Gulf States Telephone Co.

270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GULF STATES TELEPHONE COMPANY and COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1123. November 12,1952 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 James P. Wolf, 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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 Employer, which operates entirely within the State of Texas, is engaged in the business of furnishing local and long distance tele- phone service. Its general office is at Tyler, Texas, and its system includes 28 exchanges, 20 of which are employee operated,' and the other 8 are unattended dial exchanges. The Petitioner seeks a unit of employees at the Employer's main office and the 14 exchanges not represented by it or the IBEW.2 Alter- natively, the Petitioner is willing to add the employees in the requested unit to the employees it already represents at Hamilton and Stephen- ville. The Employer prefers units limited to individual exchanges and contends that the broad single unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. In the alternative, the Employer urges as appropriate units which are coextensive with the Employer's 6 districts. The parties herein also disagree as to the unit placement of certain cate- gories of employees discussed below. As indicated above, the collective-bargaining history with respect to the Employer's employees has been brief and confined to six ex- 1 Only six of these exchanges are now represented by a labor organization . The Peti- tioner was certified on January 31, 1952, as bargaining agent for the Hamilton and Stephenville exchanges ( 16-RC-935 and 936 ). The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called IBEW, which has not intervened in the instant case, was certified for four other exchanges : Athens, April 17, 1951 ( 16-RC-723), Kaufman, August 15, 1951 ( 16-RC-806), Commerce and Cooper, August 15 , 1951 ( 16-RC-807). I These exchanges are at Hico , Gatesville, Bosse, Groesbeck , Kemp, Mabank, Lindale, Bullard, Big Sandy, Overton , Arp, Troup, Chandler, and Malakoff. 101 NLRB No. 56. GULF STATES TELEPHONE COMPANY 271 changes. The four exchanges represented by the IBEW have been covered by a single contract which was effective from October 4, 1951, to May 31, 1952, and was thereafter renewed.-' Although a contract has not yet been executed for the Stephenville and Hamilton exchanges, the Employer and the Petitioner at the time of the hearing were carry- ing on negotiations for these employees as a group. The Employer's operations follow the usual pattern of organiza- tion in the telephone industry. The Employer divides its functions into three major departments: (1) The traffic department which operates the switchboard equipment; (2) the commerce-accounting department which handles the Employer's business relations with the public and keeps the books and records; and (3) the plant depart- ment which installs and maintains equipment. The heads of these departments are located in the Employer's general office at Tyler, where the Employer's policies and programs relating to such matters as labor relations, employee training, payroll accounting, purchasing, and advertising are determined. Although there is little permanent transfer of employees between exchanges, virtually all employees in the plant department regularly move throughout the Employer's entire system as do such officials as the traffic superintendent. Moreover, the Employer promotes man- agers from smaller to larger exchanges. While the working conditions and wages of the employees vary at the different exchanges, there is considerable similarity of employment and there exists a community of interest among the employees because of their common objective in rendering telephone service. It is clear from the above facts, and on the record as a whole, that the Employer's operations, like those of most telephone com- panies, are highly integrated and interdependent. The Board has frequently held that in public utilities, where these factors are pres- ent, system-wide units are the most appropriate, even where there has been a bargaining history on a less comprehensive basis .4 How- ever, the Board has not taken the position that because such a unit is ultimately the most desirable, it is at all times and in all circumstances the only appropriate type of unit in a public utility.5 As noted above, the employees of 6 of the Employer's exchanges are already repre- sented; the remaining 14 exchanges and the office at Tyler constitute the residue of a system-wide unit .6 In order to afford these employees ' At the time of the hearing another contract had been agreed upon but was not put into operation pending Wage Stabilization Board approval of certain provisions therein. 4 Two States Telephone Company, 90 NLRB 2008 ; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 90 NLRB 639. 6 Cf. California-Pacific Utilities Company, 93 NLRB 747 ; Southwestern Servwe Company, 89 NLRB 114. 4 The Petitioner filed a petition in April 1952 for a system-wide unit which was dismissed by the Regional Director on the ground that elections had been held for some of these exchanges less than 12 months before the date of the petition (Case No. 16-RC-1048). 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an opportunity to be represented, we shall direct. an election for the residual group.? As it is the policy of the Board to favor the largest feasible unit," a majority vote for the Petitioner will be taken as an indication of the employees' desire to be included in a unit along with the Hamilton and Stephenville employees now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue a certification of result of election to such effect. There remains for consideration the question of including or ex- cluding certain disputed classifications. Secretary to the vice president: The Employer contends that this employee should be excluded because she also serves the general manager in a confidential capacity. The record shows that, in addi- tion to her duties as secretary to the vice president, she also performs about 10 percent of the general manager's secretarial work. As the latter official has the responsibility of formulating and effectuating the Employer's general labor policy, we find that the secretary to the vice president is a confidential employee, and we shall exclude her from the voting group.,' Secretary to the secretary-auditor: The Employer would also ex- clude this employee as confidential. The secretary-auditor main- tains all payroll and local telephone rate records, and keeps minutes of all the meetings of the Employer's board of directors. The sec- retary has access to those records and to correspondence involving grievances as to the correctness of certain wage rates. Although the secretary to the secretary-auditor deals with rate matters which the Employer considers confidential to its business and may some- times handle documents relating to grievances, the record fails to establish that the secretary-auditor for whom this employee works formulates or effectuates the Employer's labor relations policies.la We shall therefore include her in the voting group. Secretary to the president: The parties agree on the exclusion of this individual because she is also assistant treasurer of the Employer. However, the Employer contends that the specific classification of secretary to the president should be excluded as a confidential one on the theory that the position may not always be held by an official of the Employer. As we perceive no basis in the record other than her position as an official of the Employer to exclude her from the voting group, we shall therefore exclude her on that basis alone. Part-time janitresses and janitor at the Overton, Troup, and Gates- ville exchanges: The Petitioner at the hearing stated its desire to 7 See Safeway Stores Incorporated, 96 NLRB 998. 8 In view of this policy regarding the optimum unit, we find no justification for the district units urged by the Employer. 9 Wilson & Co., Inc., 97 NLRB 1388 ; Phillips Chemical Company, 91 NLRB 568. The parties stipulated to the exclusion of another secretary who is used by the general manager 90 percent of the time. 10 Cities Service Refining Corporation , 94 NLRB 1634. GULF STATES TELEPHONE COMPANY 273 exclude these employees of the Employer because they also work for other employers. The Employer did not object thereto. How- ever, the Petitioner in its brief altered its position and requested the inclusion of these part-time employees in view of the Board's decision in an earlier case 11 permitting a vote to part-time employees who devoted 1 or 2 hours a day to janitorial duties. As the record does not clearly indicate whether the part-time janitresses and janitor at the Overton, Troup, and Gatesville exchanges regularly work a substantial amount of time for the Employer, we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge 12 Evening supervisor at the Overton exchange: The Petitioner con- tends that the evening supervisor at the Overton exchange is an em- ployee, while the Employer asserts that she is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The exchange is directed by the chief operator who is on duty from 8 a. m. to 12 noon and 1 p. m. to 5 p. m. The eve- ning supervisor is ordinarily present each day from 6 a. m. to 10 a. m. and 5 p. m. to 9 p. m., and is in complete charge of all personnel dur- ing the 6 hours when the chief operator is away from the exchange. Although the evening supervisor works at the switchboard, she also trains new operators and makes recommendations regarding promo- tions, which are based on constant observation and carry great weight with the Employer. In addition, she disciplines employees, may effectively recommend their dismissal, and in the event of serious in- fractions of the Employer's rules, she has the power of immediate discharge without consulting officials of the Employer. In view of the foregoing facts, we find that the evening supervisor at the Over- ton exchange is a supervisor as defined in the Act, and we shall exclude her from the voting group.- Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group : All traffic, plant, and commercial-accounting employees at the Em- ployer's main office in Tyler, Texas, and at the Hico, Gatesville, Kosse, Groesbeck, Kemp, Mabank, Lindale, Bullard, Big Sandy, Overton, Arp, Troup, Chandler, and Malakoff exchanges; including the porter at Tyler, the part-time janitresses and janitor at Overton, Troup, and Gatesville, the secretary to the secretary-auditor; but excluding all employees at the Stephenville, Hamilton, Commerce, Cooper, Kauf- man, and Athens exchanges, all district and exchange managers, chief operators at the Arp, Big Sandy, Bullard, Chandler, Rico, Kemp, Kosse, Lindale, Mabank, Malakoff, and Troup exchanges; the chief operator-cashier and the evening chief operator at the Gatesville ex- change, the chief operator and cashier and the evening supervisor at 11 Ozark Central Telephone Company, 83 NLRB 258. 12 The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384; Ozark Central Telephone Company, supra. 13 The Elyria Telephone Company, 96 NLRB 162. 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Overton exchange, the chief operator-cashier at the Groesbeck ex- change, the retired operator at the Hico exchange, and the agent at the Bullard exchange; 14 chief clerk, assistant treasurer and secretary to the president, secretary to the vice president, secretary to the gen- eral manager, construction foremen, president, vice presidents, gener- al manager, assistant to general manager, secretary-auditor, assistant auditor, assistant secretary, treasurer, plant superintendent, traffic superintendent, and directory supervisor at Tyler; and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.15 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 14 I. C. Taylor. 1E With the exception of the disputed classifications referred to supra, the composition of the voting group conforms to the stipulation of the parties. MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL UNION No. 152, AFL, PETITIONER MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 850, AFL, PETITIONER MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 425, AFL, PETI- TIONER MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and LOCAL 549, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORK- ERS, AFL, PETITIONER MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1369, AFL, PETITIONER MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 6-RC-946,6-RC- 1001, 6-RC-1047, 6-RC-96&, 6-RC-987, 6-RC-1008, 6-RC-1014, 6-RC-1015, 6-RC-1016, 6-RC-1017, 6-RC-1019, 6-RC-1020, and 6-RC-1037. November 12, 1952 Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Additional Elections On September 5, 1952, the Board issued a Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections in the above-entitled proceeding.' Thereafter, 1100 NLRB 1028. 101 NLRB No. 80.