The Detroit Edison Co.

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Detroit Edison Company and International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 614, Petitioner. Case 7-RC- 12446 February 21, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND KENNEDY On July 5, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found appro- priate, in accord with the parties' stipulation,' a systemwide unit of the Employer's service planning department employees, but rejected the Employer's contention that the A-10 classifications of senior district engineering designer "A" and senior service planner, and the A-9 classifications of senior district engineering designer "B" and area planners, referred to herein as A-10's and A-9's, should be excluded as supervisors. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer timely filed a request for review of the Regional Director's decision, on the grounds, inter alia, that in resolving the aforementioned supervisory issues he made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous. The Petitioner filed opposition to the Employer's request for review. On August 20, 1974, the National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic order granted the Employer's request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review. 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 considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review, including the Employer's brief on review, and makes the following findings: The Employer is a public utility engaged in supplying electrical energy in the southeastern part of Michigan. The Employer's service planning department, involved herein, plans and designs the establishment, extension, or improvement of electri- cal services within a given geographical area, and issues the necessary job orders to the Employer's construction units. For such purposes, the service planning department is divided into six geographical districts. It is also responsible, through its mapping I Local Union 17, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, and Utility Workers Union of America are Intervenors. section, for the maintenance and operation of the Employer's mapping system. Each district is headed by an A-14 district supervisor. Reporting to the A-14's are 18 A-12 agreed supervisors. There are 249 other employees in the 6 districts; 43 A-10's, 33 A-9's, and 173 others classified as "0" group employees. Within each district, there is a further geographical area breakdown, generally by town- ships. A group comprised of an A-10 or an A-9 and one to five "0" group employees is assigned to handle the workload of each of these areas. Three of the districts have a single office; two have two offices; and one, the Thumb district, has five offices. All offices have one or more A-12's except for three of the five Thumb district offices where the ranking employee is an A-10. There is no contention that the supervisory responsibilities of the A-10's and A-9's differ in any material respect by reason of their different classification or office assignment. The A-10's and A-9's receive work from the Employer's marketing division, as well as directly from architects, developers, or other outside sources who have been referred to them by the division. Upon receipt of the work, the A-10 or A-9 assigns priority to it, and then, without consulting the A-12 over him, he either assigns the work to an "0" employee or performs it himself. In making these assignments he considers the workload of the "0" employees under him, their qualifications and abili- ties, and how the new job fits into the work already assigned to them. If the work assigned is not progressing satisfactorily for some reason, the A-10 or A-9 may reassign it to another "0" employee or complete it himself. They may also assign "O" employees to help other A-10's or A-9's without consulting the A-12. In addition, A-12's require the A-10's and A-9's to submit periodic 6-month evaluations of the "0" employees under them. These evaluations rate the "0" employees as to their attitude, ability to work with others, receptiveness to new ideas, efficiency, attendance record, ability to learn, future potential, performance in job-related courses, and their con- tacts with other utilities or other outside agencies; and they may include recommendations for wage increases or as to readiness for promotion to available higher classifications. The evaluations become the basis for formal recommendations prepared by the A-12's who pass them on to the A-14 in charge of the district; and eventually they are placed in the employees' files. There is testimony that the wage increase recommendations of the A-10's and A-9's are followed 95 to 99 percent of the time, and that only rarely is an independent 216 NLRB No. 132 THE DETROIT EDISON CO. 705 investigation made. The A-10 or A-9 selects an "0" employee to act in his stead in case of illness or vacation. At such times, the "0" employee is paid at a higher rate. The A-10's and A-9's also schedule vacations for "0" employees under them, after first consulting with the other A-10's and A-9's in the office to ensure that sufficient "0" employees will be present at all times . They also check the timecards of "0" employees and, in some offices, initial them before turning them in. They verbally admonish "0" employees whose work performance is inadequate, or if their attendance is poor. If this action is ineffectu- al, the A-10's or A-9's are expected to report the matter to the A-12 for more stringent disciplinary measures. Based on the foregoing, and the record as a whole, particularly the facts that the A-10's and A-9's are placed in charge of one or more "0" employees with regard to work to be done in a given geographical area, that they exercise independent judgment in assigning work to those employees, and that they periodically evaluate their work performance and make wage increase recommendations which are given considerable weight by the A-12's and A-14's, we find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the A-10's and A-9's are supervisors as defined in the Act.2 We shall therefore exclude them from the unit found appropriate herein, as described below: All full-time and regular part-time employees in the following classifications employed in the Employer's Service Planning Department: service planners, special clerks, typists clerks, senior engineering technicians, engineering technician associates, project planners, draftsmen estimators, switchboard clerks, group leader-section map and typography, senior draftsmen, house number coordinators, draftsmen, operations planners, standard development planners, senior operations -planners, senior standards development plan- ners, senior statistical planners, junior draftsmen, service planner assistants, service planners in training, project planner assistants, project plan- ners in training, service planner associates; but excluding all other office and clerical employees, other technical employees, other training person- nel, engineers, temporary employees, irregular part-time employees, professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for Region 7 for the purpose of conducting an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date of this Decision on Review.3 This election is subject to the following limitation. Since the unit found appropriate herein is substantially smaller in size than the unit petitioned for, the Regional Director shall not proceed with the election unless he is satisfied administratively that an adequate showing of interest has been made to support an election in the appropriate unit. The Regional Director shall issue an order dismissing the direction of election herein without prejudice if such a showing of interest is not submitted. MEMBER FANNING, dissenting: In my judgment, an examination of the record fully supports the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election. Like him, I would include the A-10's and the A-9's in the unit of service planning department employees. Accordingly, as I would affirm the Regional Director's decision in its entirety, I dissent from the decision of the majority to exclude the A-10's and A-9's from the unit found appropri- ate. 2 While the ratio of supervisors to nonsupervisory employees is a factor which the Board considers in determining supervisory issues, and the ratio here is admittedly high, such factor is outweighed where, as in this case. there is persuasive evidence that the individuals in question clearly have and exercise one or more of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority. Moreover, in view of the parties' agreement that the authority of the A-10's and A-9's is the same, regardless of location or the number of "0" employees under them , variations between them based on these factors have been discounted . See Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Company, Inc., 209 NLRB 325 (1974). 3 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 addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236 (1966); N.L R B. v Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U.S. 759 (1969) Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an amended 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 7 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review 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 extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.