Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 14, 1981

254 N.L.R.B. 451 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY Southwestern Bell Telephone Company and Commu- nications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 17-UC-95 January 14, 1981 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER CLARIFYING UNIT BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND TRUESDALE On May 6, 1980, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceed- ing in which he dismissed the unit clarification pe- tition filed herein on the ground that the classifica- tion of employees sought to be clarified into the unit had historically been excluded from the unit and that these employees were thus entitled to a self-determination election before being added to the existing unit. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Petitioner filed a request for review of the Re- gional Director's decision in which it argued that the decision raised a substantial question of law or policy based on Board precedent. By telegraphic order, dated July 9, 1980, the Board granted the Petitioner's request for review. Since our grant of review, the Petitioner has submitted a brief in sup- port of its position. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board makes the following findings. The Employer is one of 23 companies associated with American Telephone and Telegraph and is en- gaged in the business of providing telecommunica- tions services to five States in the central south- western United States-Texas, Arkansas, Oklaho- ma, Kansas, and Missouri. It has its principal of- fices in St. Louis, Missouri, and has various other facilities located throughout the States in which it does business. The Employer has recognized the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of certain of its employees, including clerical employees, for a considerable period of time; the exact dates do not appear in the record. The companywide unit consists of approximately 65,000 employees, and the most recent collective-bargaining agreement be- tween the parties ran from August 7, 1977, to I On April 18, 180, in lieu of a hearing before a hearing officer, the parties agreed to submit the case to he Regional Director for a decisin based on a stipulation of facts, with attached exhibits, entered int h the parties 254 NLRB No. 52 August 9, 1980. The Petitioner, by its amended unit clarification petition, sought to include in the unit employees in the job classifications formerly known under the generic title of "engineering clerks," in the State of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. 2 Employees in these job classifica- tions are not represented for purposes of collective- bargaining by any other labor organization.3 There are approximately 500 employees who fill these several job classifications at the Employer's admin- istrative offices in Little Rock, Arkansas; Topeka, Kansas; Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. This petition arises because of a reorganization by the Employer. Prior to reorganization, the Em- ployer was organized along departmental lines which included separate departments of account- ing, commercial, plant, traffic, and engineering. All of the engineering clerks were employed in the en- gineering department. On July 1, 1979, the Em- ployer reorganized into segmental lines of business, residence, and network.4 As a result of the Em- ployer's reorganization, the engineering department ceased to exist, as such, and approximately 90 per- cent of the engineering clerks were included in the network segment. 5 Of the approximately 19,500 nonmanagement employees in the network seg- ment, the engineering clerks are the only unrepre- sented employees with the exception of certain em- ployees traditionally excluded from the unit be- cause of their stipulated "confidential and/or sensi- tive" work. 6 The parties stipulated that as a result of the reor- ganization there is a substantial community of inter- est between those employees sought in the petition and those already in the bargaining unit. Thus, the two groups of employees share the same working conditions and benefits entitlement (including but not limited to pay, vacations, holidays, and insur- ance benefits) common supervision, common work locations, and common job duties. The parties themselves stipulated to certain examples of the substantial community of interest between the engi- neering clerks and employees in the unit. Thus, for 2 The specific job ilies under the heading "engileering clerks" include intermediate clerk. clerk typists, clerical drafter. recordls and compilatlon clerk, clerical stenographer. reports and studies clerk, special sterogra- pher, anallysis clerk and clerical assistant ' In the State otf Texas, hoseer. engineering clerks have been repre- sented by tIhe Petitioner in the exisling unit since 1975 when they were included by way of certification il Case 23-RC 428t a The subject of including the engineering clerks in the bargaining untl was not l scussed h the Fmplo, cr ad the PI'ctlinonr during their most recenlt 177 colleclise-bargalnng ilegotiations its rrganrlitatlion sl s toll then knotnl to( the Petititonr aind sils ot11 i Isie i l l the tlnle s ()lthers ere aIssigned o the husilles s.egnitil or Irtlll entrilhled ser- "i c hese are the categories of confidentiial stlenographer. setrilr conti- dential tenrographer, antd emplo nment tester 451 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD example, when the network segment was created, engineering clerks from the former engineering de- partment were merged into that segment with many bargaining unit employees from the traffic, plant, and commercial departments. Many of the engineering clerks' work location changed as did thier supervision. Hence, an engineering clerk would now be working alongside a unit employee with a different job title but with a substantially similar job description and with common supervi- sion. In many situations where the work location of the engineering clerk did not change, the work lo- cation of the unit employees changed so that the two categories now work side by side. Additional- ly, prior to reorganization, engineering clerks did not share first level supervision with bargaining unit personnel. According to the stipulation, at times, it was not until "the 5th level of manage- ment" that the two groups shared supervision. Now, as a result of the reorganization, all engineer- ing clerks share first-level or second-level supervi- sion with bargaining unit personnel. With respect to the former engineering clerks who are now net- work segment workers, the parties stipulated that as a result of the reorganization this category does "not share a separate community of interest amongst themselves and are not . . . separately identifiable by job function, supervision, location, work group, worksites, wages and working condi- tions, and could only now be identified by the job title they now carry." Before the reorganization, the engineering department had its own centralized personnel administration which no longer exists. Instead, the network segment has its own central- ized personnel administration. The parties did stipu- late, however, that the engineering clerks' job titles have been in existence for approximately 20 years and that their job duties did not change as a result of the reorganization. In his decision, the Regional Director concluded that the engineering clerks do appear to share a community of interest with unit clericals as a result of the 1979 reorganization. Nonetheless, he found the engineering clerks' job titles and duties had not changed in a 20-year period and, applying Board precedent that indicates that classifications of em- ployees who have been historically excluded from a unit are not normally accreted into a unit,7 the Regional Director concluded that accretion was improper and that the engineering clerks were in- stead entitled to a self-determination election. We find the precedent cited by the Regional Director inapplicable here. As a result of the Employer's re- organization, the apparent reason for the engineer- ing clerks' exclusion from the unit, i.e., a separate engineering department, has ceased to exist. The engineering clerks now appear to be indistinguish- able on the bases of job function, supervision, work objective, work location, or anything other than the continued existence of a separate job title. In these narrow circumstances, we think accretion of these employees into the unit is appropriate, 8 and we shall accordingly clarify the existing unit con- sistent with our conclusion. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the collective-bargain- ing agreement covering the employees of South- western Bell Telephone Company represented by Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, at its locations in Little Rock, Arkansas; Topeka, Kansas; Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri; and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, be, and it hereby is, clarified by including all employees with the fol- lowing job titles at those locations: intermediate clerk, clerk typists, clerical drafter, records and compilation clerk, clerical stenographer, reports and studies clerk, special stenographer, analysis clerk, clerical assistant. 7 Sec, cg, naion IElecri-( C mpuny, 217 NLRB 66 6, 668, fn 10 (1975) Cf Cf &I Steel Corporation. 1q6 NLRB 470-471 (1972), re: "Credit D)epartment." 452