Massachusetts Teachers Association

MASSACHUSETTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION 455 Massachusetts Teachers Association and Field Serv- ices Organization, Massachusetts Teachers Associ- ation, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-12715 November 20, 1973 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING 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 Joseph A. Stupak, Jr. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Acting Regional Director for Region 1, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs have been timely filed by the Employer, the Petitioner, and the Intervenor.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that they are free of prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever the executive staff employees in the Employer's field services division from the existing overall executive staff unit. The Intervenor is currently recognized by the Employer as the collective-bargaining representative of certain of its employees in two units, as follows: Unit A. All members of the MTA Executive Staff excluding the Executive Secretary-Treasur- er, Associate Executive Secretary, Assistant Exec- utive Secretaries, and other Executive Staff members of any subsidiary, affiliated, or related corporation, but including Executive Staff mem- bers of any affiliated local organization whose salary is in whole or in part, paid by the MTA. Unit B. All permanent MTA employees of the Office Staff who have been in the employ of the Board for a period of sixty (60) calendar days, including any employees whose principal duties are secretarial, bookkeeping, or clerical services, being performed on behalf of any subsidiary, affiliated, or related corporation. Units A and B are commonly referred to as "Executive Staff" and "Office Staff." Unit A is composed of approximately 35 employees, of whom 23 are members of the field services division which Petitioner seeks to sever as ,a separate unit. The remaining 12 employees are members of the other seven divisions. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose such severance as inappropriate, and would retain the existing unit. The controlling precedent, as the parties recogniz- ed, is Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387, 397, where we held that in severance cases we would no longer apply automatic rules, but would evaluate all relevant considerations, and we set forth six illustrative areas of inquiry. As applied to the present case, we note particularly that two of the leading areas of inquiry are the history of collective bargain- ing of the employees sought to be severed, and the extent to which such employees had established and maintained their separate identity during the period of inclusion in the broader unit. The Employer is a teacher organization which exists for the purpose of providing services to teachers and other teacher organizations, and repre- sents teachers within the Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts for a variety of purposes. The bargaining relationship between the Employer and the Intervenor dates back to 1966, and since August 1, 1968, the parties have entered into five successive collective-bargaining agreements. During that period, the Intervenor represented the employ- ees in two separate units; unit A composed of the executive staff, and unit B composed of the office and clerical staff. The field service employees have been included in unit A through this period, and there has been no separate bargaining for the employees sought to be severed. The evidence reveals that field services employees have served as officers of the Intervenor since it was established. Field services employees have participat- ed as members of the unit A negotiating teams, and it was only during the 1972 negotiations that the field services members of the negotiating team were removed after they introduced an apparently unau- thorized proposal which concerned only field serv- ices employees. We also note that the field services employees constitute a majority of unit A. The evidence also shows that all but two of the field services employees work in the regional offices I Massachusetts Teachers Association Staff Organization 207 NLRB No. 12 456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD scattered throughout the State, whereas all the remaining unit A employees work in the Employer's headquarters in Boston. The basic functions of the field services staff are organizing employees and representing them in the negotiation and administra- tion of collective-bargaining contracts. However, there exists a high degree of interrelation with the other divisions. For example, the research division compiles data used by field services and has assisted in arbitration proceedings. The educational division trains local leaders and supplies field services with curriculum material. The government services divi- sion discusses pending legislation with field services and works with the field people in political areas. The public relations division assists the field staff with publicity and deals with the press in certain situations. The administrative services division pro- vides field services with membership lists and has worked with the field staff on at least one grievance. The field services employees also work closely with the legal staff. On the basis of the above, we find that the field services employees constitute an integral part of the Employer's operations. We also find no merit in the Petitioner's argument that the Intervenor does not adequately represent the field services employees. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that severance is not justified. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.