Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States

544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United) States and Highway and Local Motor Freight Drivers, Dockmen and Helpers, Local 707, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner Case 29-RC-1668 August 6, 1971 DECISION ; ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS On April 30,197 1, the Regional Director for Region 29 -issued his Decision, and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he dismissed the petition herein on the ground that the unit sought, which is limited to the Employer's` Staten, Island facility, is not appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining. There- after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Deccisioi, contending that the unit described in the petitionis an appropriate unit. The Employer filed a statement in opposition to the request for review. On June, 1, 1971, the National Labor Relations Board , by telegraphic order granted the request for review. Thereafter, the . Employer filed a brief in support of the Regional, Director's Decision. 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 entire record in this case, including the request for review, the statement in opposition to the request for review, and the Employ- er's brief in support of the Regional Director's Decision, and makes the following findings: The Employer provides life, annuity, and health insurance on an individual and group basis through its home office, located in New York City, and field offices in cities throughout the United States. The home office, consisting of approximately 7,000 employees, includes for administrative purposes four satellite offices located at Staten Island, Syosset, and Bethpage, New York, and Cresskill, New Jersey. The Petitioner seeks to represent only the approximately 87 office clerical employees assigned to the (Staten Island satellite office, referred to as the Staten Island data) entry division and located approximately 15 miles from the home office. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees involved herein. The Staten Island data entry division, together with the home office data entry division and the three other satellite offices, comprise the Employer's operations support bureau. The operations support bureau and the machine operations bureau (which consists of'five divisions) make up the entire data processing depart-„ meat, under the supervision of a semor vice president. Each division is under the immediate supervision of a division manager. According to the record, wages,.fringe benefits; and guidelines for promotions and merit increases are centrally determined and administered on a nation- wide basis by the Employer's personnel department. All home` office employees,- including those assigned to the satellite office, receive uniform, wages and fringe benefits. In most instances, applicants for home office positions are interviewed and tested' bythe personnel department. If the applicant is acceptable, employ- ment is' offered, subject to the veto of the division managers. However, as tithe Regional Di rector,' notes, the division managers at the satellite-offices frequent- ly conduct the initial interviews and administer the necessary tests, subject to final approval by the home office. Also, with respect to hiring procedures at the Staten Island office specifically, it appears that when a vacancy occurs there, the division manager contacts the home office personnel department which then places a notice in the local, newspaper advertising the vacancy, specifying its Staten Island location. Appli- cants are instructed to report directly to the Staten Island office where they are interviewed. If the applicant is not acceptable to the division manager, the application - is not forwarded to the personnel department and the applicant is rejected. If the applicant is acceptable, the division manager for- wards the application, together with his recommenda- tion. The record indicates that the Staten Island division manager's recommendations are invariably followed. With regard to discharges, promotions, demotions, and the granting or withholding of merit wage increases, such personnel actions are accomplished at the recommendation of the division managers, subject to approval by the department managers. However, the record indicates that, with respect to the Staten Island office, the division manager evaluates Staten Island employees without comparison to employees in other divisions, and he then recommends promo- tions and merit increases. As in the case of hiring, the Staten Island division manager's recommendations are rarely, if ever, rejected. Employees in both the Staten Island and home office data entry divisions work in essentially the same general job classifications and are engaged in the same type of work. While there is some distinction between the types of machines used at the two 192 NLRB No. 80 EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE U.S. 545 locations, the employees all use the same basic keyboard principle to translate material on to tape, cards, or discs for use in the computers. Work is assigned to each division by a single data entry coordinator on the basis of workflow and the completion deadline which has been set to meet the computer sche"diles. While the two divisions may share a particular job in some instances, and while some work may be reassigned or transferred to avoid a backlog, it appears that approximately one-half of 150 data entry functions-referred to by the parties as job categories--can be performed only at one of the two divisions. Thus, 20 percent of these functions can be performed solely at Staten Island, while 30 percent can be performed solely at the home office. Regarding employee interchange between Staten Island and the home office, the record reflects that all of the employees presently working at Staten Island were newly hired, with the exception of two supervi- sors and two employees who transferred from the home office when Staten Island was initially estab- lished. Otherwise, the record affirmatively shows that there has been no transfer of employees between the two locations. In concluding that the single-location unit is not appropriate, the Regional Director gave controlling weight to the integrated nature of the Employer's data processing operation at the two locations. However, in our opinion, there are other considerations, discussed below, which on balance establish that the single-location unit sought is appropriate. In determining whether or not a single-location unit is appropriate, the Board considers a single-location unit in a multilocation enterprise as a presumptively appropriate unit for bargaining.' In the present case, we believe that consideration of all of the factors present sustains rather than rebutts the presumptive appropriateness of the single-location unit sought. Thus, while there does exist some similarity of duties performed by the employees of both data entry divisions, and while they do enjoy similar wages and fringe benefits administered centrally by the Employ- er's personnel department, we view as significant the substantial degree of autonomy enjoyed by the Staten Island office. The Staten Island division manager controls virtually all of the day-to-day operations of the office, including those aspects of employment which most directly affect the employees.2 While final action on personnel matters may be taken at the department level, it appears from the entire record that the division manager initiates all significant personnel actions including recruiting, hiring, dis- charging, promoting, and evaluating the Staten Island employees. As the record adequately demonstrates, the division manager's recommendations on such matters are tantamount to final 'approval. Also, the division manager handles and resolves` =employee grievances at the division level. With respect to employee interchange,, as noted earlier, there is no significant interchange among the employees of the Staten Island office and the home office. While employees may travel from one location to another to receive additional training or demon- strate new operating procedures, these occurrences are infrequent and do not involve the transferring of an individual from one location to do work at another location. Moreover, there have been no permanent transfers between Staten Island and the home office since Staten Island began operation in 1969. While there is evidence of a certain degree of functional integration between the Staten Island and home office data entry divisions, we believe that the degree of integration which exists by virtue of the two divisions performing many of the same tasks is dissipated significantly by the fact that 30 percent of the tasks are unique to the home office data entry division while 20 percent of the tasks can be performed only at Staten Island. Moreover, even a substantial degree of integration does not in itself preclude the appropriateness of a single-location unit when there are other factors supporting such a finding.3 Finally, we note that the 15-mile geographic separation between the Staten Island and the home office facilities precludes any physical contact be- tween the two groups of employees and prevents Staten island employees from taking advantage of medical, recreational, and counselling facilities locat- ed at the home office. Therefore, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All office clerical employees in the Employer's Staten Island, New York, data entry division excluding professional employees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. 1 Haag Drug Company, Inc., 169 NLRB 877; Metropolitan Life Insurance Inc., 156 NLRB 1319; The Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, 147 Company, 156 NLRB 1408; Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., 139 NLRB 629. NLRB 825. 2 Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 173 NLRB 982- 3 Duluth Avionics, Guidance & Control Systems Division of Litton Systems, 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD {Direction.of Electionn4omitted from publication. 1, In order to assure 'that all eligible- voters-may have the opportunity to be informed of the ;issues in the exercise of their statutoiy ;right to vote, all, parries to the election should have access to a list of 'voters and their addresses° ,which -may, be used u to communicate , with diem . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRII 1236; NLRB. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394,U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed `that an election eligibility ,list, containing the names =and addresses`of all'the eligible voters, must be =filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region'29 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review and Direction of, Election. The Regional Director" shall make the list ava^7ableto,sll parties to the election. No extension of time, to file this-list shad be -granted-`by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances, Failure to ,comply with, this requirement shall be grounds for-setting aside the elect ion^whenever,proper objections are filed.