Seacoast Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 11, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 60 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of SEACOAST TELEPHONE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
SOUTHERN FEDERATION OF TELEPHONE WORKERS (N. F. T. W.),
PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-fd490.-Decided June 11, 1947
Mr. E. T. Campbell, of Georgetown, S. C., for the Employer.
Mr. F. J. Beaver, of Charleston, S. C., for the Petitioner.
Mr. J. R. May, of Sumter, S. C., and Mrs. Ethel Baker TWhite, of
Atlanta, Ga., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at George-
town, South Carolina, on April 18, 1947, before Oscar Geltman,
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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Seacoast Telephone Company, a South Carolina corporation, is
engaged in the business of supplying local and long distance telephone
service. Its principal office is at Georgetown, South Carolina. It
maintains local switchboard exchanges at Georgetown, Myrtle Beach,
and Andrews, all in South Carolina. During 1946, the Employer
purchased parts and equipment valued at more than $40,000, all of
which was shipped to it from points outside the State of South Caro-
lina. During the same period, between 30 and 40 percent o f the Em-
ployer's revenue came from toll calls, and of this revenue approxi-
mately 50 percent came from the telephone service supplied by the
Employer in connection with telephone calls to or from points outside
the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 16.
60
SEACOAST TELEPHONE COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
61
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the National
Federation of Telephone Workers, claiming to represent employees
of the Employer.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers herein called the
Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. TILE QUEST [ON CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about January 15, 1947, the Petitioner sought recognition
from the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
Employer's employees. The Employer refused to grant such recog-
nition on the ground that it had a current contract with the Inter-
venor.
On November 7, 1945, the Employer and the Intervenor executed
a 1-year collective bargaining agreement covering the Employer's
hourly paid plant and traffic employees. The contract contains an
automatic renewal clause which provides that either party desiring
to change or terminate the agreement must notify the other party
in writing at least 30 days prior to the expiration date or the contract
will be renewed. It further provides that where notice is given of a
desire to change, the nature of the change must be specified in the
notice. On September 25, 1946, the Intervenor wrote to the Employer
stating that it desired to modify the agreement, and proposed sub-
stantial changes in wage rates and the adoption of a union-shop pro-
vision. The Employer, in a written reply, stated that due to the pro-
posed cancellation of its franchise it was not in a position to obligate
itself to continue its agreement with the Intervenor, and specifically
rejected each of the changes requested. Thereafter, early in Novem-
ber, and again on December 12, 1946, negotiations were conducted
between representatives of the Employer and the Intervenor, but no
agreement was reached on the Intervenor's demands. On January 3,
1947, the Intervenor filed with the proper Government departments
a notice of intention to strike under the Smith-Connally Act.
Inasmuch as the Intervenor gave appropriate notice to the Em-
ployer of its intention to modify its contract with the Employer,
thereby staying the operation of the automatic renewal clause, we
find that the aforesaid contract is not a bar to this proceeding.'
Matter of Monolith Portland Cement Company , 72 N. L . R B 35; Matter of Riggi
Optical Company , 67 N. L. R. B. 565 ; Matter of American Woolen Company , 57 N L R. B.
647.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner requests a unit of all employees in the plant and
traffic departments in the Employer's Georgetown, Myrtle Beach,
and Andrews exchanges, including telephone operators, the ground-
man, installer, lineman, and combination man, but excluding the
chief operators and the cable splicer.2 The Intervenor does not object
to the composition of the unit, but would include the cable splicer
and would also include the chief operators so long as they perform
actual work at the switchboard. The Employer takes no position
as to the appropriate unit.
The disputed categories will be discussed below:
Cable splicer: This employee takes care of the general repair of
equipment outside the Employer's exchange. He assigns work to four
employees in the classifications of groundman, combination man, and
lineman. He does not have the power to change or effectively recom-
mend a change in the status of any employee. He has been included in
the unit set forth in the bargaining contract between the Employer and
the Intervenor. We find that he is not a supervisor within our cus-
tomary definition. Accordingly, we shall include him.
Chief operators: There are 2 employees in this category, 1 at George-
town and the other at Myrtle Beach. Their duties are similar,
although the former is in charge of 12 operators and the latter is in
charge of 'only 5 operators. When traffic is very heavy and in the
temporary absence of regulator operators, the chief operators perform
operating duties. At all other times, they supervise the operators
under them, arranging working hours, correcting mistakes, and show-
ing the operators the proper method of handling calls and operating
the apparatus. The contract between the Employer and the Inter-
venor says nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of chief operators,
but in practice, the chief operator at the Myrtle Beach exchange was
included, and the chief operator at the Georgetown exchange was
excluded. Inasmuch as the record shows that chief operators,
wherever located, effectively recommend changes in the status of em-
ployees under their supervision, we find that they possess supervisory
authority within our customary definition. Accordingly, we shall ex-
clude all chief operators.
2 This unit is substantially the same as the one set forth in the contract between the
Intervenor and the Employer, except for the requested exclusion of chief operators and
the cable splicers.
SEACOAST TELEPHONE COMPANY 63•
We find that all employees in the plant and traffic departments ill.
the Employer's Georgetown, Myrtle Beach, and Andrews exchanges,
including telephone operators, the groundman, installer, lineman,
combination mitn, and cable splicer, but excluding chief operators, and
all or any other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for-the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 3
. As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Seacoast Telephone Company,
Georgetown, South Carolina, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections
203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by Southern Federation of Telephone Workers
(N. F. T. W.), or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.
(A. F. L.), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CIIAIriMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
3 Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
755420-48-vol 74-6