New England Telephone and Telegraph

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 1284 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
New England Telephone and Telegraph Company
and Local 2324, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC, Petitioner.
Case -RC-17196
September 30, 1981
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert F.
Kiel. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Regional Director for Region 1 transferred this
case to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer and the Petitioner filed briefs, and the Em-
ployer filed a reply brief.
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 Petitioner and the Intervenort are labor
organizations claiming to represent certain employ-
ees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning representation of employees within the
meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
The Employer is a public utility with its princi-
pal office in Boston, Massachusetts. The Employer
provides communications services to approximately
3-1/2 million customers in the New England States
of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachu-
setts, and Rhode Island, and it employs about
41,500 employees. The Employer's resident seg-
ment is one of its four operating divisions, and in-
cludes residence service centers (RSCs), phone
centers (PCs), and service centers which are locat-
ed throughout the five-state area. The Petitioner
seeks to represent approximately 214 resident seg-
ment employees who work in the Springfield Dis-
trict in Massachusetts. 2 The Employer contends
that a companywide resident segment unit would
be the "best" unit. Alternatively, the Employer
contends that a Massachusetts statewide resident
segment unit of approximately 1,699 employees
'Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO. wsas permitted to
intervene at the hearing.
2 The unit sought is
All resident segment employees employed by the Employer in the
Residence Service Centers, Phonle Centers, and Service Centers in
the Springfield District of Massachusetts, but excluding presently
represented employees, public service employees, occasional employ-
ces, part-time employees working less than twenty hours a week,
managerial employees, guards and supervisors, as defined in the Act.
258 NLRB No. 175
would also be appropriate. However, the Employer
argues that the smallest appropriate unit in the in-
stant case would be the resident segment in Massa-
chusetts' Western Division, which encompasses the
Springfield and Worcester Districts. This latter unit
was found appropriate in New England Telephone
and Telegraph Company, 247 NLRB 1277 (1980)
(New England Telephone II). 3 For the reasons that
follow, we find the petitioned-for unit inappropri-
ate.
The RSCs handle billing and customer questions
regarding service. The PCs specialize in the sale of
phone equipment, although at some PCs customers
may also pay their bills. Six RSCs operate in the
Springfield District. The Springfield District also
contains six PCs, with three of those located at an
RSC office. 4 Each Springfield District RSC is
headed by a manager, with the exception of the
North Adams RSC, which is headed by an assistant
manager. Assistant managers are the highest au-
thority at PCs. The Worcester District contains six
RSCs and five PCs. All Worcester PCs are located
at RSC sites. Worcester RSCs and PCs are admin-
istered like their counterparts in the Springfield
District. There are 180 employees in the Worcester
District.
As noted above, the Springfield District com-
prises half of the resident segment's Western Divi-
sion in Massachusetts. There is a vice president of
the resident segment who administers the entire
five-state system and who sets hiring standards and
procedures, among other things. The general man-
ager of Massachusetts, who administers that state
area, determines the number of employees who are
to work in the State. A division manager heads the
Western Division, and reporting to him are district
managers who are responsible for the Springfield
and Worcester Districts, respectively. District man-
agers receive requests for hiring from local RSC
managers, but these requests are forwarded to the
division manager. The division manager determines
the number of employees in any classification at an
RSC, and authorizes the addition of temporary or
permanent employees. The general manager de-
cides the total number of positions available to the
: The Intersenor took no position with respect to the appropriateness
of this unit. As detailed more fully, infra, the Western Division consisted
of the Springfield. Northampton. and Worcester Districts when New
England Telephone II1 was decided. Subsequently, the Employer merged
the Springfield and Northampton Districts to form the Springfield Dis-
trict sought here. In rNe' England Tllephone and Telegraph Company 242
NLRB 793 (1979) (New England Telephone I) and New England Telephone
and 7elegraph Company, 242 NLRB 94() (1979) (iNew England Telephone
I/), the Board dismissed petitions seeking units which were smaller than
district or divisionwide units See also Niew England Telephone and Tele-
graph Company. 249 NLRB 1166 l 19X0) (NeV England Telephone IV )(unit
of two business service centers in New Hampshire appropriate).
' The Petitioner also seeks to represent employees ho work at the
only service center located ill the Springfield District.
1284
NEW ENGLAND TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
division, but the actual hiring for the Springfield
and Worcester Districts is done by two employ-
ment offices located at Springfield and Worcester,
which generally hire for their respective district.
The parties stipulated, however, that the Worcester
employment office would close by August 1981,
and thereafter all hiring for the Worcester and
Springfield Districts would be done through the
Springfield office.
All suspension and termination decisions are ap-
proved at the division or system level. Division
managers make final decisions on proposed suspen-
sions recommended by district managers. However,
the district manager's recommendation is based, in
turn, on the recommendation of managers and as-
sistant managers at the RSCs and PCs. District
managers may independently investigate such rec-
ommendations. The general manager makes termi-
nation decisions. RSC managers evaluate employ-
ees, and the district manager reviews the evalua-
tions. RSC managers schedule, assign work, allow
time off, and grant vacations for employees. Vaca-
tions are subject to the time constraints set by the
division manager in consultation with the district
manager. District managers authorize overtime
within the guidelines set by the division manager.
Employee interchange between the Springfield
District and Worcester and other districts is by
"loans." Requests for loans of employees by dis-
tricts or divisions are made to the divisional man-
ager who then asks a district manager to select the
employee. The record indicates that, in 1980, 23
employees were loaned from the Springfield Dis-
trict to the Worcester District, and 6 from Worces-
ter to Springfield. Permanent transfers by employ-
ees are done through applications pursuant to the
Employer's upgrade and transfer plan. Division
and district managers have no control over who is
assigned to their area. A district manager may hold
up the release of a transferee for 30 days, but
cannot prevent the transfer. In addition, training is
not set up as a district or division function, but
takes place as needed at the various locations in
Massachusetts for employees working in that State.
The Petitioner argues that the unit of Springfield
District resident segment employees it seeks is ap-
propriate under Board precedent because the
Springfield District is an administratively distinct
and identifiable subdivision of the Employer. It
contends that the district operation is functionally
and administratively integrated at that level. We
cannot agree.
In New England Telephone III, ' the Board found
appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit of all
"See fn. 3., aho e.
resident segment employees located in the Employ-
er's Western Division. However, in New England
Telephone I and II, the Board found separate, local
units, including those located at, inter alia, North
Adams, Springfield, Holyoke, and Northampton,
inappropriate for collective-bargaining purposes.6
As in New England Telephone I and II, we find the
unit requested here, under the facts of this case, is
too narrow in scope for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. The Petitioner has attempted to establish
that the district managers have sufficient control
over their districts so as to indicate that the district
is an organizational structure sufficiently independ-
ent and distinct to stand as an appropriate unit.
However, the facts indicate that the Springfield
District is not much more separate from the divi-
sion than the single units petitioned for in New
England Telephone I and II were from the district
or division.
Thus, the record here shows that hiring is to be
centralized at a single employment office for the
Springfield and Worcester Districts. District man-
agers, like managers and assistant managers of the
RSCs and PCs, have input on discipline and dis-
charge, but they have no authority to hire, termi-
nate, or transfer employees. Decisions on those
matters are made at higher administrative levels.
Requisitions for new employees require the ap-
proval of division managers. Although employees
of the unit requested here work in the western por-
tion of Massachusetts, they are not solely responsi-
ble for operations in the entire State or division. As
noted, there is evidence of significant interchange
between the Springfield District employees and
other districts, especially the neighboring Worces-
ter District. Indeed, the Petitioner's argument,
which is directed to showing that the Springfield
district manager has direct influence over the peti-
tioned-for employees, is no more convincing than
the previous argument that the managers of the
single offices sought in New England Telephone I
and II had sufficient control to warrant a finding
that those offices were appropriate collective-bar-
gaining units.
' The petitionel) d-foir nilil coriled of residence ffice. huillness of-
fices. phone centers. and/or huillenc, cruti cnterl
1 285
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find the petitioned-for unit in-
appropriate,7 and shall dismiss the petition.8
i This case is distinguishable from New England Telephone IV. in which
the Board found appropriate two New Hampshire business service cen-
ters. Those BSCs were responsible for services throughout the State;
hiring was done through an employment office located in the same city
as one of the BSCs; and there was little interchange with other offices
located in Maine which, with the New Hampshire offices, comprised the
division. These facts are quite different from those presented on the
record here.
In reaching our conclusion, we do not find controlling the Employer's
recent reorganization which created a separate phone center division in
Massachusetts. Cf. New England Telephone IV, 249 NLRB 1166, 1 168.
I Neither Petitioner nor the Intervenor indicated a willingness to pro-
ceed to an election in any other unit.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
I would find the unit sought by the Petitioner, an
administrative unit established by the Employer,
appropriate. I dissented in the earlier cases involv-
ing this Employer which the majority relies on
and, in any event, find the facts here closer to
those in New England Telephone III and IV, 247
NLRB 1277, and 249 NLRB 1166, where we di-
rected elections.
1286