The Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Maryland

THE CHESAPEAKE & POTOMAC TELEPHONE CO. OF MD. 483 The Chesapeake & Potomac, Telephone Company of Maryland and Maryland Outside Telephone Plant Engineering Association (Unaffiliated), Petitioner. Case 5-RC-7586 August 3, 1971 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY Upon a petition duly,filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,-a hearing was held before Hearing Officer August A. Denhard, Jr. 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 Petitioner, the Employer, and Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, the Intervenor herein, filed briefs.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations, Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations . 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 affirmed. Upon the entire record. in this case, -including the briefs filed herein, the Board finds: 1: The Employer,-is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the policies of 'the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations' involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. - No question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning, of Sections 9(cXl) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer is a Maryland corporation engaged in providing intrastate and interstate telecommunica- tions. The Petitioner herein seeks to sever from an existing unit employees described as all outside plant engineering assistants and building industry consult- ants employed by the Employer and excluding all such outside plant engineering assistants and building industry consultants who are located in the Maryland portion of the Washington Metropolitan area, all engineering assistants circuit-lay out, and all other employees as well as office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, as amended. For over 20 years the employees sought to- be severed herein have, been covered by contracts between the Employer and the Intervenor in a, unit which includes all plant department-and commercial department employees, over 5,000 in number. _ The Petitioner contends that the employees sought- to be severed (herein called engineering assistants) are professional employees who-have never been accord- ed an opportunity to vote for or against inclusion in the production and maintenance unit as provided in Section 9(b)(1) of the Act. The intervenor contends that the employees sought are not professionals as defined in the Act and therefore the petition should be dismissed. - In, 1950 engineering assistants working for ,the, Em- ployer petitioned to- be severed from „theproduction and maintenance unit as professional employees.2 In that case, 'the Board listed-,the; main duties of-,the engineering assistants-generally as follows: (1) To make a preliminary survey J or the approval of the -plant engineer, showing, the location, size,- and ,type of poles, wires, cables, circuit. layouts, switchboards, and any other, equipment required for a,proposed project; (2), to make field surveys of existing and future facilities for new projects showing, the areas.,to be covered, probable type of construction _to.be used, whether aerial-or -underground,, location -of, rroutes, to be followed, and the estimated `cost of_materials and labor involved; (3) -on occasion, to obtain rights- of-way from private owners. In dismissing the petition,-the Board noted that of the, 89 engineering assistants, _ 12 were college, graduates,, 32 -had, done some college work, 9 completed some, kind of post-high school -training -in a night technical school, 21 were high school graduates, and 15 had less than a high school education. The ;record. failed to show whether those, who had college work took courses in engineering. Nor did it show how many, if any, were members of, engineering societies. Ad- vanced education was not aprerequisite for the duties to be performed and there was no specific-job classification-for this category of employees. Further, the engineering assistants were , in the,main, -selected from other departments of the .plant on' the, basis of their ability and potentialities to do the work and they were trained on the job. Although the Company introduced a course of study for these engineering assistants consisting of 120 hours of attendance, only some 30 percent enrolled for that course. Further, the engineering assistants were hourly paid for both their regular and overtime work and had always been covered under previous contracts with the rank and 1 The Petitioner also filed a motion to designate the Employer as "hostile." The Board finds that this motion is lacking in merit , and it is hereby denied. 2 Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Company of Baltimore, 89 NLRB 231,233. 192 NLRB No. 67 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD file of plant department employees. Citing the general education prerequisites for professional,classification, as 'enunciated in the Act, the Board found' that the engineering assistants were not -required to have obtained this- type of education or to perform' duties requiring .such aeducation Petitioner contends that the Board should now find that-'the , engineering' assistants are professional em- ployees just as it, found that engineering associates and right-of-way agents were professionals in New England ° Telephone ' and Telegraph Company, 179, NLRB N&-93.-In finding, that the - engineerin associates and right-of-way agents could constitute 'an- appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining the -Board noted that the record M' that case showed that the employer` required new employ- ees ` to - have at least -, 2 years of , formal 'college education; that the employer provided classroom and on-the-job training forboth, xengineering;associates and right-of-way agents;-that 82 percent of the 388 erigineeriing''associates and-right-of-way agents were college graduates or had -education 'beyond high school. Further theywere required to know aspects of mathematics,, fundamentals of ^ electricity" and `elec- tronics, strength of materials, structures, geology; site planning, design and construction of foundations, architecture, surveying;- highway engineering, me- chanical drawing, English composition, public speak- ing, engineering economy, principles of accounting, contract preparation, and real estate fundamentals. The record herein warrants ' -a " finding 'that the engineering ^ assistants should,- not be classified as professional employees. Although many changes have taken place in-outside plant engineering since 1950, such as the use of greater nuinb'ers, and more varied, types,'of cables and` other`materials and the introduc- tion , of `computers in many areas of the engineering assistants' work, the record fails to'show that these changes ha'^e altered the basic type of work of the engineering - assistant. Rather, the - introduction of - computers and the advanced technology evident in other materials : used by the engineering' assistants have aided _ in relieving them of" much of the manual work and mental computation which was a necessary part of-their work in, 1950. The engineering assistants are ,: paid on -an-,hourly basis for regular time "and- overtime,, and, are-the highest, paid employees in the unit 'of which they are now a part. They are selected' .from' within the Company, mostly from the skilled crafts, on the basis of scores they receive in tests-given by the Employer' which reveal basic ability and potentiality, and on the basis of personal interviews with supervisors. There are no educational requirements an employee must meet to be an engineering assistant, and the work is learned by on-the-job experience. Of the 159 engineering assistants, only 5 are college graduates,,6 have 2 years, of college, 12. have less than 2 years of college, 130 are high school 'graduates, and 6 did'not graduate from high school. The;. record fails to- show that the engineering,-assistants are,-required to know the sciences or skills- which the Board,, found. wore, required of the engineering, associates inNew England_ Telephone, " supra. Also, there is no evidence that any engineering assistants - belong _to, ^any_ engineering societies. The record -does.-revealLrthat in 1965 ,and 1967, the Employer conducted 3-week courses for engineering assistants, with attendance on a voluntary basis. A,total of only 72,attended the two,courses. Engineering assistants must use some judgment and discretion in their work, but they are required at all times to do each job in accordance with the methods laid out in the extensive, ' printedi r Bell,-,, Systems Practices,, or to have any, deviation from these practices approved by a supervisor. Also, they are not allowed to authorize the expenditure of any moneys without supervisory approval. Based. on the foregoing ! ; facts, we find that the engineering assistants do not possess, the degree of education or scientific knowledge which is`character-,,, istic of a professional employee, nor does the "work require such education or :knowledge; The prerequi- sites necessary' for a finding that theyare profession- als within the meaning of the Act have- notbeen met. We shall therefore,dismiss, the--,petition.- ORDER- 'It is ' hereby ordered that the -petition in Case 5-RC-7586 be, and ithereby is,-dismissed.