gypsum Company, 81 N. L. it. B. 292. 14 Matter of Northern Virginia Broadcasters , Inc., Radio Station WARL, supra. 11 In view of our findings, supra, we deem it unnecessary to consider the Petitioner's contention that it is eligible to invoke the jurisdiction of the Board , irrespective of the compliance of T. W. O. C. 10 Chincoteague, Eastville, and Parksley, Virginia. THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF VIRGINIA 815 The Employer asserts that the unit sought, is inappropriate, and that the only appropriate unit is one embracing all its employees. It also asserts that the employees at the agency-operated exchanges are em- ployees of independent contractors who may in no event be included in a unit of its employees. The Intervenor agrees in substance with the Employer's position. However, it wishes to be placed on the ballot, in the event an election among any unit of employees is directed 17 B. The operations of the Employer The Employer, a Virginia corporation with its principal offices at Richmond, Virginia, is engaged in the business of receiving and trans- mitting telephone messages within the State of Virginia and, in con- junction with other telephone companies, to and from points outside of Virginia. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and is one of four such subsidiaries des- ignated as "Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone" companies. 18 Like most telephone companies, the Employer's operations are subdivided into four departments : (1) the Plant Department, which installs and maintains the Employer's equipment; (2) the Traffic Department, which operates such equipment; (3) the Commercial Department, which handles the Employer's business relations with the public; and (4) the Accounting Department, which keeps the Employer's books and records. The unit sought by the Petitioner consists of employees in one of such departments 19 in two contiguous counties comprising one segment of the State. These two counties constitute the southern tip of a peninsula, bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and Delaware Bay, and on the west by Chesapeake Bay, which includes portions of the States of Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, and which is commonly known as the Del-Mar-Va Peninsula. These two counties are separated from the rest of Virginia by Chesa- peake Bay; commutation between these counties and the rest of Vir- ginia requires the use of ferry-boat services, whereas there is direct overland commutation between these counties and communities on the 14 The parties are in agreement that, in the event an election is directed herein, the following job classifications should be included in the unit: operator, service assistant, central office clerk, and senior central office clerk. They are also in agreement that the following job classifications should be excluded : chief operators, assistant chief operators, night chief operators, and evening chief operators. 16 The other three are (1) The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of West Virginia, a West Virginia corporation with its principal office at Charleston, West Virginia, which furnishes service within West Virginia ; (2) The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore City (herein called the Maryland Company), a Maryland corporation with its principal office at Baltimore, Maryland, which furnishes service within Maryland ; and (3) The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company (herein called the Washington Company), a New York corporation with its principal office at Washing- ton, D. C., which furnishes service within the District of Columbia. 19 The Traffic Department. 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Eastern Shore of Maryland. Because of the differences in travel time involved, these counties are tied commercially and socially more closely to adjacent Maryland communities than to the adjacent com- munities on the Viriginia mainland. During the period from October 1, 1931, through October 31, 1947, all employees 20 in these two counties, although remaining employees of the Employer were, by virtue of an agreement between the Em- ployer and the Maryland Company,21 supervised by the Maryland Company.22 During that period these employees remained on the Employer's pay roll, and were considered employees of the Employer, but control over their work and employment was exercised by the Maryland Company, and not by the Employer. Beginning November 1, 1947, the Employer resumed complete supervision and control over these employees, and has since integrated its operations in these two counties with its operations in the balance of its territory. It does not appear from the record that these two counties presently constitute an administrative area of the Employer's operations.23 Collective bargaining is conducted on behalf of the Employer by a group consisting of the heads of the Employer's four depart- 20 Including employees in the Traffic, Commercial , and Plant Departments. 21 The Employer and the other.three "Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone" companies (footnote 18 supra), including the Maryland Company, have common officers and inter- locking boards of directors. With the exception of its vice president and general manager, who is the Employer's responsible operating official and the highest official in its hierarchy who is headquartered at Richmond, Virginia, and its auditor, all of the Employer's officers hold identical positions in each of the other three companies and have their headquarters at Washington, D. C. ; likewise, four members of the Employers 12-man board of directors, including three of the common officers, are also members of the boards of directors of the other three companies. The Petitioner asserts that, because of the interlocking officers and directorates, and the over-all control of operations in a common president, the four "Chesapeake and Poto- mac Telephone" companies are in fact a single employer ; consequently, it contends in substance that it may appropriately represent the employees sought herein, and recon- stitute them as part of the unit of employees of the Maryland Company which it presently represents. (The Petitioner formerly represented these employees as part of such a unit ; see section entitled "The bargaining htistory," tinfra. As the result of a consent election in Case No. 5-RC-135, the Petitioner is presently the certified bargaining representative of the Maryland Company's Traffic Department Employees.) The Petitioner's argument proves too much, however. If the four companies were, in fact, a single employer (a question we do not consider necessary to decide here), we would then be required to determine, in view of the principles applicable to the determination of an appropriate unit in the telephone industry (see section entitled "Conclusions," infra), not whether the two-county unit herein proposed was appropriate, but rather whether the appropriate unit should be one which included employees of all four companies. More- over, the Maryland Company is not a party to this proceeding (see footnote 30, infra). 22 It appears that changes in supervision of employees among the Chesapeake and Poto- mac group is not unusual. Since January 1, 1939, employees of the Employer in areas adjacent to Washington, D. C. (Alexandria, Arlington, and Falls Church, Virginia), have been under the supervision of the Washington Company. Likewise, employees of the Mary- land Company in certain areas of Maryland adjacent to Washington, D. C., are presently and for some time past have been under the supervision of the Washington Company 23 There are approximately 56 Traffic Department employees in the unit requested, excluding operators in agency-operated offices, out of a total of approximately 5,54T employees in all departments directly supervised by the Employer. The record does not reflect the number of employees in other departments in these two counties. THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF VIRGINIA 817 ments - and the general plant personnel supervisor. This group is appointed by and derives its authority from the Employer's vice president and general manager; it consults with and receives advice 25 Iron the Employer's other officers. C. The bargaining history Since June 1937 the employees in the proposed unit had been repre- sented by the Petitioner as part of a larger unit which also included the Maryland Company's Traffic Department employees? Employees in the Employer's other departments in the two counties were likewise part of units which also included employees of the Maryland Company in their respective departments. During this period the Petitioner bargained exclusively with the Maryland Company for the entire unit. In such bargaining negotiations, and in the execution and application of contracts resulting therefrom , the Maryland Company acted as the Employer's agent with respect to the employees here in question. The Employer took no part in the collective bargaining process with respect to any of its employees in these two counties. The most recent contract between the Petitioner and the Maryland Company which included within its terms employees of the Employer was effective as of June 1, 1947, for a 1-year period. When the Em- ployer resumed supervision of the employees in the two counties, on November 1, 1947, it agreed to abide by the contract beween the Pe- titioner and the Maryland Company until its expiration. During that period, officials of the Maryland Company acted as representatives of the Employer with respect to grievances arising under the contract. Since the expiration of the contract, the employees in question have been without collective bargaining representation .27 The employees of the Employer who are supervised by the Washing- ton Company 28 have likewise, during the period of such supervision, been represented by unions which also include employees of the Wash- 24 Plant, Commercial, Traffic, and Accounting. 25 At one point, the record reflects a witness called on behalf of the Employer as stating that this group seeks bargaining "authority " from certain of the Employer's officers who are also officers of the other "Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone " companies. The Employer moved, inter else, to correct the record by changing the word "authority" to "advice" ; the Petitioner opposes this correction . While we do not consider the question material ( see footnote 21, supra), we believe , on the basis of this witness's entire testi- mony as reflected in other portions of the record , that the witness intended the word "advice" rather than "authority ." Accordingly, the record is corrected pursuant to the Employer's motion. N The employees at the agency-operated offices were added to the unit in January, 1946. 27 Employees in the Employer 's other departments in the two counties have, by agree- ment between the Employer and the unions involved , been absorbed into the company-wide, nu1ti-departmental unit represented by the Intervenor. 21 See footnote 22, supra. 818 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ington Company and which also bargain exclusively with the Wash- ington Company. Prior to the transfer of such supervision, such employees had been represented as part of the Intervenor's predeces- sor's company-wide multi-departmental unit. Since 1937, the In- tervenor and its predecessors have been recognized by the Employer as the representative of all its employees directly under its super- vision 29 D. Conclusions The Petitioner is seeking to have the Board establish a unit which corresponds to no administrative division of the Employer's opera- tions, solely on the grounds of an alleged community of interest with persons not employees of the Employer, and a bargaining history separate from that of the Employer's other employees.3° The Board has, on numerous occasions, considered and rejected as inappropriate proposed units smaller in scope that a company-wide, departmental unit 31 It has, rather, held to be appropriate company-wide or system- wide departmental 32 or multi-departmental 33 units, even in the face of a contrary bargaining history,34 and even when such contrary bargain- ing history has, at least in part, been the result of a prior Board determination.35 29 In general , a transfer of supervision of employees from one "Chesapeake and Potomac" company to another ( see footnote 22, supra ) has been accompanied by a change of bargain- ing representative for the employees thus transferred . In such cases the new representa- tive has been the union which represented employees of the company to which the employees were transferred . The new representative has bargained for the transferred employees with the supervising company in the same manner as the Petitioner had bar- gained for the employees in the unit requested herein while they were under the super- vision of the Maryland Company. However, a transfer of supervision has not uniformly resulted in a change of bargain- ing representative . Subsequent to the transfer of supervision of certain Maryland Com- pany employees from the Maryland Company to the Washington Company, transferred employees in the plant department continued to be represented by the union which had previously represented them prior to their transfer ; this union continued to bargain for them with the Maryland Company, although they were being supervised by the Washington Company. The representation of the simultaneously transferred employees in the other departments was, however , changed in accordance with the general practice. 39 As the Maryland Company is not a party to this proceeding, the Petitioner is not, for the purposes of this proceeding, considered as seeking to reconstitute its previously existing unit. 21 Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey, 81 N L R. B. 119; Matter of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 107; Matter of Southwestern Associated Telephone Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 1105; Matter of Ohio Tele- phone Service Company, 72 N. L. R. B. 488; Matter of Public Service Electric ci Gas Company, 59 N. L. R B 51 ;' Matter of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany, 55 N. L. R. B. 1058. 22 Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey, supra ; Matter of Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, supra. 32 Matter of Interstate Telephone Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 637 (Member Murdock dis- senting ) ; Matter of Southwestern 4ssoeiated Telephone Company, supra ; Matter of Ohio Telephone Service Company, supra; Matter of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, supra. " Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey, supra 35 Matter of Southwestern Associated Telephone Company, supra. THE CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF VIRGINIA 819 The Board's decisions in these public utility cases, rejecting the narrow 36 units and approving the broad units, have been predicated upon the highly integrated and interdependent nature of public utility operations, the similarity of employment conditions and interests, and interests in serving the public, of the various groups of employees involved, and the centralized control of major policies relating to labor relations. The factors which the Board found to be controlling in such cases are present and controlling in this case 37 Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that the proposed unit is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act3$ As the Petitioner has neither requested, nor made a sufficient showing of interest in, an appropriate unit, we find that no question exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. as On the basis of special factors not present in this case , the Board has occasionally approved units smaller in scope than company-wide departmental units. See, for example, Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 368, in which units comprising individual exchanges were approved on the basis of a certain degree of functional autonomy existing at such exchanges, and a bargaining history which included employer domination of a company-wide representation plan (Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company, 12 N. L R. B 375 ) ; see also, Matter of Paeifio Telephone and Telegraph Company, 58 N. L. It. B, 1042, in which a "globe" election was directed among a multi-craft group of toll main. tenance employees. 17 The Petitioner urges, as determinative of the issues here, the alleged community of interest of the employees in the proposed unit with individuals who are not employees of the Employer, the geographical separation of these employees from other employees of the Employer, and the bargaining history. On the factual situation presented here, and in view of the overriding policy considerations which we have held to be controlling, we do not accept such contentions in this case. 18 In view of our decision herein, we consider it unnecessary to consider the unit place. ment or employee status of the employees at the agency-operated exchanges.