New York Telephone Company, 580 (1983)

Docket Number:29-CA-08417


New York Telephone Company and Local 1108,

Communication Workers of America, AFLCIO. Case 29-CA-8417



On January 25, 1982, Administrative Law Judge Steven B. Fish issued the attached Decision in this proceeding. Thereafter, the Respondent, New York Telephone Company, filed exceptions and a supporting brief.

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 considered the record and the attached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to adopt his recommended Order.


Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby orders that the Respondent, New York Telephone Company, Patchogue, New York, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the said recommended Order.

i The Respondent has excepted to certain credibility findings made by the Administrative Law Judge. It is the Board's established policy not to overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dry Wall Products.

Inc., 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.

In adopting the Administrative Law Judge's finding that Respondent violated Sec. 8(a)(l) by its warning to Weber that he would get himself in trouble if he persisted in questioning the Switchman about his work duties, Member Hunter does not necessarily adopt all of the Administrative Law Judge's comments concerning how one could characterize Weber's activity nor does he necessarily agree with or rely on all of the precedent cited by the Administrative Law Judge in this connection.



STEVEN B. FISH, Administrative Law Judge: On October 28, 1980,1 Local 1108, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, filed a charge in the instant case. 2

On December 12, the ReAll dates are in 1980, unless otherwise stated.

2 Respondent, although admitting receipt and service of the charge, contends that Benjamin Lucia is the Charging Party and not the Union.

The charge lists as the party filing charge, Benjamin J Lucia, Local 266 NLRB No. 104 gional Director for Region 29 issued a complaint and notice of hearing, alleging that New York Telephone Company, herein called Respondent, violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by threatening its employees with transfer to less desirable work locations, denial of permission to take time off for personal business, and other reprisals if they refused to withdraw grievances filed pursuant to the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement in force between Respondent and the Union.

This hearing was held before me on July 16, 1981, in Brooklyn, New York. Briefs have been filed by Respondent and the General Counsel and have been duly considered. Based on the entire record and my observation of the demeanor of the witnesses, I make the following:


  1. JURISDICTION Respondent, a New York corporation, with its principal office and place of business at 1095 Avenue of the Americas in New York, New York, and an F.C.C. Control Center in Patchogue, New York, and various other places of business in New York State, is engaged as a public utility in providing telephone communication services and related services in the State of New York.

    During the past year, Respondent derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000 and purchased and received in its facilities in New York State, products, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of New York. It is admitted and I so find that Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act. Respondent also admits and I find that the Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

  2. FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS The Union has been the collective-bargaining representative for certain of Respondent's employees for a number of years. The facilities involved in the instant case are Respondent's Frame Control Center, herein called the F.C.C. or the Frame Control Center, located at 501 North Ocean Avenue, and an office at 22 Bay Avenue, herein called the Bay Avenue office, both located in Patchogue, New York. Arthur Bletsch, herein called Bletsch, Respondent's control office supervisor, is responsible for the supervision of these facilities as well as 11 other facilities located from Sable to Montauk Point, New York. This includes the supervision of 78 bargaining unit employees and 9 supervisors. He deals with 12 or 13 shop stewards in his group, 3 of whom are chief stewards.

    1108, CWA, and lists Lucia's address and phone number. The section calling for full name of...

To continue reading