Western Light & Telephone Co., Inc.

WESTERN LIGHT & TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. 719 Eighth, the Respondents advance several points in contending that the four organizers who testified for the General Counsel are unworthy of belief, To some extent, the points are exaggerated . To some extent, they are accurate but partially explainable by lapses of memory which are common to men or by the fact that honest witnesses to an event may not receive identical mental impressions . I have considered each point carefully and I am convinced that the truth lies on the General Counsel's side. I conclude that the Respondents have violated Section 8 (a)(1) of the Act by pre- mediated and cruel assaults and batteries upon organizers for the Union. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondents set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection 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 ob- structing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondents have engaged in certain unfair labor prac- tices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in 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. 3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] testimony is uncontradleted that he was unacquainted with the five organizers until he left the shipyard soon after seeing the guard take the blackjack and then made inquiries concerning the attacks. Western Light & Telephone Company, Inc.' and Communica- tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner . Case No. 18-RC-A356. November 18, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ray C. Jenkins, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 1 The Employer's name is hereby corrected to conform with the evidence in the record. 2 The Petitioner's name appears as amended at the hearing. 129 NLRB No. 83. 720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is a public utility with its main office in Great Bend, Kansas. Its operations are divided into four functional de- partments-water, gas, electric, and telephone-which provide serv- ices to towns and communities located in the States of Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. Only the telephone department is involved in this proceeding. The Employer's telephone department consists of five administra- tive divisions, one of which is coextensive with the State of Iowa and is referred to herein as the Iowa division. The Petitioner currently represents the employees at the Denison and Ida Grove exchanges in the Iowa division. It now seeks an election among all the unrepre- sented telephone department employees in that division in order to have them included in a unit with the Denison and Ida Grove ex- changes. The resultant unit would thus correspond with the Em- ployer's Iowa division. The Employer, on the other hand, contends that the only appropriate voting group is that found by the Board in 1954 in a case involving these parties,3 i.e., all employees at the Employer's telephone exchanges in Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri,' ex- cept employees at the Denison and Ida Grove, Iowa, exchanges already represented by Petitioner, so that the resultant unit would be systemwide. It is clear from the record that the operations are substantially the same as they were at the time of the prior decision and continue to reflect the same high degree of integration and interdependence of most telephone companies and other public utilities. The entire tele- phone department is now under the general supervision of a general manager ' located in the main office at Great Bend, Kansas, who re- ports directly to the Employer's president. Under this general man- ager are five division managers.' Local managers of each exchange report to their respective division managers. Local managers hire and fire employees, sometimes with the assistance of the chief oper- ators, but all such actions are forwarded ultimately to the general manager of the telephone department for final approval. Labor rela- 3 Western Light & Telephone Company, Inc, 109 NLRB 630. The Petitioner lost the election directed by the Board in that case, and there is no history of bargaining for the telephone department employees other than at the Denison and Ida Grove exchanges 4 At the time of the prior proceeding , the Employer's operations also included tele- phone exchanges in the State of Oklahoma However, these exchanges had been disposed of prior to the present proceedings 6 At the time of the prior proceeding in 1954 , the general manager supervised only three telephone divisions encompassing the States of Missouri and Iowa e Division managers of the East Kansas and Central Kansas divisions supervise em- ployees engaged in all phases of the Employer 's operations . They report to the general manager of the telephone department concerning matters relating to the telephone opera- tions, but report directly to the Employer 's president with respect to the gas, electric, and water department operations. WESTERN LIGHT & TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. 721 tions policies are centrally determined and employee benefits are uni- form for all employees. There is some employee interchange between exchanges in the Iowa division, but little interchange between divisions? It is thus clear that a systemwide unit of the type requested by the Employer and traditionally considered by the Board to be the opti- mum in the public utility industry might be appropriate. However, the Board has also held that, although such a unit is ultimately the most desirable, it is not at all times and in all circumstances the only appropriate type of unit in a public utility,8 particularly where, as here, no labor organization seeks to represent the employees on a more comprehensive basis.9 Thus, in the absence of a bargaining history ,on a broader basis, 10 the Board has frequently found appropriate in the public utility industry a unit which corresponds to an administra- tive subdivision of the particular operation, 11 reflecting geographical lines of demarcation 12 and operational integration of the subdivision as a separate administrative entity.13 Although such administrative subdivisionwide units have, in the main, been established in gas and electric public utilities, the Board has not applied a different rule to telephone utilities,'' and we perceive no basis for doing so. The same considerations are present and the same principles are applicable to all public utilities. 7 On occasion a meritorious employee may be offered the opportunity to transfer at a promotion, and requests for transfer for personal reasons would probably be approved However, all such transfers are voluntary. s The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 126 NLRB 676; Louisiana Gas Service Co , 126 NLRB 147; The Hartford Electric Light Company, 122 NLRB 1421 , Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056. 9 The Houston Corporation, 124 NLRB 810; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co, 115 NLRB 1396; The Housatonic Public Sertiice Company, 111 NLRB 877. Cf Gulf States Tele- phone Company, 118 NLRB 1039; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, 87 NLRB 1555 "Louisiana Gas Service Co., supra; The Houston Corporation, supra; The Hartford Electric Light Company, supra ; The Housatonic Public Service Company, supra Cf The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, supra. "The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra, Louisiana Gas Service Co., supra ; The Hartford Electric Light Company, supra ; Carolina Power and Light Company, 119 NLRB 742; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 115 NLRB 1396, and cases cited therein. Cf. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 108 NLRB 1106; New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, 90 NLRB 639, 640 ; The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com- pany of Virginia, 82 NLRB 810, 818. v Philadelphia Electric Company, 110 NLRB 320, 323. Cf. Carolina Power and Light Company, supra. z3 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 115 NLRB 1396, 1398. Cf. Carolina Power and Light Company, supra. 14 See The Ohio As8ociated Telephone Company, 82 NLRB 972, finding appropriate a unit coextensive with an operating district where the parties were in substantial agree- ment as to the scope of the unit. Although California Water & Telephone Company, 117 NLRB 1056, at 1060, may seem to indicate that the Board would not find appropriate in the telephone industry any unit less than systemwide , it is apparent that the language there was used in the context of a request for a unit of some commercial department employees which was broader than an administrative division but smaller than a systemwide departmental unit. It is well established that under such circumstances the Board will find the requested unit in- appropriate and only a systemwide departmental unit appropriate, and to that extent we adhere to the language of that case. 586439-61-vol. 129-47 722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Nor is the Board's unit determination in the prior case between these parties controlling in this proceeding. For, there was no issue in that case as to the propriety of a unit limited to the employees in one administrative division of the Employer. Rather, the parties at that time agreed on the appropriateness of a systemwide unit of all telephone department employees.15 In the instant proceeding, as no union seeks a systemwide unit and as no collective bargaining resulted from the earlier proceeding, there is no obstacle to the Board's finding that a more restricted unit may be appropriate.16 We also find with- out merit the Employer's contention that the unit requested by the Petitioner is based on extent of organization and must, therefore, be found inappropriate under Section 9(c) (5) of the Act. Our finding that a divisionwide unit may be appropriate is supported by factors wholly unrelated to the Petitioner's extent of organization, whereas Section 9(c) (5) only precludes the Board from giving controlling weight to extent of organization.17 Accordingly, as the factors discussed above reflect the geographical, operational, and administrative integration of the Iowa division as a separate administrative entity of the Employer's telephone depart- ment, no labor organization seeks the broader unit, and there is no bargaining history on a broader basis, we find, in agreement with the Petitioner, that a unit of employees in the Iowa division of the Em- ployer's telephone department may be appropriate and that the em- ployees in that division, other than at the Denison and Ida Grove, Iowa, exchanges, constitute the residue of such divisionwide unit. Under these circumstances, we shall direct an election in the following voting group : All employees employed in the Employer's telephone operations in the State of Iowa, including all telephone construction employees, but excluding employees who work at the Employer's Denison and Ida Grove, Iowa, exchanges; confidential employees; the field engi- neers and equipment men stationed at Clarence, Missouri; 18 all other employees; and guards and supervisors 18 as defined in the Act. ss The question before the Board in the prior case was limited to whether only the residual group of employees should be polled, or the Denison and Ida Grove employees, who were already represented by the Petitioner, should also be permitted to vote in the election. iS Southeastern Concrete Products Company, et al, 127 NLRB 1024; 0. E. McIntyre, Inc., 127 NLRB 733. 17 The Electronic and Instrumentation Division of Baldwtin-Lima-Hamilton Corporation, 118 NLRB 917, 919 As the field engineers and equipment men stationed in Clarence, Missouri, are not employed in the Iowa division, we exclude them without considering their status How- ever, we note that at the time of the prior case there was apparently one field engineer at Clarence, Missouri, and that he was found to be a supervisor. Western Light & Tele- phone Company, Inc., 8,tpra, at 632, footnote 6 1n Evening chief operators will be permitted to vote subject to challenge . The record contains no reference to this category, but in the prior proceeding they were permitted to vote by challenged ballot by agreement of the parties and it was noted that the record contained no evidence as to their duties. Western Light d Telephone Company, Inc., supra, at 632, footnote 5. RESEARCH CRAFT MFG. CORPORATION, ETC . 723 A majority vote for the Petitioner will be taken as an indication of the employees' desire to be included in a unit with the Denison and Ida Grove employees now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Research Craft Mfg. Corporation, Research Craft Corporation, and Research Craft Plastics Corporation and United Electri- cal, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE), Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-6288. November 18, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Laurence D. Steinsapir, 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 Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employers.' 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In its petition, the Petitioner sought to represent a unit of pro- duction and maintenance employees of the Employer and/or Em- ployers, jointly or severally, who are named in the caption above. In its brief, however, it notes that its first choice is a unit limited to the 1 Research Craft Employees Committee , referred to herein as Employees Committee, inter- vened on the basis of a showing of interest in the employees involved , over the Petitioner's objection that it was not a labor organization , and that its organization may have been assisted by the Employers. A representative of the Employees 'Committee testified that it is an informal organization in which employees participate and that it exists for the pur- pose of dealing with the Employers concerning wages and other conditions of work. WQ find that it is a labor organization as defined in the Act . The Root Dry Goods Co., Inc., 126 NLRB 953 . We disregard all testimony relating to alleged assistance given by the Employers in the formation of the committee . Southeast Portland Drug A8socsation, 124 NLRB 467. Allied Industrial Workers of America, Local 976, AFL-CIO, referred to herein as AIW, intervened at the hearing on the basis of its contract interest , but thereafter withdrew, disclaiming any further interest in representing any of the employees herein. It requested that its name not appear on the ballot in any election directed. 129 NLRB No. 79.