National Telephone Co., Inc.

634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD National Telephone Company, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO- CLC, Petitioner and District 1, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 1-RC-13594, 1-RC-13686, and 1-RC-13671 July 28, 1975 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS KENNEDY AND PENELLO Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hear- ing was held before Hearing Officer Jonathan S. R. Beal. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National La- bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Direc- tor for Region 1, this case was transferred to the Na- tional Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereaf- ter, the Employer and the Petitioners filed briefs in support of their respective positions. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority 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 from 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 pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The parties stipulated that the petitioners, here- in called IBEW and CWA, respectively, which claim to represent certain employees of the Employer, are labor organizations as defined in the Act. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concern- ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is a Connecticut corporation en- gaged in the business of leasing, installing, and main- taining commercial telephone equipment. The main office of the eastern region headquarters is at East Hartford, Connecticut. IBEW seeks to represent separate units of employ- ees at the Employer's Providence, Rhode Island, and East Hartford, Connecticut, branches. The CWA filed its petition seeking a 12-branch unit, but urges that the Jacksonville, Florida, branch be excluded and an 11-branch unit be found appropriate. The Employer contends that the smallest appropriate unit must include the approximately 84 employees at all 12 branches which comprise the Employer' s eastern region. Regarding unit composition, the parties stipu- lated that any appropriate unit should include instal- lers, servicemen, and crew chiefs, and should exclude all professional and office clerical employees, sales employees, installation managers , service managers, production employees, system assemblers, and guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. How- ever, the Employer and CWA contend that field ser- vice representatives should be excluded from any ap- propriate unit whereas IBEW would include them, and the Employer and IBEW contend that customer service representatives should be included in any ap- propriate unit whereas CWA would exclude them. Both CWA and IBEW have indicated their willing- ness to participate in elections in whatever unit or units are found to be appropriate. In 1973, IBEW, Local 35 filed the petition in Case 1-RC-12842, seeking a unit of installers at the Employer's East Hartford branch. The petition was dismissed by the Board in National Telephone Com- pany, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 17 (1974), as was the peti- tion in Case 3-RC-5855, a concurrent request by CWA to establish a unit of installation and service employees at the Employer's Buffalo, New York, branch, in National Telecommunications, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 18 (1974). At the time of the hearings in those cases, the Employer operated only eight branches which comprised what was designated its eastern division, consisting of East Hartford, Con- necticut ; Buffalo, New York; Syracuse, New York; Camden, New Jersey; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Bridgeport (Milford), Connecticut; Providence, Rhode Island; and Manchester, New Hampshire; and the Board held that to be appropriate for collec- tive bargaining the minimum scope of any unit must necessarily be divisionwide; i.e., inclusive of all eight branches then in existence . The Employer has since added four branch facilities at Baltimore, Maryland; Philadelphia West and Philadelphia South, Pennsyl- vania ; and Jacksonville, Florida. With the addition of the four new branch facilities, the "eastern divi- sion" has been designated the "eastern region" and has been divided into the northeast division and the mid-Atlantic division. Each of these two divisions has a division sales manager, a division installation supervisor, and a division administrator who handles routine clerical matters such as insurance claims, all of whom work out of the regional office in East Hart- ford. However, the functions formerly exercised at the division level are now exercised at the regional level, and the branch managers report directly to the regional manager, not to any of the division level officials. 219 NLRB No. 132 NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY A common personnel policy applicable to all branches in the eastern region has been established by the Employer's executive committee in East Hart- ford. The Employer has published and distributed to each branch a manual which delineates its policies regarding terms and conditions of employment, in- cluding, inter alia, wages, hours, fringe benefits, em- ployee hiring and discharge procedures , employee performance reviews , holidays, vacations, absences, gifts to employees, appearance and grooming, and use of company vehicles . Branch managers are re- quired to operate their respective branches pursuant to the policy manual and must telephone the regional office for instructions when circumstances arise which are not covered by the manual. Only an officer of the Employer is authorized to hire employees ; the lowest level of officer so author- ized is the regional manager . This authority cannot be delegated. Before a branch manager may recruit new employees, he must first obtain authorization from the regional manager . Applicants for employ- ment are initially interviewed and screened by the branch manager who then submits his recommenda- tions to the regional office where the final determina- tion to hire is made after review, but the branch man- ager does not have the authority to make an offer of employment independently . In most instances, appli- cants have also been interviewed by an officer from the regional office or by a staff member from the regional office . John Richardson, the Employer's se- nior vice president in charge of operations , testified that interviews are frequently scheduled to coincide with his visits and those of the regional manager to the branch offices . For example, of the 15 installers and servicemen hired for the Providence branch since its establishment, 9 or 10 were interviewed by a member of the regional office staff as well as by the branch manager . All interviews conducted within the 6 months to 1 year prior to the hearing had a repre- sentative of the regional office present . In several earlier instances where there was no representative from the regional office present at the interview, the Employer already had extensive knowledge of the applicants' qualifications, and regional officers had discussed the feasibility of hiring these individuals prior to the interview. Richardson estimated that, of the applicants recommended for hire by a branch manager, as many are rejected by the regional staff as are accepted. This determination by the regional office is sometimes based on budgetary consider- ations, but many of the rejections are also based on independent evaluations of the applicant's attitude or technical competence. The authority to discharge an employee or to ef- fectuate a layoff is also vested in the regional man- 635 agement. Although the branch manager may make the initial recommendation that an employee be ter- minated, he has no independent authority to effectu- ate the termination. The branch manager's recom- mendation is given considerable weight, but quite often the regional manager will make a personal re- view of the case before making the final decision. The branch manager in East Hartford testified that, in each instance , where he has recommended a dis- charge, the matter was fully discussed with the re- gional manager. Richardson testified that there have been a number of occasions where the recommenda- tion of a branch manager has not been followed, es- pecially in instances where the recommendation was based on an isolated emotional flareup . Unlike dis- charges, the decisions to lay off originate not from the branches but from the regional level . In the fall of 1974 when a substantial layoff was required, Rich- ardson and the regional manager reviewed each em- ployee in the eastern region in order to ascertain which members of the organization were marginal employees who could be laid off or terminated as part of the predetermined reduction in force. Pursuant to the Employer's policy, all installers and servicemen are reviewed and evaluated quarterly for the purpose of determining wage increases. The employee meets with the branch manager and his im- mediate supervisor and they discuss his performance with him and then inform him whether he will be recommended for a raise in salary. The employees are told that the recommendations are subject to re- view at the regional level . Although the recommen- dations of the branch manager are generally ap- proved, each is reviewed by the senior vice president in charge of operations and the regional manager in order to determine if an accurate recommendation has been developed at the branch office in terms of appropriate grade levels and the quality of each employee's work performance. If the budget for a branch facility will not support the recommendations at the branch level, the regional office will reduce them proportionately. Several other aspects of the employees ', working conditions are also the subject of centralized control. Branch managers have the authority to administer minor discipline, such as reprimands and 1-day sus- pensions, but serious disciplinary action° is de- termined at the regional level. One example is a 2- week suspension at the direction of Richardson of an employee who had had a run -in with the police. Se- lected employees from the branch offices attend a 2-week training session at the regional office, and other employees receive on -the-job training pursuant to a program established by the regional office. Em- ployees with grievances initially contact the branch 636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD manager, but even relatively minor matters are re- solved at the regional level. When two Providence installers complained to their branch manager about the denial of certain holiday pay, he referred them to Richardson who ultimately decided to pay them for those days. Another employee dealt directly with Richardson regarding the denial of sick pay for the day on which his child was born. Although vacation schedules are determined in the branch offices, leaves of absence must be approved by the regional officers. If there is a need for over- time work, the branch manager must obtain authori- zation from the regional manager except in emergen- cy situations. At times, the branch managers have been instructed by the regional office that overtime job assignments cannot be made. In the case of snow or other inclement weather, the branch manager has no authority to curtail work. Instead, he must, in all instances, refer the question to the regional manager who decides whether or not to call off work in a given branch. Each branch manager is required to telephone the regional office at least once a day, and additional daily communication is made on an emer- gency basis. Also, regional personnel make periodic visits to each branch. The regional manager visits each branch approximately once every 4 to 6 weeks and often more frequently, and the vice president in charge of operations at least once a quarter. The divi- sion service manager and the division installation manager are at each branch approximately once a month and the vice president in charge of customer service is at the branch two or three times a month. There is a substantial degree of employee inter- change within the eastern region. In 1974, there were approximately 30 temporary transfers of unit em- ployees among the branches for the purpose of com- pensating for temporary fluctuations in the workload at various branches.' Also in 1974, in the eastern re- gion, of approximately 22 permanent transfers, 12 of the moves to different branches involved employees who continued to perform job functions in the stipu- lated unit. The other permanent transfers involved employees who, because of the transfers, assumed new positions either out of or within the stipulated unit. The reasons behind the permanent transfers in- cluded filling vacancies, staffing new branches such as Jacksonville, eliminating personality conflicts, and accommodating the requests of employees. Trans- fers, both temporary and permanent, are determined and processed by the regional office rather than by the branch managers. In addition to the lack of branch autonomy re- garding personnel matters as discussed above, limita- 1 There were also several other temporary transfers to nonumt jobs. tions are also imposed on the authority of branch managers in other areas. The branch manager has no authority to make purchases in excess of $25; he uses a petty cash fund for this purpose. All other purchas- es must be ordered through the regional office. Sev- eral vendors in the area of each branch office have been designated by the regional office to provide cer- tain necessary supplies and services. When a sale of a telephone system is made at the branch level, the or- der must be reviewed and approved by the regional office for both technical feasibility and economic de- sirability before the unit is installed, and the installa- tion of expensive or complex equipment must be su- pervised by the division installation manager. All equipment modification is performed at the regional facility and the equipment is then shipped to the branch office. Inventory levels for each branch are established and controlled by the regional office. Pri- mary personnel records are maintained at the region- al office and paychecks issue from that office. Deci- sions to remove equipment from customers who default on payments are made by the regional office. Also, company vehicles, publicity, and employment advertising are all centrally controlled. Although the above services have little direct relationship to the employees' day-to-day work and employee interests in the conditions of their employment,' they do dem- onstrate the overall centralized control exercised by the regional office and the lack of branch autonomy. We find that the factual considerations with re- spect to the appropriateness of the unit in National Telephone Company, Inc., supra, are equally applica- ble here. In fact, the record here is more complete and more persuasive than that in the prior case. Hir- ing, termination, layoff, discipline, grievance, wage increase, and overtime decisions are all made effec- tively at the regional level. Labor policy is estab- lished at the regional level and regional personnel play an extensive role in the day-to-day operation of each branch. Employees at all branches share the same working conditions in terms of hours, uniforms, vehicle usage, and the type of work performed and equipment used; and they are all subject to the same policies as set forth in the Employer's policy manual. Furthermore, there is a substantial movement of em- ployees within the eastern region. Therefore, we con- clude, as we did in National Telephone Company, Inc., supra, and National Telecommunications, Inc., supra, that a bargaining unit limited to a single branch of- fice is inappropriate. Instead, we find that the mini- mum scope of any unit appropriate for collective bargaining must necessarily be regionwide. We are mindful that geographical factors are to be considered when making unit scope determinations. 2 Cf. Haag Drug Company. Incorporated, 169 NLRB 877, 878 (1968). NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY Yet, as we stated in National Telephone Company, Inc., supra: "This Board . . . has not held that geog- raphy should or can be the controlling factor in mak- ing unit determinations. And when, as here, all the other factors which we customarily consider militate against a single branch unit, we do not deem it prop- er to give geography controlling significance." Turning to the question of unit composition, as set forth above, the parties stipulated to the inclusion and exclusion of certain employees except for the customer service representatives and the field service representatives. There is a customer service repre- sentative in 8 of the 12 branch offices. They instruct customers in the use of telephone equipment, and they are responsible for the ongoing coordination with customers regarding problems or changes in the system. During "cutovers" (the process whereby the Employer's equipment is connected to the Bell Tele- phone System), they coordinate all the activity among the customer, the service and installation per- sonnel on the scene, and the personnel from Bell. During their periodic visits to the customers, they perform minor repairs such as replacing burned out light bulbs and cleaning the exterior of the equip- ment. Although the servicemen are more highly skilled than the customer service representatives and therefore perform the major repairs, they also change bulbs and clean the equipment. The customer service representatives have considerable contact with the installers in that the installers instruct them in the operation of the equipment which has been modified for each customer so that they can in turn instruct the customer in the use of the equipment. They occa- sionally bring equipment to the installers and ser- vicemen at the jobsite, and they type directories and discs for the face of the telephones, as do the instal- lers and servicemen. The customer service represent- atives report to the service manager at each branch as do servicemen, and, in two instances, customer service representatives have been promoted to the position of acting service manager with an expecta- tion that they will become service managers. In all the circumstances, we find that the customer service representatives share a sufficient community of inter- est with the other employees to warrant their inclu- sion in the unit along with installers and servicemen. The Employer has two field service representa- 637 tives, one working out of the regional office in East Hartford and the other working out of a branch.-of- fice in Philadelphia. They are more highly trained in all aspects of servicing the Employer's telephone equipment than the other branch installers and ser- vicemen, and they act as backups for all the branch locations. If a branch office develops a problem that cannot be resolved by the regular branch personnel, a field service representative is dispatched to solve the problem. They also assist in the development of training programs for other personnel. They are su- pervised by the division installation supervisor rather than the branch managers. There is no evidence that the field service representatives meet the Board's de- finitions of supervisor or managerial employee. They perform the same type of work as other unit employ- ees and their higher rate of pay is due to their greater skill and experience rather than a difference in du- ties. In all the circumstances, we find that the work of field service representatives is similar to and close- ly integrated with that of other unit employees and they share a sufficient community of interest with the other employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit. In view of the above, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer in its eastern region including installers, servicemen, crew chiefs, customer service representatives, and field service representatives, but excluding all professional and office clerical employees, sales employees, installation managers, service man- agers, production employees, system assemblers, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.] CHAIRMAN MURPHY, concurring: In view of all the facts of these cases, particularly the Board decisions in National Telephone Company, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 17 (1974), and National Tele- communications, Inc., 215 NLRB No. 18 (1974), I agree that the appropriate unit herein consists of the Employer's employees in its eastern region.