Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 18, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 428 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Communica-
tions Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 7-RC-12170
April 18, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Kenneth A. Rose on
January 15 and 16, 1974, at Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the
Regional Director for Region 7, this case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board. Briefs
have been filed by the Employer and the Petitioner.
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. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs filed by the parties, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section.9(c)(1) and Sec-
tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit
"All Commercial Department employees employed by
the employer within the Grand Rapids District, includ-
ing service representatives, clerical employees, and out-
side representatives, but excluding marketing and di-
rectory sales employees, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act."
The parties are in agreement that the above-
requested unit is the same unit that was sought by the
Union in several prior and pending representation cases
involving the same parties at different locations. In the
present case, as in all the prior ones, the Employer has
contended that the petitioned-for unit is too narrow
and therefore is not an appropriate one.
By way of background, the Union, in the fall of 1970,
filed a petition for the employees in the Michigan Bell
commercial office in Battle Creek.' The Company as-
serted that a single office-was not an appropriate unit
for bargaining. The Regional Director, however, found
that the requested unit was appropriate,-and his Deci-
sion and Direction of-Election was affirmed by a
majority of the Board.' The Union, however, failed to
obtain a majority in that election.
About a year later the Union again filed a petition for
the same unit at the Battle Creek office.' On the basis
of the record in the first proceeding, and an additional
hearing, the Regional Director found the unit was ap-
propriate and directed an election. The Employer's re-
quest for review was denied and the Union won the
election and was certified.
In mid-1973, the Union again petitioned for single-
office units, filing separate petitions for the Jackson
office4 and the Holland office.' The cases were con-
solidated for a hearing. The Regional Director, consid-
ering the Battle Creek case as precedent, found that the
Jackson office constituted an appropriate unit. On
November 15, 1973, the Board granted the Employer's
request for review of the Jackson decision. That matter
was pending before the Board at the time the instant
case was transferred to the Board.'
Meanwhile, in the Battle Creek case (192 NLRB
1212) the Employer again asserted the unit was inap-
propriate and declined to bargain with the Union after
it was certified. An 8(a)(5) complaint was issued in that
case,7 and the General Counsel moved for summary
judgment. In its answer to the motion for summary
judgment, the Employer contended that, because of
recently adopted changes in its hiring process affecting
all commercial offices, the Board should reconsider its
holding in the case reported at 192 NLRB 1212, and
should also take into account the evidence presented in
the Jackson-Holland hearing. The Board on December
5, 1973, declined to grant summary judgment and re-
manded Case 7-CA-10185 for an additional hearing
on the unit question.
It was against this background that the instant peti-
tion was filed. At the instant hearing, the parties, recog-
nizing that the unit issue as it related to the Grand
Rapids commercial employees was essentially the same
as had already been fully litigated with respect to com-
mercial operations at Battle Creek, Jackson, and Hol-
land, agreed that the Board should take notice of the
records (and briefs) in those cases. Thus the thrust of
the evidence presented at the instant hearing related to
the Employer's allegations that there had been changes
1 Case 7-RC-10176.
2 192 NLRB 1212 (1971)
3 Case 7-RC-11334
4 Case 7-RC-11581.
5 Case 7-RC-11603
6 The Regional Director dismissed the petition regarding the Holland
office and there was no request for review of this action
7 Case 7-CA-10185.
217 NLRB No. 74
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
in its central hiring procedure since the second hearing
in the Battle Creek case which would require a finding
that only a systemwide unit is now appropriate. Near
the close of the hearing the parties stipulated the fol-
lowing:
(1) The duties and authorities of local supervi-
sion in Grand Rapids are the same in material
aspects as those of other business offices covered
in the past hearings, and as already elaborated on
in this hearing.
(2) The work product and essential job duties
are the same in material aspects for persons in the
classifications sought in Grand Rapids as they are
at other locations, as reflected in the records of the
prior proceedings, of which official notice has been
taken here.
The parties also agreed that,
(3) [F]or the Grand Rapids employees, [there
are no] differences, material differences in work
contacts of these employees with employees of
other locations than the evidence that we have on
the subject in the past hearings.
(4) Neither of the parties have anything on his-
tory of collective bargaining that has not been fully
covered in past proceedings.
Meanwhile, on February 20, 1974, the hearing com-
menced in Case 7-CA-10185. The evidence presented
at that hearing was limited to the alleged change in the
hiring role of commercial office managers. The Ad-
ministrative Law Judge admitted into evidence the
transcript from the Jackson hearing, and the transcript
of the hearing in the instant case, for purposes of reach-
ing a decision on the alleged hiring change.
After the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge
issued his Decision, finding, on the basis of all the
evidence before him, inter alia, that the Battle Creek
unit had remained appropriate and that the Employer
had violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refus-
8 216 NLRB No . 145 (1975). /
429
ing to bargain in .that case. On February 27, 1975, a
majority of the Board affirmed the findings of the Ad-
ministrative Law Judge.'
In addition to the record made at the hearing in the
instant case (which also was reviewed in our affirmance
of the Administrative Law Judge's findings in 216
NLRB No. 145 (1975), we have considered as a part of
this record the records from the aforementioned pro-
ceedings between these parties. The parties have also
agreed that the unit sought herein is the same as the
units in the prior proceedings. Inasmuch as this record
reveals no facts which would warrant a departure from
our unit finding in 192 NLRB 1212 and our affirmance
of that decision in 216 NLRB No. 145, we find that the
requested unit is an appropriate one. Accordingly, on
the basis of the entire record in this case, including all
Board decisions and briefs in the earlier proceedings
between these parties regarding the appropriateness of
a unit of commercial office employees, we find that the
following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9(b) of the Act:
All commercial department employees employed
by the employer within the Grand Rapids district,
including service representatives, clerical em-
ployees, and outside representatives, but excluding
marketing and directory sales employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined by the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in my dissents in Michigan
Bell Telephone Company reported at 216 NLRB No.
145 (1975) and 192 NLRB 1212 (1971), I would dis-
miss this petition. The unit in which my colleagues
direct an election herein may accommodate the
Union's efforts at piecemeal organizing of the Em-
ployer's commercial department, but it does not consti-
tute an appropriate unit for bargaining in my opinion.