The Elyria Telephone Co.

162 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisors 13 as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] u The record indicates that assistant supervisors are in charge of their respective depart- ments only in the absence of the supervisors, such as in illness or during vacations, and that they also carry out the orders of the supervisors when the latter are required to go elsewhere in the plant . As the evidence fails to show that the assistant supervisors regu- larly and frequently substitute for the supervisors , they are included in the unit as employees without supervisory status. Humboldt Full Fashioned Hosiery Mills, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 99. - THE ELYRIA TELEPHONE COMPANY and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1263. September 13,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles.] Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. .4. The Petitioner seeks-to represent a unit of all the employees of the Employer, including office and clerical employees, but excluding professional employees, confidential employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the- office and clerical employees should be established as a separate unit or be granted a self-determination election. The parties are in further disagreement as to the unit placement of certain other categories discussed below. O fjice and clerical employees : The Employer is a telephone com- pany, with its main plant and offices at Elyria, Ohio. Its operations i The name of the Employer appears in the caption as stipulated at-the healing. 96 NLRB No. 21. - 111 : ;, I THEE ELYRIA TELEPHONE COMPANY 163 are divided administratively into departments, and these departments perform the usual functions of such groups in the telephone indus- try. Thus, the plant department installs and maintains the Em- ployer's equipment; the traffic department operates the equipment; the commercial department handles service orders and the Employ- er's business relations with the public; and the accounting depart- ment prepares customer records and bills. The office and clerical employees work mainly in the commercial and accounting depart- ments. There does not appear to have been any recent history of collective bargaining with respect to the Employer's employees. The Board has frequently recognized the highly integrated and interdependent, character of similar companies in this industry, and the close community of interest of the employees in all departments, and has indicated that a company-wide unit is the most appropriate for collective bargaining purposes.2 We perceive no persuasive rea- son for reaching a different conclusion under the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, we are of the opinion and find that the com- prehensive unit sought by the Petitioner, including the office and clerical employees, is here appropriate.3 Service assistants: The Employer would exclude as supervisors, and the Petitioner include, the service assistants in the traffic department. This department is headed by the chief operator and assistant chief operator, who are admittedly supervisors. Under them are 3 clerks, 12 or 13 service assistants, and about 63 telephone operators. From 7: 30 a. m. to about 9: 30 p. m. the switchboard is handled by 22 or 23 telephone operators and 2 service assistants. The service assistants patrol the floor, assisting the operators on difficult calls, occasionally operating the switchboard themselves, and training new operators. Between 10 p. m. and 7: 30 a. in. a service assistant is in complete charge of the 4 or 5 operators in the department. While the service assistants have no authority to hire or discharge employees, they are higher paid than the operators, can initiate per- sonnel action, including discharge, subject to investigation by the chief operator, have authority to assign and relieve operators, and, as already noted, are in full charge of the department in the absence of the chief operator and assistant chief operator. We find that the service assistants are supervisors and, accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit .4 2 The Athens Home Telephone Company, 85 NLRB 618; Del Rio & Winter Garden Tele- phone Company, 85 NLRB 199 ; The Ohio Associated Telephone Company, 82 NLRB 972. Cf. Texas Telephone Company, 93 NLRB 741. s Ibid. * Cf. Lingerie, Inc., 95 NLRB No 154 : The Athens Home Telephone Company, supra; Ozark Central Telephone Company, 83 NLRB 258. 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD - LaGrange agency exchange personnel: The Employer contended at the hearing,' contrary to the Petitioner, that the individuals employed at the LaGrange, Ohio, exchange are not "employees" of the Employer, but of an independent contractor. - The LaGrange exchange is operated by a contract agents on prop- erty leased by the Employer. The Employer owns and services all equipment at the exchange, and provides living quarters for the agent. While the agent has authority to hire and discharge the exchange employees, whose wage rates she determines, the Employer makes all withholding tax and social security deductions for these employees, maintains their employment records, and pays the agent a fixed price, less the amount of wages disbursed. The Employer also handles the various clerical functions for the exchange, such as billing the sub- scribers and placing service orders. The present record, in our opinion, falls short of establishing that the relationship of the agent to the Employer is that of an inde- pendent contractor. Rather, we find that the personnel at the LaGrange exchange are employees of the Employer and should be included in the unit.' However, as the contract agent has authority to hire and discharge, we shall exclude the agent as a supervisor. Accordingly, we find that all the employees of the Employer-, in- cluding office and clerical employees and the LaGrange agency ex-' change personnel,, but excluding professional employees, confidential employees," guards, service assistants, the contract agent at the La- Grange agency exchange, and all other supervisors 9 as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Employer employs several high school and college students who were hired with the understanding that their employment was to be for the summer only. Although the Employer testified that,,if there is work available at the end of the summer, it might retain students whose work proves satisfactory and who request permanent 6 This contention was not referred to by the Employer in its brief. 'The record does not indicate whether the agreement between the Employer and the contract agent at LaGrange is oral or in writing , nor are the specific terms of the agree- ment set forth in the record. 7 See New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 90 NLRB 639; Del Rio & Winter Garden Telephone Company, "vpra e The parties agree , and we find, that the secretary to the manager. should be excluded as a confidential employee. Exxcluded as a superiisor is Norma welter , who is in charge of the three or four employees in the I B . M and tab room and has authority to hire and discharge or ef- fectively to recommend such action. Also excluded as supervisors, in accordance with the agreement of the parties , are the chief operator and assistant chief operator in the traffic department, office manager and auditor , commercial manager, had of the commercial department, equipment superintendent, plant superintendent, line fpreman, anQ service supervisor. MEDFORD BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL 165 jobs, we find that they are serving essentially as temporary employees and, in accordance with Board practice, that they are ineligible to vote in the election directed herein.10 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 10 Cf. Burnup & Sims, Inc., 95 NLRB 1130; Cities Service Refining Corporation, 83 NLRB 890. MEDFORD BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL OF THE AMERI- CAN FEDERATION OF LABOR; MEDFORD CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, A. F. OF L.; UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL No. 2067; CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS, AFL, LOCAL 962; BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, LOCAL 29, AFL ; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 659, AFL; INTER- NATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS UNION, LOCAL No. 1400, AFL; AND LEONARD CHRISTEAN, AS AGENT FOR TMIED- FORD BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL, AFL and KOGAP LUMBER INDUSTRIES. Case No. 36-CC-11. September 14, 1951 Decision and Order On May 8, 1951, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents, except the Iron Workers, had engaged in and were en- gaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Iron Workers had not engaged in any unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed as to it. Thereafter, the Respondents, except the Iron Workers, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, with the modifications and exceptions noted below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents,2 by picket- i 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. 2 This includes all the Respondents named in the caption except the Iron workers with respect to whom we are dismissing the complaint. 96 NLRB No. 10. 974176-52-vol. 96-] 2