The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.

478 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS- BOARD `Upon the entire record intheecase, the Board finds : I. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Intervenor, Independent Union of Petroleum Workers (unaffiliated) hereinafter referred to as the Union, is no longer the bargaining repre- sentative as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees desig- nated in the petition. The Union is the certified and currently recognized bargaining representative of the employees in the unit designated herein. 3. A question affecting commerce exists -concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (a) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : In, accordance, with the agreements of the parties we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate,for the .purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All technical employees of the Employers, Standard Oil Company of California `and California Exploration Company at 200 and 225 Bush Street, San Francisco, California, including draftsmen, de signers, -photoreproduction employees, and technical assistants but ex- cluding the designer in the marine department, guards, and, all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] S The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit is exactly. the same unit as unit B in Case No . 20-RD-90, issued December 8, 1953 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders). The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Bell Tele- phone Company of Nevada and Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL and Communications Workers of America, CIO, Party to the Contract The Pacific Telephone and -Telegraph Company and Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen; Local Union 1011, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen , `Local Union loll, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL. Cases Nos. 3O-CA-968, 20-CA-961, and d0-CA--962. August 9, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On January ,14, 1955, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that 113 NLRB No. 60. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 479 the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices within, the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act 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.'. Thereafter the Respondents ,andCWA filed exceptions to -the Intermediate Report. Briefs were filed by the Respondents, CWA, ORTT, and the General Counsel. Pursuant to leave requested by ORTT, reply briefs were filed on or before April 17, 1955, by the Respondents, ORTT, and the General Counsel. , - - The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner 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 briefs, and the entire record in the case,2 and hereby adopts the findings,-conclusions, and recommen- dations of the Trial Examiner, with the following modifications: The Trial Examiner's principal finding is that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act on and after April 12, 1954, by refusing to'bargain collectively with the Charging Party in three separate appropriate units. The' Respondents' defense is two-fold : (1) The units were no longer appropriate, and -(2) in any event, the Respondents had a good-faith and well-grounded belief to that effect. For the reasons set forth in the Intermediate Report, and- particularly because no sufficient change of circumstance was shown since the Re- spondents' letter to ORTT of May 23, 1953, in effect agreeing that the three units -were still appropriate; we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the units continued to be appropriate in April 1954 and thereafter. As to the Respondents' second defense, that even if the units were -in fact appropriate for bargaining purposes; the refusal to bargain must be excused because the Respondents had -a good-faith doubt' as to their appropriateness, we mote the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the related injunction proceeding against the Respondents pursuant to Section 10 (j) .3 There, the court rejected the Respondents' attempt to analogize the continuing presumption of •an appropriate unit to the presumption of continued majority. The court noted that with respect to majority once shown, the presumption is rebuttable after expiration of the certification year in a subsequent complaint case, and that a good-faith doubt in the Employer suffices as a defense. The court specifically stated, however, that if the Board's prior designation of the units was still valid, as we find that it was, the Respondents -obviously violated the designations. It added that IOn January 17, 1955, the Trial Examiner issued an "Errata," making two minor changes in the Intermediate Report. 2 Oral- argument ' has been requested by the Respondents and CWA . These requests are denied as the record and exceptions and briefs adequately ' present the issues and posi- tions of the parties. • - • ' - - e Brown v. Paoifo Telephone and Telegraph Company, 218 F. 2d 542 ( C. A. 9). 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Respondents' possible good-faith doubt of the current appropriate- ness of the units did not warrant their disregarding the Board's pre- vious designation of the units as appropriate.' Moreover, in a concur- ring opinion Circuit Judge Pope indicated that the Respondents' doubt was not in good faith, for he stated that he thought a fair read- ing of the Decision and Order of March 17, 1954,5 on which the Respondents allegedly relied, did not support the view that the Board was withdrawing its certification of ORTT's three separate units. We note also that in order to remove any doubt as to the effect of the Decision and Order of March 17, 1954, the Board issued a unanimous Supplemental Decision on May 14, 1954,6 clearly stating that the Decision and Order did not pass upon the validity of ORTT's certifica- tions. Yet the Respondents thereafter persisted in their unfair labor practices. Accordingly, we agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act. ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that : A. The Respondents, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany and Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, and their respective officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall : 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all their toll maintenance employees in the Northern California- Nevada and Southern California areas, excluding professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (b) Contributing support to Communications Workers of America, CIO, by giving effect to the agreement dated April 27, 1954, or by making or giving effect to any additions or successor agreements there- to or any modifications, extensions, or renewals thereof, affecting any employees in the appropriate unit described above in the Northern California-Nevada area.' 4 Section 9 (c) (1) (B ) empowered the Respondents to file a representation petition when ORTT presented its bargaining demand in the spring of 1954. The Respondents neither utilized this procedure nor obtained from the Board an amendment of the original unit findings. 6 107 NLRB 1615, where the Board dismissed ORTT 's representation petition seeking to enlarge and consolidate its certified units. 6 108 NLRB 862. T Nothing herein shall be construed as requiring the Respondents to withdraw , vary, or abandon any benefits, including those relating to rates of compensation . acquired by the employees under the agreement of April 27, 1954, or any additions or successor agree- ments thereto, or any modifications, extensions, or renewals thereof. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 481 (c) Recognizing Communications Workers of America , CIO, as the representative of any of their employees in the appropriate unit described above for the purpose of dealing with them with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or any other terms or conditions of employment. (d) In any like manner interfering with , restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self -organization, to form, join, or assist any labor organization , to join or assist Order of Re- peatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, to bargain collectively through representatives'of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brother hood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as- the exclusive representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit described above with respect to wages, rates of pay , hours of employment, and other con- ditions of employment, and if an agreement is reached embody it in a signed contract. (b) Post copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix A" at all offices and exchanges in the Northern California-Nevada and Southern California areas, where employees in the appropriate unit are employed, including places where copies of "Wage and Work- ing Practices" described in section III of the Intermediate Report were posted.' Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall , after being signed by the Respondents, be posted by them immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con- spicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respond- ents to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writ- ing, within ten (10 ) days from the date of this Order , what steps the Respondents have taken to comply herewith. 8 In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a United States Court of Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals, Enforcing an Order." 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, B. Respondent, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from : (a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its toll maintenance employees in the Washington-Idaho area, including PBX teletypewriter repairmen under toll supervision, but excluding professional employees, guards, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. (b) Refusing to bargain collectively with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011,, International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers,, AFL, as the exclusive representative, of all,its toll maintenance employees in the Oregon area, including trans- missionmen, toll central office repairmen principally engaged in work on toll terminal equipment, telegraph repeatermen, toll testboardmen, and-PBX repairmen (teletype), but excluding professional and con- fidential employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. ,(c) In any like manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,, to form, join or assist any labor organization, to join or assist Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in con- certed activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to,the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of em- ployment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 2. Take the following affirmative action, which the Board finds will effectuate the policies of the Act : (a) Upon request,. bargain collectively with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all its employees in each of the two appropriate units described above with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, and other condi- tions of employment, and if an agreement is reached embody it in a signed contract. (b) Post copies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix B" at all offices and exchanges in. the Washington-Idaho area where employees in the appropriate unit are employed, including places where copies of "Wage and Working Practices" described in section III of the Intermediate Report were posted .0 Postcopies of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix C" at all offices and exchanges in 9 See footnote 8. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 483 the Oregon area where employees in the appropriate unit are em- ployed, including places where copies of "Wage and Working Prac- tices" were posted.1° Copies of said notices, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall, after being signed by the Respondent, be posted by it immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicu- ous places,' including all places where notices to employees are cus-' tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall •be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. (c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writ- ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith. MEMBER PETERSON, dissenting : I would dismiss the complaint, because I am persuaded that the units of toll maintenance employees are not appropriate. In my opinion, that in substance was our finding in the March 1954 decision, and the Respondents'in good faith so interpreted it. They should not now be held to have violated the law'for agreeing with the'Board and declining to recognize the ORTT"as the statutory iepreseiitative of units which the Board has said are inappropriate. The 1954 proceeding arose on the petition of the ORTT, seeking to consolidate into one systemwide unit the toll maintenance employ- ees theretofore established by Board decisions as three separate ap- propriate units, and to add to that grouping other related categories of employees. The basic question of the appropriateness- of a unit of toll maintenance employees (whether systemwide or confined to a par- ticular area) was exhaustively litigated. The Board found the pro- posed combined, unit to, be inappropriate and, dismissed the petition. In doing so, the Board made extensive findings, as set out in the Trial Examiner's, Intermediate Report, all of which, show that a unit, of toll maintenance employees was not appropriate. We concluded that the result of consolidating the three units, ','would be to continue the very sort of unit indefiniteness, indefinability, and variability" that the Respondents and the ORTT sought to avoid. It seems to me that fairly read, this conclusion and, the supporting findings make clear that the Board,deemed the existing,units of toll maintenance employees to be inappropriate. , „ ,It is, of course, true that in May. 1954 the Board, of its own motion, issued a supplemental decision stating that in dismissing the ORTT petition it did not intend "to pass upon the validity of the existing certifications" or to adjudicate "any of the rights and obligations that flow therefrom." ,Whatever the intended effect of this later pro- 10 See footnote S. 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD nouncement-and upon closer 'reflection I think now it should not have been issued-it did not withdraw any of the findings previously made as to the appropriateness of a unit of toll maintenance employ- ees, whether limited to a particular area of the Respondents' operations or systemwide in scope. Indeed, I think the record before us supports those findings. My colleagues, however, in effect reverse them by holding that the units are still appropriate. I would adhere to them and, accordingly, dis- miss the complaint. MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. APPENDIX A NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of.the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Order of Re- peatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit de- scribed below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employ- ment, and other conditions of employment; and if an agreement is reached embody it in a signed contract . The bargaining unit is : All our toll maintenance employees in the Northern Cali- fornia-Nevada and Southern California areas, excluding pro- fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT recognize Communications Workers of America, CIO, as the representative of any of our employees in the unit described above for the purpose of dealing with us with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or any other terms or conditions of employment. WE WILL NOT contribute support to Communications Workers of America, CIO, by giving effect to the agreement dated April 27, 1954, or by making or giving effect to any additions or successor agreements thereto or any modifications, extensions, or renewals thereof, affecting any employees in the unit described above in the Northern California-Nevada area; but this is not to be construed as withdrawing, varying, or abandoning any benefits, including those relating to rates of compensation , acquired by our employees under the said agreement, or any additions or successor agree- ments thereto, or any modifications, extensions, o°r renewals thereof. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 485 WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to join or assist Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos- ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- By----------------------- .-------------- (Representative ) (Title) BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. APPENDIX B NOTIriE TO ALL 'EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclu- sive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit descr`ibe'd below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment, and if an agree- ment is reached embody it in a signed contract. The bargaining unit is: All our toll maintenance employees in the Washington-Idaho area, including PBX teletypewriter repairmen under toll supervision, but excluding professional employees, guards,, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza= 486 COMPANY, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to join or assist Order 'of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local' Un- ion 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection , or to re- frain from any or all such activities, except to the extent' that such' right - may be affected by an' agreement requiring member- ship in a- labor ' organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND, TELEGRAPH 'Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) - (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date here- of, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other ma- terial. APPENDIX C NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that : WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Order of Re- peatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all our employees in the bargaining unit de= scribed below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of eni ployment, and other conditions of employment, and if an agree- ment is reached embody it in a signed contract. The bargaining unit is : All our toll maintenance employees in the Oregon area, in- cluding transmissionmen,-toll central office repairmen prin- cipally engaged in work on toll terminal equipment,' tele- graph repeatermen, toll testboardmen, and PBX repairmen (teletype), but excluding professional and confidential em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. WE WILL NOT in any like manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our Employees in the exercise of the right to self-organiza- tion, to form, join, or assist any labor organization, to join or assist Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International 'Brotherhood of Electrical' Workers,'AFL, THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 487 to bargain collectively through"representatives of their owri choos- ing, and, to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of col- lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to re= (rain, from any or all such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement' requiring member- ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, Employer. Dated---------------- By------------------------------------- (Representative ) ' (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the-date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER . STATEMENT OF, THE CASE,' ' On April .22, 1954, Order of Repeatermen-and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL (also variously referred to herein as ORTT-IBEW, or the Charging Party), filed a charge in Case No. 20-CA-958 with the National Labor Relations Board (also described herein as the Board), against the Respondents, the Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company (also designated herein as PT&T or the Company ), and Bell Telephone Company of Nevada (also referred to herein as Nevada Bell Telephone ). ORTT-IBEW filed an amendment to the charge on April 30 , 1954. On April 23, 1954, ORTT-IBEW filed two additional charges against PT&T, one in Case No. 19-CA-990 (subsequently changed to Case No . 20-CA-961) and the other in Case No. 36-CA-469 ( there- after changed to Case No. 20-CA-962).' These two charges were amended by the ORTT-IBEW on May 10, 1954 . On May 11, 1954, the Regional Director of the Twentieth Region of the Board (San Francisco, California), pursuant to Section 102.33 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, entered an order consoli- dating all of the foregoing cases. Based upon the charges, as amended,' the General Counsel of the Board issued a complaint alleging that PT&T and Nevada Bell Telephone had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136-163 ), referred to herein as the Act. The com- plaint joined Communications Workers of America, CIO (also described herein as CWA), as a party. , Copies of the charges, the amendments thereof, the order of consolidation, and the complaint have been duly served upon PT&T, Nevada Bell Telephone , and CWA. The complaint describes three units of employees as appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, one consisting of "toll maintenance employees" of PT&T and Nevada Bell Telephone employed in California and Nevada , another composed of employees of that category in the employ of PT&T in Washington and Idaho, and the third consisting of employees in the same category employed by PT&T in Oregon.2 1 The charges in Cases Nos . 19-CA-990 and 36-CA-469 were initially filed in the Nine- teenth Region of the Board . On May 5, 1954, the General Counsel, in accordance with the authority conferred upon him by Section 102 .33 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 6, transferred the cases to the Board's Twentieth Region where ,they were respec- tively renumbered as described above. As described in the complaint, the second and third units mentioned above specify that certain categories of employees are included in the term "toll maintenance em- ployees." The included categories need not be particularized here, inasmuch as all three units will be set out in full at a later point. . , 379288-56-vol. 113-32 488 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the alleged unfair labor practices, the complaint, in substance, avers that the Board defined the first of the units mentioned above as appropriate for col- lective-bargaining purposes as a result of a decision reported at 23 NLRB 280, the second as a result of a decision appearing at 58 NLRB 1042, and the third as a result of a decision reported in 85 NLRB 713; that the Board, on April 27, 1940, certified Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen (also referred to herein as ORTT and for convenience of description to be distinguished from ORTT-IBEW), a labor organization, as the bargaining representative of the employees in the unit defined as a result of the decision in 23 NLRB 280; that on November 23, 1944, the Board certified Local 101, American Communications Association, CIO, as the representa- tive of the employees in the unit defined as a result of the decision in 58 NLRB 1042; that on September 29, 1949, the Board certified ORTT as the representative of the employees in the unit defined as a result of the decision in 85 NLRB 712; that each such labor organization so certified was a "predecessor" of ORTT-IBEW; that ORTT-IBEW is now, and was for some time prior to April 12,-1954, the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the employees in each of the units described above; that on or about April 12, 1954, and on various occasions thereafter, ORTT-IBEW requested the Respondents to bargain collectively with it as the repre- sentative of the employees in the said units; that the Respondents, on or about April 12, 1954, and at all times thereafter, in contravention of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, refused to bargain with ORTT-IBEW as such representative; that on or about April 13, 1954, the Respondents, without prior consultation, negotiation, or bargaining with ORTT-IBEW, unilaterally eliminated and revoked various privileges, benefits, and rights of the said employees, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act; and that on or about April 27, 1954, the Respondents, in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (2) and (1) of the Act, contributed unlawful support and assistance to CWA, a labor organization, by according recognition to the said CWA as the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of "toll maintenance employees" of the Respondents in the "Northern California and Nevada area," and by entering into, and putting into effect, a collective-bargaining agreement with the said labor organiza- tion affecting such employees. The Respondents filed a joint answer. CWA filed an answer after its motion for intervention (to be described later) was granted during the course of the hearing in this proceeding. Both answers in effect 'admit that the Board made the unit findings , and issued the certifications, described-in the complaint, but deny that the units are now ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that ORTT-IBEW is now, or has been at any time, "the exclusive or other representative" of any of the Re- spondents' employees . In addition, the Respondents' answer alleges that the words "toll maintenance employees" are "indefinite, indefinable, variable, and inappropriate to define a unit for purposes of collective bargaining." The Respondents' answer also cites the decision of the Board in Case No. 20-RC-2251 (The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, et al., 107 NLRB 1615), and in that connection, alleges that on or about March 30, 1954, ORTT requested the Respondents to reinstate a contract previously in effect between the Respondents and ORTT; that the Respondents re- fused to comply with the request, informing ORTT that the "findings made in and underlying the decision of the Board in Case No. 20-RC-2251 on March 17, 1954, were such as to make separate toll maintenance units . . . inappropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining"; and that since the cited decision, the Respondents "have refused to bargain with any union as representative of employees in any sepa- rate toll maintenance unit, inappropriate for such purposes." With respect to the claim that the' Respondents have unlawfully supported and assisted CWA, both answers admit that the Respondents and CWA entered into a collective-bargaining agreement (termed "a memorandum of agreement" in the an- swers) on or about April 27, 1954, affecting individuals employed by the Respondents in "the Northern California and Nevada area," and described in the complaint as "toll maintenance employees"; and that the Respondents accorded CWA recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of such employees; but deny that the Re- spondents by such recognition, and as a result of the agreement, unlawfully supported and assisted CWA. In that regard, the answers allege, in effect, that the employees covered by the memorandum of agreement were part of an appropriate collective- bargaining unit "then represented by CWA"; that recognition of CWA as the ex- clusive representative of such employees, and execution of the memorandum, followed proof by CWA that it represented a majority of employees in the unit; and that the memorandum of agreement extended to such employees the terms and conditions of a collective-bargaining agreement "then in effect" between the Respondents and CWA and applicable to other employees in the unit. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 489 The Respondents' answer admits that on or about April 13, 1954 , they "made cer- tain changes in working practices applicable to the employees" ORTT-IBEW claims to represent ; and that such changes were made "without consultation or bargaining" with ORTT-IBEW but asserts, in effect, that the Respondents were under no obliga- tion to consult or bargain with ORTT-IBEW concerning such changes because the units ORTT-IBEW claims to represent were at the time of the said changes inappro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining , and because ORTT-IBEW was not then, and has not since been , the duly designated representative of a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties, a hearing was held before me, as duly designated Trial Examiner , at San Francisco, California, on various dates be- tween and including July 7 and August 19, 1954. Various motions were made at the hearing. The record fully reflects their disposition , and I deem it unnecessary to make additional reference to them here, except to note that CWA moved, without opposition , and was given permission , to intervene in so much of this proceeding as pertains to the question whether the Respondents unlawfully supported and assisted CWA. All parties were represented by counsel , participated in the hearing, and were given a full opportunity to be heard , examine and cross-examine witnesses, adduce evidence , submit oral argument, and file briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The General Counsel , the Charging Party, and the Respondents have respectively filed briefs which have been read and fully considered. CWA has informed me by letter that the record fully reflects its position and that it would therefore not file a brief. Upon the entire record , and from my observation of the witnesses , I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company is a California corporation and maintains and operates offices and plants in various States, including California, Washington, and Oregon. Bell Telephone Company of Nevada is a Nevada corpora- tion ; maintains and operates offices in California and Nevada , and plants in the latter State; and is a "wholly-owned subsidiary" of The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. Both Respondents are public utilities and are engaged in the business of furnishing telephone, teletypewriter, telegraph, radio, television, and other com- -muriications ' services. In the course of their business , the Respondents receive and transmit both intrastate and interstate communications . The combined receipts of the Respondents from their business operations exceed the sum of $500,000,000 an- nually, approximately 14 percent of which is derived from interstate telephone toll calls. The Respondents are, and have been at all times material to this proceeding, engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Board has juris- diction of this proceeding. It. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, and Communications Workers of America, CIO, admit to membership persons employed by the Respondents, and are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Prefatory statement PT&T has been in business since 1907. For administrative purposes , the Company divides the territory in which it operates into four areas. These are ( 1) Northern California and Nevada (Nevada Bell Telephone also functions in this area); (2) Southern California; (3) Oregon; and (4) Washington and a portion of Idaho. The territorial division has been in effect since 1930 or 1931 ( the record reflects both dates). The Company's operations are departmentalized in the several areas. Among the various departments in each area is a plant department .3 Each area plant department is supervised by an individual bearing the title of general plant manager. $Accountmg, traffic, treasury, engineering, and commercial departments also exist in each area The functions of these departments need not be described because the indi- viduals employed in them are not involved in the issues in this proceeding. 490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The responsibilities of the area plant departments include the 'operation in their 'respective areas of what are variously described in the record as exchanges or offices.4 These house equipment of 'one type or another used by the Respondents in the provision' of their communications and transmission services. (It is inferable from the evidence that'the type of equipment may vary from one office to another because of such factors, among others, as population density and the needs of the given area served.) Telephone equipment'in the offices is classified (or "coded") as "toll" of "exchange." (Previous Board decisions also apply the term "central office" to equipment coded as "exchange." 58 NLRB 713, 721 and 85 NLRB 1042,4046.) 'An evaluation of the' issues in this proceeding requires some description of the origin and development of the Respondents' equipment classification practices (also termed the "coding procedure" in the record). The description follows. ' In the early period of PT&T's operations, a practice arose of referring to local service areas as "exchanges." These areas roughly conformed to municipal boun- daries. It was customary to refer to telephone calls between points in such an area as "exchange" service. Such calls were charged for at flat rates. Calls from one such area to another were known as "toll." Charges for these were made at mileage or "toll" rates. In the early period of the Company's history, it distinguished, for rate- making' and regulatory purposes, between equipment used for "exchange" service and that employed for "toll" service, classifying or "coding" equipment and the time spent thereon by plant department employees, 'as "exchange" or "toll," as the case may be. Coding' symbols were used to classify' the equipment and work per- formed on it. The symbols consisted of numbers followed by an alphabetical suffix. ("Toll" symbols always included the letter "T" in the suffix as, for 'example, in the symbol 247-TC.) ' '' ' The term "exchange," as applied to service, no longer exclusively denotes calls from one point to another within exchange boundaries. For example, what is known as "extended area" service, in effect in various populous areas, is charged for at "message unit" rates, and is classified as "exchange," notwithstanding the fact that it covers distances at one time described as "toll." Technological developments over the years in various parts of PT&T's system now permit "exchange" calls over ,longer distances than in the early days of the Company's operations, and the trans- mission (to an extent not concretely established in the record) of both "exchange" and "toll" messages by means of the same equipment. It, may also be•noted that in localities where "extended area" service is rendered, telephone calls between identical points may be charged at "exchange" or, "toll" rates, depending ,upon the type of service a subscriber selects. „ I The Respondents still use "toll" and "exchange" symbols in their coding procedure, employing, as before, the suffix "T" to symbolize a "toll" designation.,, However, the coding procedure has departed from the old practice of classifying equipment in terms of the original geographical concepts embodied in the terms "toll" and "exchange:" When that practice arose, regulation of the Respondents', operations rested largely with State public utility agencies. The Respondents' rate-making accounting procedures are now subject to regulation by the Federal Communica- tions Commission. To meet the requirements of modern regulatory proceedings, the Respondents' revenue, expense, and property accounts must separately reflect their interstate and intrastate operations. The codes, although still consisting of symbols classified as "toll" or ','exchange,", are used today as an accounting device to make data available, as needed, to enable the Respondents to distinguish' between intrastate and interstate operations, compute rates of depreciation, and determine the cost of installation and operation. Four principal factors enter into a deter- mination whether given equipment gets a "toll",or an "exchange" symbol. These are (1) its principal use, (2) situs, (3) type, and (4) association with other equip- ment. Applying these criteria, the classification, by code symbol, of equipment and work as "exchange" does not necessarily mean that they are used solely for the rendi- tion of service between points within "exchange" service areas. Moreover,. t'ex- change" symbols are substituted for "toll," as circumstances may require, but it may be borne in mind, in connection with evidence relating 'to the reclassification of employees, to be discussed later, that the evidence by no means establishes the relative frequency with which such recodification occurs. ,, % t The area plant, departments have the responsibility for the maintenance,, repair, and testing of the communications and transmission equipment in their respective areas, including the equipment housed in the offices. The Respondents divide the employees who perform such functions on the equipment housed in the exchanges or offices into a substantial number of classifications . These classifications fall into 4 Area plant departments have other functions. Reference will be made herein only to those that bear materially on the issues. THE, PACIFIC TELEPHONE, AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 491 two basic groups. One group consists of what are known as toll maintenance em• ployee"s 5 who may also be described, for the purposes of this proceeding at least, as "toll-titled employees." 6 The other group may be 'described, for convenience of reference, as "exchange-titled." 7 (Employees in, various exchange-titled classi- fications, including switchmen, deskmen', framemen, and central office repairmen, have been termed "central office maintenance employees" by the Board in prior decisions applicable to PT&T. 58 NLRB 1042, 1046 and 85 NLRB 713, 720, foot- note 23.) Putting aside so-called "fringe" groups of employees to be described later, the term "toll maintenance employees" for many years prior to April 13, 1954, com- prehended four basic classifications,, namely, telegraph repeaterman, testboardman, transmissionman, and toll central office, repairman 8 (to be distinguished from the exchange-titled classification of central office repairman). , Some employees in 'the four job categories bore "senior" titles, as for example, "senior transmissionman." These have been (and are) subject to the assignment of additional duties which need not be described because for the purpose of this proceeding, there is no material distinction between those in the four categories who held such "senior" titles and those who did not .9 On April 13, 1954, the Respondents discontinued the use of the .titles telegraph. repeaterman, testboardman, and. toll central office repairman, 'substituting for these classifications the title of transmissionman, a classification which existed prior to the substitution. The change in job titles effected no change in the duties of the employees involved. As will become evident below, the dis- continuance of the three job titles, and the assignment of the title of transmission- man to the employees affected, have no ,material effect upon any issue in,this proceeding., , Toll maintenance employees work on telephone equipment classified by the Re- spondents as "toll" (although the evidence, indicates, .as will appear, that some employees classified as toll maintenance, to an extent not specified in the record, in an unspecified number of exchanges, do combination work on both " toll" and "exchange" `equipment)'. As the Board has in effect found in previous decisions involving the Company's operations, the, duties, of toll' maintenance employees con• gist ,primarily of the maintenance, repair, and testing, of equipment used "for long distance transmission", (58 NLRB 1042,'1046 and,85 NLRB 713, 720).10 More spe- ^' s The Board bas d'efined''the term "toll maintenance employees" l'n a number of decisions which need not be cited at this point inasmuch as extended reference will be made to them below. ' Tile definitions, as will appear, are based on the Respondents' long-standing per- sonnel classification practices.' 'It may also be noted that PT&T uses the term "toll main- tenance employees" in its operations. See, for example, General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 21` and 29. , ' 0It was stipulated at the hearing that employees in classifications listed in an expired contract (General Counsel's Exhibit 'No. 6) between the Respondents and ORTT may be referred to' as "toll-titled employees." The contract covers telegraph repeatermen, test- boardmen, transmissionmen, and toll central office repairmen (as well as some other classi- fications which need not be mentioned at this point). 7It was'stipulated at the hearing that employees in classifications listed in certain agree- ments between the 'Respondents and CWA may be termed exchange-titled employees. Among"the classifications listed are deskman; switchman, frameman, and central office repairman. Later reference will be made to employees in these classifications as "ex- change-titled." , e The evidence suggests , (see, Respondents', Exhibits Nos. 29-31, 33-34) that In Oregon an unspecified number of individuals described In the exhibits as toll central office repair- men are exchange-titled. The record does,not establish why the Board' s unit determina- tion for Oregon, unlike its previous unit definitions for the other areas, includes the phrase "toll central office repairmen principally engaged In work on toll terminal equipment." In any event, the evidence fairly justifies the conclusion that when the Respondents re- ferred to toll maintenance employees prior to April 13, 1954, they meant, in the main, the four clasifications mentioned above. See, for example, General Counsel' s Exhibit No. 29. e The last contract (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6) between the Respondents and ,ORTT, in listing the covered toll maintenance classifications,,did not distinguish between employees with "senior" titles and those who did not have them, although the contract contains provisions dealing with the assignment of additional duties to employees with "senior" titles. , 10 Some of the equipment upon which toll maintenance employees work ,is used for local communication or transmission (that Is, within a community or Its vicinity) as in' radio- telephone service or the transmission of broadcasts, from an exchange or office 'to' an 'in- 492 DE(;ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cifically, they "set up telegraph and teletypewriter circuits, test and adjust re- peater equipment, and deal with customers who purchase teletypewriter and tele- graph service from the Employer (PT&T). Some of these employees may use the Morse telegraph code for communication between toll offices. Their work requires communication with local exchange forces as well as with telephone em- ployees in other areas and outside the Employer's territorial boundaries. They make transmission tests on all long-distance lines and equipment, locate and clear trouble on long-distance lines, dispatch exchange outside maintenance and construc- tion forces to clear such trouble, and establish long-distance circuits as demand arises. They test and monitor radio program circuits and equipment. Toll main- tenance employees operate mobile radio equipment, make necessary patches or switches at the line and amplifier panels, and perform routine maintenance work on toll office equipment. They keep records associated with their work" (85 NLRB 713, 720).11 In addition to the foregoing functions described by the Board in a decision relating to the Oregon area, toll maintenance employees maintain, repair, and test equipment used in mobile radio-telephone service; test and monitor circuits and equipment used for television transmission; and locate and eliminate trouble on such television circuits and equipment. Exchange-titled classifications of employees who, like toll maintenance personnel, perform their work in exchanges or offices, include switchmen, deskmen, frame- men, and central office repairmen 12 Employees in these classifications maintain, repair, and test telephone equipment classified as "exchange" (although some, as the record suggests, to an extent not specified by the evidence, and in an unspecified number of exchanges or offices, perform some work on equipment coded as "toll"). The evidence does not depict the work of these employees as clearly as it does the functions of toll maintenance personnel.13 The General Counsel produced, as witnesses, a number of toll maintenance employees who described their functions. Neither the Respondents nor any other party produced any exchange-titled employees to testify to their duties. In any event, viewing the Respondent's system as a whole, it is a fair inference from the record that in most of the territory served by the Respondents, with respect to telephone service, employees classified as switchmen, deskmen, framemen, and central office repairmen are engaged primarily in main- taining, repairing, and testing equipment used for local , as distinguished from long- distance, service,14 although in various localities some equipment components (such stallation operated by a broadcasting company. That does not alter my conclusion, based upon the whole record, that, as the Board has found, toll maintenance employees work primarily on equipment "used for long distance transmission." 11 See, also, 58 NLRB 1042, 1046 and 107 NLRB 1615, footnote 3, where the Board has described some of the functions of toll maintenance employees. 19 The record in one respect or another mentions other exchange-titled classifications of employees, some of whom such as PBX installers and PBX repairmen do not perform their work on premises of the Respondents Later reference will be made to at least some of the functions of PBX installers and repairmen, Specific mention of switchmen desk- men, framemen, and central office repairmen, is made here, among other reasons, because the Board specifically mentioned these classifications (together with powermen) in prior representation proceedings, to be described later, in which it reached the conclusion that employees in toll maintenance job categories may be appropriately separated for bargain-' ing purposes from switchmen, deskmen, framemen, central office repairmen, and other exchange-titled or "central office" employees. In the light of the issues here, and of the findings and conclusions made below, it would serve no useful purpose to touch on any exchange-titled classifications other than those specifically mentioned above 19 In my judgment, a number of exhibits (Respondents' Exhibits Nos. 29 and 34) pur- porting to list work operations of various exchange-titled classifications ( as well as of toll maintenance employees) do not sum up to a concrete portrait of the day-to-day func- tions of any exchange-titled employees. A number of infirmities in the exhibits are pointed out in a later footnote, but it may be noted here that the terms "frequently" and "occa- sionally," used in the exhibits to picture the relative frequency of work operations, are employed in arbitrary fashion varying in meaning from exhibit to exhibit. It is impos- sible to draw any concrete quantitative conclusions from the exhibits as to the time actu-' ally spent by exchange-titled employees in any given operation as compared with any other ascribed to them. 14 The Board has in two previous decisions found that "'exchange' equipment indicates equipment for local, as distinct from 'long distance' calls" (58 NLRB 1042, 1046, foot- note 6 and 85 NLRB 713, 720, footnote 23). In a recent decision involving the Respond- ents' operations, the Board in effect equated "exchange" with "local" telephone equipment 'in its reference to "deskmen, switchmen, framemen, central office repairmen and power- THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 493 as crossbar tandem switching systems), serviced by exchange-titled personnel (un- specified in number in the record), are used in the rendition of both "toll" and "exchange" service. (However, for reasons that will appear, the resolution of the basic issue here, namely, whether the Respondents are obligated to bargain on the basis of the units and certifications described in the complaint, does not hinge on the inference drawn above.) Some employees (the record does not specify the number), perform combina- tion work on both "toll" and "exchange" equipment. The Respondents' practice of classifying these employees, whether as toll maintenance or exchange-titled, has been described in a number of decisions by the Board, and the classification pro- cedure will appear below in connection with a description of the decisions. In the main, the channels of supervision over the work of toll maintenance employees are different from those over the functions of exchange-titled employees.15 (Direction of the work of toll maintenance employees is described as "toll super- vision" in the record; and that of the work of exchange-titled employees is termed "exchange supervision.") There are variations among the tour administrative areas in the organization of toll supervision, but a description of such supervision in the Southern California area exemplifies, in a substantial sense, the pattern of separa- tion of the two types of supervision. That area has a toll division 16 which is directed by a supervisor who reports to the area general plant manager and bears the title division plant manager (toll). Subordinate to him are supervisors bearing the title division toll maintenance superintendent. Supervisory personnel with the title of supervising toll wire chief report to the division toll maintenance super- intendents. So-called first level supervisors respectively bearing the titles of chief ,equipmentman, repeater chief, and chief testboardman report to the supervising toll wire chiefs. The first level supervisors exercise immediate supervision over toll maintenance employees. It may be noted, however, that some exchange-titled employees (including switchmen) also report to the first level supervisors. Similarly, in the Northern California-Nevada and Oregon areas, some exchange-titled employees are under toll supervision, and the Board noted in 1949 that at that time, of approxi- mately 129 toll maintenance employees in the Oregon area, 32 reported "to local exchange supervision," and that the remainder were "responsible to the district toll maintenance superintendent." (85 NLRB 713, 721, footnote 27.) The record does not establish, for the system as a whole, how many exchange-titled employees work under toll supervision, nor how many toll maintenance employees function under exchange supervision, nor the extent to which the two types of supervisory authority may overlap in given situations, but taking the evidence as a whole, it indicates that the channels of supervisory authority for the great majority of toll maintenance employees are functionally distinct from those maintained for most of the exchange-titled employees." During much of the time since 1919, employees in toll maintenance classifications have had separate union representation, although that pattern has not had system- wide consistency and uniformity throughout the period. In 1919, a "toll craft organ- ization" (58 NLRB 1042, 1047) named Association of Pacific Telephone and Tele- graph Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, commonly called the Repeatermen's As- sociation, was formed, and toll maintenance employees throughout PT&T's system joined the organization. Thereafter, PT&T and the Repeatermen's Association en- men, who test, maintain and repair 'exchange' (or local) equipment. . . ." (107 NLRB 1615. ) It may be noted, however, that in the same decision the Board observed that cer- tain types of equipment (which it named) "serve to obliterate the earlier 'toll' and 'ex- change' distinctions by permitting 'exchange' calls over longer distances and by perform- ing dual 'toll' and 'exchange' functions, frequently automatically" (ibid, footnote 12). 11 The Board has noted in two representation cases dealing with the Washington-Idaho and Oregon areas , respectively, that "some employees, especially those assigned to locali- ties where the toll and central office work is light, do combination work on both toll and central office facilities," with the result that there is "some overlapping of supervisory jurisdiction over toll and central office maintenance employees" (58 NLRB 1042, 1046 and footnote 9 ; 85 NLRB 713, 721 and footnote 26). iC The Northern California-Nevada area plant department similarly has a departmental section known as the toll division ; the Oregon and Washington-Idaho areas do not ap- pear to have a separate section bearing that title, although both areas substantially sepa- rate "toll" from "exchange" supervision. 1 Reference may be made to General Counsel's Exhibit No. 42 for a portrayal of the "functional line organization" of toll supervision in the Southern California area, de- scribed above, and in the other areas As already indicated, such organization varies among the four areas. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tered into.a series of collective-bargaining agreements on a systemwide basis covering members of the'uiiiori. The first' contract was concluded in 1919 and the last in- 1930. The descriptions in the several contracts of the' categories of employees covered do not follow a uniform pattern, but it may be noted that the terms "repeatermen" and testboardmen"'to'describe categories of employees covered by the contracts appear in all the agreements in evidence. Contracts executed in 1919 (as a result of amend- ment in 1921), 1923, 1924, and in 1926, respectively, were applicable only to those employees in the included classifications "who are telegraphers competent to read the leased wires.. The last' agreement contained no such requirement and was made' applicable' to employees in a number of specified classifications "and others -whose'major duties are the maintenance and operation of toll equipment" (p. 17, Gen- eral Counsel's Exhibit No. 41).18 The division of PT&T's operations into four administrative areas took place in 1930 or 1931. As the Board has. found: "The Repeatermen's Association as a system- wide organization consequently disbanded, and bargaining for the Company's em- ployees; including'toll employees, thereafter continued in units corresponding;to the respective administrative areas of the Company's operations" (58 NLRB 1042, 1047). 'It is unnecessary to dwell on the course of collective bargaining in the'various areas between 1931 and 1939.' The history for that period has been treated in varying de- gree in a number of decisions by the Board,19 and need not be detailed here. Suffice it to say that in collective bargaining between PT&T and one labor group or another between 1931 and 1939, depending on the period and area involved, toll maintenance employees were at times treated as a separate unit for collective-bargaining purposes and at others were included, with exchange-titled employees, in larger units. ' ORTT was organized as an unaffiliated union in 1939, and in that year filed a representation petition with the Board, contending in the proceeding that followed that a systemwide unit of toll maintenance employees was appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. About 2 years earlier, PT&T had, by contract, recognized another union as the exclusive' bargaining representative of a unit of all employees, 'including'toll maintenance employees, in the Oregon area; and had accorded similar contractual recognition to a third union as the representative of a unit consisting of all plant department employees, including toll maintenance employees in the Wash- ington-Idaho area. Collective-bargaining agreements with the two unions were in effect at the time of the representation proceeding. In its decision, dated' April 27, 1940, the Board defined the term "toll maintenance employees" as meaning "persons who are classified (by PT&T and its subsidiaries) as telegraph'"repeatermen, toll' testboardmen, transmissionmen, toll central office re- pairmen, radiomen,20 senior telegraph repeatermen, senior toll testboardmen; senior transmissionmen, senior toll central office repairmen, and senior radiomen." The Board also found that it was the practice of PT&T and its subsidiaries to "classify employees in these groups according to whether or not the employees spend at least 51 per cent of their time in such work." The Board denied the request of ORTT for a systemwide unit of toll maintenance employees, holding (for differing reasons advanced by the Board members) that "the toll maintenance employees in the Oregon and Washington-Idaho areas should not be separated from the respective industrial units" at that time established in' those areas. The Board found, however, that toll maintenance employees in the_ Northern California and the Southern California areas "together constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining." ' The bases for this finding were the absence of any opposition from any of the parties to the proceeding to such a unit,21 the sepa- rate past bargaining history of toll maintenance employees in the Northern California- Nevada and Southern California areas, and the absence of any factor in the record militating against the establishment of a unit consisting of toll maintenance employees The bargaining and organizational history outlined above is based upon a composite - Is of evidence in this proceeding 'and of the Board's decision, of which I have taken judicial notice, in Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 58 NLRB 1042. 19 23 NLRB 280; 58'NLRB 1042; and 85 NLRB 713. ' The Board noted that transmissionmen performed the work of radiomen, and that no individuals bearing the title of radioman were employed' by PT&T and its subsidiaries. There is no evidence'that the classification of radioman (or senior radioman) is in use at the present time. One of the parties was another petitioning union, not previously mentioned, which sought a unit of plant department employees, excluding toll maintenance employees, in the Southern'California area. ' THE PACIFIC, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 495. in those, areas 22.•. Upon undisputed -evidence that ORTT represented a majority of the' employees in the unit, the Board in its decision certified that organization as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the unit 23. In 1942, ORTT became an affiliated organization- and changed its, name to Locals 101, American Communications Association 24 (also referred to below as,ORTT- ACA). In 1944, ORTT-ACA filed a representation petition with the Board, seeking establishment of a unit consisting of toll maintenance employees (consisting substan- tially of the same toll maintenance classifications described in the 1940 decision) and a group of PBX teletypewriter repairmen (then approximately 10 in number) who worked under toll supervision 25 As the. Board subsequently found concerning the latter group: "PBX repairmen who spend their time on, the repair and maintenance, of teletypewriters perform their work on the premises of the subscriber or on the Company's property, but do not work in central office spaces where toll maintenance employees service toll equipment. They test teletypewriters through the testboard- men in the toll center, just as do linemen and cablemen 26 who work on outside toll plant equipment. Employees who maintain the circuit over which teletypewriter messages are sent, are toll employees who -monitor the equipment in the toll office to see that the circuit is conditioned for the service". (58 NLRB 1042, 1051). The Company (and a labor organization which need,not be identified here) opposed the petition, contending, among, other grounds, that toll maintenance employees should not be separated for bargaining purposes from an existing plant department unit which included switchmen, deskmen, frameme'n, central, office repairmen,, and, powermen.27 The Board in its decision, dated'October 16, 1944, stated that it would consider as toll maintenance employees only those classified by the Company as such, noting, in that regard- "Some employees, especially those assigned to localities where the, toll and central office work is light, are combination men and work on both toll and central office facilities. The practice of the,Company is to classify its employees as 'toll' or 'central office' employees, depending upon the type of equipment on which each craftsman regularly spends-51 percent or more of his time." The Board held that the 1940 decision, and a plantwide bargaining, history in the Washington-Idaho area between 1937 and 1944, were not decisive of the question whether employees in the proposed unit should be severed from the existing plantwide unit. In reaching that conclusion, noting a showing, in contrast to the earlier proceeding, of a "sub- stantial interest" by toll maintenance employees in the area in a separate craft unit, the Board, among other things, found (1) that "toll maintenance employees in the area are clearly identifiable as a specially skilled group of craftsmen"; (2) that throughout the period of bargaining since 1937, toll maintenance employees, although part of a plantwide bargaining unit; had "preserved craft identity" as members of separate locals of the union recognized since 1937 by PT&T in the Washington-Idaho area; (3) that toll maintenance employees in the area' had been part of a separate systemwide craft bargaining unit (represented by the Repeatermen's Association) from 1919 until 1931; and (4) that between.the latter year and 1937, such employees had constituted a separate craft unit for the purpose of bargaining with P.T&T. For these reasons, among others, the Board' held that, although the existing plantwide unit was appropriate, "separate bargaining" by toll maintenance employees would also be proper. The Board thereupon ordered a self-determination election among employees in the proposed unit, stating that selection by these employees of ORTT- ei The reasons were thus summarized by the Board in a later decision reported in 107. NLRB 1615 , 23 Findings concerning the representation, proceeding described above are based on the' Board's decision in The Pacific' Telephone and Telegraph Company, 23 NLRB 280. I have taken judicial notice of the decision for the purpose of making such findings. 24 The -record contains some variants of this name. 'The name' used above is the one appearing in the Board's findings at 58 NLRB 1042, 1043. ' ' Olin its 1940 decision, the Board had excluded PBX 'teletypewriter repairmen from the' unit found to be appropriate, although they worked under toll supervision and had, "at times been classified for collective-bargaining purposes as toll maintenance employees. In excluding them, the Board noted that no claim was advanced-that the exclusion would be inappropriate ; and that they were "functionally distinct from the- toll maintenance group" because "they are not required to be familiar with Morse code as, generally, are toll maintenance, employees, and . . : unlike,toll'maintenance men, they generally work outside the toll office" (23 NLRB 280, 284, footnote 6). o^'Linemen and cablemen are exchange-titled'employees. w The Board noted in its decision that' "powermen generally maintain equipment to fur- nish power for the operation of both toll and central ' office equipment" ( 58 NLRB 1042, 1046, footnote 5). 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ACA as their bargaining representative would signify a desire by them "to bargain on a craft basis" through that union. The Board deferred the definition of a unit pending the outcome of the election 28 The election resulted in selection of ORTT-ACA as bargaining representative by a majority of those eligible to vote. On November 23, 1944, the Board issued its "Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives," finding that "all toll maintenance employees in the Washington-Idaho area, including PBX teletypewriter repairmen under toll supervision, but excluding all supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining"; and certifying ORTT-ACA as the bargaining representative of such employees. As the Board noted in a later decision (107 NLRB 1615), the PBX teletypewriter re- pairmen were included as a "fringe group, on the basis of their common supervision" (with toll maintenance employees). In 1948, ORTT-ACA transferred its affiliation and changed its name to Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, T. W. O. C.-CIO (also referred to below as ORTT-TWOC).29 During the following year, the organization filed a representation petition seeking certification as the bargaining representative of toll maintenance em- ployees and PBX "repairmen (teletype)" employed in the Oregon area. (Toll main- tenance employees were in effect defined in the Board's decision on the petition as consisting of telegraph repeatermen, testboardmen, transmissionmen, radiomen, and toll central office repairmen principally engaged in work on toll terminal equipment.) In the proceeding which followed, PT&T and two labor organizations (which need' not be identified here) urged, among other contentions, that "the skills and work- ing conditions of the employees sought by [ORTT-TWOC] are not sufficiently dis- tinct to justify a separate bargaining unit for these employees." The proceeding resulted in a decision, dated August 17, 1949, directing a self- determination election among the employees in the unit sought by ORTT-TWOC. As in the 1944 decision, the Board considered to be toll maintenance employees- those whom PT&T classified as such, noting, as in the previous case, the performance' by "some employees" of "combination work on both toll and central office facilities,", and that "the practice of (PT&T) is to classify its employees as 'toll' or `central office' employees, depending upon the type of equipment on which each craftsman, regularly spends 51 per cent or more of his time." It is unnecessary to describe in detail the considerations upon which the Board based the direction of the election. Although the respective bargaining histories of the Oregon and Washington-Idaho areas took somewhat different courses after 1937, the reasons for directing the elec- tion with respect to Oregon bore a basic resemblance to those underlying the decision, affecting the Washington-Idaho area. Specifically, it should be noted that the Board termed the Oregon toll maintenance employees "a recognized craft group," and that it held, as in the earlier decision, that "the job categories under toll and central office employees (including switchmen, deskmen, framemen, and central office repairmen) indicate respectively different craft skills." Although the Board found that the Oregon PBX teletypewriter repairmen, unlike those in the Washington-Idaho area, were not under toll supervision, it included them, as in the earlier decision, in the voting group because they had been included between 1937 and 1947 in collective- bargaining agreements covering toll maintenance employees 30 In the election, a majority of the employees in the unit sought by ORTT-TWOC designated that organization as their bargaining representative. Accordingly, on September 29, 1949, the Board issued a decision entitled "Second Corrected Supple- mental Decision and Certification of-Representatives," finding to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining a unit consisting of "all toll maintenance em- ployees in the Employer's [PT&T's] Oregon area, including transmissionmen, toll cen- tral office repairmen principally engaged in work on toll terminal equipment, telegraph repeatermen, toll testboardmen, and PBX repairmen (teletype), but excluding guards, professional and confidential employees, and supervisors." At one point or another 23 The description of the 1944 proceeding is based on the Board's decision in The Pa- cific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 58 NLRB 1042. That decision has been noticed judicially for the purpose,of the findings made 29 Leslie Monahan, president of the Charging Party, gave an abbreviated version of the changed name in his testimony. The correct name is set forth in the Board's findings in 85 NLRB 713. 30 The description of the representation proceeding affecting the Oregon area is based on the Board's decision, of which I have taken judicial notice, in The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, 85 NLRB 713. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 497 in 1949 (prior to the unit finding quoted above), ORTT-TWOC discontinued its affiliation and resumed the name Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen. The "Second Corrected Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives" certi- fied ORTT as the bargaining representative of the employees in the unit. B. Collective bargaining between the Respondents and ORTT After the 1940 certification, the Respondents and ORTT maintained bargaining and contractual relations for approximately 13 years, initially bargaining with re- spect to toll maintenance employees in the Northern California-Nevada and Southern California areas, but extending the scope of the bargaining and contractual relations to the employees in the other two units as the respective certifications affecting them were issued. In all, some 25 agreements were signed, a substantial number of these consisting variously of extensions or modifications of, or supplements to, prior con- tracts.31 Putting aside the terms of a subsequent extension, the last agreement, cover- ing the employees in all three units, was executed on June 20, 1952. It specified March 15, 1953, as the terminal date. On December 29, 1952, ORTT requested the Respondents, in writing, to begin negotiations for a new contract on February 2, 1953. The Respondents agreed to the request. Negotiations were begun at a meeting held on February 2, 1953, and were continued on various dates thereafter. On March 25, 1953, during the course of negotiations, the Respondents and ORTT entered into a memorandum of agree- ment extending the contract of June 20, 1952 (with some modifications that need not be described), until May 14, 1953, and providing that the agreement so extended, was to continue thereafter until terminated by 5 days' notice from either party to the other. Negotiations for a new agreement were reopened on April 3, 1953, at the request of ORTT, and continued on various dates thereafter. As of the close of a meeting held on May 14, 1953, the parties were in disagreement on a number. of issues, including the question of wages, each side having made wage proposals. On May 18, 1954, ORTT filed a representation petition with the Board, seeking a consolidation of the three units into a single systemwide unit, and the inclusion (as the record suggests) of some additional categories of employees numbering some 200 or 300 persons who, the record indicates, were then represented by CWA. The petition was docketed as Case No. 20-RC-2251. The Respondents and ORTT met again on May 20, 1953, at the request of the- former. At the meeting, Robert J. Williams, then PT&T's labor relations manager for the Washington-Idaho area and now holding the same position in the Oregon area, told the Union's representatives that he had arranged the meeting with the hope that the parties could reach agreement, but that he had since learned of the filing of the petition, and that it "posed a problem." Williams requested a 48-hour recess- to consider "the new developments," and ORTT's representatives agreed. The parties met again on May 22, 1953. Williams, who had been the Respondents' principal spokesman during the negotiations, told ORTT's representatives that "nego- tiations had been conducted on the premise that both parties were satisfied with the bargaining units as then constituted"; that PT&T had "evidently . . . been made a party to a jurisdictional dispute"; and that the Respondents were "suspending negotia- tions until the issue was settled, either by the union withdrawing the petition before the Board, or until the Board had decided the issue." After some discussion, the meeting ended. In a letter dated May 23, 1953, addressed to Leslie Monahan, president of ORTT, Williams reiterated the reasons for suspending negotiations , asserting, also, that there was no basis for further bargaining "if any party to the proceedings insists on broad- ening the issues in such a manner as to affect large numbers of people or to change substantially the structure of the present bargaining units." The letter expressed the view that "this jurisdictional dispute between ORTT and CWA . . . should not be permitted to obstruct bargaining ," and proposed the resumption of bargaining nego- tiations, providing that ORTT and CWA agreed with the Respondents that the com- . >n For convenience of reference, I have treated ORTT as a signatory to all 25 agree- ments. Actually, the Union did not use the name ORTT in all of the contracts because, as found above, the organization went under different names in given periods The point to bear in mind is that the labor organization which signed all the agreements was essen- tially the same union, irrespective of the name it bore in any given period. Similarly not affecting the issues, but in the interests of accuracy, it may be noted that Nevada Bell Telephone was not a party to two of the agreements, both of brief duration, one of which (and perhaps the other, as well) briefly extended a prior agreement until a new contract was signed. 498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- ' position of the bargaining units , respectively represented by ORTT and CWA, be maintained, "as'presently constituted , . . . except to the extent that they maybe modified by resolving the single issue as to whether some 200 or 300 men in 'the Plant Departments of the Company should be represented •by ORTT or by CWA...." The evidence does not establish what reply , if any, Monahan made, but, in any case, negotiations were not resumed . , , " • ' On May 29, 1953 , the Respondents gave ORTT the required 5 days' notice of can- cellation of the existing contract, stating, also, that "any and all' other agreements or understandings between the parties, whether orator written ,' are 'heredy cancelled." Another letter, bearing the same date, from the Respondents ' to'ORTT notified.th'e Union that "for the time being,"-the provisions of the 'confract of June 20,11952,'as amended and extended , would be continued, with certain exceptions outlined in- the letter. On September'4, 1954, ORTT, by letter, requested the Respondents to resume negO- tiations and to make arrangements with the Union for a meeting . The Respondents replied by letter dated' September 16,1954, pointing out, in substance; that the Board had not yet decided the issues raised by ORTT's petition ' (upon which a hearing had been held), and', in effect, declining to resume negotiations because such a resumption, in the Respondents' view, would be prejudicial to the position they had taken in the representation proceeding. , (The' General Counsel does not, base his claim that the Respondents refused to bargain upon this letter.) C. The refusals 'lo bargain The Board handed down its decision in the representation proceeding on March 17, 1954, finding, in sum, that "the combined unit sought by the Petitioner is not an appropriate unit . at this time," and dismissing the petition (The Pacific Tele- phone and Telegraph Company, 107 NLRB 1615). . i On March 30, 1954, Monahan wrote to Glen Ireland , vice president of PT&T; noting that - the Board had disposed of the proceeding, and requesting that the last contract, (that of March 25, 1953 ) be reinstated , "with, current wage schedules,' 1for a 3-month period, and requesting a meeting "if there is any doubt as' to the advis- ability of this program." Ireland replied - by letter dated April 12, 1954, declining the request for reinstatement of the last contract , and asserting, among other things, that in its decision of March 17, 1954, the Board "found that today there is no sub- stantial 'craft distinction between toll titled and exchange titled employees ," and that "the findings underlying the Board's decision' were such as to make any separate toll maintenance unit . . . inappropriate for bargaining purposes." 1• •1, On behalf of his Union , Monahan wired Ireland on March 29, 1954,' requesting that the Respondents bargain with the labor organization , and reiterated the request in a letter dated April 30,, 1954.32 Ireland replied by letter dated May 3, 1954; acknowledging receipt of Monahan's' wire and letter, and in effect, reaffirming the Respondents' position as outlined in its letter of April 12, 1954. Monahan sent Ire= land another telegram on May 19 , 1954, expressing the view that PT&T had mis- interpreted the Board's decision, and 'requesting that PT&T bargain . with ORTT: Monahan ' received .no response'to this , telegram., ,u D. Thee issue whether the three bargaining units are-appropriate - nr The Respondents do not question that the three units were appropriate when they were defined, but challenge their- current propriety .33 In support of their position; m Monahan, sent . the telegram and letter as president of ORTT-IBEW. Although, the matter will be taken up below, it may be noted here that ORTT, became an affiliated or- ganization , and changed its name again on or about February 26, 1954 ; and that for rea- sons that will ,appear, the change of name and affiliation does , not significantly affect what- ever, obligation to, bargain the certifications imposed upon , the Respondents,. 8'The question ' of altering or discarding a unit 'determination previously made by the Board normally arises in a representation proceeding . The General Counsel's brief with- out citing authority , makes the point that the Respondents are "obligated to observe the three-unit determinations "until they are reversed by the Board," presumably meaning that it Is the Respondents ' duty to continue to recognize the units as appropriate until the Board determines the contrary. ' Implicit bi"the General Counsel's position is the view that such a pronouncement should come , if at all, in ' a representation case and not in an unfair labor practice, proceeding. The Respondents, citing Chalet, Inc.`, 107 NLRB 109; and Endicott-Johnson Corporation, 108 NLRB 88, contend that they may properly raise the issue of the propriety of the units in a 'proceeding such as this . The cases cited by THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 499 the Respondents rely'heavily upon the.fBoard's decision of March 17,1954, in Case No. 20-RC-2251, reported as The, Pacific Telephone.and Telegraph Company, 107 NLRB 1615. A substantial portion of the evidence in that case was incorporated, by stipulation of the parties, into the record of the instant proceeding., Because the Re- spondents view the Board's findings as amounting, in sum, to a holding that the three units are no longer appropriate, and since much of the evidence in the representation case is part of the record in the instant-proceeding, one must look both at the issues raised by ORTT's petition and at the Board's decision thereon. In the representation proceeding, in which the, Respondents and CWA also par- ticipated as, parties, ORTT, sought a consolidation of the three units into a single systemwide unit to include "all toll central office repairmen, toll testboardmen, trans- missionmen, telegraph repeatermen, radiomen, switchmen, central office repairmen, PBX repairmen, and PBX installers who spend 51 per cent or more of their time installing, maintaining and repairing all telephone equipment on which the work done is coded as toll work in accordance with the (Respondents') coding procedure; all radio equipment; all television equipment; and all telegraph and teletype equipment" (ibid., footnote 1).34 The following extensive excerpt from the Board's decision (omitting footnote ref- erences, some of which will be summarized at other points) reflects the major reasons, at least, for the conclusion' reached there: Frequent changes in work assignments of telephone maintenance employees from time to time necessitated continual changes' in the classifications' of toll maintenance and central office employees. The broadening of the Employer's operations, the extent of organization by the union representatives involved, their jurisdictional agreements on category inclusions and exclusions, and other factors unrelated to the character of the units, as well as the earlier Board decisions, shaped the present -pattern of collective bargaining for the Employer's toll main- tenance employees. The record is clear that this present pattern satisfied none of the parties to this proceeding. The frequent reclassification of employees re- quired by,the Employer's service needs over a number of years, with attendant changes in the size of the units of toll maintenance employees in the different service areas,,has produced much bargaining strife, provoked the filing of many + grievances, and the making of many job classification studies, and caused con- siderable expense and inconvenience to the contracting parties...'. Within the past, 10 years, steadily accelerated changes in the technology of the Employer's communications and' maintenance equipment; integrated "toll" and "exchange" developments in its telephone service to meet the rapid postwar increase of population on the West Coast; the introduction of new communica- tions -services with integrated dual "toll" and "exchange" components; the in- crease in the number and complexity of Federal and State regulations; and the integration of "toll" and "exchange" functions performed, by the Employer's telephone equipment operating and maintenance employees have produced a situation , where today the words "toll" and "exchange" are 'no longer simple geographical definitions, but, on the contrary, complex geographical, economic, and legal concepts, easier to 'exemplify than to define, and developed for pur- poses unconnected with collective bargaining. For example,' the Employer, purely as an accounting device, today codes its equipment as "toll" or "exchange," for regulatory purposes, in accordance with the following highly variable factors: its use, its situs, its type, and its current association with other equipment. Periodic recording of equipment is necessary to meet the continual factor varia- tions. Not only do the factors themselves have little or nothing to' do with the determination of the outlines of a bargaining' unit, but their continual varia- tions would, as the Petitioner admits, require periodic redeterminations of the unit at intervals of approximately 90 days. The same would be true'with the Respondents are inapposite, for the units challenged there by the respective employers had not been found to be appropriate by the Board. In any event, in view of the findings and conclusions made below, I deem it unnecessary to decide the question raised by the General Counsel, although one,may note, with interest: Mr. 'Justice Fiankfurter' s recent observation in a different factual situation that "if an employer has doubts about bis'duty to continue bargaining (with a certified union), it is his responsibility to petition the Board for relief, while continuing to bargain in good faith at least until the Board has given some indication-that his claim has merit." Ray Brooks v. N. L: R. B.,'348 U. S.'96. 84 The proposed unit initially',described in ORTT's petition (General Counsel's Exhibit No: 11) 'was' couched, in substantially different terms. It is evident that the petition waq amended at one point or another during the course of the proceeding. 500 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD respect to the more inclusive unit which the Petitioner seeks. The obvious re- sult would be to continue the very sort of unit indefiniteness, indefinability, and variability which the Employer and the Petitioner profess to seek to avoid, to say nothing of the undue burdens of hardship upon both parties in their efforts to arrive at specific unit determinations, and the ultimate impact of such burdens upon the employees concerned. Moreover, it now clearly appears that, however distinctive the skills of "toll maintenance" and "central office" employees may have been in early days of less developed operations, the present worth of the Employer's skilled telephone maintenance employees lies in their ability to handle highly complicated, technical, and integrated circuits and equipment, however used, rather than in any special "toll" or "exchange" aptitudes, if any, that they may happen to possess. In footnotes to its decision, the Board pointed out that "equipment which includes automatic switching devices, vacuum tube repeaters and carrier equipment, and tandem switching systems serve to obliterate the earlier `toll' and `exchange' dis- tinctions by permitting `exchange' calls over longer distances and by performing dual `toll' and `exchange' functions, frequently automatically" (ibid., footnote 12); and that "'message unit' and `extended area' service in populous centers permit `exchange' service between exchange centers and over distances formerly toll" (ibid., footnote 13). As the Board indicated, also in a footnote reference, what it meant by "the introduction of new communication services" is that, although radio was once "a long-distance service," there is now a "kindred service known as radio-telephone, started in 1946 or 1947, by means of which the Employer, with over 1,800 radio- telephone units, provides service within purely 'local' large cities on the West Coast"; and that "television has developed along similar lines" (ibid., footnote 14). In another footnote, the Board exemplified its finding concerning "integra- tion of 'toll' and 'exchange' functions" by pointing out that "in the field of radio- telephone, for example, 'central office' employees, represented by (CWA), work on the mobile units, while both 'central office' employees, represented by (CWA), and 'toll maintenance' employees, represented by (ORTT), work on the stationary transmitters and receivers" (ibid., footnote 16). On May 14, 1954, the Board issued a "Supplemental Decision," stating in part: "The Board wishes to make it clear that by dismissing the Petitioner's petition it did not by this action intend to pass upon the validity of the existing certifications, previously issued by the Board to the Petitioner as collective-bargaining repre- sentative in the three existing separate units of toll maintenance employees, or ad- judicated any of the rights and obligations that flow therefrom" (The Pacific Tele- phone and Telegraph Company, et al., 108 NLRB 862). In refusing to bargain on April 12, 1954, as Ireland expressed it in his letter to Monahan of that date, the Respondents took the position that "the findings under- lying the Board's decision (of March 17, 1954) were such as to make any separate toll maintenance unit . . . inappropriate for bargaining purposes."_ The Respond- ents assert essentially the same position here. Thus, seeking support in the decision, they contend that the existing units have "indefiniteness, indefinability and vari- ability," thereby justifying the refusals to bargain. It is well to bear in mind that the Board neither said that the three units have "indefiniteness, indefinability and variability" (but used the quoted words in terms of what the parties asserted they were seeking "to avoid") nor held that the units are inappropriate.35 But if the Respondents entertained any doubt about the matter at any time (and I have no such doubt), it should have been dispelled by the "Supplemental Decision" of May 14, 1954. In any event, with respect to the Respondents' position, there is, to be sure, a resemblance between the unit proposal rejected by the Board and the three units, for as the Board noted in the 1944 and 1949 decisions, PT&T has followed the practice of classifying employees as "toll" or "exchange" depending "upon the type of equipment on which each craftsman regularly spends 51 per cent of his time." [Emphasis supplied.] However, the resemblance is by no means decisive, for quite apart from some difference in definitional content between the existing units and the rejected proposal, as will become evident below, the lines of inquiry required for this proceeding are materially different from those appropriate to the represen- tation case. as On that score, one may note that in his concurring opinion in Brown v The Paci/io Telephone and Telegraph Company, 218 F. 2d 542 (C. A 9), Judge Pope said : "I think that a fair reading of the March 17 order (the Board' s decision of March 17, 1954) does not support the view that the Board was withdrawing its certification of the separate ORTT units." THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 501 As bearing on the claim that they are justified in refusing to bargain on the basis of the three units, the Respondents cite decisions by the Board to the effect that the doctrine-of res adjudicata does not apply to the Board's unit determinations 36 Put- ting aside the fact that the cases in which the inapplicability of the doctrine was noted were representation, and not unfair labor practice, proceedings, even if one assumes that the doctrine is inapplicable here, that does not confer a license to explore all questions that might be germane to a representation proceeding. For example, the hypothetically or possibly varying effects, of the coding procedure and technological developments upon "the outlines of a bargaining unit" are quite im- material here. We are not concerned, as the Board apparently was in considering the desirability of an altered and expanded unit basis for bargaining, with the effect that any "periodic recording" of equipment "would" have upon the "outlines of a bargaining unit." (in that regard, as will be pointed out more specifically later, the evidence does not establish that what the Board termed the "periodic recording of equipment" has resulted in any significant number of reclassifications, or that, in turn, at least during the decade of "changes in . . . technology," reclassifications have produced any appreciable expansion or contraction in the size of the units.) The fact of the matter is that notwithstanding the resemblance between the rejected unit proposal and the three existing units, the latter, irrespective of their respective .ages, must be presumed to have continuing vitality, for any other principle would open the door to continual relitigation of unit issues already decided, and thus mili- tate against the ends of stability in bargaining relations which the Act was designed to secure. Bearing that in mind, it is evident that the General Counsel established a prima facie case when he adduced evidence of the unit determinations, the certifi- cations, an appropriate request of the Respondents for bargaining by the certified representative of the employees comprising the three units, and refusals by the Respondents to bargain. At that point, a duty devolved upon the Respondents to go forward with the evidence to establish a legal justification for the refusals to bargain. Thus the focal point of inquiry is not the hypothetical or possible impact of the coding procedure and changes in telephone technology upon the three units, but whether the evidence establishes that anything has occurred in a given geographical area to which a unit determination is applicable to warrant the dis- regard of the mandate, implicit in the certification applicable to the area, that the Respondent affected bargain, upon appropriate request, with the labor organization certified by the Board as the representative of the employees within the purview of the unit determination applicable to the area. It should also be borne in mind that each, unit has a life of its own, and thus, putting aside the question of the operative weight to be given the events upon which the Respondents rely, it seems clear that evidence relating to the Southern California area, for example, does not necessarily affect the unit determinations respectively applicable to the Oregon and Washington-Idaho areas. With the foregoing considerations in mind, one may turn to a consideration of the Respondents' claim that "the findings underlying the Board's decision" and other features of this record justify the refusals to bargain. An evaluation of the claim requires some reminder of the definitional content of the units and a prefatory determination whether the basis upon which they were originally defined still exists. The term "toll maintenance employees," as used in the three unit determinations, was lodged in the Respondents' classification practices in effect when the units were found by the Board to be appropriate. The Board adopted these practices as the measure of its unit definitions, taking the term "toll maintenance employees'.' .to mean employees placed by the Respondents in certain specific classi- fications under a classification policy described by the-Bdard in the 1944 and 1949 decisions, and noted by it in somewhat different terms in the 1940 decision. As found above, the Respondents recently changed the job titles of telegraph repeater- man, testboardman, and toll central office repairman to that of transmissionman, but that does not affect any issue here, for the change in job titles involved no change in the duties of the individuals concerned . Moreover, the classification of trans- missionman was, and still is, included in the term "toll maintenance employees." As relevant to the present status of the classification structure , it should be borne in mind that there is no evidence that the Respondents have done away with the practice of classifying employees as "toll" or "exchange," depending "upon the type of equipment on which each craftsman, regularly spends more than 51 percent or more of his time." 37 In fact , PT&T applied the classification policy within a period as Pacific Greyhound Lines, 9 NLRB 557, and Union Lumber Company, 53 NLRB 567. M After the refusals to bargain, as will more particularly appear later, the Respondents entered into a supplemental agreement with CWA, in effect applying the terms of an exist- 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD 'of only a^ few, months before the suspension of negotiations between the Respondents ,and ORTT and the cancellation of their last contract 3s t The fact of the matter is that notwithstanding technological developments of the past decade, and the claimed variable effects of the Respondents' coding procedure, the term "toll, maintenance employees," and the classifications comprehended thereby, have been used by the Respondents, as identifiable instruments for their operations not only during the many years of bargaining preceding the last certification but since then as well. Thus it is a significant fact that as recently as August 1952, PT&T filed with the "California Division of Apprenticeship Standards an "outline for on-the-job training" for each of three toll maintenance classifications, namely, toll central office repairman, telegraph repeaterman, and testboardman. The docu- ments are still on file, and there is no reason to believe that they are no longer operative, notwithstanding the fact that the three job titles have been changed to that of transmissionman. Each outline describes a 4-year apprenticeship training period for the given classification; sets forth in some detail the "major work opera- tions" required of employees in the classification; and specifies how much of the 4-year period must be devoted to training for such operations. It would be far-fetched to think that when PT&T filed these outlines with a public agency, the Company entertained any^'doubt as to the characteristics of the classifications named in them and the duties required of the employees holding the job titles listed. Moreover, PT&T has had even more recent occasion to use the term "toll maintenance' em- ployees" for its operating purposes. Shortly after the issuance of the Board's 1954 decision, PT&T prepared a document entitled "Wage and Working Practices Toll Maintenance Employees Northern California and Nevada Area," making its,con- tents effective' as of April 13, 1954. Substantially similar copies of the document, with minor modifications adapted to the various operating areas, were posted by PT&T in each area for the, "attention of the toll employees." A related document bearing the caption "Wage and Working Practices (Toll' Maintenance Employees) Effective April 13, 1954" was distributed to supervisory personnel in all four geo- graphical operating areas. I think it is reasonable to assume that both PT&T and the individuals for whose attention these documents were prepared understood what was meant by "Toll Maintenance Employees," as used in each, document, and what classifications of employees were within the purview of the "Wage and Working Practices" described in each. Also, as bearing on the continuing identifiable nature of the term "toll maintenance employees" and of the classifications within its purview, it is well to remember that although the Respondents assert in their brief that the three units are "vaguely defined," there are clear' indications in the record that "toll maintenance" has distinctive meaning for the Respondents as descriptive of 'certain of its operations. Significantly, in that connection; PT&T uses the term "toll main- tenance" to identify operating divisions or sections of the several area plant depart- ments, and employs the phrase as an ingredient in the'titles of supervisory' personnel. 'Moreover, such divisions or sections, and the supervisors'employed in them,-are the agencies whereby the Respondents supervise the work of toll maintenance employees, and such supervision is, in the main; separate from that exercised over exchange-titled employees. There is no evidence that since the first unit' determination, technological developments and the claimed variable effects' of the coding procedure have wrought any significant 'changes in the Respondents' "toll maintenance"' supervisory structure, nor does it appear that the Respondents have been deterred by any variable effects of 'their coding procedure or any departure from early "simple geographical defini- tions" of "toll" and "exchange" from continuing to the present 'day the application of the term "toll maintenance" to certain of their operating functions and to super- visory personnel engaged in directing the work' of toll maintenance employees. In ing contract, covering exchange-titled employees, to toll maintenance employees in the No, rtherfi California-Nevada area. ' The original contract''(General Counsel's Exhibit No. 31, sec. 1.04) contains provisions '(whicli'need not be detailed here) for classification of em- ployees performing work within the purview of more than one classification. There is no evidence' that these provisions, have as yet actually been applied to toll maintenance em- ployees. Moreover,: for reasos that will appear, the supplemental agreement Is Invalid, and I thus do not regard the classification' provisions of the' original contract with,CWA as validly applicable to' toll'niainteiiance -employees: It should also be noted, that quite apart fromlits inviilidity,'the'supplemental agreement does not apply to toll maintenance employees in the Southern California, Oregon, and Washington-Idaho areas. as An exchange-titled employee was thus reclassified, at the instance of ORTT,, in the Washington-Idaho area during the'latter part of'1952 or the early portion of 1953. The Company also reclassified two exchange-titled employees in Escondido,, California, In- 1953 as a result of a request initiated by ORTT in 1949. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 503 sum, the practice of separate classification , upon which the Board based its concep- tion of "toll maintenance employees," is still in existence; and the employees within the meaning of the term "toll maintenance employees" are still clearly identifiable by classification.39 Among the "findings underlying the Board's decision" upon which the Respond- ents rely are some observations by the Board in the 1954 decision in connection with classification grievances by ORTT and the reclassifications of employees. Re- lying upon the Board's language, the Respondents appear to take the position that the relevant parts of the decision and related evidence demonstrate variability and indefiniteness in the units. A corollary of that position appears to be, although not put in quite such terms in the Respondents' brief, that the units have not func- tioned satisfactorily. For an examination of these positions, one may refer again to the applicable portions of the decision and then relate it to the evidence and issues in this proceeding.40 In the decision, the Board stated that "frequent" changes in assignments of em- ployees "from time to time necessitated continual changes in the classifications" of both toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees. This language was fol- lowed by a recital of factors which "shaped the present pattern of collective bar- gaining"; then the Board said that "this present pattern satisfied none of the parties" (the Respondents, ORTT, and CWA); and that the "frequent reclassification of em- ployees required by the (Respondents') service needs over a number of years, with attendant changes in the size of the units . . . in the different service areas, has produced much bargaining strife, provoked the filing of many grievances and the making of many job classification studies, and caused considerable expense and inconvenience to the contracting parties." Taken in conjunction with the Board's language in other portions of the decision relating to the coding procedure and technological and operational changes, there appears to be some implication in the quoted observations that reclassifications and the coding of equipment and labor have had a significantly variable effect upon the units. Also, the Board's state- ment that the "pattern [of collective bargaining] satisfied none of the parties," and the references to "frequent reclassification," "attendant changes in the size of the units," "much bargaining strife," "many grievances," and "many job classifica- tion studies," imply the view that the bargaining units have not functioned satis- factorily. In any event, whether or not one may draw such implications from the de- cision, the question presented here is not the Board's meaning, but whether the evidence supports the Respondents' relevant contentions. In assessing the weight, if any, that may be accorded the evidence bearing on "frequent reclassifications," "much bargaining strife," "many classification job studies," and "many grievances," it should be kept in mind that PT&T's system is vast, covering the Pacific Coast tier of States from border to border; that as of February 1, 1953, the nonsupervisory plant department employees of PT&T and its subsidiaries numbered 22,870; that, as of that date, 1,099 of these were members of ORTT (the entire membership is in the employ of the Company or one or an- other of its subsidiaries); 41 that the first unit and certification have been in existence for a period of about 14 years; and that these were followed by 25 collective-bar- gaining agreements during some 13 years of bargaining relations between one or 3o No implication is intended that discontinuance or change of the classification prac- tices noted by the Board in its past decisions would lead to a devitalization of the units. In the absence of concrete evidence of abandonment of, or material change in, the Re- spondents' classification structure, as applied to toll maintenance employees, it is unneces- sary to speculate what effect future changes in the classification system might have on the unit determinations. 40 By examining the evidence bearing on the positions in question, as indicated earlier, I do not thereby hold that they are a defense to a claim of unlawful refusal to bargain on the basis of the existing unit determinations. As noted at another point, in the light of findings made below, I deem it unnecessary to decide that question. 41 The figures mentioned above are broken down by area as follows: Plant Department ORTT Area Employees Members Northern California-Nevada----------------------------------------------- 9,278 453 Southern California-------------------------------------------------------- 8,810 342 Washington-Idaho---------------------- ------------------------------- 2,898 181 Oregon ------------------------------------- ------------------------------- 1,884 123 Total ------------------------------------------------------------------- 22,870 1,099 379288-56-vol. 113-33 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD another (or both ) of the Respondents and the labor organization representing the employees comprising the units . Particularly against the background of these factors, the evidence does not establish that in the Northern California -Nevada, Washington-Idaho, and Oregon areas there have been "frequent changes in work assignments" of employees , whether toll maintenance or exchange -titled, or that in these areas, there have been "frequent" reclassifications ,42 or that, still speaking of the same areas, any such reclassifications "produced much bargaining strife" and "provoked the filing of many grievances and the making of many job classification studies." [Emphasis supplied .] On that score, the "grievance" and reclassification statistics set out below are quite informative. The unit applicable to the Northern California-Nevada area has been in existence for many years, yet the evidence of classification grievances in the area is scant. Sug- gesting by his answer to a question that reclassification resulted from a claim by ORTT, substantially all the evidence with respect to any such grievance in the area, and its result, consists of vague testimony by Albert S . Kanagy, a representative of ORTT, that "around 10 years ago Livermore and Cappa were reclassified in the Oak- land office." I can draw no operative inference from such imprecise testimony that there have been "many grievances,, 'much bargaining strife," and "many classifica- tion job studies" in the Northern California-Nevada area. Nor may any such in- ference be drawn with respect to the Oregon area . Although the unit for that area has been in existence since 1949 , the evidence reflects the reclassification of only three individuals, all resulting from a request by ORTT, apparently shortly after the unit determination was made. No request for reclassification has been made for the area since then , and none has been denied by PT&T. The Washington-Idaho unit has been in existence about 10 years ; yet during that decade, there have been negotiations between PT&T and the representative of the unit with respect to only,6 positions in the area-2 each in Ephrata, Washington ; Renton, Washington ; and Lewiston , Idaho. In each instance, because of the volume of work on "toll" equipment, an exchange- titled employee was reclassified to a toll maintenance category . On one other oc- casion, involving the transfer of a toll maintenance employee from Renton to an- other city, ORTT made inquiry as to the reason for a failure by the Company to post a notice as to the vacancy, and the Union was informed that "toll work had fallen off to such an extent that a toll man was no longer required in Renton ." 43 That ended the matter. Pour other reclassifications were made in the area from an ex- change-titled to a toll maintenance category-1 each in Port Angeles and Aberdeen, Washington, and 2 in Tacoma, Washington-but so far as the probative evidence shows, these were not the product of any grievance or request by ORTT.44 There 43 The evidence reflects only a few reclassifications in each of the three areas, whether from toll maintenance to exchange -titled, or vice versa, or from one classification to another within either group. The extent of reclassifications for the Oregon and Wash- ington-Idaho areas, reflected in the record, will be described later, but for present purposes, it is sufficiently illustrative of the finding made above that the record reflects the reclassi- fications of only about five specific individuals in the Northern California-Nevada area during the period since 1940, and not all of these were reclassified from an exchange-titled to a toll maintenance status, or vice versa (See the stipulation relating to employees who took training courses described in Respondents ' Exhibits Nos. 57 and 58.) It does not appear that any of these were at the request of a union. With respect to the Northern California-Nevada area, the record contains a generalization by Kanagy that "around 10 years ago Livermore and Cappa were reclassified in the Oakland office." This testimony is so vague, lacking, as it does, any details of the number of men, type of equipment, or grievance involved, that I am unable to accord it any significant weight So far as the evidence in this record is concerned, there is much more warrant for a holding that reclas- sifications were infrequent in the Northern California-Nevada, Washington-Idaho, and Oregon areas than there is for a conclusion that they were "frequent" in these areas. 43 On one occasion, also, in 1952 or 1953, the Union requested that a survey be made of the amount of toll maintenance work in the Centralia, Washington, office (also identified in the record as the Chehalis office), because the amount of such work had increased. The Union was informed that the increase was a "temporary" condition and the matter ap- parently ended there 44 In a context in which Kanagy was apparently referring to classification grievances, he testified that PT&T _"changed the title classifications of a number of men in Tacoma four or five years ago " As he is the Southern California area representative of ORTT, and also stated that he is "not familiar with the details of that case ," it seems likely that his quoted testimony rests on hearsay . Thus I can draw no inference from his testimony that the Tacoma reclassifications were made at the instance of the Union . Monahan, president of the Union, testified that to the best of his knowledge the, organization did not request the Tacoma reclassifications. - THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 505 has never been a strike by ORTT over any classification question in any of the areas. From what has been said it seems to me that at least as far as the Northern California- Nevada, Oregon, and Washington-Idaho areas are concerned, such terms as "peaceful negotiation" and "amicable disposition," rather than a label such as "bargaining strife," describe the handling of the relatively few classification questions that have arisen in those respective areas over a substantial number of years. In any event, putting the Southern California area aside for later discussion, the evidence will not support a finding that the units have not functioned satisfactorily with respect to the other three areas, nor does the evidence establish any appreciable or significant change in the size of the bargaining units as a consequence of reclassification in the Northern California-Nevada, Washington-Idaho, and Oregon areas, whether or not such re- classifications resulted from such factors as "changes in . . . technology" or "new communications services." Moreover, with respect to these three areas, there is no showing that the Respondents have ever entertained any doubt either as to the classi- fications into which employees should be placed or with regard to the "outlines" of the bargaining units respectively applicable to such areas. Since the 1940 certification, a total of between 30 and 33 employees in the Southern California area have been reclassified from exchange-titled to toll maintenance cate- gories as a result of negotiations between the Respondents and ORTT.45 By far the greater numbers of these reclassifications occurred early in the life of the certification, as is evidenced by the fact that some 24 or 26 of the reclassifications went into effect prior to the end of 1944.46 With the possible exception of 2 employees at Escondido and 4 or 5 at Hollywood, the evidence does not establish that any of these reclassifica- tions were due to "changes in . technology" or "new communications services." 47 Although in some instances a substantial period of time elapsed between the inception of negotiations and resulting reclassifications, there is no evidence of "strife" between PT&T and-ORTT over the reclassifications, and they appear to have been made in a setting of amicable discussions48 It seems fair to say that reclassifications in the Southern California area were sporadic and occasional rather than "frequent," 49 par- ticularly if one bears in mind the extensive period involved since the 1940 certifica- tion, and that the Respondents employ a very large number of plant employees in the area, including a substantial number of toll maintenance employees. (As of February 1, 1953, there were 8,810 nonsupervisory plant department employees in the area, of whom 342 were members of ORTT.) The evidence will not support a finding that since 1944, at least, there has been any appreciable or significant change in the size of the unit as a consequence of reclassifications in Southern California. On the contrary, it is fair to hold that whatever change has taken place in the size of the unit since 1944, as a result of reclassifications, has been practically negligible. 46 Specifically, 2 men were reclassified at the San Diego main office in 1940; 9 in Los Angeles in 1941 ; 3 or 4 in Oceanside in 1944; 5 or 6 at the San Diego University office in 1944; 5 at El Centro in 1944; 4 or 5 at Hollywood in 1949; and 2 at Escondido in 1953. The discussions relating to the Oceanside, El Centro, and San Diego University reclassifi- cations began in 1942, and all three offices appear to have been involved in substantially the same discussions 401n addition to the reclassifications resulting from negotiations, mentioned above, the record reflects some 6 other reclassifications in the area, only 1 of which appears to have been from a job title in 1 group (exchange-titled) to a category in the other (toll main- tenance). (See the stipulation relating to employees who took training courses described in Respondents' Exhibits Nos. 57 and 58 ) It does not appear that ORTT had anything to do with these reclassifications I think it unimportant to any issue in this proceed- ing, but in my judgment, for the period since 1940, the record does not substantially establish "frequent changes in work assignments," whether of exchange-titled or toll main- tenance employees, in the Southern California area. 47 The Escondido reclassifications occurred in connection with the establishment of microwave facilities between Los Angeles and San Diego; those in Hollywood were the result of the installation of a "television center" there 48 ORTT made a number of inquiries of PT&T some years ago as to the "amount of work done on toll codes" by exchange-titled employees in a number of offices in Southern Cali- fornia. The evidence indicates that the Union was told on such occasions that the amount of work performed on toll equipment did not warrant any reclassifications. I am unable to regard these inquiries as constituting "grievances" or as involving "bargaining strife." The evidence fairly indicates that the 'Union accepted PT&T's answers as dispositive of the inquiries. 90 Webster's Unabridged New International Dictionary (Second Edition) defines "fre- quent" as meaning, among other things, "often to be met with ; happening at short inter- vals ; often repeated or occurring." 506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Respondents presented evidence that PT&T and ORTT have had an unresolved difference since 1942 over the classification of some individuals employed by the Company in five communities (Pomona, Downey, Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Whittier) in Southern California. Although the men in question, numbering some 13 in the aggregate, are in the employ of PT&T, the offices where they are stationed belong to other telephone companies. This classification question has been discussed by the Company and ORTT "a couple of dozen times" since 1942, usually at meetings primarily devoted to other matters.50 The reason for PT&T's refusal to reclassify the men is described somewhat sketchily in the record. According to one witness (Kanagy), the Company declined to reclassify the men because they worked under exchange supervision. It does not appear that the Company entertained any doubt about the proper classification of the employees because of the nature of the equip- ment maintained by them, or the type of service they rendered. In fact, the evidence does not describe with any real clarity either the duties of these employees or the types of equipment on which they have been employed, although the record contains some reference to these matters by a witness (Kanagy) apparently based, in the main, on hearsay 51 Thus one is unable to determine from this record whether or not the employees were properly classified in the terms of "the type of equipment on which each craftsman regularly spends 51 percent or more of his time." Whether the negotiations with respect to this small number of employees, con- ducted, in the main, as the subordinate part of discussions dealing with other matters, may aptly be described as "much bargaining strife," when measured by the overall bargaining pattern affecting many hundreds of employees over an ex- tensive period of years, is food upon which semanticists may feed and, in my judgment, a matter of little or no moment here 52 The important point is that the evidence relating to the classification negotiations falls far short of supporting, in any material fashion, the thesis that the unit applicable to the Southern California area (not to speak of the other units) has become indefinite and variable. It cannot be claimed that the dispute has affected the size or composition of the unit, for the simple reason that the men have never been reclassified. The evidence touch- ing on the work of the 13 men, and the equipment they maintain, is so lacking in specificity and substantial probative content that one is at a loss to spell out any relationship between the dispute and the Respondents' claim that any of the units are indefinite and variable. Moreover, it does not appear that the Respond- ents claim that they are in any doubt as to the proper classification of the men, applying their customary classification policy, or whether the few employees in- volved in the negotiations come within the purview of the 1940 unit determina- tion. It may pertinently be asked why the disagreement over these men con- stitutes any greater impediment to bargaining now than in 1942, when the classi- fication question first arose, and during the many years of contractual and bar- gaining relations which followed. To put the question is to suggest the answer. The evidence relating to the unresolved classification question has no bearing on the Respondents' obligation to honor the certification and affords no justification for their refusals to bargain. From what has been said above, it is quite evident that the classifications have had little impact on the size and composition of any of the three units, at least w The request made by ORTT on December 29, 1952, for bargaining negotiations stated that "discussions on jurisdiction" were on the Union's agenda for negotiation. This had reference to the classification status of the 13 men. There is no evidence that the matter was actually discussed in the negotiations that followed si For example, Kanagy testified that he was told by some men employed in the Santa Monica office that they worked "only on toll equipment." There are other Indications in the record, including some testimony interrupted by a sustained objection, that Kanagy's references to the work of the employees, and the equipment on which they work, are not based on his personal knowledge. sa The unresolved negotiations concerning the 13 men led to the filing by ORTT of the representations petition which resulted In the 1954 decision. The Respondents make a point of this, terming the representation proceeding a "costly attempt to redefine the units " Much as one may regret the expense and inconvenience of that proceeding, the Respondents' point is irrelevant to any issue here. The fact that ORTT thought it neces- sary or desirable to seek a redefinition of the units, whatever its reasons were, does not establish that the units are in fact indefinite and variable or that they are inappropriate for bargaining purposes. There is good reason to believe, as will appear, that the Respond- ents, at least, were satisfied with the unit definitions prior to the filing by ORTT of its representation petition, but any dissatisfaction by either of the parties with the "pattern of collective bargaining" is immaterial to the obligation of both to bargain upon appro- priate request. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 507 during the decade of "changes in . . . technology" and since the introduction of "new communications services." The evidence pertaining to the reclassifications, whether or not any of them were due to such "changes" and "new . . . services," falls far short of supporting, in any substantial sense at least, the claim that the units have become variable and indefinite, nor is there any warrant for the con- clusion that the evidence relating to the reclassifications, the unresolved classifica- tion question, and whatever job studies were made, establishes that the units have not functioned satisfactorily. In that connection, it should be sufficient to point out that the Respondents and ORTT maintained contractual and bargaining re- lations throughout the decade in which it is asserted "steadily accelerated changes in . . . technology" occurred, but one should not leave the subject without ref- erence to one illuminating aspect of the evidence bearing on the claim that the units are variable and indefinite and have not functioned satisfactorily. There is good reason to believe, as I find, that prior to the filing of ORTT's representa- tion petition, the Respondents viewed the units as workable and satisfactory ve- hicles for the conduct of bargaining negotiations, notwithstanding the claims ad- vanced now with respect to "bargaining strife," reclassifications, job studies, and unit indefiniteness and variability. It will be recalled that at the meeting of May 22, 1953, the last after ORTT filed its petition, Williams told ORTT's representa- tives that "negotiations had been conducted on the premise that both parties were satisfied with the bargaining units as then constituted." Williams, it should be remembered, is PT&T's labor relations manager for the Oregon area and was the Respondents' principal spokesman at the bargaining meetings. That his state- ment was no mere casual remark is evidenced by the fact that on the following day he wrote a letter to Monahan, ORTT's president, proposing the resump- tion of negotiations provided an agreement could be reached among the Respond- ents, ORTT, and CWA that the existing units be maintained "as presently con- stituted . . . except to the extent that they may be modified by resolving the single issue" of the representation of some 200 or 300 employees. The evidence of Williams' statement furnishes its own illuminating commentary on the Respond- ents' contention here, emerging through the complex volume of technological de- tails in this record as a negation of any claim that the units have not functioned satisfactorily and are inappropriate for bargaining purposes. Implementation for that conclusion may be found in the striking fact that there is not a scintilla of evidence that the Respondents at any time before the filing of ORTT's representa- tion petition in 1953, throughout the many years of contractual and bargaining relations, ever advanced the claim that the units and the classifications they compre- hend are variable, indefinite, and undefinable, whether because of technological changes or the coding procedure or for any other reason. I think it significant ,that, for all that appears in this record, these claims' appeared for the first time after ORTT initiated the representation proceeding. In sum, I can find no justifica- tion for the refusal to bargain in any of the evidence pertaining to the reclassifica- tions, so-called "bargaining strife," or whatever job studies were made throughout the many years of bargaining relations. In the 1954 decision, the Board adverted to technological developments of the past decade, "new communications services with integrated dual `toll' and `exchange' components" and "integration of `toll' and `exchange' functions" of employees, to make the point that the "words `toll' and `exchange' are no longer simple geograph- ical definitions," but have become "complex . . . concepts . . . developed for purposes unconnected with collective bargaining." From this, pointing out that equipment is coded according to "highly variable factors," the Board, at least in part, drew its conclusion that the coding factors "have little or nothing to do with the determination of the outlines of a bargaining unit," and that the "obvious result" of their use "would be to continue the very sort of unit indefiniteness, indefinability, and variability which the Employer [Respondent] and Petitioner [ORTT] profess to seek to avoid." The Board also stated that various types of equipment "serve to obliterate the earlier `toll' and `exchange' distinctions by permitting `exchange' calls over longer distances and by performing dual `toll' and `exchange' functions." The Respondents stress these statements in support of their position that the "findings underlying the Board's decision" justify the refusals to bargain. In connection with the "obliteration" of the "earlier `toll' and `exchange' dis- tinctions," I assume that what the Board meant is that concepts of "toll" and "exchange" have undergone a change from their earlier status as "simple geo- graphical definitions." (The evidence does not establish when this change occurred, and for all that appears, it took place long before the first unit determination.) If that construction is incorrect, I deem it unnecessary, in the light of conclusions reached below, to sift the relevant language in a search for other meanings. If 508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD correct, also for reasons that will appear , the "obliteration" neither renders the units inappropriate nor affects the Respondents ' obligation to bargain. In passing, however, in order to keep the evidence in proper focus, if for no other reason, it may be pointed out that classification distinctions between toll maintenance em- ployees and exchange-titled personnel have not been "obliterated"; and that the Respondents to this day continue to use "toll' and "exchange" as terms of demarca- tion between two types of service, even though, as will appear, various equipment concepts, at one time applied exclusively to the rendition of one service or the other, have been developed to the point where they are used in the rendition of both. With respect to the technological changes, it is true, as the evidence establishes, that various types of equipment, such as carrier systems (of which there are dif- ferent types, some varying considerably in complexity), vacuum tube repeaters, and transmission measuring sets, all at one time associated exclusively with "toll" service, are now also used in rendering "exchange" service. Carrier systems came into use for "exchange" service about 1947 or 1948, and vacuum tube repeaters and transmission measuring sets have been employed for such service for about 20 years, with an acceleration of such use in the past decade.53 It is also a fact that local dial service (an "exchange" function) has for a long time been rendered by the Respondents through the medium of automatic switching devices, including "step-by-step" equipment and selectors; that in recent years selectors have been used for "toll" service; and that in the past few years other automatic switching devices such as intertoll dialing machines (also described in the record as crossbar equip- ment) and crossbar tandem systems, have been installed in some localities for the rendition of such service. Also, as the Board noted in its 1954 decision, some automatic switching devices such as crossbar tandem equipment perform "dual `toll' and `exchange' functions." But, as will become evident, the "changes in . . tech- nology," however pertinent to the conclusion reached by the Board in the 1954 de- cision, in the exercise of its statutory discretion to make a unit finding, play no operative role here. It would seem that a good place to look for support of the Respondents' claim of unit variability and indefiniteness would be in evidence of any actual impact on the size and composition of the units by the recodification of equipment. But the one concrete instance in the record of the coding of specific equipment fails to reveal any impact on "the outlines of a bargaining unit," to use the Board 's phrase. The codi- fication in question occurred in 1949 when PT&T recodified some crossbar tandem equipment from a "toll" to an "exchange" code. The equipment was (and, for all that appears, still is) used "primarily for switching exchange and short haul toll traffic" (Respondents' Exhibit No. 22). One would think that if there were any evidence that the recodification had any effect upon the work or classification of employees , whether toll maintenance or exchange -titled, or had created any classi- fication problems for the Respondents or ORTT or'any other union, or had resulted in any "bargaining strife," the Respondents would have adduced such evidence; yet none was presented. The absence of any such evidence leads one to believe that there is none. In point of fact, the evidence reflects not a single reclassification, whether from a toll maintenance to an exchange -titled category or vice versa, as a result of the recodification of equipment . In terms of sheer hypothesis, because the classification of toll maintenance employees is tied to the coding of equipment, one can conceive of material alterations in the size and composition of the units as a result of what the Board in the 1954 decision termed "the periodic recording of equip- ment." But as pointed out earlier, such hypotheses are immaterial here. So far as this record establishes, reclassifications of employees from exchange-titled to toll maintenance categories (the record reflects no reclassification from toll maintenance to exchange-titled positions ), at least since 1944, the period substantially coextensive with the decade of "accelerated changes in . . . technology," have been relatively few and sporadic, particularly taking into account the fact that PT&T and its subsidiaries employed many thousands of plant department employees throughout the decade. The evidence will not support a finding that any of the three units have expanded appreciably (or that they have contracted at all, for that matter) in size as the product of reclassifications stemming from any "changes in . technology," including the use of equipment such as carrier systems, vacuum tube repeaters, and transmission e3 It does not appear, at least from the Board's 1944 and 1949 decisions, that PT&T took any position in the respective proceedings relating to the Washington-Idaho and Oregon units that the adaptation or extension of equipment, formerly used for one type of service, to the other, or the complexities and claimed variable effects of the coding pro- cedure, militated against stability in "the outlines of a bargaining unit." THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 509 measuring sets for "exchange" service, or of automatic switching devices for the rendition of "toll " service. Moreover, there is no substantial evidence that because of the adaptation or extension of various types of equipment , at one time used ex- clusively in one .of these services, for use in the other, dr the performance by such equipment of "dual 'toll' and 'exchange' functions" has led to a situation where the Respondents are unable to determine which employees come within the purview of the bargaining units.54 Upon a realistic view of the whole record , one comes away with -the- conclusion, as I do, that, as applied to the issues here, there is an academic content to the-evidence bearing on the use of such equipment. A striking example of the academic quality of such evidence may be seen in the proof pertaining to the recent introduction of "extended area" service for residence subscribers in San Francisco and a number of communities in the vicinity of the city. The service permits such subscribers to dial calls to points as far away as about 50 miles. Such calls are billed on a "message unit, " and not a "toll," basis. A sub- scriber, with such service , dials his "extended area" call just as he would an ordinary local call . Automatic switching equipment in a crossbar tandem system is brought into play as the number is dialed and effects the connection with the desired destina- tion of the call. Prior to the institution of the service, an operator would put through the call for the subscriber, writing out a ticket, covering what was then a "toll" call, for accounting and billing purposes . However, the operator would herself dial the number called , and her call would go through the same crossbar tandem equipment, through which the "extended area" call now goes when dialed directly by the subscriber. This equipment was maintained by exchange-titled employees prior to the institution of "extended area" service , and is still serviced by such employees. So far as work operations are concerned , the basic difference wrought by the intro- duction of the service is that the use of an operator as the instrumentality for the placement of the call has been eliminated , and that equipment which automatically records the call for accounting and billing purposes has been substituted for her ticket-writing functions . The introduction of the service has not affected the work or classification of any toll maintenance employees, nor has it involved any change in any equipment maintained by such employees prior to the institution of the service. The evidence does not even establish that there has been any significant change in the work of exchange-titled employees as a result of the service 55 In short, the evidence bearing on "extended area" service in the San Francisco area , in my judg- ment, does not materially affect any of the issues. Moreover, for all that appears, the fact that "extended area" service has also been introduced in the Los Angeles, Seattle, and San Diego areas has no greater operative weight 56 The Respondents see support for their refusal to bargain in the Board's references in the 1954 decision to "the introduction of new communications services with in- tegrated dual `toll' and `exchange' components," and to "the integration of `toll' and `exchange' functions" of employees. Exemplifying these services , components, and u In the last representation proceeding, Albert S lianagy , a representative of ORTT, expressed the belief that the individuals who work on "toll tandem equipment" (which includes automatic switching devices ) in the Los Angeles area are exchange -titled em- ployees,- and that "a substantial number of them fall in the group that are disputed em- ployees in this case" ( the representation proceeding). In using the phrase "disputed employees," Kanagy was plainly referring to the issues raised by the representation pro- ceeding. I do not construe his testimony , quoted above, as establishing that the codifica- tion of the "toll tandem equipment" or the classification of the employees in question had been a subject of controversy between PT &T and ORTT before the proceeding was insti- tuted, nor do I regard Kanagy's remarks as substantial evidence of any inability by the Respondents to determine the classification of the employees in question through use of its long-standing classification policies applicable to toll maintenance personnel. ss Some additional circuits have been added to accommodate an increase in business resulting from the service , but the circuits are substantially of the same type as those in previous use Approximately 1,200 repeaters were also installed . These are serviced by switchmen , but repeaters are associated both with "toll" and "exchange" service, and there is nothing novel about the fact that exchange -titled employees maintain repeaters. It may be noted that the repeaters in question are not used for calls beyond the "extended area " 60 There is no evidence that "extended area" service is in effect anywhere in PT&T's system except in the Seattle , San Francisco , San Diego , and Los Angeles areas. I am unable to hold, on the basis of the record as made, that " extended area" service in the Los Angeles , Seattle, and San Diego areas has had any more significant effect on the work and classification of employees , whether toll maintenance or exchange-titled , and on the equipment they respectively maintain , than such service has had on the work and classi- fication of employees in the San Francisco area, and on the equipment serviced by them. 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD functions, the Board stated that radio-telephone service is "a kindred service" to "radio, once a `long-distance' service," provided "within purely `local' large cities on the West Coast"; that "television has developed along similar lines" ; and that "in the field of radio-telephone, . . . `central office' employees . . . work on the mobile units, while both `central office' employees . . . and `toll maintenance' employees . work on the stationary receivers and transmitters." Mobile radio-telephones are used in motor vehicles and small vessels and are installed and maintained by exchange-titled employees (PBX installers and repair- men), but stationary receivers and transmitters used in radio-telephone service are maintained by both toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees. There are no major differences in the stationary equipment maintained by the respective groups. However, measured at least by evidence pertaining to the Oregon area, toll main- tenance employees devote only a small portion of their time to such equipment, whereas exchange-titled employees assigned to radio-telephone work devote substan- tially all of their time to the mobile and stationary equipment.67 Moreover, again judging by testimony pertaining to the Oregon area, both groups do not operate the same stationary facilities, for such equipment operated by toll maintenance em- ployees is situated at a single location, while the comparable equipment maintained by exchange-titled employees is scattered in the given area. The joint work of the two groups appears to consist, in the main, of performing tests, as for example, when a PBX installer puts mobile equipment in a vehicle, he calls a toll maintenance em- ployee at the latter's location, and both at their respective ends conduct tests to deter- mine if the installed equipment is functioning properly. Such joint work takes but a small amount of time of toll maintenance employees. Both toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees work on microwave equip- ment used in television transmission, but some microwave facilities on which toll maintenance personnel are employed differ markedly from microwave equipment on which exchange-titled employees work. Toll maintenance employees maintain highly complex stationary microwave equipment known as TD2. The equipment is em- ployed in transcontinental television transmission and is designed for permanent installation at terminal points and repeater stations. It may also be used for radio and telephone transmission. A TD2 assembly has as many as 6 microwave channels, each capable of handling 600 voice channels. The evidence suggests that toll main- tenance employees servicing such equipment usually have the title of transmissionman (and were so classified before other toll maintenance job titles were changed to that of transmissionman). Classroom training provided by PT&T in the use of TD2 equipment lasts 2 weeks, and a transmissionman (Amicarella) testified that, in addi- tion, he received approximately 2 months of on-the-job training in the use of the equipment 58 Exchange-titled employees maintain microwave equipment known as TE. Such equipment is portable and far less complex than TD2.59 The exchange- s7 Findings with respect to radio-telephone service are based, in the main,'oh evidence relating to the Portland, Oregon, area At one point, Respondents' counsel in effect con- ceded that maintenance of radio-telephone equipment in California "is no different from Oregon and the other areas." Thus one may fairly infer, as I do, that there is no signifi- cant difference between radio-telephone service in the Portland area and the rendition of such service elsewhere, although, in passing, it may be noted that in Elko, Nevada, an unspecified number of toll maintenance employees spend an unspecified amount of time in maintaining mobile, as well as stationary, equipment. The record indicates that TD2 equipment was introduced in or about 1948. Between the date of the introduction of TD2 and the end of 1952, 264 toll maintenance, and 3 exchange-titled, employees received classroom training in the use of the equipment. Since then, 83 toll maintenance, but no exchange-titled, employees have received such training. Although 3 exchange-titled employees have received training in the use of TD2, there is no evidence that any are actually employed in its use. 60 In Portland, Oregon, at least, toll-titled employees maintain portable microwave equip. ment similar to TE, known as RCA. It is located at PT&T's building and is used for tele- vision transmission to the television station (apparently for retransmission) TE trans- mitting equipment and receiving facilities are maintained by exchange-titled employees (PBX installers) at the television station's premises It may be noted, however, that a TE transmitter and a receiver ("used for receiving television pick-ups from the vicinity of the city") are located on the roof of PT&T's building and are serviced by toll main- tenance personnel. The transmitter, which is used to transmit "television signals towards" the television station, requires only occasional attention (about once in a 3-week period). Although the Board noted in the 1949 proceeding that it was then anticipated that Oregon toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees would "jointly" maintain television equip- ment (85 NLRB 713, 721, footnote 25), the evidence does not establish that such joint performance has actually taken place. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 511 titled employees (PBX installers) who maintain TE equipment perform their work on the premises of the broadcasting station. Formal classroom training in the use of the equipment takes about 5 days, although one employee (Amicarella) testified that his combined formal and on-the-job training lasted 5 days. Both toll mainte- nance and exchange-titled employees receive training in the use of TE equipment, although the record indicates that toll maintenance employees devote relatively little time to the maintenance of TE equipment (see testimony of Lester M: Richards). TE equipment is used for broadcasting over relatively short distances as, for example, between a studio and its transmitter, whereas TD2 is used to broadcast over far greater distances. (For example, in Portland the TD2 equipment is used for telephone and television transmission to Seattle.) Perhaps the most detailed description in the record of the work of toll maintenance employees on television (and radio broadcasting) relates to the "program room" in a building maintained by PT&T in downtown Los Angeles: A "general control" office is located there, containing equipment used for broadcasting national network television and radio programs that originate in the East and other areas. Such pro- grams are fed into equipment known as a program panel by means of telephone equipment such as carrier systems and retransmitted by means of specially adapted repeaters to other points, including various "control offices" of the telephone system located in other cities (such as Seattle, Portland, and San Francisco) in the Pacific Coast area. Transmissionmen in the program room (some of whom were formerly titled testboardmen), among other duties, maintain the program panel, which func- tions as a type of testboard; monitor the programs feeding into and out of the program room; connect or disconnect broadcasting stations as programming may require; test the receiving and transmission equipment to locate faults or determine whether it is working properly; communicate with technicians in other cities, concerning faults or repair requirements, by means of Morse telegraph test wires, long-distance telephone, telephone order wires, or speaker systems; and "make patches substituting workable equipment for defective equipment." Speedy correction of faults is essential when they appear while a program is being broadcast. One need not pursue other details of the record relating to broadcasting and radio- telephone services, for enough has been said to serve as a basis for evaluation of the Respondents' position relating to them. It is also unnecessary to explore shades of meaning in the Board's observations in the 1954 decision to the effect that there are "integrated dual `toll' and `exchange' components" and "integration of `toll' and `exchange' functions" in the rendition of television and radio-telephone services. In passing, however, one may note that whatever the Board meant by "integration," it is evident from the record as a whole that toll maintenance employees do not work side by side to any appreciable extent with exchange-titled employees in the rendition of broadcasting and radio-telephone services, and that the performance of joint work by employees in both groups in the rendition of such services, whether on the same equipment or otherwise, is so occasional as to be of no moment.6o The important fact is that prior to the 1954 decision, the Board had occasion, in connection with a unit finding, to pass upon the weight to be given to participation by both toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees in the rendition of televi- UU The Respondents introduced an exhibit (Respondents' Exhibit No. 52) listing loca- tions in which "radio equipment" is purportedly maintained "jointly" by employees in both groups The exhibit is vague, and I am unable to accord it any significant weight. It contains no details of the types of "radio equipment," nor of the proportion of time spent by employees on the equipment, nor of any other duties they may perform. It is well to bear in mind that the performance of combined "toll" and "exchange" functions by em- ployees has an old history in PT&T's operations, particularly in offices where such "work is light" (58 NLRB 1042, 1046 and 85 NLRB 713, 721). I think, also, that the term "jointly," as used in the exhibit, is imprecise. The witness who prepared it conceded that he did not mean that toll maintenance and exchange-titled personnel work "side by side" on the same equipment, and it appears that what he meant was that if toll maintenance employees are unable "to clear trouble" on their radio-telephone equipment, it is sent to a special repair shop wheie it is tested and repaired by exchange-titled employees. Occasionally, according to the witness, if such equipment in Pierced, California, where there is no repair shop, needs repair, a toll maintenance employee will take it to the shop located at Fresno for repair by the exchange-titled employees stationed there, and in such cases, the toll maintenance employee consults with the man assigned to the repair job and participates in the necessary work. That happens infrequently. In Elko, Nevada, also, if a toll maintenance employee is unable "to clear . . . trouble" on radio-telephone equipment, it is turned over to an exchange-titled employee (the only one so engaged in Elko) for repair There is no evidence that the latter employee works "jointly" with toll maintenance personnel. 512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD sion and radio-telephone services. These "new communication services" were ex- pressly noted by the Board in its 1949 decision dealing with the Oregon area., In that decision, the Board took note that "exchange and toll employees also perform comparable work on highway and urban mobile telephone units and on multi- channel carrier systems of the type known as 'M-I-A' "; that "according to, present plans, maintenance and operation of television equipment will be jointly performed by toll and local central office personnel," and that "a training program, on this sub- ject is now being prepared for both toll and exchange personnel" (85 NLRB 713, 721, footnote 25). Significantly, the Board nevertheless found a separate unit of toll maintenance employees to be appropriate. Thus the important' question is not whether radio-telephone and television facilities provide "service within purely `local' large cities," 61 or whether the relevant services entail the use of "integrated dual `toll' and `exchange' components" or the "integration of 'toll' and `exchange' func- tions," but whether the record in this proceeding establishes any sound reason for departing from the position taken by the Board in the 1949 proceeding. Bearing the pertinent question in mind, the evidence relating to the "local" nature of radio-telephone and various broadcasting services and to the participation of ex- change-titled employees in such services, whether "jointly" with toll maintenance personnel or otherwise, has an academic posture. There is no evidence that the Re- spondents have had any occasion to change the codification of any equipment used in such services, and there is thus no showing that any such recodification has actually had attendant variable effects on the "outlines of a bargaining unit." So far as the record shows, there have never been negotiations concerning the reclassification of any employee engaged in radio-telephone work, nor is there evidence that any such employee has ever been reclassified from an exchange-titled to a toll maintenance category or vice versa. There is also no evidence that any toll maintenance em- ployee engaged in servicing microwave or other broadcasting equipment has ever been reclassified to an exchange-titled category, and the reclassifications of em- ployees from exchange-titled to toll maintenance job titles because they serviced such equipment have been so relatively few as to be negligible in number and with- out any appreciable effect upon the size of any of the units.62 There is no substan- tial evidence that PT&T had any doubt as to the proper classification of the men in- volved, nor is there any showing that the Respondents have ever had any doubt as to which employees engaged in radio-telephone and broadcasting services come within the purview of the units.63 There is also no reason to conclude from the evi- dence that the participation of exchange-titled employees in the services under dis- cussion has materially hampered bargaining relations between the Respondents and ORTT. In other words, the evidence falls far short of establishing that the par- ticipation of both toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees in radio-telephone and broadcasting services has actually rendered the existing units indefinite or has had any appreciably variable effect upon the size or composition of any of the three units. I can perceive no sound reason for departing from the position the Board took in the 1949 proceeding with respect to radio-telephone and television services, and I thus think it immaterial to the Respondents' obligation to bargain that they provide either service "within purely 'local' large cities on the West Coast," or that there are what the Board termed "integrated dual 'toll' and 'exchange' com- ponents," and "integration of 'toll' and 'exchange' functions" of employees, in the rendition of such services.64 "It may be noted that PT&T's television facilities do much more than provide "service within purely `local' large cities." m As noted earlier, two employees engaged in maintaining microwave equipment in Escon- dido, California, and 4 or 5 employed at the then newly established "television center" In Hollywood, California, were placed in toll maintenance categories in 1949. There is also some suggestion in the record that the two employees reclassified in Lewiston, Idaho, were employed on "broadcast equipment," but it does not appear whether "new communications services" were involved. 61 Previous reference has been made to a disagreement over the classification status of some 13 men employed in 5 exchanges in Southern California Three of the offices, Long Beach, Pomona, and Downey (see Respondents' Exhibit No. 60), contain program ampli- fiers , but it is not shown what specific type of service the amplifiers render, nor how many of the men, if any service them, nor how much time, if any, is devoted to their mainte- nance In any event, for reasons already stated, the unresolved question of the classifi- cation status of the employees does not justify the refusal to bargain. 84 Similarly, I can accord no operative weight to the fact that program amplifiers are maintained in some offices by exchange-titled employees ( there is no evidence that such is the case in any area except Southern California). First, the evidence has some vague THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 513 In support of the claim of unit variability and indefiniteness, the Respondents stress an operational change that was apparently not before the Board. in the last representation proceeding. The change in question relates to a "toll dispersal pro- gram" in the Los Angeles area. In brief, the program, which appears to stem from considerations of national defense, consists of the establishment of facilities for long- distance communication in exchanges in outlying communities in the Los Angeles area, so that in the event of "a major disaster" resulting in the destruction of long- distance equipment now concentrated in Los Angeles, alternative facilities would be available to maintain communication with other cities. The facilities consist of items of equipment normally serviced by toll maintenance employees, and include toll testboards, intertoll trunks, and various types of carrier systems used for long- distance communication. The dispersal program began about 3 years ago, and is still continuing, although much of it has slowed down. The dispersed facilities are serviced and maintained by exchange-titled personnel. To enable the employees to handle the equipment, they were given special training "from the craft standpoint" by an individual who was a toll maintenance employee (a transmissionman) prior to his promotion to the training task. For a number of reasons, I am unable to regard the toll dispersal program as ma- terially affecting the issues here. In the first place, it does not affect the Oregon and Washington-Idaho units at all and can have no conceivable effect upon the appropri- ateness of those units. Second, the dispersed facilities, which are only in partial oper- ation, have not replaced those maintained by toll maintenance employees, nor has the program had any effect upon the work of such employees. It has neither enlarged nor had any other impact on the toll maintenance unit, nor is there any substantial evidence that PT&T has had any real doubt as to the classification status of the em- ployees involved.65 Third, the evidence indicates that the specially trained exchange- titled employees (whose number the record does not establish) are still continuing with their old duties of servicing and maintaining "exchange" equipment. In fact, there is good reason to believe, taking the record as a whole, that their work on the long-distance equipment is but the smaller part,of their duties. Significantly, on that score, Robert T. Babbidge, PT&T's division toll maintenance superintendent for the Los Angeles area, was asked, during his testimony, whether the new program has changed the work of any exchange-titled employees, and he replied: "Well, I don't think it has materially changed their work, any more than some new piece of equip- ment that might be, used for exchange service. Something new is coming in every day that requires training." In other words, the employees maintaining the dispersed equipment combine both "toll" and "exchange" functions. The dispersal program may be new, but such combination of functions has an old history in PT&T's opera- tions. The fact is that in both the 1944 and 1949 decisions the Board viewed toll maintenance employees as constituting "a specially skilled group of craftsmen" not- withstanding the circumstance that "some employees, especially those assigned to localities where the toll and central office work is light, do combination work on both `toll' and `central office' facilities" (58 NLRB 1042, 1046 and 85 NLRB 713, 721). I can see no reason to accord any greater significance to the performance of combined facets. It is not established how many men are involved, nor how much time they spend on the equipment. Significantly, in at least some offices, some of the program services occur somewhat irregularly as in the case of "pickups for football games " (It may also be noted that it is not established how many of these amplifiers are used for television, but it is evident that a great many are used for local "music distribution" such as the supply of "background music" to medical offices, hotels, and restaurants) As pointed out earlier, the performance of combination work by employees, and their classification as "toll" or "exchange," depending on factors already described, have an old history. In the absence of concrete evidence as to all the functions of the employees, I am unable to attach any definitive weight to the fact that an unspecified number of exchange-titled employees spend an unspecified amount of time on program amplifiers. Second, even if it be assumed that both toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees perform comparable work on progiani amplifiers, that of itself is not significant, as witness the Board's 1944 and 1949 decisions where the Board attached no new operative weight to the fact that some toll maintenance employees perform work comparable to that of some exchange-titled employees. ^Accoiding to lianagy, when PT&T informed the Union of the dispersal program, rep- resentatives of the Company stated that the program "would cieate a problem with regard to assigning people to toll work in these offices." It is not quite clear what the "problem" was In any event, Kanagy's relevant testimony does not alter the conclusion that it has not been established that there is anything about the program which prevents PT&T from applying its usual classification policy to the employees involved or that the program is a material impediment to the discharge by the Respondents of their bargaining obligation. 514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD duties by those involved in the dispersal program than the Board accorded to "com- bination work" in its 1944 and 1949 decisions. The nub of the matter is that the dispersal program does not justify the refusals to bargain. The evidence establishes that during the past few years the Respondents have given a substantial number of training courses which toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees, in varying numbers, have taken jointly; that some exchange-titled em- ployees (the record does not specify the number) service various types of equipment, such as, for example, toll switchboards, used for long-distance communication; and that some work operations of toll maintenance employees are comparable to some performed by those in exchange-titled categories. Thus, with respect to compara- bility of work operations, the duties of deskmen and testboardmen are comparable, although the testing equipment used by the former is different from that used by the latter, both types of equipment requiring different training. Another example of comparability may be found in the maintenance by both toll maintenance and ex- change-titled employees of stationary receivers and transmitters used in radio-tele- phone service, although it will be recalled that toll maintenance personnel devote only a small portion of their time to such work, whereas PBX installers and repairmen assigned to such duties spend substantially all their time in the work. There are other examples of comparability of work operations, as well as evidence that various com- ponents of equipment, not yet mentioned, serviced by employees in some exchange- titled classifications are comparable to some maintained by toll-titled employees, but these need not be detailed in the light of conclusions reached below.ss The Respondents rely upon the evidence of joint training courses, comparability of various equipment components and work operations, and servicing of long-distance facilities by some exchange-titled employees as demonstrating that the units are inap- propriate. In connection with the claim, it is well to recall some features of the 1944 and 1949 decisions. In both, the Board noted that deskmen and testboardmen perform comparable work, pointing out in the later decision that it found "no merit in the Employer's contention that the toll maintenance employees (in the Oregon area) may not constitute a separate unit because there are other craft employees in the plant department, performing comparable work, who are not sought to be included in this unit" (85 NLRB 713, 722, footnote 31). Also, as pointed out earlier, the Board was not deterred from separating Oregon toll maintenance employees from exchange-titled personnel for bargaining purposes by its findings that "exchange and toll employees also perform comparable work on highway and upon mobile telephone units and on multi-channel carrier systems of the type known as `M-I-A' "; that there were plans then in existence for the joint servicing and operation of television equipment by toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees; and that a "training program" on that subject was then in course of preparation "for both toll and ex- change personnel." Moreover, in both decisions, the Board noted in effect that w With respect to comparability of work operations, I am unable to accord any opera- tive weight to some of the Respondents' exhibits (Respondents' Exhibits Nos 29 to 34, inclusive) and the supporting testimony of Charlie J Wolf, one of the Respondents' wit- nesses. The exhibits purport to set forth work operations of various classifications of toll maintenance and exchange-titled employees, and to classify the performance of such work as "frequently" or "occasionally " However, Wolf admittedly was unable to offer any esti- mate of the amount of time toll maintenance employees spend in given work operations Moreover, I think that the terms "frequently" and "occasionally" are used in the exhibits somewhat arbitrarily For example, work operations listed in Respondents' Exhibit No. 29 are considered as performed "occasionally" if performed once or twice a month , yet in Respondents' Exhibit No. 30, "frequently" is used to describe operations which may be performed only once a year. In that connection, as an example of the shortcomings in the exhibits one may recall the substantial difference in time devoted to radio-telephone receivers and transmitters by toll maintenance employees and exchange-titled personnel, respectively Moreover, although the exhibits may have literal accuracy in the generic listing of work operations, they can be misleading because of over-simplification and omitted details Thus the exhibits do not take into account, in comparing work opera- tions, substantial differences in the complexity of equipment as, for example, the great difference bet«een TD2 microwave assembles and the poi table TE equipment, both of which may be used in broadcasting and telephone services. As another example, it is of little avail to set down, as does Respondents' Exhibit No 29, that various classifications of employees "read and interpret work orders" when it is obvious that there may be wide variations in what is read and interpreted because of differences in the complexity of equipment to which given work orders may relate. In any event, whether or not the ex- hibits may be of some use in analogizing work operations, they do not alter the conclu- sion reached below concerning the Respondents' obligation to bargain. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 515 various exchange-titled employees service "toll" equipment, for it pointed out in each that "some employees, especially those assigned to localities where the toll and central office work is light, are combination men and work on both toll and central office facilities"; that "this results in some overlapping of supervisory jurisdiction over toll and central office maintenance employees"; and that PT&T determined the classification of employees as "toll" or "central office," depending "upon the type of equipment on which each craftsman regularly spends 51 percent or more of his time." In view of the old history of the classification practice and of the maintenance by some exchange-titled employees of "toll" equipment (to an extent not established concretely by the record), it may fairly be inferred that the practice of training sub- stantial- numbers of exchange-titled employees (whether in the classroom, on the job, or jointly with some toll maintenance employees is of little or no importance, it seems to me) in the maintenance of "toll" facilities has existed for a considerable number of years, antedating the 1944 unit determination, at least. The point of the matter is that the Board had occasion in the 1949 decision to pass on evidence con- cerning joint training, and in that decision, as well as the earlier one, to pass on positions, with respect to comparable work operations and employment of exchange- titled employees on "toll" equipment, somewhat similar to those urged here, but nevertheless held that toll maintenance employees were clearly identifiable as a spe- cially skilled group of craftsmen, and that "the job categories under toll and central office employees indicate respectively different craft skills," and adopted PT&T's classification structure for the definitional content of the respective units established as of the result of the two decisions. The Respondents, however, point to the Board's statement in the 1954 decision that ". . . however distinctive the skills of `toll maintenance' and `central office' employees may have been in early days of less developed operations, the present worth of the Employer's skilled telephone maintenance employees lies in their ability to handle highly complicated, technical, and integrated circuits and equipment, how- ever used, rather than in any special `toll' or `exchange' aptitudes, if any, that they may happen to possess." I am not at all sure that by the foregoing the Board intended a negation of its earlier holding in both the 1944 and 1949 decisions that toll maintenance employees were clearly identifiable as a specially skilled group of craftsmen and that "the job categories under toll and central office employees indicate respectively different craft skills." If that was the intent, I am-unable to account for the fact that in the very same decision (107 NLRB 1615, footnote 3), the Board described the work of toll maintenance employees in the identical terms it used to describe their functions in the 1944 decision (the 1949 decision incorporates substantially the same description, enlarging on it somewhat), and did so without a corresponding holding that exchange- titled employees, in the main, perform substantially the same duties. I find it dif- ficult, also, to understand in what sense the Board used the terms "toll" and "exchange" in the phrase "special `toll' or `exchange' aptitudes." These are terms, as the Board itself suggested in the 1954 decision which may have different meanings in varying circumstances.67 In any event, the Board did not in the earlier decisions, at least in terms, say that toll maintenance employees and "central office" personnel had "dif- ferent craft skills" because the former had special "toll," and the latter special "ex- change," aptitudes. What the Board in effect held was that the two groups exercised "different craft skills," and that toll maintenance employees were separately identi- fiable as a specially skilled group of craftsmen, and it came to that conclusion in both earlier decisions, it may be noted, notwithstanding the holding that "some employees," whether toll maintenance or "central office" personnel, "especially those assigned to localities where the toll and central office work is light, do combination work on both toll and central office facilities." This language clearly implies that there is nothing novel about the exercise, to some extent at least, by exchange-titled employees of "craft skills" possessed by toll maintenance personnel. It also implies that the classification and specialized skill at least of "some employees" have for long been the product of the circumstance that they work in one exchange rather than another and develop skills in terms of the equipment they are required to maintain by reason of the needs of the office where they work. Yet the Board nevertheless held that toll maintenance personnel were clearly identifiable as a specially skilled group of craftsmen. It seems clear that what the Board did in coming to that conclusion was to view the Company's operations as a whole in terms of that fact that toll maintenance employees, in the main, possessed separate skills associated with the 87 The Board illustrated "the complexity of these concepts" ("toll" and "exchange") by quoting counsel in the proceeding before it as to varying usages of the terms (107 NLRB 1615, footnote 17). 516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD maintenance of specialized equipment adapted to long-distance communication and transmission, whereas employees in classifications such as central office repairman, deskman, frameman, and switchman exercised skills adapted, in the main, to the serv- icing of specialized equipment for local communication and transmission, and it made no difference to the Board's conclusion that "some employees," whether toll main- tenance or exchange-titled, performed comparable work and combined skills identified with one group with those associated with the other. In short, I find it difficult to con- clude that the Board intended to depart in 1954 from the position it expressed in 1949, only a few years earlier with respect to the Oregon unit, reiterating what it had held in 1944 concerning the Washington-Idaho unit, that toll maintenance employees constitute a specially skilled group of craftsmen and that "the job categories under toll and central office employees indicate respectively different craft skills." In any event, there are substantial indicia that the Respondents themselves regard toll maintenance employees as possessing special craft aptitudes. Significant in that regard are the "on-the-job training outline[s]" filed by PT&T with the California Division of Apprenticeship Standards for the classifications of toll central office repairman, telegraph repeaterman, and testboardman. It is well to remember that these are not training specifications for telephone maintenance employees gener- ally, but, on the contrary, prescribe a 4-year training schedule for employees in spe- cific classifications, all of them toll maintenance categories. It is interesting also to note that despite the stress placed in this proceeding on equipment that, to quote the Board's phrase, "serve[s] to obliterate the earlier `toll' and `exchange' distinc- tions," and upon the variables of the coding procedure and claimed attendant vari- able effects of "the periodic recording of equipment" upon the three units, the outline dealing with apprenticeship training for the job of testboardman specifies training in "operations and functions of toll equipment," thus suggesting that "toll equipment" has something less of a variable meaning than the Respondents appear willing to attach to it in this proceeding. Significantly, also, as bearing on the dis- tinctive craft nature of the work of toll maintenance employees, when PT&T found it necessary as part of the "toll dispersal program" to add to the skills of exchange- titled employees, located in outlying exchanges in the Los Angeles area, they were given special training "from the craft standpoint," as Babbidge put it, by a man who held a toll maintenance classification before his assignment to the training task. Another indication of how distinctive PT&T regards the skill of toll main- tenance personnel may be found in the issue of "News Topics" for July 13, 1953, a PT&T publication concerned with the Washington-Idaho area. The issue, in dis- cussing the Company's "microwave school" states, in part: It takes a lot of money, a lot of people and a great deal of time and work to construct a microwave relay system. Then, after it is alive and working, it must be skillfully maintained by trained technicians with a lot of "know how." Eastern Washington Toll Maintenance people have been in Seattle recently attending a highly specialized school which will equip them to maintain the new three million dollar Spokane-Yakima microwave system now under con- struction. [Emphasis supplied.] There are other evidences of craft distinction between toll maintenance and exchange- titled classifications,68 but I think little would be gained by pursuit of the subject. Upon the whole record, I see no reason to depart from the Board's conclusion in the 1944 and 1949 decisions that toll maintenance employees are identifiable as a separate group of specially skilled craftsmen and that "the job categories under toll and central office employees indicate respectively different craft skills." In any case, the question of the appropriateness of the three units does not hinge upon a finding that the toll maintenance employees have "different craft skills" from employees in exchange-titled classifications such as deskman, PBX installer, PBX repairman, switchman, central office repairman, and frameman. It is obvious, of course, that in given situations in a representation proceeding concerned with the initial task of determining what group or groups would be appropriate for bargaining purposes, the question of comparable skills might be an important factor to take into account in formulating unit findings. But we are not concerned here with the relative merits of one grouping of employees as compared with another for the purposes of collective bargaining. As the Board has pointed out, "there is nothing in the statute which requires that the unit for bargaining be the only appropriate unit, or the ultimate unit, or the most appropriate unit; the Act requires only that 68 See, for example, the testimony of Robert W. Jones, a transmissionman employed in the Merced, California, office. I THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 517 the unit be `appropriate"' (Morand Brothers Beverage Co., 91 NLRB 409, 418).69 Thus our only inquiry here is whether each of the three units is an appropriate unit, and on that score there are a number of hard facts which are controlling, ir- respective of the fact that "the present worth of the [Respondents'] skilled telephone maintenance employees lies in their ability to handle highly complicated, technical, and integrated circuits and equipment, however used, rather than in any special `toll' or `exchange' aptitudes, if any, that they may happen to possess." First, it is a basic fact that the definitional content of each of the units has re- tained its clarity, notwithstanding the change of a few job titles, the technological developments discussed earlier, the comparability of some equipment components used in "toll" service with some employed in the rendition of "exchange" service, and the fact that an unspecified number of employees outside the units exercise skills comparable to those within them. The classification structure which the Board adopted as the definitional content of the units is still in effect, and that conclusion, for reasons already stated, is unaffected by the redesignation of some toll maintenance employees as transmissionmen. In short, the classification structure sets toll main- tenance employees apart, whatever comparability there may be between their skills and those of other telephone maintenance employees. There is no evidence that the Respondents are unable to determine which employees fall within the classifica- tions which spell the "outlines" of the respective units. There is thus-no warrant for any conclusion that the classification basis for the units prevents the Respondents from bargaining. Second, although toll maintenance employees, at least of a certain type, were the subject of separate bargaining for a considerable number of years following 1919, one need go no farther than the first certification in 1940 to emerge with a long history of collective bargaining for the toll maintenance employees involved here.70 That certification was followed by some 13 years of bargaining relations reflected' in 25 agreements. The Respondents would in effect ignore this long bargaining continuum as a measure of unit appropriateness. I think that it is entitled to con- trolling weight in this proceeding. The very fact that the toll maintenance classi- fications have been for so long separated from other plant department job categories for bargaining purposes gives separate structural outline and content to the units as appropriate for bargaining, even if it be assumed that the employees within the units have skills in common with some outside their purview. It stands to reason that a bargaining pattern of such long duration tends to give expression to the common interests of those affected by it, and to result in turn in a solidification of interest by such individuals in the group as separate from others. Separate work- ing conditions develop as a result of bargaining and serve to set those affected apart from others. One need only note in that regard that prior to the refusal to bargain there were special seniority practices, established by contract, applicable to toll maintenance employees and not to exchange-titled personnel. (This and other working conditions have been changed unilaterally by the Respondents.) In short, the long bargaining history is itself a symbol of separate group identification and distinctiveness. Moreover, this separateness is given emphasis by other factors. It is a fair inference from the evidence and the Board's prior decisions that, with some "fringe" exceptions (such as some PBX repairmen), the membership of ORTT has consisted substantially of employees in toll maintenance classifica- tions. Through much of its existence the union was unaffiliated with any other organization. And one should not lose sight of the fact that two of the units came into existence as the result of self-determination elections held by the Board. A majority of the employees involved freely chose to give separate direction to their bargaining pattern and to set themselves apart from others for bargaining purposes. The challenge levelled against the propriety of any of the units does 69 Remanded In part on other grounds 190 F 2d 576 (C. A. 7). 70 There was a great deal of testimony and contention at the hearing pertaining to the fact that a knowledge of Morse code was once regarded as a basic skill for toll mainte- nance employees, enabling them to communicate by Morse test wires with technicians in other cities, whereas now alternative methods of communication such as telephone order wires and speaker systems are available and used by such employees. Some toll main- tenance employees do not know Morse code, although there are indications in the record that such knowledge is a hiring requirement in some cases. In any case, in the light of the reasons given herein for the conclusion that the units are appropriate, I think it immaterial, as the Respondents assert in their brief, that "a knowledge of Morse code ap- pears at one time to have been the single distinguishing skill of ORTT members." Simi- .larly, for the same reasons, it is immaterial that some (the record does not specify how many) toll maintenance employees neither use nor know-Morse code. 518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not arise from any employees within their purview, but comes from the Respond- ents who neither claim nor have established that they are unable to bargain on the basis of the existing units. There is not a scintilla of evidence that the desire for separate bargaining identification symbolized by the election results has been diminished. I do not hold that bargaining units become permanently frozen when they are the product of self-determination elections. Obviously, different cir- cumstances produce different results. What I do hold is that the circumstances here present no sound reason why the Respondents should not continue to honor the results of the elections . That being the case , for the Board, by its approval of the refusals to bargain , to override the results of the elections , which, together with the bargaining pattern that followed, contributed to the separate and dis- tinctive shape of the Oregon and Washington -Idaho units , would, in my judgment constitute a denial of basic premises of the Act. Finally, in the complex created by the technological features of this record, the jargon of the science of electronics, the complicated exhibits , and the many thousands of words of testimony , one should not lose sight of the basic simplicity of the circumstances in which the Respondents refused to bargain . There is every reason to believe that had not ORTT sought a redefinition of the units, bargaining nego- tiations would have proceeded as they had before the Union filed its petition. This is made clear by the unavoidable and hard fact that at the last meeting with ORTT, the Respondents , through their bargaining spokesman , a man with sub- stantial experience in labor-management relations , expressed themselves as having been satisfied with the units, and by letter on the following day, proposed a re- sumption of the negotiations with a proviso which does not affect the fact that the Respondents were content to bargain on the basis of the existing units. It is quite evident that the Respondents themselves regarded the units as appropriate at the time of the last meeting and when they wrote the letter . The units were no less appropriate at the time of the refusal to bargain on April 12 , 1954, and they are no less appropriate now, for nothing has actually happened since the last meeting to justify the refusal to bargain . The claim that the "findings underlying tha Board's [1954] decision" render the units inappropriate proceeds from a mis- conception of the purview of the decision and of the Respondents ' obligation to observe the Board's unit determinations and certifications . As a final comment on that obligation, it should be borne in mind that the Respondents neither assert nor have they established that they are unable to bargain on the basis of the existing unit definitions , and it seems to be their belief that only a more inclusive unit or units would be appropriate. In that connection, and bearing in mind the absence of any claim or evidence of inability to bargain , one is reminded here of the perceptive question recently put by Judge Lemmon, speaking for the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:- "Why should an employer, willing to accept a larger, comprehensive unit, haggle over the membership of a smaller one? What's Hecuba to him, or he to Hecuba?" (Foreman & Clark, Inc. v. N. L. R. B., 215 F. 2d 396 (C. A. 9).) In sum, I can perceive no valid reason why the Respondents should not return to the bargaining table and fulfill the obligations imposed upon them by the unit and certification determinations. Viewing the record as a whole, I find that on April 12, 1954, and at all material times prior to and since that date, the employees comprising the units respectively described in paragraphs numbered III and IV of the complaint , as amended, have constituted, and now constitute , units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. -E. The status of ORTT-IBEW as the representative of the employees in the units In or about the early part of February 1954 , ORTT held a secret ballot referendum of its members on the question whether the organization should affiliate with Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL (referred to herein as IBEW). The great majority of the membership voted to affiliate with IBEW. Some days after the ballots were counted , a group of members of ORTT, including its officers, met on several occasions over a period of a few days with representa- tives of IBEW and discussed with the latter "various phases of affiliation" and the adoption of new bylaws by ORTT. During the course of the discussions, the ORTT members in attendance prepared a draft of proposed bylaws and signed their respec- tive names to an application for a charter by IBEW . A charter was issued on or about February 26, 1954. The document lists those whose names appear in the application, 14 in number, and provides, among other matters, that IBEW "grants this charter" to the 14 persons listed , "and to their successors ," and the "power to establish a Local Union of the International Brotherhood"; and that the "Local Union shall be known as Local Union No. 1011 and shall have jurisdiction THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 519 as defined in the approved Bylaws of the Local Union ." Since the issuance of the charter, the Charging Party in this proceeding has called itself Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL (referred to herein, as noted earlier, as ORTT-IBEW). In or about April 1954, ORTT-IBEW, through one or more of its representatives, sent a "final draft" of proposed bylaws to IBEW for approval. The latter organiza- tion approved them, and returned them to ORTT-IBEW. As of the time the hearing was held, they had not as yet been submitted to the membership of ORTT-IBEW because the officers of the organization had not made a final decision with respect to one aspect of the bylaws. Pending the adoption of the bylaws, ORTT-IBEW has been "operating under the old ORTT Constitution." (ORTT had no bylaws.) There has been no election of officers since the issuance of the charter, and those who were officers of ORTT at the time the charter was issued hold the same respec- tive positions with ORTT-IBEW. There has been no formal transfer of assets from ORTT to ORTT-IBEW, and the bank account of ORTT still remains in that name. The secretary-treasurer of ORTT, after he began to act in that capacity for ORTT-IBEW, continued to pay the bills incurred by ORTT before the issuance of the charter. Prior to the expiration (on June 2, 1953) of the last contract between the Respondents and ORTT, dues paid to the Union were checked off by the Respondents from the wages of ORTT members. The checkoff was discontinued at one point or another before the issuance of the charter. Thereafter, dues were collected by the Union's stewards, then turned over to various area representatives, and for- warded by the latter to the organization's secretary-treasurer. That method of paying, collecting, and forwarding dues continued after the issuance of the charter and is still in effect. The only variation in the dues collection procedure is that now the secretary-treasurer makes out a dues receipt in triplicate on a form pro- vided by IBEW, sends a copy to the member and another to IBEW "with the per capita tax payments," and retains the third. The dues collected are deposited in the bank account which still bears ORTT's name. Although a member of ORTT did not "automatically" acquire membership in ORTT-IBEW at the time the charter was issued, all members of ORTT have signed applications for membership. As of the time of the hearing, the secretary-treasurer had issued membership cards to a majority of those who had signed application cards, but had not completed the issuance of the cards to the others because the cards must be processed by IBEW, and such processing had not as yet been completed at the time of the hearing. The evidence indicates that substantially the entire dues paying membership of ORTT continued their dues paying status after the issuance of the charter, irrespective of whether they had as yet received the new membership cards 71 I have dwelt in some detail upon evidence relating to the genesis and current status of ORTT-IBEW because the Respondents in effect took the position at the hearing (they do not argue the matter in their brief) that ORTT-IBEW is a stranger to the certifications and is not entitled to exercise any representative authority under them. I do not agree. The Respondent advanced the view at the hearing that because of the content of the charter no affiliation of ORTT with IBEW had taken place. The question of affiliation is wholly immaterial if in fact there is an organization in existence, whether known as ORTT or ORTT-IBEW, with whom the Respondents are required to bargain. That there is such an organization, I have no doubt, but as the Respondents question the affiliation, the point may be examined. I think it but a hypertechnical and unimportant detail that the charter issued by IBEW runs to 14 named individuals rather than to ORTT itself. These men were not functioning in a vacuum. Their organization had voted to affiliate, with IBEW. Plainly, the group which met with IBEW's representatives were acting in a representative capacity to effectuate the desire of ORTT, as expressed in the vote of its members, to affiliate with IBEW, and it seems obvious that what they intended was to carry out the wishes of their organization. These men were not lawyers preoccupied with legalistic punctilio when they discussed affiliation with the representatives of IBEW. They were there to perform a task desired by the membership of ORTT, and in my judgment they accomplished it. To hold otherwise , it seems to me, is to infect the bloodstream u As of June 2, 1953, the expiration date of the last ORTT contract, the aggregate num- ber of employees covered by the agreement was 1,099. Of that number 947 had had their dues checked off. As of April 1954 (the month in which the first refusal to bargain oc- curred ) the records of the secretary-treasurer listed 952 dues paying employees. There is no evidence that the number was any less at the time of the hearing. 379288-50-vol. 113-34 520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of self-organization of employees with ritualistic rules quite unsuited to the objec- tives of the Act. How far forward the will of the members was carried may be seen in the fact that the name "Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen" is part and parcel of the inscription on the membership cards reading "Order of Repeater- men and Toll' Testboardmen , Local 1011 , IBEW." (Slightly, but not significantly, varied, this last name also appears in the proposed bylaws. ) The striking symbol of affiliation, of course, is that a portion of the dues of the membership flows to IBEW as "per capita tax payments." There can be no doubt that the Respondents have no status to challenge the right of their employees to change the name of their organization , to affiliate with an inter- national labor organization , or to order their internal organizational affairs as they see fit. The circumstance that the proposed bylaws have not as yet been adopted, the conduct by ORTT-IBEW of its affairs under the constitution of ORTT, and the fact that ORTT-IBEW has not held an election of officers since the affiliation, are all matters that are obviously no more the legitimate concern of the Respondents than would the management by the Respondents of their internal corporate affairs, their corporate structure, affiliation with other business groups, and omission to hold elec- tions of officers and directors be the business of their employees' labor organization.72 "Metaphysical arguments as to the nature of the entity with which we are dealing should not be permitted to obscure the substance of what has been done. .. In these terms, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in N. L. R. B. v. Harris- Woodson Co., Inc., 179 F. 2d 720, in effect approved the Board's position that con- tinuity of the employees' own organization is the "governing test in determining whether one labor organization is identical with another having a different name and affiliation" (Harris-Woodson Co., Inc., 85 NLRB 1215, 1217) 73 The evidence here clearly establishes such continuity. There was no dissolution of ORTT, transfer of its assets, change of officers , or substantial alteration in the method of paying and re- ceiving dues. Its constitution governs the management of ORTT-IBEW. Substan- tially the entire membership of ORTT signed applications for membership in ORTT- IBEW and continued to pay dues to the latter. Membership cards have been issued to the majority, and the issuance of cards to the rest merely awaits the formality of processing by IBEW. It can fairly be said that the membership of ORTT-IBEW is substantially the same as that of ORTT. Above all, the hard fact, in the final analysis, is that ORTT-IBEW is the product of the vote of the great majority of the members of ORTT to affiliate with IBEW. (Of those casting ballots, 625 voted in favor of, and 101 against, affiliation.) In sum, although the General Counsel terms ORTT- IBEW a "successor" of ORTT, the organizational content and practices of ORTT are fused to such an extent with those of ORTT-IBEW that I find that the latter is the same organization as ORTT operating under a different name and with an affili- ated status. That being the case, the labor organization described herein as ORTT- IBEW has been entitled at all material times since February 26, 1954, and is now entitled, to act, by virtue of the three certifications previously issued by the Board, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in each of the three units found above to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. More specifically, I find that at all material times since February 26, 1954, ORTT-IBEW has been, and now is, the exclusive representative for the purposes of collective bar- gaining of the employees in each of the three units. Finally, I find that the Respondents refused to bargain with ORTT-IBEW, as the representative of the employees in each of the units, on April 12, 1954, and have since so refused to bargain with the organization ; and that by such refusals the Respondents have violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act. F. The unilateral changes in working conditions On April 13 , 1954, the day following the initial refusal to bargain , the Company addressed a form letter to "All Toll Maintenance Employees" and sent copies to those so addressed. Among other matters , the letter adverted to the termination of the last contract with ORTT, the Company's interpretation of the Board 's decision of March 17, 1954, and to the Company's view that the units were inappropriate ; and stated that because there was no longer any contract in effect , PT&T had prepared a "set of Working Practices," effective that day, applicable to toll maintenance employees, and that these would be posted on bulletin boards for the information of such employees. In conformity with the letter , the Company prepared and posted for the attention of toll maintenance employees in all four areas pamphlets bearing a label which includes rn See, in that connection , N. L. R. B v. National Mineral Co., 134 F. 2d 424, 426-427 (C. A 7) and N. L. R. B. v. Foreman & Clark, Ino , 215 F. 2d 396 (C. A. 9). 73 To the same effect, see Continental Oil Co. v. N. L. It. B., 113 F. 2d 473 (C. A. 10). THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 521 the phrase "Wage and Working Practices Toll Maintenance Employees." A copy in evidence (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 21) embodies the "Wage and Working Practices" applicable to toll maintenance employees in the Northern California- Nevada area, and the contents of the pamphlets posted in the other areas are similar with modifications (not elaborated in the record but admittedly "minor") adapted to "local situations." The pamphlets, as their label indicates, prescribe wage schedules and working conditions for the employees affected. The provisions of the "Wage and Working Practices" were put into effect on April 13, 1954, without prior negotia- tion or other consultation with the collective -bargaining representative of the em- ployees comprising the units found to be appropriate here. The "Wage and Working Practices" deal with such bargainable subjects as wages; shift hours and schedules; shift differential payments; vacations; overtime and pre- mium wages; leaves of absence; seniority; holidays; reimbursement for expenses, including those incurred for lodging, meals and board, while on duty away from headquarters; transportation ; layoffs; sick leave; and grievances .74 In the main, these subjects had previously been treated in the last contract, at least, between the Respondents and ORTT. The "Wage and Working Practices" altered many working conditions of employees in the units , omitting some privileges and benefits they had previously enjoyed , and modifying others. One of the more important changes relates to seniority. Employees affected had previously enjoyed "toll seniority," as the form letter terms it, which varied somewhat among the areas (according to the provisions of the last ORTT contract). The change may be sufficiently exemplified by a refer- ence to the Oregon area. There, prior to the change, the measure of seniority for "each toll employee" was the length "of total service within that area in the title classi- fications" listed in the last contract (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 6) between the Respondents and ORTT. Now seniority "consistent with the demands of the service [is] based on net credited service," with respect to such matters , among others, as rehiring of "laid off employees" and "interoffice transfers within the area." As ex- plained by the form letter, it was the Company's purpose to measure seniority of toll maintenance employees "on the same scale as that of your associates in this Depart- ment." (It is inferable that "associates " refers to plant department employees such as switchmen, deskmen, framemen, and central office repairmen.) It is unnecessary to deal with specifics of other changes. (To see what they are, one may compare the last contract with the "Wage and Working Practices" in evi- dence.) Nor need one set forth any other details of the "Wage and Working Prac- tices," for to do so would serve little purpose. So far as the purposes of the Act are concerned, the important point is not in details of the changes or whether they represent any loss or constriction of benefits, but that the subjects of the "Wage and Working Practices" listed above were all of a bargainable nature, and that to put the "Wage and Working Practices" with respect to them into effect without prior consultation with the collective-bargaining representative of the employees affected was a disparagement of the collective-bargaining process and tantamount to a re- fusal to bargain with ORTT-IBEW, the representative of the employees involved (N. L. R. B. v. Crompton-Highland Mills, Inc., 337 U. S. 217). Moreover, the natural tendency of such disregard of the collective-bargaining process is to inter- fere with, restrain, and coerce the employees affected in the exercise of rights guar- anteed to them by Section 7 of the Act. In sum, by making effective the provisions of the "Wage and Working Practices," relating to the subjects listed above, without prior consultation with the bargaining representative of the employees involved, the Respondents violated Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act.75 44 The "Wage and Working Practices" also deal with the subjects of "title classifica- tions," "title assignments," the definition of "senior employees," and the reservation to the Company of the right to determine the site and shift of training and the time "when a new employee will be given his first regular assignment." The omission to list these matters as bargainable subjects is not intended as a holding that the Respondents may not be required to bargain with respect to such matters in given situations or that they are not properly the subject of bargaining. It is unnecessary to decide, for the purposes of this proceeding, whether the omitted matters may be made the subject of mandatory bargaining ,e The General Counsel does not make clear whether he seeks an order requiring the Respondents to cease and desist from continuing in effect any of the changes in prior working conditions. It may be borne in mind that for the greater part such prior work- ing practices were embodied in a contract now expired. In any event, without implying any construction of the Board's remedial powers in the premises , I shall not recommend such a cease and desist order below. For one thing, the "Wage and Working Practices" mere not put into effect as part of an invalid contract with an assisted union. For another, in the absence of substantial information , not afforded by the record, as to the impact on 522 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD G. The contract between the Respondents and CWA affecting toll maintenance- employees in the Northern California-Nevada area At the time of the refusal to bargain on April 12, 1954, there was in effect a collective-bargaining agreement (General Counsel's Exhibit No. 31) between the Respondents and CWA applicable to "exchange plant employees of the [Respond- ents] in the Northern California and Nevada area." The contract, dated July 31, 1953, covers many classifications of "exchange central office craft forces" (or, in other words, exchange-titled employees), including switchmen, deskmen, frame- men, and central office repairmen, and accords CWA recognition by the Respond- ents as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the classifica- tions listed. It may be pointed out, superfluously perhaps, that no toll maintenance classifications were among those listed. By its terms, the contract was to remain "in effect to and including June 6, 1954." It was also provided that "negotiations on a new agreement shall begin not earlier than April 6, 1954." By agreement of the Respondents and CWA, negotiations for a new contract were scheduled to begin on April 27, 1954. The parties met on the appointed date but devoted most of the meeting to a discussion of a proposal by CWA that the exist- ing contract be amended by the inclusion of transmissionmen among the classifica- tions covered, or, in other words, the inclusion of all toll maintenance employees in the Northern California-Nevada area. The discussions resulted in the execution by the Respondents and CWA of a "Memorandum of Agreement," dated April 27, 1954, in substance making the contract of July 31, 1953, applicable to all toll main- tenance employees in the area, thus in effect, by agreement, redefining the bargain- ing unit set forth in that contract (described in the "Memorandum" as the "North- ern California and Nevada Area Plant Unit"). The redefinition of the "Plant Unit" was without legal warrant. The toll main- tenance employees are, and have been since 1940, a separate unit defined by the Board as appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. It is question-begging to point out that CWA represents a majority of the employees in the "Plant Unit," for the basic fact is that toll maintenance employees are not part of that unit and are not repre- sented by CWA. The decisive circumstance is that ORTT-IBEW, as a result of the certification issued in 1940 when that organization was known as ORTT, was the ex- clusive collective-bargaining representative of the toll maintenance employees when the "Memorandum" was executed, and still has that representative status. (The' Board's 1940 unit determination and certification are controlling on the question of the legality of the "Memorandum," but, in passing it may be noted that there is no evidence, nor, indeed, any claim by the Respondents or CWA, that any toll main- tenance employee either requested or authorized CWA to represent him.) By according recognition to CWA as the representative of the toll maintenance employees and entering into the "Memorandum of Agreement" making the contract of July 31, 1953, applicable to them, the Respondents interfered with, restrained, and coerced such employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act, thus violating Section 8 (a) (1) of the said Act; and unlawfully contributed sup- port to CWA, thereby violating Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. The "Memorandum of Agreement" was, and is, invalid, and in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be recommended below that the Respondents be directed to cease giving effect to its terms, to any extension or renewal thereof, and to any successor agreement applicable to toll maintenance employees; and to withdraw and withhold recogni- tion of CWA as the representative of toll maintenance employees in the Northern California-Nevada area for the purposes of collective bargaining. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in con- nection with the operations of the Respondents described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. the Respondents' operations of such a cease and desist order, it would be unwise, I think, to recommend such an order. In the final analysis, the "Wage and Working Practices" effected changes in working conditions which, in the main, had previously been embodied in a collective-bargaining agreement. The remedy that the Respondents bargain, to be recommended below, will be of sufficient scope to require the Respondents to bargain with ORTT-IBEW, upon such appropriate request as the latter may make, with respect to the subjects listed above or on any other matters properly the subject of bargaining. THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 523 V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices violative ,of Section 8 (a) (1), (2), and (5) of the Act, I shall recommend, in manner and form set forth below, that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and of the entire record in this -proceeding, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and Bell Telephone Company of Nevada are Employers within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. 2. Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Communications Workers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the -meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 4. All toll maintenance employees of The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany and Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, who are employed in the Northern California and Nevada, and Southern California areas of The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, have, at all times since April 27, 1940, constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the -meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. All toll maintenance employees of The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany in its Washington-Idaho area, including PBX teletypewriter repairmen under toll supervision, but excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, have, at all times since November 23, 1944, con- stituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 6. All toll maintenance employees of The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Com- pany in its Oregon area, including transmissionmen, toll central office repairmen principally engaged in work on toll terminal equipment, telegraph repeatermen, toll testboardmen, and PBX repairmen (teletype), but excluding guards, professional and confidential employees, and supervisors, have, at all times since September 29, 1949, constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 7. Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, was, on February 26, 1954, and at all times since has been, and now is, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 8. By failing and refusing on April 12, 1954, and during the period thereafter, as found in section III, above, to bargain collectively with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of the employees respectively comprising the aforesaid appropriate units, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 9. By putting into effect provisions of the "Wage and Working Practices," de- scribed in section III, above, without prior negotiation or consultation with Order of Repeatermen and Toll Testboardmen, Local Union 1011, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. 10. By entering into the "Memorandum of Agreement," dated April 27, 1954, with Communications Workers of America, CIO, as found in section III, above, the Respondents contributed support to Communications Workers of America, CIO, and thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of ,the Act. 11. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees, as found in section III, above, in the exercise of rights guaranteed to such employees by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 12. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Sections 2 (6) and 2 (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.]