Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 1212 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michigan Bell Telephone Company and Communica-
tion Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 7-RC-10176
August 27, 1971
DECISION ON REVIEW
On January 26, 1971, the Regional Director for
Region 7 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, attached
hereto, in which he found appropriate the Petition-
er's requested unit of all commercial department
employees employed by the Employer at its Battle
Creek, Michigan, Commercial Office. Thereafter, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, the Employer filed a timely Request for
Review of the Regional Director's Decision of the
grounds, inter alia, that in making his unit finding, he
departed from officially reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated April 13, 1971, the
Board, Chairman Miller and Member Kennedy
dissenting, denied the Request for Review as raising
no substantial issues warranting review. On April 19,
1971, the Employer filed a motion for reconsidera-
tion in which it urged a number of reasons why the
Board should grant its request for review. By
telegraphic order dated April 27, 1971, the Board
granted the Employer's request for reconsideration,
and stayed the election pending decision on review.
On May 5, 1971, the Petitioner filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Board's order granting review.
By telegraphical order dated May 12, 1971, the
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied as
lacking in merit. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs
on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review,
including the briefs on review, and hereby affirms
the Regional Director's Decision, with the following
additions and modifications:
As noted by the Regional Director, the Board has
long believed that because of the highly integrated
nature and centralized control of public utility
operations, the optimum unit for collective bargain-
ing for their employees is one which is systemwide in
scope. However, the Board has also recognized that
the optimum unit is not necessarily the only grouping
of employees which may be appropriate for bargain-
ing purposes.' In other words, pursuant to Section
9(b) of the Act, "in order to assure to employees the
' In the recent case of United Gas, Inc., 190 NLRB No. 123, the Board
stated that the interdependence of operations which sometimes
characterizes utilities was not present in the retail gas distribution
operations involved in a degree comparable to, for example, segments of
a pipeline, and, drawing an analogy to the Board's unit policy in retail
fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by
[the] Act," the Board determines whether or not the
record facts in a case before it support a finding that
the employees sought to be represented share a
sufficiently distinct community of interest to warrant
their establishment as a separate bargaining unit
apart from other employees, even though it may
become apparent in the course of future negotiations
for such unit that bargaining on the basis of a
broader unit might lead to better results for all
concerned.
The administrative structure of the Employer's
telephone utility is described in detail in the attached
Regional Director's Decision. As there indicated, the
Battle Creek Commercial Office, whose employees
the Petitioner seeks to represent in a separate unit,
and the Kalamazoo Commercial Office are com-
bined in a Kalamazoo District for administrative
purposes. However, the Battle Creek Commercial
Office provides typical commercial services for
present and potential telephone subscribers in six
telephone exchanges, a clearly defined geographical
area encompassing the towns and municipalities of
Battle Creek, Marshall, Athens, Bellevue, Olivet, and
Fulton. No other commercial office plays a part in
servicing this area. The requested employees at the
Battle Creek Commercial Office work together at one
location, and they have no contact with employees at
the Kalamazoo Commercial Office. There is no
interchange of employees between the two offices.
Moreover, it is clear that a work stoppage at the
Battle Creek Commercial Office would not impair
the operations of other commercial offices of the
Employer.
The commercial office manager represents the
Employer in the communities which the Battle Creek
Commercial Office services, and he has below him
several immediate supervisors of the employees
sought. Employees at the office direct their inquiries
concerning personnel matters to the manager, and, if
change of status is involved, he recommends a
disposition which is channeled through the adminis-
trative hierarchy to the headquarters office in
Detroit. The record establishes that his recommenda-
tions are effective. We are satisfied that he has a
substantial degree of autonomy in directing t' he day-
to-day operations of the Battle Creek Commercial
Office.
A commercial office in a telephone utility, engaged
as it is in soliciting and servicing telephone subscrip-
tions in a well-defined geographic area, may be
operations generally, found on the facts of the case, that single district
units of production and maintenance employees serving separate and
distinct geographical areas were appropriate for collective -bargaining
purposes.
192 N'LRB No. 178
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE 1213
compared ,with an outlet or territory in a selling
operation . Viewed in this light , the requested unit
confined to employees at the Battle ' Creek Commer-
cial Office is` presumptively appropriate . We do not
believe the Employer, or our dissenting colleagues,
have pointed to facts weighty. enough to rebut this
presumption . On the basis of the record facts, which
indicate that the Battle Creek Commercial Office
serves a self-contained economic unit of the utility
organization , that the manager of the Office has
substantial autonomy in controlling the day-to-day
activities of the employees sought , that these employ-
ees have only telephonic contact and no interchange
with employees in other commercial offices, that
there has been no history of bargaining for Commer-
cial Department employees in the last 20 years,2 and
that no labor or-ganization seeks to represent a
broader unit of such employees, we conclude that the
requested employees share a sufficient community of
interest, apart from that which they share with other
employees , to support the Regional Director's
finding that they constitute a unit appropriate for
bargaining.3
Accordingly, as we have affirmed the Regional
Director's unit finding, we shall remand the case to
him in ' order that he may conduct an election therein
pursuant to his Direction of Election, except that the
eligibility payroll period therefor shall be that
immediately preceding the date of issuance
CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBER KENNEDY, dissent-
ing:
The majority has determined here that one com-
mercial office of a telephone company is an
appropriate unit . The 24 employees in this unit
comprise 1.5 percent of the Employer's Commercial
Department employees - and conform to no adminis-
trative district or division of the Employer. There are
48 other such commercial offices in the system, with
employee complements ranging from 2 to 481 each.
The Company's wage and fringe benefit policies have
never .been-set on an individual office basis . There is
a long and uniform history in the other departments
of the Company of bargaining on a systemwide
departmental basis. Bargaining in this department
occurred in the past on a like systemwide basis. The
record demonstrates highly - centralized control of
labor relations policies.
This impressive array of factors would clearly
support , in this case, a continuation of settled Board
policy favoring systemwide -units, or at least units of
considerable breadth , in the telephone industry. Thus
Board policy requires a dismissal of this petition.
Instead, the majority finds the unit appropriate and
makes that , finding, not on the basis of traditional
factors, but on the basis of a presumption that a
telephone business office is like a retail sales office!
That decision will not only encourage the prolifera-
tion of up to 48 separate commercial office units, it
could well result in representation of commercial
department employees by a variety of unions.
The stability of bargaining which has developed
throughout most of the telephone industry has, in our
view, demonstrated the wisdom of this Board's
general adherence to an insistence on broad units in
this and other types of public utilities. We do not
believe it wise to encourage, as we think, the majority
view does here, the fragmentation of units in this
industry.
Nor do we think the majority has, in the long run,
furthered the interests of the employees involved.
While giving sanction to an individual office may
serve the expedient purpose of making organization
of employees easier, it is difficult to conceive of
meaningful bargaining taking place if the employees
choose to designate ,the Petitioner as their agent for
this purpose. An employer who, has consistently
established wage levels, fringe-benefits, and the entire
gamut of labor relations policies on a much broader
basis, both for organized and unorganized groups of
employees, is hardly likely to be willing to let a tail
this size wag the dog. We are likely, therefore, 'by
pronouncing that this single- office is, by'our lights,
an appropriate bargaining unit, to have conferred an
illusory privilege upon these-employees. This, in turn,
may well produce just that kind of employee
frustration, and resultant instability, which truly
effective collective bargaining hopes to prevent.
We, therefore, dissent from the 'views of our
colleagues and would dismiss this petition.
z As correctly stated by the Regional Director, the fact-that Commercial
Department employees 20 years ago were represented in-a systemwide unit,
and that employees in the plant and Traffic Departments of the Employer
are,' currently represented in systemwide ` units, while factors to be
considered, are not of controlling significance herein. -
3 See United Gos,'Inc.,supra and cases cited therein. Our holding is not to
be construed as an indication that we would necessarily find that employees
at every commercial office in the Commercial Department could constitute
an appropriate unit. Nor, of course, does our holding negate the existence of
other -appropriate units of Commercial Department employee's, based on
groupings of offices within administrative subdivisions of the department.
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held'before
Hearing Officer Richard D. Hayes of the National Labor
Relations Board . 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 the Regional Director.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Regional
Director finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
. 1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL- LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meaning of ?the Actaud.it will effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assert jurisdiction, herein.
2.^ Jhejabor organization,involved^claims to,,represent
certain employeesof the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning: the
representation , of certairi,,empl9yees,of the Employer within
the meaning of Section 9`(c)(l)'and Section 2(6) and '(7) o£
the Act.
The Petitioner seeks -it unit of 21 employees employed by
the Employer''at''its ' commercial 'office in Battle Creek,
Michigan, including`, 14 service representatives;' 6 clerks,
and 't- "outside", representative. These commercial employ-
ees process customer orders for new or changed telephone
service, process customer- c mplaints, promote sale of
service and equipment, and collect revenue by accepting in
person ^payments, soliciting delinquent accounts, and
securing adequate deposit protection on new Accounts.
They also initiate removal of service for nonpayment ,of
services; prepare, orders' for other dep r,tm,ents to process,
aid maintain' records of -customer service and outstanding
bills."'The Employer' contends=that-the-"only appropriate
unit= is-- a, systemwide unit of commercial employees.
The Employer,, a Michigan, corporation; with its main
office ,,located in Detroit;, is engaged in ,the business of
furnishing telephone service.- throughout the State of
Michigan. Administratively the, Employer is divided into
staff, engineering , marketing, and_'operating groups. The
operating groups (otherwise referred to as, "operations'')
are composed of four-departments: Commercial, plant,
switching systems . and . traffic' which function on a
statewide basis with` the exception of the switcbingsystems
department.
The operating departments are divided': geographically
into' three;areas.,. southern; ,northern; and, metro. These
areas"- are,, subdivided into divisions, which in turn are
further divided into districts. Of 'the. operating depart-
ments, switching functions only in the metro area;
identical functions of switching are `performed by plant
and traffic departments, in1he northern and southern areas.
The ,metro ' area -` of the' commercial,a ° department
(southeastern ' Michigan or the. greater, bletropolitan-De-
troit) encompasses three-divisions: Woodward, Gratiot,
and' Fort with the three divisional headquarters located in
the Detroit`,area,"The' northern and. southern" areas each
contain one commercial division known respectively as the
northern and southern Division. The headquarters of, the
southern division is situated at Grand Rapids (60 miles
from Battle , Creek). These commercial divisions are-further
subdivided into commercial districts: six in the southern
division ,and^five in, the , northern division and also five each
in' . * ,ort,. G ;atioi,, sand Woodward, , or ra', total of 26
commercial districts.
The Kalamazoo district office in the- southern division is
composed of :two, commercial offices, one in Kalamazoo
and one,in Battle Creek (25miles from Kalamazoo and 114
miles from, Detroit). There are over 5Q commercial , offices,
with a'totai `of 1,544 e{nployees,,46 of which are employed
at the Kalamazoo commercial office .ai d21 at the Battle
Creek commerical office (exclusive of ^ three marketing
employees and two directory sales employees,who work in
a separate , area of ,the two-story building' performing
functionally different duties and whom the parties agreed
to , ,excludes from any, unit found ,appropriate-,s herein)
The commercial, offices within the districts , as is the case
with '. the., Battle Creek off ice,'are, supervised,by , , a commer-
cial manager, ;who constiiutes , the'second level of supervi-
sion, the first being a business office supervisor. Above thesM r
commercial manager, of whom there-are. about 80 on the
system, is the district "manager.
Like most --public `utilities , the `Employer ,maintains a
highly integrated and°centrally controlled-,operation., The
Detroit ' headquarters formulates , labor ' relations policies;
determines;upon and 'administers plans-concerning, illness
and accident 'benefits, death , benefits, apension, group, life
insurances hospital - and medical insurance ; and determines
normal working , hours, and -workdays,` holidays, vacations,
separation pay, and, termination-pay. Hiring and training
procedures , wage rates; and wage_progression , schedules for
commercial employees are formulated by the ' general
personnel department' in Detroit . "" 'hus,' all"commercial
employees are subject to common ' employment policies
appfied,on 'a statewide basis.
The above-cited evidence would seem to support `the
Employer's contention that the optimum appropriate unit
is a systemwide unit of the commercial .department. The
Board has traditionally held that because offthe 'highly
centralized,, integrated - operations - of _publie;,utties a
systemwide- unit is to be preferred . New England Telephone
and Telegraph , `Co., 90 . NLRB '639; Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., 108 ' NLRB 1106; Gulf state ' Telephone
Company, 118" NLRB '1039 . However; ,the Board has, also
held that it does not necessarily `follow't-hat a systemwide
unit is the only appropriate umt,' especially where nd union
seeks to represent ' employees onsuch' 'an extensive basis
and the homogeneity of a smaller grouping of employees
exists. Under certain -circumstances, a lesser unit coexten-
sive with , a, lesser ;administrative subdivision ' of the
employer may also; ,be -appropriate . Iroquois , Telephone
Company, 169 NLRB ',. No. -53 ;. Pacific , -Northwest Bell
Telephone Company, 173m NLRB No. 226; Monongahela
Power Company, 176 NLRB NQ. 123.
The Employer, in "its :brie€; `+seeks to distinguish ; these
decisions ,, arguing that the Battle Creek commercial-office
does not constitute an administrative 'suMi ision, that the
history of bargaining " in other units 'with° the Petitioner and
with other , unions is' based- on systemwide ' units"; `and that
there ,exists a history of) ,bargaining of the commercial
department ona systemwide basis.
Least , persuasive of these, contentions^is the fact,thatthe
Employersand ,Petitioner.,have engaged in bargaining in
other units, such as plant, traffic, and, switching on a more
comprehensive basis . Bargaining history m_9ther, units,
although a factor, is not controlling in the ietermination of
appropriateness in regard to the employees' sought her`em,
Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, supra. There is,
however, some evidence that a bargaining history does
exist for the coninief -cial depa'rtment'on ' a systemwide
basis. 'Collective-bargaining agreements were executed' in
1942, 1946; -and ,, 1947, by the Employer , ands?the 'Commer-
cial Telephone Workers Association of Michiganicovering
the entire comimercial department. However, the Petitioner
is not a successor to that labor organization . It is ,not clear
MICHIGAN BELL TELEPHONE 1215
from a, reading of the aforesaid 1947 contraet,as to when it
expired, but certain provisions appear to have expired in
May-1948. There is no, evidence that any • representation
has existed, for, commercial employees for the last-20-years,
and noevidence as to what became of the Commercial
Telephone Workers Association of Michigan subsequent to
1947 or when or under what circumstances its representa-
tion of the commercial, department ceased. I find that the
evidence of systemwide representation of commercial
employees to, be too meager ,and too remote to be
'control herein.'
issue then iswhether or not the BattleThe determinative
Creek business office constitutes a definable'admiinistratiVe
subdivision of sufficient iinternalintegrity, separate identity
and geographical definition to-support an appropriate unit
conistruction_ The Employer argues, in its brief, that though
it views ' only' a systemwide unit as appropriate, the Battle
Creek office would "at most constitute am 6resegment of an
a'dministrative ' subdivision, and that to rule otherwise
would constitute an unwarranted fragmentation creating a
prospect ^ of ' multitudinous 'units, -in a highly integrated
business operation. The Petitioner' contends that the Battle
Creek office constitutes a° readily identifiable group of
employees; -relatively isolated- in function, who service a
distinct, geographical area under separate localized man-
agement; under localized working conditions and ,therefore
appropriate for separate representation.
Like all other commercial employees, the Battle Creek
employees perform the same work tasks; i.e., process
orders for telephone service and adjust peculiar problems
of customers. In performing these tasks, they work in a
two-story building in, Battle-Creek. They have no signifi-
cant- work contact with commercial employees at other
locations except through telephonic communication during
which they may, be called upon to submit or receive
information, e g., credit checks with other commercial
employees throughout the State and often in other States.
In so doing,- however, they service directly only the
customers residing in,six telephone exchanges (an area with
a fixed revenue, rate set by--the state public service
commission). These exchanges are contained in a clearly
defined geographical area, encompassing the towns and
municipalities of Battle Creek, Marshall, Athens, Bellevue,
Olivet, and Fulton. It would appear from the record that
the Battle Creek employees have no more contact with
their Kalamazoo counterparts, than , with commercial
employees of-other districts. The thread of unity would not
appear to run through the-hierarchy of districts, divisions,
and ,areas to the, Detroit headquarters but rather from the
office directly to Detroit, whereat,°as observed above,-the
broad circumstances of their employment conditions are
determined. There appears little evidence of `integration
between the two commercial offices that are contained in
the Kalamazoo District, or between the Battle Creek
Commercial office management level and the district office
management level. The Employer asserts that the Battle
Creek manager is tightly controlled and exercises extreme-
ly limited discretion in personnel matters. Thus with
respect to demotions, discharge, granting of normal wage
progressions, he is limited,to;making effective,recommen-
dations to his superior, the district manager, but -the
testimony is not entirely_ elear,as .to this. It appears,that his
recommendations are , relied on without ,an, independent
investigation, being made. The , district manager unques-
tioningly approves the normal wage .progressions increase
recommended, by the commercial office managerI Com-
mercial , office hours, are -determined„ by the ; general
personnel departmentdin,Detroit,but the, commercial
-manager can-recommend overtime where- localized condi-
tions so require.,. Commercial employees are interviewed for
hire by an employment office employee in -the;,traffic
department at Battle . Creek,, where, the applicant is
subjected to tests composed by the, :, general _ personnel
department in Detroit. Afterwards,the-applicant is directed
to the commercial office in Battle , ,Creek , for further
interview. Although ;the commercial-office. manager may
not add to his staff without approval of his recommenda-
tion by .,the district manager ;at, Kalamazoo, he does
exercise discretion as to, whom- le ,y would hire. His
recommendations to additional hires is , based- on, his
judgment of, ,local conditions. -Although benefits are
determined in the Detroit central office, they are, applied
for at the Battle Creek commercial office, where records- are
maintained. The Battle Creek commercial office manager'
utilizes his discretion as to the Appropriate, mode of dress; to
be worn by the employees and effectively recommends
merit increases and promotions. The, Battle Creek office
manager also uses his discretion n in. setting vacation
schedules. There is evidence of some 'interchange- of
employees between districts and divisions,