Illinois Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 101 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 101
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY and LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE
BOARD, HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES & BARTENDERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, AFL, - PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-12417.
July 10, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Under a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herman J. DeKoven, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]..
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer'
3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a collective bar-
gaining agreement between them bars consideration of the instant
petition. On July 26, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor exe-
cuted a contract covering, among others, a major portion of the em-
ployees in the unit requested by the- Petitioner. This contract
provided that the agreement would continue in effect until 60 days
after written notice by either party of a desire to modify or termi-
nate but that in no event would such notice be served prior to April 8,
1952.2 On November 21, 1951, the contract was amended as to certain
wage scales and further amended to provide that the contract was to
become effective on December 2, 1951, and continue until 60 days
after written notice by either party of a desire to modify or terminate
' The Chicago Telephone Traffic Union ( Independent ), herein termed the Intervenor,
was granted intervention at the hearing upon showing of a contractual interest in the
representation of some of the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner. At the
-hearing the ,Intervenor contended that the Petitioner was "fronting" for its constituent
local labor organizations who are not in compliance with the filing provisions of Section
9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the amended Act, and that the petition should accordingly not be
entertained by the Board The Board has frequently ruled that the fact of compliance
by a labor organization which is required to comply , is a matter for administrative deter-
mination and is not litigable by the parties . See Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844;
cf. Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 71 S. Ct. 489. As noted in the Sunbeam
case, however , the Board will consider any relevant information brought to its attention
in its investigation of compliance . In the instant case, the Board has considered the
evidence upon which the Intervenor grounds its contention and will herein order , on these
specific- facts , that the Petitioner take certain action before participating in the election
directed hereinafter . See footnote 9, infra.
2 The April 8, 1952, date for notice to terminate or modify was fixed by amendment
to the contract on December 8, 1950.
100 NLRB No. 24.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provided that such notice could not be served before October 7, 1952_
The petition in this case was filed on September 13, 1951.
It is clear that the agreement between the Employer and the Inter-
venor signed on November 21, 1951, after the petition was filed, was
a premature extension of the- existing contract and cannot serve as
a bar to these proceedings .3 While the July 26, 1950, contract could
serve as a bar to a petition for certification of representatives for its
initial term, this contract became terminable at will on April 8, 1952,
and, as this date has passed, can no longer act to forestall such a peti-
tion.4 Accordingly, the Board finds that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests that the Board find appropriate a unit
consisting of all cooks, senior cooks, first cooks, head cooks, bus boys,
porters, head porters, junior matrons, matrons, and night operating
matrons employed in the cafeterias of the Employer's Chicago, Illi-
nois, area traffic department, excluding guards, professional employ-
ees, all supervisors as defined in the amended Act, and all other
employees. The Employer and the Intervenor assert that this unit
is inappropriate and contend that these employees should not be
severed from the broad unit of nonsupervisory employees in the
traffic department now represented by the Intervenor.
The Employer operates approximately 35 cafeterias in buildings
housing the Chicago area traffic department. About 255 employees
are assigned to nonsupervisory positions in the cafeterias. They are
under the separate supervision of the dining service manager who
reports to the general traffic personnel supervisor and, ultimately, to
the general manager of the Chicago area traffic department. The
cafeterias are generally located on floors housing other traffic depart-
ment personnel but occupy partitioned-off spaces therein. They are
used by both traffic department personnel and other employees. Only
3 of the cafeterias have employees on duty at all times. In the remain-
ing locations, the facilities may be used to a limited extent by other
employees during such periods as the cafeteria personnel are not
present.
Employees classified as cooks, senior cooks, first cooks, and head
cooks do baking, cooking, butchering, and miscellaneous dining serv-
8 See Modine Manufacturing Company, 89 NLRB 1360 , and cases cited therein.
4 See American Lawn Mower Company , 79 NLRB 367, and cases cited therein.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 103
ice work in varying degrees according to the position. Bus boys,
porters, and head porters perform the tasks usually associated with
such job titles. Employees classified as matrons do a limited amount
of cooking, as well as other dining service work, and act as cashiers
and food checkers. At the present time the Employer does not employ
anyone in the classifications of night operating matron or junior
matron. Only one of the cafeterias has a complete complement of all
classifications and the number of employees and classifications at
any of the cafeterias varies according to the volume of business.
The cafeteria personnel work about 35 hours a week and have
reporting and quitting times generally varying from the remainder
of the Employer's personnel. They receive and wear uniforms fur-
nished by the Employer, are paid on an hourly rate, and are allowed
I free meal a day provided they work more than 4 hours consecutively.
The average earnings of cafeteria personnel are appreciably lower
than those of the bulk of the personnel in the traffic department.
Approximately 200 of the cafeteria workers are female and about 55
are male employees. The female employees are included in the unit
now represented by the Intervenor while the male employees have
been excluded from that group.
The great majority of the 7,000 employees in the unit represented
by the Intervenor are classified as telephone operators. The remainder
of the unit consists of clerical employees doing work related to that
performed by the operators or administrative tasks, plus approxi-
mately 60 seamstresses and rest and check room attendants and the
female cafeteria personnel. The Employer's telephone operators and
clerical personnel are not uniformed, work different hours from the
cafeteria group, and are salaried employees. Interchange from and
to the cafeteria group is relatively infrequent and appears to be sub-
stantially confined to transfers of matrons to operator positions or
transfers between the cafeteria group and the seamstress or rest room
and check room attendant positions. The latter classifications are
also hourly paid uniformed employees. On the other hand, a number
of contract rights and benefits are the same for all employees in the
unit represented by the Intervenor, including 'seniority provisions,
vacations, pensions, holiday pay, night differentials, sick, death, and
disability benefits, and special telephone rates.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the female cafeteria
employees should not be severed from the broad unit in which they
are now represented and the Intervenor expresses a willingness to
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
extend the unit to cover male cafeteria employees now excluded. On
the entire record, however, the Board considers that the separate
supervision, the considerably divergent type of duties, and the other
substantial differences in the conditions of employment of the cafe-
teria employees and the remainder of the broad unit represented by
the Intervenor provide sufficient basis for allowing these employees
an opportunity for separate representation 5 In this respect, the
Board notes that its long-standing and consistent policy has been to
exclude office clerical employees from' units of manual employees.a
While the instant case presents the opposite situation, the same fun-
damential basis for separation exists. On the other hand, the inclu-
sion of a major portion of the cafeteria employees in the broader
unit in the past indicates that such inclusion may well be appropriate
herein despite the conditions noted. Accordingly, we shall be guided,
in part, by the desires of the employees. We direct that an election
by secret ballot be conducted among the employees in the following.
voting group :
All cooks, senior cooks, first cooks, head cooks, bus boys, porters,
head porters, junior matrons, matrons, and night operating matrons
in the Employer's cafeterias in the Chicago area traffic department
excluding cafeteria clerks,' guards, professional employees, super-
visors as defined in the amended Act,8 and all other employees.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that
unit as described above, which the Board, under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the
event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing
unit, with the addition of the male cafeteria employees, to be appro-
Cf. Hughes, Tool Company , 97 NLRB 1107; Thalhimer Brothers , Incorporated, 93
NLRB 726; Allied Stores of Ohio d /b/a A. Polsky Company, 90 NLRB 1868 . McInerney
Spring & Wire Company, 61 NLRB 842, and cases cited therein.
6 See Western Electric Company, 85 NLRB 227; Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative,
Inc., 88 NLRB 196 , and cases cited therein.
I The Petitioner does not request the inclusion of seven employees classified as supply
clerks or forge adjustment clerks. These employees are under the same supervision as
the cafeteria employees and do purchasing and clerical work of the same type as clerical
employees assigned elsewhere in the traffic department . Accordingly , we shall exclude
these employees.
"Despite the classification of some of the cafeteria employees as "head," "senior," and
"first," the parties agree and the Board finds that none of the employees in the Included
classifications is a supervisor as defined In the Act.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 105
priate and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of
election to such effect.9
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
• The record shows that all the 14 local unions of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees
k Bartenders International Union , AFL, in the Chicago area are constituent members
of the Local Joint Executive Board , which is the Petitioner herein . The Joint Board
consists of 3 delegates from each of the locals. It was testified at the hearing in this
case. . thatynone of the employees sought are members or are eligible to be members of
the 14 locals presently established ; that none of these locals claims any interest in
the representation of these employees ; and that , while the Employer 's cafeteria em-
ployees are not eligible for membership in the Local Joint Board itself , that organiza-
tion intends to establish and charter a new local for industrial cafeteria employees.
The bylaws of the Joint Board , however, provide that the Joint Board shall enforce
wage and hour scales, conduct all strikes , determine jurisdictional questions, and
approve all contracts of its constituent locals . Contracts are negotiated by representa-
tives of the interested locals and Joint Board representatives and must be ratified by
the interested locals and by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Joint Board.
None of the 14 local unions in the Chicago area is, at the present . time, in compliance
with the filing provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h). In view of the participation
of these local unions through membership on the Joint Board , in contract negotiation
and ratification procedures which will affect the employees in the unit requested if the
Petitioner is successful in the election ordered herein , the Board finds that participa-
tion in the election by the Petitioner shall be conditioned upon the full compliance with
the filing procedures of the Aot by each of the 14 locals. Cf. Mathieaon Chemical
Corporation, Lake Charles Operation, 81 NLRB 1355 ; The Prudential Insurance Com-
pany of America, 81 NLRB 295; United States Gypsum Company, 77 NLRB 1098 ;
Lane-Wells Company, 77 NLRB 1051.
KAISER ALUMINUM & CHEMICAL CORPORATION and INDEPENDENT
LOCAL OF KAISERS ALUMINUM WORKERS No. 1 OF TACOMA, WASH-
INGTON, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-946. July 11, 195,0
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Kenneth McClaskey, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.2
'- The Employer 's motion for oral argument in this case is 'denied inasmuch as the
record and the briefs filed by the parties adequately present the issues and positions
of the parties.
5Tbe United -Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein termed the Intervenor, was
granted intervention at the hearing for itself and on behalf of its Locals Nos. 829, 888,
841, and 2626 upon showing of a contractual interest in the representation of these
employees.
100 NLRB No. 19.