Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Commu- nications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 14-UC-53 January 19, 1976 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO Upon a petition duly filed on December 26, 1974, under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer F. Rozier Sharp, at St. Louis, Missouri, com- mencing on February 18, 1975, and continuing through various dates thereafter until closing on May 14, 1975. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec- tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Region- al Director for Region 14, this case was transferred to the Board for decision. Thereafter, both parties sub- mitted briefs.' 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 Hearing Officer's rul- ings 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, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, is one of 19 companies associated with American Telephone and Telegraph (ATT) and is engaged in the business of providing telecommunica- tions services to five states in the central southwest- ern United States-Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri. It has its principal offices in St. Louis, Missouri, and has various other facilities located throughout the States in which it does busi- 1 With its brief, the Employer also submitted a motion to correct the transcript in numerous places. Thereafter, Petitioner submitted a statement in opposition to certain of the Employer's proposed changes Still later, the Employer submitted an affidavit from William Hightower, one of the Employer's key witnesses at the hearing, wherein he avers to certain word changes having been made in his testimony as reflected in the transcript Thereafter, the Union responded by submitting a brief and affidavits sup- porting its position in opposition to certain of the Employer's proposed changes. Having carefully considered the Employer's motion and Petitioner's statement in opposition, we have decided to grant the Employer's motion to change the record to the extent that the changes proposed have not been put into issue by Petitioner In those instances where the proposed changes are disputed by Petitioner, we find it unnecessary to make a definite ruling since we find that the changes are not of the nature as to affect the outcome of our decision in any event 407 ness. The parties stipulated that during the past 12- month period, the Employer derived gross revenues in excess of $1 million and has purchased and re- ceived goods valued in excess of $50,000 which were shipped directly to its Missouri facilities from points outside the State of Missouri. It is not disputed, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We further find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. It is not disputed, and we find, that Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act and that Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. For years the Employer has recognized the Union in a companywide unit of some 53,000 em- ployees in the following departments: Accounting, Commercial and Marketing, Plant, and Traffic. The most recent contract was executed in July 1974. In November 1974, the Employer established the posi- tions of account executive (AE) and senior account executive (SAE) and began the process of screening and appointing individuals-some of whom had pre- viously been in the bargaining unit and some who came from managerial or supervisory classifica- tions-to fill these positions. Upon learning of the establishment of these new positions, the Union im- mediately claimed that they were in the unit. The Employer took the position that they were not in the unit, asserting that they were either managerial, su- pervisory, or lacking a community of interest with the other bargaining unit classifications. Consequent- ly, the Union filed its petition herein to clarify the unit and include these disputed classifications. The Employer's decision to establish the AE and SAE positions evolved over a period of several years. Prior to 1974 the Employer had combined its selling and servicing functions in the commercial and mar- keting department. Most of the servicing work was then performed by the bargaining unit classifications of service consultant and senior service consultant. With respect to selling, however, several classifica- tions of employees were involved. Service consult- ants and senior service consultants frequently tried to sell new or additional equipment or service to cus- tomers while engaged in servicing customer accounts pursuant to calls for service help. The employer re- fers to this as demand-selling, since ordinarily it is brought about by the customer's demand for addi- tional service. However, the Employer also attempt- ed to increase its sales by anticipating customer needs before service problems arose for its custom- ers. The Employer refers to this type of selling, which it engages in at its own initiative and not in response 222 NLRB No. 55 408 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to requests for service from customers, as analytical selling. Firstline managerial classifications of ac- count managers, communications marketing manag- ers, and marketing managers were used in analytical selling. There were instances, however, when the Em- ployer formed analytical selling groups composed of both bargaining-unit and managerial employees to deal with the peculiar problems of a particular indus- try. As a result of a 1968 Federal Communications Commission decision which opened up to competi- tion the business terminal telecommunications mar- ket, ATT contracted with a nationally known con- sulting firm to conduct a study and make recommendations with respect to improving its sell- ing efforts in this market. One of the recommenda- tions which eventually resulted from the study was to separate the selling and servicing functions and to make both more professional. ATT attempted to be- gin implementing these recommendations by distrib- uting to its associated companies in early 1974 its tentative sales operation guide (SOG). While the SOG directed all the associated companies to sepa- rate the functions of selling and servicing, it provided each associate company with a great deal of discre- tion as to how they were going to implement this policy within their own differing organization struc- tures. It was as a result of its effort at compliance with this broad,directive that in November 1974 the Employer created the approximately 300 account AE and SAE positions here in dispute. By prior agreement of the parties, much of the evi- dence relating to the Employer's present organization plan is in the record under a confidential seal marked "Trade Secrets." Because it is obvious that much of this evidence does indeed constitute trade secrets, we will not describe the Employer's reorganization plans beyond what is necessary to understand our decision in this case. Suffice it to say that the Employer established the AE and SAE positions to be specialists in the analyti- cal selling of the Employer's product;2 that by the time of the hearing in this case, the Employer had already selected and notified the vast majority of in- dividuals who would fill these positions, and that most of those chosen were previously employed in non-bargaining-unit classifications considered to be supervisory/managerial. At the hearing the Employ- er indicated that it contemplated that these individu- als will each be assigned to a given segment of indus- try and will receive extensive training in the communications problems of that industry; that un- 2 Demand-selling primarily will continue to be done by service and senior service consultants. like the Employer's previous practice of assigning ac- counts based on customer size without regard to in- dustry, the AE's and SAE's will be assigned all the accounts in their specific industry, e.g., hotel-motel, insurance, etc., regardless of customer size, and will be held accountable for the annual revenue objec- tives that will be established for that industry. The Employer put into evidence the job summaries of the AE and SAE positions. These summaries ap- pear to be identical except that the job summary of the AE's specifies that they will be assigned accounts "with no complicated or complex equipment config- uration," while that of the SAE's specifies that the latter will be assigned accounts "with complicated or complex equipment configuration." In other respects the job summaries indicate that the AE's and SAE's duties will be divided into various functions. They will spend 20 to 25 percent of their time planning sales activities, including qualifying accounts, devel- oping sales programs, establishing sales objectives and monthly plans, and reviewing the planned ser- vicing activities; and 20 to 30 percent of their time will be occupied in arranging to have service consult- ants gather and summarize data on accounts pro- grammed for sales activity, analyzing that data and the customer's communication system, identifying competitive activity, and arranging to have the ser- vice consultant prepare computerized toll studies for customers considering WATS service. They will spend 40 to 60 percent of their time developing and presenting sales recommendations to customers for improving their communications systems, including specific changes in the customer's method of opera- tion. They will use 5 to 15 percent of their time for developing a complete plan of implementation and directing and assigning work to service consultants, marketing representatives, and/or marketing project clerks, including outlining to,the service consultant the systems sold to the customer, introducing the ser- vice consultant to the customer, chairing conversa- tion meetings made up of plant, traffic, engineering, services, and other management personnel, checking with the service consultant and customer during the implementation process to insure no problems are developing, and contacting the customer after instal- lation of the service to insure customer satisfaction. They will spend 5 to 10 percent of their time on other account activities, including investigating customer requests for new service or relocation and monitoring assigned accounts for indication of customer dissatis- faction. In addition, 10 to 20 percent of their time will be required for the performance of administra- tive activities, including maintaining a customer in- formation file on assigned accounts, keeping abreast of changing market trends and competitor activities, SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. new products, etc., preparing correspondence to cus- tomers, providing feedback and coordinating with upper management, and representing the Company in industry-orientated association meetings. The job summaries of both positions end with a brief descrip- tion of the "scope and nature of supervision." Under this heading, it is provided that "no subordinates re- port to this position, however, incumbent directs and assigns work to employees on a project basis (i.e., conversion activities, stations reviews, etc.)"; and further, "incumbent has the authority to commit the telephone company to large expenditures connected with sales." In addition to the job summaries, the Employer adduced testimonial evidence as to the contemplated authority and functions of the AE's and SAE's. Thus, according to these witnesses, AE's and SAE's will have the authority to direct the work of service con- sultants, senior service consultants, and other non- managerial employees assigned to work on the" AE's and SAE's accounts, and the latter's orders and di- rections will ordinarily prevail even when an individual's immediate service supervisor has given conflicting work directions. They also will have the authority to grant these employees overtime in order to work on their accounts; remove an employee as- signed to work on their accounts where they do not think that employee is performing at a satisfactory level; and make effective recommendations to an employee's service supervisor concerning the employee's work performance. There was further tes- timony that AE's and SAE's will have the authority to authorize expenditures up to $300 and manage their own time and set their own hours, authorize their own traveling expenses, and commit the Em- ployer to the installation of specific equipment for the customer which may entail substantial capital ex- penditures for the Employer. Finally, there was testi- mony that in many other respects the Employer will treat the AE's and SAE's as managerial employees, providing them with a salary and other fringe bene- fits comparable to that of first and second-level man- agerial employees. As against this evidence as to what the Employer has planned for AE's and SAE's to be doing in the future, the Petitioner subpoenaed an individual to testify who had, for several years, worked for the Employer as a special representative (later merged into the service consultant and senior service consult- ant classifications) and who was appointed as an AE shortly after these positions were created. This indi- vidual essentially' testified that in many respects the skills involved in demand-selling as a special repre- sentative were little different from those required of her now as an AE responsible for analytical selling, 409 but that as an AE she will now be held accountable for her assigned accounts and meeting the revenue objectives established for her accounts, and that she will be better prepared in the particular communica- tion problems of the industry to which she is as- signed. In addition, she testified that when she was in the special representative position she was aware of the other service consultants who engage in analyti- cal selling, but that this ceased with the creation of the AE and SAE positions. She further testified that, unlike the situation when she was a special represen- tative, she now performs no servicing functions; that any servicing requests that might come in to her she refers to the marketing office supervisor, who, she says, is at the same level in the organization as the AE; that the marketing office supervisor and service supervisor report to the service manager; and that, organizationally, the AE reports to the sales manager who is at the same level as the service manager. With respect to directing the work of others, she testified that she was told that she could refer work directly to the service consultant without having to go through that individual's service supervisor; that such a request would be treated by the service con- sultant similarly to a request made direct from a cus- tomer in that it would be logged on his work sched- ule book just as any other demand request from a customer would be logged and scheduled; and that the service consultant's log book is reviewed once a week by the service manager. She admitted, however, that she was never told that she could direct the work of a service consultant while the latter was directly employed in servicing an account on the customer's premises. With respect to committing the Employer's re- sources, she was told that as an AE she will have the authority to determine what vehicle best serves the customer's needs. This contrasts with the past prac- tice when the engineering department had the final authority to make such a determination, based on economic considerations, regardless of whether the special representative thought that vehicle was best or not. She testified that such a decision may well entail a higher capital expenditure for the Company by way of the vehicle the AE ' selects. She also testi- fied, however, that, under the reorganization, the ser- vice consultant will have the same authority while engaged in demand-selling to select the' most appro- priate vehicle to serve the customer's needs. With respect to the discretionary authority of an AE, this individual testified that her working hours were fixed and that nobody told her that she could set her own hours; she further 'testified that her ex- pense account authority as an AE is no greater now than it was when she was a special representative. 410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Finally, with respect to her training, this AE testi- fied that she has received some brief training to pre- pare her for her present position, but that the special- ized training which will prepare her for her assigned industry will not be given until later in 1975. She testified that the little training she has received in- volved becoming familiar with some of the newest equipment on the market and a communications workshop which, among other things, included in- structional materials for management people on how to get along with the Union. Contentions of the Parties The Employer contends first that the petition should be dismissed as premature. Citing language in the Supreme Court's decision in Bell Aerospace 3 for the principle that it is the employee's actual job re- sponsibilities, rather than the job title, that should determine the individual's managerial status, the Em- ployer contends that at the time of the hearing in this case the newly created positions of AE and SAE were still in the initial training phase and, as a result, the individuals named to fill these positions were still confused as to what their actual authority and re- sponsibilities were. The Employer asserts that the pa- rameters of; these new positions can only be mea- sured "after [AE's and SAE',s have] received their specialized training, been assigned to properly cate- gorized industry accounts or markets, supplied with the respective Market Plans and acquire a clear un- derstanding of their intended role." In the alternative, the Employer contends that if the Board determines to resolve the unit placement issue in this proceeding, then it must rely on the evi- dence provided by the Employer as to what it intends for these positions to be at this time. The Employer states that this is best reflected in the testimony of the Employer's managerial witnesses who are directly responsible for structuring and implementing these positions, and in the Employer's tentative job de- scriptions for these positions. The Employer argues that, as in cases where an individual's status as a supervisor is being chal- lenged, the determination must be made on the exis- tence of authority rather than its' actual exercise. Thus, the Employer claims that the AE's and SAE's are either supervisors or managerial employees, or that they otherwise lack a community of interest with other bargaining unit classifications assertedly be- cause (1) they have the authority to "direct, redirect, or terminate work" of the service consultant and se- 3 N.L R B v Bell Aerospace Company, Division of Textron, Inc, 416 U S 267 (1974). mor service consultants, and to authorize or deny those individuals and other bargaining unit employ- ees overtime; (2) they have the authority and respon- sibility to make effective recommendations with re- spect to the quality of performance of the service consultant assigned to their accounts, thereby affect- ing that individual's career progression with the Em- ployer; (3) they have the, discretion to manage their own time, pledge the Employer's credit, and affect capital expenditure in substantial amounts; (4) they are responsible for formulating, the Employer's mar- keting policy by developing programs on their as- signed markets, have the discretionary authority to make changes in the Employer's overall plan with respect to their own assigned accounts, and in all respects make the decisions with respect to the imple- mentation of that policy; (5) they make decisions with respect to forecasting the Employer's manpower needs, capital expenditures, and yearly revenues with respect to their assigned accounts, and determine the appropriate service vehicle and installation time for their customers; (6) they have direct access to highly confidential trade secrets, not otherwise available to bargaining unit employees; and (7) they are treated by the Employer in all respects as managerial em- ployees. Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the case is ripe for determination. It argues that the Employer's establishment of the AE and SAE posi- tions is really little different from other changes the Employer has made over the years with respect to its marketing approach, including the change which led to the creation of the service consultant and senior service,consultant positions; that the Employer will likely continue to make changes with respect to its marketing policy in the future; and that the Employ- er does not suggest a more appropriate time for the Board to make its determination. On the merits, Petitioner contends that selling has always been considered a bargaining unit function; that the, AE and SAE functions today are much like the functions previously performed by the bargaining unit classification of service consultant and senior service consultant, the only difference being that now the SC's and SSC's will perform the implementation and servicing functions while the AE's and SAE's will perform the selling function; that contrary to the assertions made by the Employer's witnesses, there is no evidence that the AE's'and SAE's have been noti- fied that they have the authority to responsibly direct employees or sufficient discretion to act on behalf of the Employer to establish that they are either super- visory or managerial; and, finally, because of their close working relationship with the SC's and SSC's, they have a closer community of interest with the SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. bargaining unit than they do with management. Discussion and Conclusion As we view the case, there are essentially two is- sues before us: 1. Is the case ripe for determination by the Board as to the unit placement of the newly created AE and SAE positions? 2. If the Board finds the case is ripe for determina- tion, are the AE and SAE positions properly a part of the bargaining unit? Having carefully considered the parties' conten- tions, we conclude, for the reasons developed below, that the case is ripe for determination and that the newly created positions of account executive and se- nior account executive are a part of, the existing bar- gaining unit. With respect to issue 1 above, we see no reason to defer a determination of the unit placement of these newly created positions until some later time when the Employer asserts the functions and authority of these positions will be more definitely established. Although it appears that the ultimate responsibilities of the AE and SAE positions in dispute here may still go through some refinements, the record shows that the broad contours of the positions have been estab- lished and that most of the individuals that will be assigned to act as account executives and senior ac- count executives have already been named. Further, there should be compelling reasons for dismissing a petition as premature when to do so will have the effect it would here of leaving, the parties in a state of confusion as to the parameters of their bargaining obligations with respect to individuals actually per- forming in the disputed positions. We find no such compelling reasons presented by the Employer here. Considering the Union's clarification petition on the merits, we, find that the newly created AE and SAE positions are natural outgrowths of the bargain- ing unit positions of service consultant and senior service consultant. Indeed, most of the ;functions now assigned to these new positions were previously per- formed by the SC classifications on an industry and/ or geographic basis. All that has happened by the Employer's establishment of the AE and SAE posi- tions is that some of the functions previously per- formed by SC's and SSC's or other occupational bar- gaining unit classifications on the marketing side of the department, were reorganized and given height- ened recognition and some additional accountability, so as to add a competitive factor to improve overall sales performance. Although we recognize that many of the individuals selected to'fill these new positions were previously employed in classifications which 411 were not considered to be in the bargaining unit, the record is not clear as to why they were previously excluded. The record does suggest, however, that some if not all of these individuals either did actually exercise supervisory authority or substantial discre- tion in the formulation of marketing strategy for the Employer, which would of course have accounted for their exclusion from the unit as managerial/supervi- sory employees. However, that is to be contrasted with the authority and discretion of AE and SAE positions as presently situated. From the testimony of the individual presently performing as an AE, there is nothing to establish that she has been dele- gated or is exercising supervisory authority or mana- gerial discretion. Hence, the fact that the AE and SAE positions have been filled with ,individuals pre- viously not in the unit is of little or no significance. With respect to the evidence adduced by the Em- ployer as to the AE's and SAE's supervisorial respon- sibilities and/or their managerial discretion to make decisions involving substantial sums of money, suff- ice it to say that there is no evidence in the record that the individuals filling these positions are actually performing such supervisory functions or that they have any substantially greater authority to commit the Employer's resources than is provided the SC's and SSC's under the reorganization. And contrary to the employer's contention, unlike the determination of an individual's supervisory status in a position which has ,been in existence for some time, in a unit clarification proceeding such as this, evidence that the individuals in the disputed classifications actually perform the functions asserted is the only real way to determine whether they have indeed been assigned additional responsibilities and authority which ele- vate them to the ranks of a supervisor or manager. While it may be, as the Employer asserts, that these positions will eventually possess supervisorial author- ity or managerial discretion, our determination as to the proper unit placement at this time must be based on what the individuals filling these classifications actually do now, as opposed to what they specula- tively may be doing some time in the future 4 For all the above reasons, we find the account ex- ecutive and senior account executive positions are in- cluded in the Union's bargaining unit and will clarify the unit accordingly. ORDER It cis hereby ordered that the existing recognized companywide bargaining unit of accounting depart- 4 Ramona's Mexican Food Products, Inc, 217 NLRB No 153 (1975), and cases cited in the ALJD in that case 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD meat, commercial department and marketing depart- ment, plant department, and traffic department em- ployees employed by Southwestern Bell Telephone, St. Louis, Missouri, and represented by Communica- tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, clarified to include the job classifications of account executives and senior account executives. CHAIRMAN MURPHY dissenting: I must respectfully dissent from my colleagues' finding that the Employer's newly created classifica- tions of account executive and senior account execu- tive should be included in the Union's existing bar- gaining unit. I would instead dismiss the petition as premature. I have difficulty making any kind of informed judgment on the present state of the record. Al- though it appears that the Employer has appointed most of the individuals that will fill these positions, few if any of those selected were performing the full range of functions that the Employer contemplated for these positions at the time of the hearing in this case. Thus, most were still at the initial stages of learning what their new roles will be, screening out and qualifying their assigned industry accounts, and preparing for their intensive industry training, which most of them had not received as of that time. The only AE to testify at the hearing, whose testimony is relied on in large part by my colleagues, admitted that there was still a great deal of confusion among the AE's as to the contours of their jobs, and she further stated: ... everybody connected with the sales side of the house is new, there has been a lot of regroup- ing, a lot of directions that was [sic] rescinded and changed. None of us really understood, or we tried to understand, but we weren't totally familar with or knew what we were doing .. . . She further testified: When we first started this, a lot of us were inter- preting the SOG one way and somebody was interpreting it another way. There was difficulty in getting a firm interpretation. We weren't sure how we were to interface with service. We weren't sure exactly where our job began. We still, may I say, are not at a stage where anybody is absolutely sure. When we first started, a lot of us got involved in things that we probably shouldn't have ... . My colleagues state that there should be compel- ling reasons to dismiss a petition as premature where the effect of doing so is to leave the parties unsure of their bargaining obligations. I would agree with that principle in a proper case, such as one where the in- dividuals filling the newly created positions were pre- viously represented and would be left in a no-man's land ' with respect to the existing contract were the Board to defer its determination until the new posi- tions were fully developed. This is not such a situa- tion. Rather the great majority of individuals selected to fill the AE and SAE positions have come from classifications which performed many of the same duties as are included in the AE's and SAE's job descriptions and were never previously considered to be in the bargaining unit. In these circumstances the Board should tread carefully before making a deter- mination to sweep into a unit a group of individuals who had no previous relationship with the bargaining unit, and with respect to whom no consideration was given in the existing contract. According to the testimony of the Employer's wit- ness responsible for establishing these new positions, the individuals named to fill the AE and SAE posi- tions have commenced a lengthy training period at the end of which they will perform duties, such as responsibly directing and evaluating the work of others, which will make them supervisors, and/or ex- ercise the authority to commit the Employer's re- sources and formulate company policy to such an extent as to qualify them as managers. If the posi- tions do so develop-and there is no present reason to believe that they will not-my colleagues' determi- nation here is the equivalent of finding that individu- als being trained to become supervisors or managers or both are nonetheless in the unit until they actually acquire managerial authority and responsibility. Yet Board precedent has consistently excluded such indi- viduals from a unit as lacking a community of inter- est,' even where the training periods are for lengthy periods of time .6 The fact that most of the individuals selected to fill the AE and SAE positions were previously employed in classifications which have long been considered to be outside the bargaining unit on the basis of their being either managerial and/or supervisory concerns me for yet another reason. This fact in itself goes a long way toward confirming the testimony of the Employer's witnesses that analytical selling before 5 See, e g., The May Department Stores Co, d/b/a The M O'Neil Compa- ny, 175 NLRB 514, 517 (1969), cf Loretto Heights College, 205 NLRB 1134 (1973), where the Board excluded the newly created classification of pro- gram director on the ground that said directors had the same supervisory authority as the divisional chairman they replaced. Similarly, here it may well be that after their positions have been fully clarified and developed, the AE's and SAE's will have the same or similar responsibilities to the first- and second-level managerial classification of account managers, marketing managers, and communications marketing managers they have in large part replaced, all of which classifications were previously outside the bargaining unit 6 See, e g., Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno, 160 NLRB 1504, 1510 (1966) (where the trainees were scheduled to go through a training period of 1-1/2 years in duration). SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE CO. reorganization was done almost exclusively by the classifications from which these employees came be- fore their appointment as AE's and SAE's. If that indeed be the case, then the history of bargaining between these parties has been to exclude the classifi- cations performing this type of analytical selling work. Consequently, apart from any consideration of supervisory-managerial capacities of AE's and SAE's, under well established Board precedent,7 a question concerning representation may exist here in which case individuals would be entitled to a self- 7 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 142 NLRB 317 (1963), and cases cit- ed in fn. 4 therein. 413 determination election to determine whether they de- sire to be added to the existing bargaining unit. However, I do not think the record is sufficiently clear on any of these issues to make a definitive de- termination at this time. At the time of the hearing, the newly created AE and SAE positions had not yet been sufficiently developed or refined to support a finding either that a question concerning representa- tion exists, or that the individuals selected to fill these positions were in a training program leading to their becoming managerial or supervisory employees, or that they appropriately should be included in the ex- isting unit. Under these circumstances, I would dismiss the petition as premature.