Volt Technical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 321 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

VOLT TECHNICAL CORP.
Volt Technical Corp.' and Communications Workers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-
3860
September 23, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held on June 7, 1977, before Hearing
Officer John Prough of the National Labor Relations
Board. Following the close of the hearing the
Regional Director for Region 31 transferred this case
to the Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer
and Petitioner submitted briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated 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 affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
i. The Employer, which annually receives in
excess of $50,000 in revenues from customers located
outside the State of California, is engaged in
commerce and it will effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The parties stipulated, and we find, that
Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act, seeking to represent certain employees of
the Employer pursuant to a petition filed on May 9,
1977.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(I) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is a California corporation
engaged in supplying temporary technical and
clerical manpower to industries and government. It
also has an in-house operation supplying typing,
technical writing, and computer services.
Petitioner seeks to represent the approximately 425
technical employees supplied by the Employer to
I Name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 We find this contention to be without merit. Volt argues the contract is
a bar because art. VII entitled "Contracting of Work" provides. inter alia,
minimum wage rates applicable to employees supplied b) a contractor such
as Volt. A contract asserted as a bar to an election petition must contain
"substantial terms and conditions of employment deemed sufficient to
stabilize the bargaining relationship; it will not constitute a bar if it is
limited to wages only .... "Appalachian Shah'l Productir Co., 121 NI RB
232 NLRB No. 46
General Telephone of California (hereafter General),
or, alternatively, all Volt technical employees sup-
plied to any telephone company. Volt contends that
the petition is barred by a contract between General
and Petitioner,2 and that, in any event, the requested
unit is inappropriate because it is an "indistinct
proportion" of its employees and excludes other
temporary employees supplied to General by another
employer. Further, Volt contends the employees are
ineligible for collective bargaining due to an "insuffi-
cient permanent relationship" with the Employer and
because of its lack of control over the terms and
conditions of their employment.
Volt Technical Corporation, a subsidiary of Volt
Information of New York, has California offices in
El Segundo, San Diego, Anaheim, Van Nuys, and
Mountain View, and an office in Phoenix, Arizona.
Volt recruits applicants nationwide. From the 50,000
resumes on file, about 3,300 individuals are currently
supplied by Volt to various companies, including the
425 at General, 10 at Continental Telephone, and 15
at Pacific Telephone. Volt's customers are procured
by its salesmen who bid for the jobs. Volt employees
have no seniority or formal grievance machinery.
Generally, employees work for a customer from I
week to 1 year; the average is 3 months. Volt has a
policy of attempting to place the employees else-
where when the job terminates. The same computer
billing system is used for all employees.
Volt enters into a standard "employment agree-
ment" with all its employees. Blanks are provided for
the employee's name, the name of the customer that
the individual is assigned to, the job classification,
the starting date, and the hourly and overtime wage
rates. Standard form provisions, applicable to all
Volt employees regardless of the type of work they
perform, cover transportation and per diem ex-
penses, holidays, and vacations. The agreement also
prohibits the employees from accepting employment
by the specified customer within 30 days of the
termination of employment with Volt, without Volt's
written consent.
Volt and General entered into an "agreement for
contract labor," effective from March 2, 1977, to
March 31, 1979. The contract provides in part: (I)
that "journeyman craft personnel" shall be furnished
as required, (2) the wage rate,3 (3) that General has a
right of refusal of any Volt employee "not capable of
or fit to perform the work assigned, "(4) that
1160, 1163-64 (1958). Among the terms apparently not covered tfor the Volt
employees are gnevances, arbitration, seniority, vacations, holidays, and
overtime.
: The specified minimum rate is commensurate with that of General's
regular, full-time. "journeyman craft personnel." However, for administra-
tive convenience Volt rounds off the hourly rate upward to the nearest
nickel. Thus, Volt employees may receive up to 4 cents more per hour than
General employees performing the same work.
321
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General's work rules are applicable to Volt employ-
ees, and (5) should Volt supply equipment, it will be
compensated as mutually agreed. The contract also
provides in pertinent part that: (1) General may
cancel the agreement if it is significantly affected by
a modification of the contract between General and
the Communications Workers of America; (2)
General may hire Volt employees as its own after 30
days, without incurring any liability to Volt; (3) Volt
maintain workmen's compensation and withhold any
taxes, as required by law; (4) Volt maintain for each
employee comprehensive general and automobile
liability insurance; and (5) all persons supplied to
General by Volt shall be considered Volt's employ-
ees. 4
It is well established that employees in a labor pool
who are hired out to the employer's customers on a
day-to-day basis are entitled to the protection of the
Act even though the employer does not exercise
control over the entire employment relationship. All-
Work, Inc., 193 NLRB 918 (1971). Volt controls
work assignments, wage rates, the manner of pay-
ment, holiday and vacation schedules, insurance
benefits, and travel and per diem expenses. Thus,
Volt sufficiently controls the employer-employee
relation to enable effective and meaningful collective
bargaining to take place.
In resolving the unit issue, we are not constrained
by the Act to find the most appropriate unit, but
rather an appropriate unit to assure employees the
fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by
the Act. The Parsons Investment Company, 152 NLRB
192, fn. I (1965). Factors to be considered include
the employees' community of interest, the bargaining
history, and whether the proposed unit is homoge-
neous, identifiable, and distinct.
Volt employees supplied to General must qualify as
journeymen. While performing technical telephone
maintenance and repair, they are subject to General's
personnel rules and supervision. Finally, their wage
rate is the product of an initial bid by Volt, and
subsequent contract negotiations between Volt and
General. In these circumstances it cannot be said, as
Volt argues, that the unit requested is an "indistinct
proportion" of Volt employees; it is an identifiable,
homogeneous group.
Nor are we persuaded by Volt's assertion that the
requested unit is inappropriate because it excludes
other temporary employees supplied to General by
4 Volt employees wear Volt identification badges while working at
General.
another employer. Contrasted to all other employees
at General, including General's regular full-time
employees, the Volt employees wear Volt identifica-
tion badges, have different holidays and vacations,
and are subject to a different system of remunera-
tion. Also significant are the facts that Volt, and not
General, makes the initial employment determina-
tion and Volt pays required taxes and workmen's
compensation. Further, the Volt employees, vis-a-vis
General's, have neither seniority nor grievance or
arbitration machinery. Finally, the Volt employees-
to the exclusion of all other employees at General-
are Volt employees.
Considering the community of interest resulting
from the unique position of Volt employees supplied
to General, apart from other Volt employees as well
as all employees at General, the absence of a
bargaining history, and the absence of any request to
represent these employees in a different unit, we find
that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All employees of Employer Volt Technical Corp.,
supplied to General Telephone Company of
California, as installers, repairpersons, splicers,
construction, testboard, C.O.E. installers and
maintainers, and framepersons, excluding all
other employees, confidential and professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Neither party has taken any position with respect
to the question of eligiblity to vote in the election.
Accordingly, we shall apply the formula applied in
All- Work, supra. Eligible to vote are those employees
in the unit who were employed at General during the
90-calendar-day period ending on the date of this
Decision, who worked a minimum of 7 days in that
period and at least 1 of those days, or 8 hours, during
the 30-day period ending on said date. This formula
is designed to include those employees having a
substantial and continuing interest in terms and
conditions of employment with Volt Technical Corp.
at General, while excluding those employees not
currently employed.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
322