Micronesian Telecommunications Corp.

354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD • Micronesian Telecommunications Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work- ers, Local 1357, Petitioner. Case 37-RC-2717 14 December 1984 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER -' Upon a petition filed under Section 9(c), of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thomas W. Cestare on 5, 6, and 7 January 1983. On 8 March 1983 the Regional Director, for Region 20, pursuant to Section 102.67(h) of the Board's Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, transferred this proceed- ing to the Board for decision. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af- firmed. The Board has considered the entire record' in this case, including the posthearing briefs 2 of the Employer and the Petitioner. The primary issues in this case involve the Board's statutory jurisdiction and its exercise of discretionary jurisdiction over an employer doing business in the Northern Mariana Islands. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Board has such statutory jurisdiction and that it effectuates the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over this Employer. The Employer, a Northern Mariana Islands cor- poration with its principal office at Gualo Rai, Saipan, is engaged in providing interisland tele- phone services and worldwide telecommunications and telex services. The parties stipulated at the hearing that in the preceding 12 months the Em- ployer had gross revenues in excess of $1 million and received revenues in excess of $50,000 directly from the United States, the territory of Guam, and foreign countries. The Employer has requested oral argument That request is denied as the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties 2 The Employer's motion to strike appendices A through D of the Pe- titioner's brief is denied Appendices A through C were apparently at- tached as a convenience to the reader of the record since they are the texts of a Federal Statute, Presidential proclamation, and portions of a congressional hearing, all of which constitute appropriate cites in the brief Appendix D is a summary of most of the Petitioner exhibits re- ceived at the hearing and the transcript pages on which they were asser- tedly received, there is nothing in the appendix not ascertainable from a reading of the transcript The grouping of about 15-19 islands in the South Pacific known as the Northern Mariana Islands was, together with several other island groupings,3 entrusted by the United Nations to " the 'United States to administer after World War II. The over- all trust, informally known as Micronesia, has been known as the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI). Pursuant to a trusteeship agreement ap- proved by the United Nations Security . Council and the United States Government, 4 the United States exercises powers of administration, legisla- tion, and jurisdiction over the TTPI. 3 The United States is also obligated thereunder to "[foster the development of such political institutions as are suited, to the trust territory" and "promote the de- velopment of the inhabitants of the trust territory toward self-government or independence, as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the trust territory and its people and the freely ex- pressed wishes of the peoples concerned" giving "due recognition to the customs of the inhabitants in providing a system of law for the territory."6 The trusteeship remains in effect. The trusteeship agreement may only be terminated upon motion of the United States and approval of the United Na- tions Security Council. The United States has ap- parently taken the position that it will not seek ter- mination of the trusteeship until the status of all island groupings is resolved. 7 To date, the status of at least one island grouping remains unresolved:6 Nonetheless, in 1972 the United States began separate negotiations on future political status with representatives of the Northern Mariana Islands. Those negotiations culminated in 1975 in the sign- ing of a covenant to grant commonwealth status to the Northern Mariana Islands. The Covenant was subsequently endorsed by the legislature of the Northern Mariana Island, approved by a vote of 3 Those groupings Include the Federated States of Micronesia (Kosrae, Yap, Ponape, and Truk districts), the Marshall Islands. and Palau 4 Trusteeship Agreement for the Former Japanese Mandated Islands, 2 April-18 July 1947, United States—United Nations, 61 Stat 3301, TIAS No 1665, 8 LINTS 189 5 Art 3 of the agreement states that the United States may apply to the trust territories, subject to any modifications it may consider desira- ble, "such laws of the United States as It may deem apropriate to local conditions and requirements" Art 9 of the Agreement states that the United States "shall be entitled to constitute the trust territory into a customs, fiscal, or administrative union or federation with other territories under United States jurisdiction and to establish common services between such territories and the trust territory where such measures are not inconsistent with the basic objec- tives of the International Trusteeship System and with the terms of this agreement" 6 Trusteeship Agreement. supra at art 6 Willens and Siemar, The Constitution of the Northern Mariana Island Constitutional Principles and Innovation in a Pacific Setting, 65 Geo L J 1373, 1383 at fn 40 (1977) 8 See Matter of Bowoon Samgsa Co, 720 F 2d 595, 600 (9th Cir 1983), regarding the status of Palau 273 NLRB No. 56 MICRONESIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS 355 the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana Islands, and enacted into law by the U.S. Congress. 9 - Although the trusteeship continues, most of the Covenant's provisions are currently in effect," in- cluding those pertinent here. Thus, while the Northern Mariana Islands will become a self-gov- erning commonwealth known as the "Common- wealth of the Northern .Mariana Islands" in politi- cal union with and under the sovereignty of the United States only. on termination of the Trustee- ship Agreement,' the United States may currently "enact legislation in accordance with its constitu- tional processes which will be applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands, but if such legislation cannot also be made . applicable to the several States the Northern Mariana Islands must be specif- ically named therein for it to become effective in the Northern Mariana Islands."12 In article V of the Covenant, there is a formula for determining the applicability of Federal laws in the Northern Mariana Islands. At section. 502, it is stated: (a) The following laws of the United States in existence on the effective date of this Sec- . tion". and subsequent amendments to such law's will apply to the Northern Mariana Is- lands, except as otherwise provided in this Covenant. Thereafter, in paragraph (1), there are specific laws made applicable, including one particular section of the Social Security Act. Then, paragraph (2) makes applicable those laws hot described in paragraph (1) which are applicable to Guam and which are of general application to the several States. Finally, paragraph (3) generally makes applicable those laws not described in paragraphs (1) or (2) which are currently applicable to the TTPI. At section 503, the Covenant specifies certain laws not presently applicable to the TTPI which will not apply to the Northern Mariana Islands except in the manner and to the extent made appli- 9 Joint Resolution Approving the "Covenant to Establish a Common- wealth of the Noi-thern Manana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America" (herein called the Covenant), 24 March 1976, Pub L 94L241, 90 Stat 263, reprinted in 48 U S C § 1681 note s ° Certain Covenant provisions became effective on approval of the Covenant by the United States, by the legislature of the Northern Mari- ana Islands and the inhabitants of the Northern Mariana Islands Certain other provisions became effective on 9 January 1978 upon proclamation by the President of the United States Covenant, art X, sec 1003, Procla- mation No 4584, Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands, 42 F R 56593 (1977), reprinted in 48 U S C § 1681 " Those Covenant provisions related to citiienship and nationality, which entitle TTPI citizens domiciled in the Northern Mariana Islands to become United States citizens, will become effective on termination of the Trusteeship Agreement and the establishment of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . 12 Covenant, art I, sec 105 ' 3 The effective date of this section was 9 January 1978 cable by Congress after termination of the Trustee- ship Agreement. Among exclusions are the mini- mum wage provision of the Fair -Labor Standards Act as it pertains to private employers and employ- ees." The National Labor Relations Act is not made inapplicable under this provision. At section 504, the COvenant provides for Presi- dential appointment of a commission on Federal laws. The commission Will survey United States laws and make recommendations to the United States Congress about which laws now applicable to 'the Northern Mariana Islands should be made inapplicable, which_ laws now inapplicable should be made applicable, and the extent and manner of applicability or inapplicability. The commission's final report and recommendations are due within 1 year after the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement. . United States judicial authority within the Northern Mariana Islands is set forth in article IV of the Covenant which became effective 9 January 1978. That article provides for the establishment of a "District Court for the Northern Mariana Is- lands," which has the same jurisdiction as a district court in the _United States." The article also pro- vides that, the Northern Mariana Islands will con- stitute a part of the same judicial district as does Guam, currently the Ninth,Cirbuit. We note particularly, with regard to the applica- bility of Federal laws within the Northern Mariana Islands, that the legislative history of the Cov- enant's enactment indicates that while the formula of Federal law applicability "does not make the Northern -Mariana Islands' into a territory or pos- session of the United States prior to fermination of the trusteeship Agreement[, i]n many instances, however, the Northern Mariana Islands will be treated as if it were a territory or possession of the United States prior to termination, for many laws applicable to Guam because it is a territory or pos- 14 The legislative history of the Covenant's enactment clearly indicates that while the minimum wage ,provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act were made inapplicable, that Act's other provisions, including those dealing with such matters as overtime pay ind maximum hours, are appli- cable under the formula for applicability of Federal laws To Approve the Convenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and for Other Purposes, hearing on H J' Res 549, H J Res 550, and H J Res 547 before the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Af- fairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 94th Cong , 1st Sess 643 (1975) (section-by-section analysis), hearing on H J Res 549 before the Subcommittee on General Legislation of the Senate Commit- tee on Armed Services, 94th Cong , 1st Sess 149 (1975) (questions and answers) ' 5 One exception is that in cases arising under the United States Con- stitution; treaties, or laws, the Northern Marianas district court will have jurisdiction regardless of the sum or value of the matter in controversy Covenant, art IV, sec 401, 402 Further, the Covenant provides that the Northern Marianas district court may have jurisdiction over some local cases 356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD session will become applicable to the Northern Mariana Islands."16 The Employer argues that the Board is preclud- ed from exercising statutory jurisdiction because of the current political status of the Northern Mariana Islands—a unique status as part of a trust territory under United States administration but not a "terri- tory" under the sovereignty of the United States. We recognize the "unique political relationship between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States."" Nonetheless, we mist be guided by whether Congress' 8 clearly expressed its affirm- ative intention of applying the National Labor Re- lations Act to the Northern Mariana Islands." In our view, the formula for applicability of Federal laws contained in the Covenant and enacted by Congress is a clear expression of Congress' affirma- tive intention to apply the National Labor Rela- tions Act, among other Federal statutes, to the Northern Mariana Islands. 2° This view is support- ed by the fact that the Covenant specifically ex- cluded from applicability certain Federal laws, or portions thereof including certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, but did not specifically exclude from applicability the National Labor Re- lations Act or any portion thereof. Further support is found in the legislative history's indications of a literal reading of the Covenant's applicability for- mula. Accordingly, we find that the Board has stat- utory jurisdiction over employers located in the Northern Mariana Islands who satisfy our jurisdic- tional standards, as do the operations of the Em- ployer involved here. Further, considering congressional enactment of the Covenant, as well as a variety of other factors, we are unable to discern a basis for using our dis- cretionary power and declining to exercise our statutory Jurisdiction to the fullest extent. 16 Hearing on H J Res 549, H J Res 550, and H J Res 547 before the Subcommittee on Territorial and Insular Affairs of the House Com- mittee on Intenor and Insular Affairs, supra at 640 (section-by-section analysis), see also Rep No 94-433 to accompany H J Res 549, 94th Cong , 1st Sess 77 (1975) " Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v Atahg, 723 F 2d 682, 684 (9th Cif 1984) 18 For a discussion of Congress' ultimate authority over Trust Terri- tory governance, the authority of Congress vis-a-vis the Covenant and some effects of congressional enactment of the Covenant, see Sablan Con- struction Co v Government of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, 526 F Supp 135, 139-141 (1981) 19 McCulloch v Sociedad Nacional de Manneros de Honduras, 372 U S 10, 21-22 (1962), Benz v Compama Nawera Hidalgo, SA , 353 U S 138, 147 (1956) 20 In reaching this conclusion, we have not discounted the possibility that Congress may, at some future time, determine that the Act, or any portion of the Act, is inapplicable to the Northern Mariana Islands either at the recommendation of the Covenant-established commission on Fed- eral Laws or based on its own Judgment We do not, however, believe that the creation of the commission negates the affirmative intention of the applicability formula, nor do we believe that it is productive to spec- ulate about possible congressional action in light of Congress' existing in- tention We note _ the following factual characteristics about the Northern Mariana Islands. Their total population is approximately 17,000 with 87 percent residing on the largest island, Saipan, and almost all of the remaining inhabitants residing on the next largest islands, Tinian and Rota. Saipan is the gov- ernmental and commercial center of the islands. There is not a substantial United States military presence in the Northern Mariana Islands at this time. According to data submitted by the Petition- er, the government sector of the economy accounts for more than 40 percent of all employment. The largest portions of the private sector appear to be service industries (including tourism, _property rental, and auto repair), retail merchandising, and construction and construction supply. Agriculture remains the primary land use on Rota. Geographi- cally, culturally, and ethnically, the Northern Mari- ana Islands are closely related to Guam, 21 over which the Board has specifically asserted junsdic- tion. 22 Guam, which is 3792 miles from Honolulu, is the southernmost and largest island of the archi- pelago known as the Mariana Islands; it is approxi- mately 45 miles from Rota, 135 miles from Tinian, and 150 miles from Saipan, which is about 3927 miles from Honolulu. There is regular air service from Honolulu to Saipan and from Guam, to Saipan and Tinian and some air service at least to Rota from Saipan. There is scheduled shipping between the West Coast and Saipan and scheduled barge service from Guam to Saipan with calls at Tinian and Rota as required. The dominant ethnic group in the Northern Mariana Islands—the Chamorros- is of the same origin as the people of Guam. While about two-thirds of the Northern Mariana Islanders speak Chamorro, English is the primary language and is used in the courts and taught in the schools. Considerations which have persuaded the Board to decline to assert jurisdiction over businesses in the Panama Canal Zone, Wake Island, and Diego Garcia do not exist here. Thus, in Contract Services, 202 NLRB ,862,` (1973), the Board declined to assert its statutory jurisdiction in the Panama Canal Zone because there were at the time ongoing negotia- tions about the scope and effect of United States presence there. Here, in contrast, negotiations about the status of the Northern Mariana Islands have concluded and resulted in an approved con- venant setting forth the terms of the relationship between the Northern Mariana Islands and the United States. In Facilities Management Corp., 202 NLRB 1144 (1973), the Board declined to assert ju- 21 See Willens and Siemer, The Constitution of the Northern Mariana Islands . Constitutional Principles and Innovation in a Pacific Setting, 65 Geo L J 1373, 1375 (1977) 22 RCA Communications, Inc, 154 NLRB 34 (1965) MICRONESIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS 357 risdiction over an employer engaged in mainte- nance and repair services for the Air Force on Wake Island, a 2-1/2-square-mile island in the Cen- tral Pacific on which there is only an Air Force base, there are no permanent residents, and to which there is no access without Air Force perthis- sion and no scheduled air or water carrier service. In finding that it would not effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction, the Board empha- sized the absence of local permanent residents, the remoteness of the island, the difficulty of access, and the absence of anything other than a military installation. Here, while the Northern Mariana Is- lands are at least as distant as Wake Island, they are proximate to Guam and are not difficult of access either because of transportation or entry limitations. Nor is a local permanent population or private industry lacking here. Finally, in Offshore Express, Inc., 267 NLRB 378 (1983), the Board de- clined to assert jurisdiction over a naval contractor who was providing crew boat service and- operat- ing two Navy-owned vehicles in the lagoon at Diego Garcia. Among the factors stressed by the Board were once again the difficult access, restrict- ed to military transportation and generally military personnel, the Employer's limited operation, and the fact that the island is under foreign sovereign- ty. Here, the Employer's operation is not similarly circumscribed and, while the Northern Mariana Is- lands are still under the trusteeship, the relationship to the United States has been formalized and the is- lands are not under foreign sovereignty. Accord- ingly, we shall .assert jurisdiction over the Employ- er here. Having asserted jurisdiction over the Employer, we now proceed to the issues of unit inclusion and exclusion. The parties have agreed that all full-time and regular part-time employees on the island of Saipan, excluding supervisors, 23 managerial em- ployees, professional employees, confidential em- ployees and guards and watch-persons as defined in the Act, are to be appropriately included in the unit found. The Petitioner also seeks to include full-time and regular part-time employees on the is- lands of Rota and Tinian. while the Employer maintains that they should be excluded as manage- rial employees or because they do not share a com- munity of interest with other employees. The Em- ployer also maintains that the service order admin- istrator should be excluded as a managerial em- 23 The parties stipulated that the following individuals are excluded from the unit as supervisors Edward Takahashi, general manager, Duke Silva, service manager, Diane Guerrero Villagomes, department head secretary, Vicenta Teregeyo, chief overseas operator, P. Pangelinan, inside plant supervisor, and Mariano Falig, outside plant supervisor The parties also stipulated that Andy Tudela, plant accounting administrator, was to be permitted to vote subject to challenge ployee, that the personnel administrator should be excluded as a managerial or confidential employee, and that the transmission supervisor, chief operator/communication center, account supervi- sor, billing administrator, and traffic settlement ad- ministrator should be excluded as supervisors. Fi- nally, the Employer alternatively contends that the billing administrator should be excluded as a mana- gerial employee. The Employer employs one person each on the islands of Rota and Tinian, referred to as MTC representatives. Their duties involve service and clerical work—accepting appliCations for service and issuing and collecting bills—as well as installa- tion of telephones and cables and routine mainte- nance on telephones, central office equipment, and cables. The MTC representative on Rota has on occasion attended meetings on Rota of the Port Authority in place of the Employer's general man- ager; his attendance at those meetings serves a public relations function. In terms of administrative duties, they may recommend to the billing adminis- trator on Saipan, in accordance with established practice, that customers' service be discontinued and they may negotiate billing schedules which must be cleared through the Saipan main office. The MTC representative on Rota has recommend- ed cable extension locations based on feedback from customers and knowledge of the area, but he does not .engage in long-range planning. They do not directly supervise any employees; when crews come from Saipan to do major cable installation, the crews are accompanied by a stipulated supervi- sor or are sufficiently trained to do the work inde- pendently. The MTC representatives have nothing to do with the formulation or determination of management policies that directly affect employ- ment relations, such as pay rates, fringe benefits, and other conditions of employment. Based on the above and the record as a whole, we find that the MTC representatives are not man- agerial employees as they are not involved in the formulation, determination, and effectuation of management policies by expressing and making op- erative decisions of the Employer nor do they have discretion independent of the Employer's estab- lished policies. 24 We also find that they share suffi- cient community of interest with other unit em- ployees" to warrant their inclusion in the unit. Their work duties involve a combination of the duties of different classifications of unit employees. 24 See Simplex Industries, 243 NLRB 111 (1979), Textron, Inc , 219 NLRB 384 (1975) 25 Among those included in the unit are employees who install, main- tain, and repair cables, teleithones, and other equipment, operators, and office clerical employees 358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ‘LABOR RELATIONS BOARD They are paid at the same level as combination technicians, a classification of employees included in the unit, and receive the same general fringe benefits as unit employees on Saipan. It appears that additional benefits they receive are_ a function of their being the only Employer employees on the respective islands; thus, they. live rent free in facili- ties leased by the Employer which also serve as of- fices and equipment storage areas and they have full-time use of pickup trucks because they are on call at all times whereas combination technicians on Saipan have use of trucks only when they .are working or on call. Their regular work hours are similar to those of other unit employees except for their full-time on-call status, they are required' to fill out timesheets. They may work overtime with- out prior permission in an emergency situation but they are otherwise expected to obtain authoriza- tion. They are directly supervised by the service manager who is in charge of all inside plant, out- side plant, transmission, and service, operations. The MTC representatives submit weekly reports on their activities and meet monthly on Saipan with the service manager, the inside and outside plant supervisors, and the transmission supervisor. Inasmuch as the MTC representatives have similar job functions and other terms and conditions of employment with unit employees and inasmuch as they are part of the Employer's overall provision of communication service on the three islands, we shall include them within the unit found here. The service order administrator has the primary responsibility of maintaining all customer records. She also receives applications for service, prepares -service orders, coordinates the installation of serv- ice, disseminates information for billing, and up- dates the telephone directory. She decides whether to refer requests for expedited service to the gener- al manager, who will himself then make a determi- nation. She has made suggestions concerning proc- essing of service orders and information to be pro- vided to customers, which suggestions were adopt- ed after discussion with the general manager. She does not establish or have • input into Employer policies concerning employees' wages, hours, or terms and conditions of employment. She does not exercise any discretion regarding the formulation, termination, or effectuation of employment policies. She is supervised directly by the general manager. She works the same hours as other employees at the headquarters' office. She is paid according to the administration wage schedule which also ap- plies to some stipulated supervisors. While that wage schedule does provide for higher wages at the higher step levels than the 'wage schedule ap- plied to most of the unit employees at the low and midrange step levels, the wage rates are commen- surate with those paid to some unit employees. We find that her duties and administrative responsibil- ities do not meet the standards for managerial status; it does not appear that the service order ad- ministrator formulates policies or uses her discre- tion -independent of established; 'company policies. See L & S Enterprises, 245 NLRB 1123, 1126 (1979). We therefore find that she is appropriately included in-the unit. The personnel administrator has the following duties: receiving employment applications, insuring they are complete; recording her impression of ap- plicants' appearance, and checking references; ex- plaining new policies to employees; conducting exit interviews with employees; recording and monitor- ing vacation and sick pay entitlement; advising su- pervisors of the time for employee appraisals; com- pleting paperwork on personnel changes; keeping documents on immigrant laborers; preparing no- tices of job vacancies; and generally maintaining employee personnel files. The personnel administra- tor neither formulates nor determines employment policies; she was described by the general manager as the "administrator" insofar as she may describe existing- policies to employees or supervisors. On one occasion, she suggested to the general manager that the preexisting policy concerning bereavement leave be followed; her suggestion was adopted. She supervises no employees; she cannot hire, fire, dis- cipline, or evaluate nor can she recommend those actions or work' assignments, transfers, or promo- tions. Her involvement in the actual hiring of em- ployees appears limited to screening applications for those that match the qualifications of a vacancy and, on occasion, calling the general manager's at- tention to an aPplication that reflects outstanding credentials or skills. She is not involved in handling employee complaints through any formalized griev- ance procedure. - The general manager's letters and documents are -typed by the department head secretary, a stipulat- ed supervisor. The personnel administrator does her own typing. The personnel administrator has her own office, is paid according to the same wage schedule as the service order administrator, and receives the same fringe benefits as all the unit employees. '• We find based on the above -and the record as a whole that the personnel administrator is neither a managerial nor a confidential employee. See, e.g., Washington Post Co., 254 NLRB 168, 191-192 (1981). With regard to managerial status, her duties admittedly do not involve the formulation or deter- mination of management policies; and we do not view the one adopted suggestion she made con- MICRONESIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS - 359 cerning bereavement policy to be a compelling manifestation of managerial status. Further, the evi- dence does not demonstrate that she has substantial discretion to act independently of established poli- cies; rather, it appears that she serves primarily routine clerical, informational, and secretarial func- tions. With regard to confidential status, we note that the Employer's focus in asserting this position is upon the personnel administrator's access to em- ployee files and payroll rate information. However, the fact that the personnel administrator has access to personnel files and is aware of pay rates and per- sonnel changes has not been held to be sufficient to confer confidential employee status. 26 We shall therefore include the personnel administrator in the unit found appropriate here.27 The transmission supervisor is responsible for the installation and maintenance of all record services on Saipan, i.e., teletype services, telex services, and special circuits. He reports directly to the service manager and appears from the Respondent's table of organization to be at the same administrative level as the inside and outside plant supervisors, both of whom are stipulated supervisors. He meets on a daily basis together with the service manager and the inside and outside plant supervisors to dis- cuss work to be done. In 1981, he was responsible for the work of three equipment technicians. Since about March 1982, he has worked with only one equipment technician who is his coequal in skill level, although at the time of the hearing the Em- ployer anticipated filling an equipment technician vacancy. The transmission supervisor has inter- viewed applicants and has effectively recommend- ed the hire of two employees. He has authority to issue verbal and written warnings to employees with whom he works although he has not done so. He has also never promoted, suspended, or dis- charged an employee. He has performed annual written appraisals of the employees with whom he has worked. He also is responsible for granting overtime to employees with whom he has worked and for reviewing their timecards. His wage rate is at least 20 cents per hour higher than that of his subordinate. While the evidence about the transmis- sion supervisor is sparse, we are persuaded that his effective recommendations of hire together with his appraising functions and authority to issue 26 Washington Post Co, supra at 192, Los Angeles New Hospital, 244 NLRB 960, 961 (1979), Mid Allegheny Corp. 233 NLRB 1463, 1464-1465 (1977) 27 At the hearing, the Employer suggested that the personnel adminis- trator may be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act It did not argue this position in its brief Nonetheless, it is clear that the personnel administrator possesses none of the inclicia of supervisory status warnings are such indicia of supervisory status as to warrant his exclusion from the unit on that basis. The chief operator communications center over- sees the . operations of the cdmmunications center 'and the work of the five telex operators who re- - ceive messages from throughout the trust territories to retransmit to points throughout the world, log long-distance calls, and receive at a counter cus- tomer payments for telephone services. She does not regularly work as an operator herself; she gen- - erally fills in during absences or emergencies. She has a separate office and spends a substantial amount of her time reviewing documents concern- ing long-distance calls and financial payments and monitoring the operators at work; she prepares a weekly report of all transactions occurring at the communications center including the amount of money received and the number of messages trans- mitted. The chief operator communications center re- ports directly to the general manager. She has not been called upon to interview employees and has recommended neither hire nor discharge of em- ployees, although the general manager asserts that she has the authority to do so. She sets the five op- erators' schedules, reviews and initials their time- sheets, determines when the operators work over- time, and has authority to permit employees to leave work early. She prepares written appraisals of the operators which are used to determine whether they receive raises and the amounts of wage increases. She has authority to recommend promotions but has not done 'so; she has chosen that two employees be transferred after the general manager made a decision to effect a transfer. She has authority to issue verbal and written warnings to employees and she has given at least one em- ployee an oral reprimand, In light of the above, and particularly what we find to be her responsible direction of the work of the operators, her author- ity to discipline employees, and her authority to ef- fectively recommend their wage increases and transfers, we find that she is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The account supervisor's primary function is to account for and 'report the Employer's financial data. She spends approximately 75 percent of her time engaged in that function. Her remaining time is spent directing the work of the accounting clerks and collection clerks and generally overseeing the work of the billings administrator, traffic settlement administrator, and plant accounting administra- tor." She has interviewed and effectively recom- 28 Both the billings administrator and the traffic settlement administra- tor are contested positions and are discussed below As stated above, the Continued 360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 'mended the hire of several employees. She has au- thority to recommend the discharge of employees but has not exercised that authority. She has the authority to discipline employees; she has issued both oral and written warnings. She performs ap- praisals for those employees whose work she di- rects as well as for those whose work she oversees, and she has effectively recommended at least one merit increase. She has authority to approve vaca- tion requests and to approve absences. She has au- thority to grant overtime. She reviews employee timecards. She is paid 25 cents per hour more than the next highest paid individual in the department.. In view of the account supervisor's effective recommenda- tion of hire, actual discipline of employees, and re- sponsible direction of employees in the accounting department, we find her to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The duties of the billing administrator include putting all new . accounts into a customer master file, posting all payments made to those accounts, accepting credit card applications and issuing credit cards,. and handling customers' billing ques- tions. The billing administrator reports to the ac- count supervisor. The billing administrator works with one other employee, an accounting clerk. She initially assigns work to the accounting clerk and directs the accounting clerk if there is a change in work priorities. She participated in the interview of the current accounting clerk and discussed her ap- proval with the account supervisor who made the direct hiring - recommendation to the general man- ager. She filled out an appraisal for the former em- ployee in the accounting clerk position, which ap- praisals affect determination of employee raises; she is responsible for appraising the current employee in that position after a year of employment. She has authority to permit the accounting clerk to work overtime. She has authority to issue verbal and written warnings and recommend discharge al- though she has not exercised that authority. She works in the accounting departments' open area with the accounting clerks. She is a senior em- ployee and is paid at the maximum level of the ad- ministration wage schedule such that her wage is approximately $3 more per hour than that of the accounting clerk. While the evidence presented with regard to the billing administrator is somewhat sketchy, and while she is asserted to supervise one employee in parties agreed that the plant accounting administrator would be permitted to vote subject to challenge, there is no record evidence concerning the status of the individual in that position a rather small accounting department, we are per- suaded that the evidence shows that she responsi- bly directs the work of the accounting clerk and has affected and may affect that employee's terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, we shall exclude her from the unit as a supervisor.29 The traffic settlement administrator is responsible for the accounting of all toll calls and settlements between the various carriers, including long-dis- tance telephone calls and telex and telegraph serv- ices. He oversees the work of two clerks, one of whom reviews all toll tickets for accuracy and time changes and enters the information into a computer and the other of whom performs the Same duties with telei and telegraph information. He makes sure their work is correct and completed in a timely fashion. He has the authority to recommend hiring and discharges and to discipline employees but he has not exercised that authority. He did ef- fectively recommend that one of the current clerks be transferred into the department based on his knowledge of her capabilities. He also effectively recommended that one of the clerks be replaced during 'a leave of absence. He authorizes overtime for the clerks, reviews their timecards, and sched- ules their vacations. He also performs appraisals on the two clerks. He has his own office next to that of the general manager. . Based on the above and the record as a whole, and like our decision with respect to the billing ad- ministrator, we are convinced that the traffic settle- ment administrator responsibly directs the work of the clerks who are responsible to him and- has the authority to affect and has affected their terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, we find him to be a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and excluded from the unit. - We therefore find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time employees of the Employer on the islands of Saipan, Rota ' and Tinian, but excluding managerial employ- ees, professional employees, confidential em- ployees, supervisors, guards and/or watch-per- sons as defined in the Act. . [Direction of Election omitted from publication.] " The Employer alternatively maintained that the billing administrator was a managerial employee because she recommended a policy for con- tacting customers before their service was disconnected for nonpayment and because she can routinely set up a customer payment plan if the amount owing is nominal These facts do not support a finding of mana- gerial employee status