Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 632 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Michigan Bell Telephone Company and United Telephone
Workers, Ind., Petitioner . Case 7-RC-9542
May 21, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
Upon the petition duly filed by the United Telephone
Workers, Ind., Petitioner herein, under Section 9(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Stephen M.
Glasser. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section
102.67 'of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 7, this case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs have been
timely filed by the Employer , the Petitioner , and the
Intervenor , Communication Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, which was permitted to intervene on' the
basis of a contractual interest.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case 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 case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Intervenor and the Employer contend that
the Petitioner is not a labor organization . The record
shows that the Petitioner was formed to represent tele-
phone employees with respect to wages, hours, and
other conditions of employment . The Petitioner has
officers, accepts dues voluntarily offered , has formed
committees , and has had meetings where as many as
100 employees have attended . At least one -third of
the employees have signed authorization cards enabling
the Petitioner to file its petition in this case . The record
thus establishes that employees participate in the activi-
ties of the Petitioner and that it exists for the purpose
of engaging in collective bargaining with the Employer.
We therefore find that the Petitioner is a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.'
3. The petitioner seeks an election in a unit of all
Switching Systems Department employees of the
Employer , excluding all other employees covered by
collective-bargaining agreements , all other office clerical
employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Workers, AFL-CIO, 159 NLRB 137
Act. The Intervenor and Employer contend that a con-
tract covers these employees and bars the petition.
With respect to the contract urged as a bar, the
Employer and Intervenor signed a collective-bargaining
agreement on August 28, 1968, which is to terminate
on May 1, 1971. The contract admittedly covers precisely
the same switching system employees for whom the
Petitioner has requested an election. ,
The Petitioner contends , that the contract is not a
bar because it is, in effect, a premature extension of
a prior contract or contracts. The record discloses that
the Employer and Intervenor executed collective-bar-
gaining agreements on October 4, 1966, covering respec-
tively, the Plant, Traffic, and Comptroller Departments
which were to terminate on October 2, 1969, 3 years
later. On May 1, 1968, in the belief that the contracts,
of October 2, 1966, contained an illegal union-security
provision, the Employer and Intervenor executed new
contracts, amending the union-security provision, with
a termination date of May 1, 1971.
On June 15, 1968, the Employer began the reorganiza-
tion of its operations which ultimately resulted in the
formation of the Switching System Department. The
purpose of the establishment of this department was
to bring together under a single department head a
group of related functions concerning the use and mainte-
nance of certain telephone equipment in the area of
Southeastern Michigan. Employees were transferred to
the new department from the Plant, Traffic, and Opera-
tions Staff Departments. On August 28, 1968, the
Employer and the Intervenor executed a collective-bar-
gaining agreement concerning the Switching Systems
Department employees with a termination date of May
1, 1971. The current petition for such unit was filed
on August 1, 1969.
The record thus establishes that the Switching System
Department is a newly created unit consisting of employ-
ees drawn from other departments of the Employer's
telephone system. The Petitioner has petitioned for these
employees as an appropriate unit and does not challenge
the validity of the contract other than its contention
that it is a premature extension of prior contracts. Since
the recently formed Switching Systems Department con-
stitutes a new and separate departmental unit, prior
contracts covering other units in the Employer's opera-
tions can have no impact on the contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor covering the employees
in this unit, and we therefore perceive no valid reason
why it should not be recognized as a bar to an election
in this case. Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
' Grand Lodge International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
182 NLRB No. 105