The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.

676 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co.' and Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 19-RC-2421. February 17, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wm. Gilbert Nowell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Intervenor, Montana Traffic Employees Association, Inde- pendent (herein called Association), contends that its current con- tract with the Employer covering employees involved herein con- stitutes a bar to the present proceeding. Association's contract, which was executed June 5, 1959, to expire October 1, 1960, was admittedly entered into during the existence of a current contract between the same parties having a term from December 13, 1957, until October 15, 1959. The Petition herein was filed on August 13, 1959. The agreement of June 5, 1959, which pro- longed the terminal date of the original contract, constituted a pre- mature extension of that contract, and will not, therefore, under the Board's Rules, bar a petition filed over 60 and not more than 150 days before the terminal date of the original contract.' As the petition herein was timely filed within the Board's Rules, we find no contract bar to a present determination of representatives. 4. The Employer, a subsidiary of the American Telephone and Tele- graph Company, furnishes local and long-distance telephone service to users in eight States, including Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, and IVyoming. Its facilities are intercon- nected with those of other Bell System associates, and of various in- dependent telephone companies. 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 7 Montana Traffic Employees Association , Independent , and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, each intervened on the basis of a contractual interest. 3 Deluxe Metal Furnsture Company, 121 NLRB 9'95. '126 NLRB No. ,86. THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO . 677 Historically, bargaining for the Employer's employees has excluded Montana from an otherwise systemwide unit. Thus, all plant and traffic employees in the seven States excluding Montana have for many years been represented by the Intervenor, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (herein called CWA). Within Montana, all plant employees are represented by the Petitioner. Montana traffic employees are currently represented in several different units : those in Butte and Missoula have, since about 1918, been represented by locals of the Petitioner in separate units,' and all others have, since 1935, been represented by the Intervenor Association.5 The Petitioner seeks an election among all the Employer's traffic employees in Montana except those in Butte and Missoula, i.e., all those currently represented by the Intervenor. The Employer alleges that the smallest appropriate unit of its traffic employees would be a Montana-wide unit, including employees in Butte and Missoula. If an election in such a unit cannot presently be directed, the Employer would have the petition dismissed. CWA's position conforms es- sentially to that of the Employer. CWA would direct an election in a unit no smaller than that comprising all the Employer's traffic em- ployees in the State of Montana. Such an election, CWA contends, would permit it, if successful, to represent all traffic employees of the Employer in a systemwide unit, alleged by CWA to constitute the optimum unit in the telephone industry. Association agrees generally with Petitioner's unit contention, as it conforms to the unit for which Association is currently recognized as bargaining representative. The Employer's operations are for the most part organized on a systemwide basis. The Employer's vice president in charge of per- sonnel, with headquarters in Denver, formulates personnel policies and practices for the entire company, including Montana. Each State has its own traffic manager, who coordinates with the vice president in charge of personnel, and administers the central personnel policy in his area of responsibility. The Employer attempts to maintain uni- form benefits and policies throughout its system, but there are some variations due to the separate negotiations with the several labor organizations involved. With one or two exceptions, employees transferring between offices maintain continuous seniority. It is true, as urged by CWA, that Board policy has been to favor systemwide units in the public utility field. However, the Board has not taken the position that such a unit is at all times and in all circum- 4 Petitioner's Local 65 represents the Employer's traffic employees in Butte ; Local 408 represents the traffic employees in Missoula . Petitioner 's contract for Butte traffic em- ployees expired on July 1, 1959 , and at the time of the hearing was open for negotiation. Petitioner's most recent contract for Missoula traffic employees was executed on June 2, 1959 , and runs until October 1, 1960. s The Employer operates approximately 35 offices in Montana , of which Butte and Missoula are among the largest. 678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stances the only appropriate unit in this field.' Collective-bargaining history and existing bargaining relationships have, for example, been considered by the Board as bearing on the question of an appropriate unit.' In the present case, the Employer's Montana traffic employees, other than those in Butte and Missoula, have for more than two decades enjoyed collective-bargaining representation apart from the Employer's other traffic employees.' The foregoing collective- bargaining history clearly supports the appropriateness of the unit suggested by Petitioner. The Employer and CWA contend that an election should be directed among all of the Employer's traffic employees in Montana, including those in Butte and Missoula. However, because of their long history of separate representation the traffic employees in Butte and Missoula may not be polled or included in a larger unit without a self- determination election.9 The Petitioner, which is already recognized as collective-bargaining representative for such employees, does not desire an election among them," and no other labor organization interested in this proceeding has made a showing of interest which would warrant the direction of such an election. Accordingly, we find no merit in the aforementioned contention." In view of the above, particularly the long history of separate bar- gaining for employees in such unit, we find that the unit sought by Petitioner is appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.12 Certain classifications of employees are in dispute, as follows: Supervisors: There are employed approximately 37 persons classi- fied as supervisors,13 who the Employer contends should be excluded as possessing supervisory authority. Each of the Employer's offices has a chief operator, and under her one or more supervisors, depending on the size of the office. Larger offices may also have an assistant chief operator. Supervisors are primarily responsible for training and assisting operators in the performance of their duties. Operators o The Houston Corp , 124 NLRB 810 ; Western Light & Telephone Company, Inc., 109 NLRB 630 7 General Telephone Co. of Ohio , 112 NLRB 1225 , footnote 3; The Hartford Electric Light Company, 122 NLRB 1421 8 See The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Co., 30-RC-1127 (May 1956, un- published ), where the Board recognized the historical separation, for collective -bargaining purposes, of the Employer's Montana traffic employees 0 Upper Peninsula Poice^ Company , 110 NLRP. 1082 ; Great Lakes Pope Line Company, 92 NLRB 583 . See also Brooklyn Union Gas Company, 123 NLRB 441. 10 See General Telephone Co. of Ohio, supra at p 1228 ii The Hartford Electric Light Co, supra ; Pennsuleanoa Electric Company, 110 NLRB 1078 , 1080 In view of our determination herein, we do not pass on the question raised by CWA , whether Petitioner 's current contract covering the traffic employees in Missoula would bar a current election among such employees 19 See Montana-Dakota Utilities Co , 110 NLRB 1056; General Telephone Co. of Ohio, suprd. 18 These individuals are known as service assistants in the Employer 's offices outside Montana Supervisors are currently excluded from the Employer's collective-bargaining agreement with the Association , but are included in IBEW's contracts covering Butte and Missoula. THE MOUNTAIN STATES TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO . 679 normally refer to their supervisors problems that arise, and do not deal directly with the chief operator. On weekends, and at certain other times during the week when chief operators and their assistants are not on duty, supervisors are placed in charge of the offices, and then assume the authority of chief operators. On such occasions, which arise with relative frequency, supervisors may relieve operators of their duties, and may impose other forms of discipline. Even when chief operators are present, supervisors may and do reprimand opera- tors for improper performance. When chief operators are busy, or absent from the job, supervisors interview applicants for employment, and their recommendations on hiring are given substantial weight. During an operator's initial training period, her supervisor is expected to observe and appraise her potential as an operator, and a supervisor's recommendation of dismissal will normally result in the trainee's dis- charge. On the basis of the above, and the entire record, we find that supervisors possess the authority to discipline other employees, and effectively to recommend their hire and discharge. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit as supervisors within the meaning of the Act.14 Supervisory assistant for toll-line engineering; instructors, State and district; service observers and clerks in the State office: The Intervenor 'CWA would include all the aforementioned categories of employees, while the Employer and the Petitioner would include only the service observers and clerks in the State office. The record indi- cates that the above classifications may properly belong in the unit found to be appropriate. However, it also appears that these employees have heretofore been excluded from the existing bargaining unit, and under Board law they may not be included in that unit with- out being given a chance to express their wishes in a self-determination election; 15 as no labor organization seeking these employees has made a separate showing of interest among them warranting the direction of a self-determination election, we shall exclude them from the unit.16 Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All traffic employees of the Employer in the State of Montana, except those in the Butte and Missoula offices, and excluding service 14 General Telephone Co. of Ohio, supra at p. 1229; Ozark Central Telpehone Company, 83 NLRB 258 Cf. San Marcos Telephone Company, 81 NLRB 314 CWA contends that the Regional Director erroneously denied its motion for a continu- ance, thereby depriving it of adequate time to prepare its case on the question of supervisors . CWA moves therefore that supervisors be permitted to vote subject to challenge We deny this motion. CWA was present at the hearing, participated fully in examining witnesses regarding the inclusion or exclusion of supervisors, and the record contains ample evidence pertaining to this issue. 15 The Zia Co ., 108 NLRB 1134. 1A Illtinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109. See also Adams Coal Company, Inc, 118 NLRB 1493. ,680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD observers, clerks in the State office, the supervisory assistant for toll- line engineering, instructors, State and district, confidential stenogra- phers, professional employees, guards, the State secretary, the super- visory assistant in charge of routing supervisors, chief operators, assistant chief operators, night chief operators, and all other super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election " omitted from publication.] 11 Intervenor CWA has not indicated that it is unwilling to appear on the ballot in the limited unit sought by Petitioner, and found above to be appropriate . Accordingly, we shall include its name on the ballot , with the right to withdraw upon notification to the Regional Director within 10 days to this Decision and Direction of Election. Douglas H. McDonald, Trustee of Evansville Television, Inc., Debtor 1 and Radio and Television Broadcast Technicians Union, Local No. 1225, International Brotherhood of Electri- cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 35-RC-1710. February 17, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George M. Dick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.3 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of engineers, cameramen, directors, floormen, projectionists, and film department employees, employed by the Employer at its television studio in Evansville, In- 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's request, joined in by the majority stockholder, that action be deferred on the petition because the Trustee's appoint- ment under chapter x of the Bankruptcy Act is now being challenged in court . Whether the challenge will be successful is speculative ; therefore we conclude that its pendency does not warrant delaying an election 0 Ferris Traylor, majority stockholder and chief creditor was permitted to intervene at the hearing without objection of the other parties. 126 NLRB No. 88.