RCA Corp.

554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD RCA Corporation ' and Local Union No. 24, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO & CLC, Petitioner. Case 5-RC-7080 July 20, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN , AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Harvey A. Holzman. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The Employer filed a brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Em- ployer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all computer service representatives of Area "A" of the depart- ment of field engineering of the Employer's Bal- timore District, excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer maintains that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate and argues that only a nationwide unit consisting of about 1,632 em- ployees is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Employer also contends, contrary to the Petitioner, that its maintenance leaders are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act and should be included in any unit found appropriate. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees sought by the Petitioner, and no labor organization seeks to represent the employees in a more comprehensive unit. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing The Appropriate Unit The Employer, a Delaware corporation, which has headquarters in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is a nationwide company engaged in the design, development, manufacture, sale, installation, and service of electronic equipment at various locations in the United States, including a facility at Glen Burnie, Maryland. Its field engineering operation is administratively and approximately geographically divided into four regions, and further successively divided into districts and areas. The eastern region, consisting of about 460 employees, is composed of nine districts, one of which is Field Engineering District Baltimore. This district has its office in Glen Burnie, Maryland, and covers all of Maryland and Virginia, with a few customers in Washington, D.C. The district, consisting of 46 computer ser- vice representatives and 6 maintenance leaders, is comprised of 4 areas, A, B, C, and D, of which A is the one petitioned for. The district is headed by District Manager J. Serena, and each area in the Baltimore district has a separate area manager. They do not have regular offices, but rather use space at a customer location as an office and have a telephone. Area A, supervised by Benjamin Aliquo, covers the Baltimore area and Western Maryland and consists of 13 computer representatives and 3 maintenance leaders. The areas are structured ac- cording to the various customers along the lines of the types of equipment installed and serviced, and there is geographical overlapping of areas within the district. The employees sought are engaged in the instal- lation and maintenance of electronic data processing equipment sold or leased by the Em- ployer's information systems division to its customers at various sites or locations in Area "A." The record reveals that employee relations poli- cies such as wage scales, fringe benefits, and job content are uniform throughout the Company. The policies are developed and centrally administered from the home office in Cherry Hill. Computer service representatives are recruited ordinarily by the placement of advertisements by the personnel department in Cherry Hill and in the local newspapers where the available position is located. The applicant would be interviewed by the district manager, or in some cases, the area manager, who would then make the recommenda- tion whether the applicant is to be hired. In the absence of the personnel office in Cherry Hill developing disqualifying information, the applicant would be hired on the recommendation of the dis- trict manager or area manager. 184 NLRB No. 63 RCA CORPORATION Once a man is hired, he is under the charge of the area manager, except when he is sent to one of the two regional training schools for a minimum of 8 weeks. The area manager then makes all requests and recommendations for raises for employees and initiates all discharge actions subject to the ap- proval of the district manager and the home office. If an employee wanted time off or was sick, he would contact his area manager, who has authority in these matters. The area manager also has the responsibility for taking disciplinary measures, such as warnings or probation. As to the interchange of employees, Regional Manager Johns testified that an employee would average two trips per year to another district in order to provide some type of emergency assistance on a temporary basis. Specifically with regard to Area "A," Area Manager Aliquo testified that only three men in the area transferred temporarily to another district, although many temporary transfers were made to and from other areas within the Bal- timore district. As far as permanent transfers, on a national level, Johns testified that about 5 percent of the work force was relocated during the year preceding the hearing. The Employer urges that a nationwide unit is the optimum unit for purposes of collective bargaining because the record shows: (1) high degree of cen- tralization and uniform control of the whole opera- tion; (2) centralized system of personnel and em- ployee relations policies; (3) centralized and uniform programs for employee training; (4) sig- nificant interchange; and (5) limitation of the authority of the area manager to the application of policies and procedures established by the central office. We do not agree. While the Employer's operations are integrated and interdependent, and some of the factors relied on by the Employer would, in part, suggest that a nationwide unit is appropriate in this case, the Board has recognized that units of lesser scope are also appropriate in certain situations in other non- retail industries.2 Upon consideration of all of the above factors, we find merit in the Petitioner's con- tention that a unit limited in scope to the em- ployees of Area "A" of the Employer's Baltimore district is appropriate.3 The record is clear that the area manager has considerable authority over the daily activities of the employees. The area manager is responsible for the physical scheduling of the workloads and has considerable authority with respect to promotion t See Wells Fargo Bank, 179 NLRB 465 (Banking), Monongahela Power Company, 176 NLRB 913 (Public Utility), Fireman's Fund Insurance Com- pany, 173 NLRB 982 (Insurance Claims) In view of our findings herein, and the fact that the Petitioner seeks 555 and disciplinary matters. He may grant leave without home office approval. There is a minimum amount of interchange involving Area "A," and what interchange occurs is limited largely to emer- gency situations. Accordingly, in view of the wide geographical separation between the Baltimore district and other districts, the infrequent interchange of employees, the separate immediate supervision, the absence of any bargaining history, and the fact that no other labor organization seeks a broader unit, we find, in agreement with the Petitioner, that a unit restricted to the employees in the Area "A," as described below, is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. Unit Placement and Eligibility As set forth above, the Employer, unlike the Peti- tioner, contends that its maintenance leaders are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and should be included in any unit found appropriate. There are these maintenance leaders assigned to Area "A." The maintenance leaders, like the com- puter service representatives, are salaried, with the minimum salary for a maintenance leader being ap- proximately $1,400 per year higher than the minimum salary for a computer service representa- tive, although one computer service representative in Area "A" earns more than a maintenance leader. The maintenance leaders spend 80 percent of their time performing the same work as the com- puter service representatives, and they have no authority to hire, discharge, suspend, layoff, repri- mand or promote, or to make effective recommen- dations concerning these or any other personnel ac- tions. The maintenance leaders gain the position by length of service and expertise. On the basis of the foregoing, and the entire record, we find that the maintenance leaders do not possess or exercise supervisory authority as defined in the Act, but that they are merely highly skilled employees whose status as maintenance leaders results from supervisor abilities and length of ser- vice.' We shall, accordingly, include them in the unit. We find that the following employees of the Em- ployer constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All Computer Service Representatives and only the Area "A" unit, and the Employer claims that only the nationwide is appropriate, we find it unnecessary, and make no determination, whether or not the district or region could be an appropriate bargaining unit ' Monongahela Power Company, 176 NLRB 913 556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Maintenance Leaders employed in Area "A" of the Baltimore District of the Employer's in- formation System Division's Field Engineering (Installation and Maintenance) Activity, ex- cluding all District Engineers, Office Clerical ' In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their ad- dresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Un- derwear Inc , 156 NLRB 1236, N L R B v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U S 759 Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, con- taining the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by Employees, Guards, Professional Employees, and Supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election 5 omitted from publica- tion. ) the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 5 within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordina- ry circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed