Micronesian Telecommunications Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 354 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

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