UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
`REGION 24
`
`PUERTO RICO TELEPHONE COMPANY,
`INC./VERIZON
`
`Employer
`
`and
`
`HERMANDAD INDEPENDIENTE
`DE EMPLEADOS TELEFONICOS, INC.
`
`Petitioner
`
`Case
`
`24-UC-233
`
`DECISION
`
`Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations
`
`Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor
`
`Relations Board.
`
`Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated
`
`its authority in this proceeding to the undersigned.
`
`Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned makes the
`
`following findings and conclusions1:
`
`I.
`
`ISSUES
`
`The instant proceeding involves a petition filed by the Petitioner-Union,
`
`Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefonicos, Inc., involving the Customer
`
`
`
`1 Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the undersigned finds:
`a. The hearing officer’s rulings made at the hearing are free from error and are hereby
`affirmed.
`b. During the past calendar year, the Employer, a local and long distance telephone
`communication provider as well as a data transmission services provider in Puerto Rico, derived gross
`earnings in excess of $100,000. Accordingly, I find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
`of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
`
`

`

`Relations Development Officer.2
`
` The Union seeks that the unit be clarified to
`
`include this position. The Union asserts that many of the duties and responsibilities
`
`of the position were previously performed by employees who occupied bargaining
`
`unit positions. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed
`
`because it was untimely filed, and, in the alternative because the incumbents of
`
`these positions are managerial and/or closely related with management, and in any
`
`event, do not share a community of interest with the bargaining unit employees.
`
`II.
`
`DECISION
`
`For the reasons discussed below, it is concluded that the unit should not be
`
`clarified to include the Customer Relations Development Officer position since the
`
`unit clarification petition was untimely filed by the Union.3 Thus, the petition shall be
`
`dismiss.
`
`III.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The Employer is engaged in providing local and long-distance telephone
`
`services as well as data transmission services to consumers in Puerto Rico. The
`
`Petitioner-Union has represented a bargaining unit of professional and technical
`
`employees of the Employer since 1995.4 According to the instant petition, this unit
`
`consists of approximately 1540 employees. In 1999, the Commonwealth of Puerto
`
`Rico privatized the Employer’s predecessor and sold it to GTE. There is currently a
`
`
`2 The other positions included in the petition were withdrawn by the Petitioner during the hearing.
`3 In light of these findings, it is unnecessary to reach the merits of the parties’ arguments as to whether
`the position is managerial in nature or that they do not share a community of interest with other
`bargaining unit employees.
`4 I take administrative notice of the Decision which issued in Case 24-UC-226 which notes that in
`1995, the Employer was part of the Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) a Commonwealth-
`owned telecommunications company. The unit was originally certified by the Puerto Rico Labor
`Relations Board in 1995. In 1996, after the enactment by the U.S. Congress of the Federal
`Telecommunications Act of 1196, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 151 et. seq. , PRTC separated its wireless division
`from the company and organized it as a separate corporation. In 1999 both wireless and line
`telecommunications companies were privatized by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and sold to
`GTE. In June 30, 2000, GTE acquired Bell Atlantic Corporation and consolidated its wireless
`operations into one wireless company known as Verizon.
`
`2
`
`

`

`collective-bargaining agreement in effect between the Employer and the Union which
`
`the parties negotiated from around August 19, 2003, until on or about March 30,
`
`2004. The effective dates of the collective bargaining agreement which resulted
`
`from these negotiations are January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2008.
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS:
`
`The Union first sought the inclusion of the Customer Relations Development
`
`Officer position in Case 24-UC-229, filed on June 20, 2005, but the petition therein
`
`was later withdrawn.5 On December 21, 2005, the Union filed the instant unit
`
`clarification petition seeking to include in the bargaining unit the Customer Relations
`
`Development Officer position. The Customer Relations Development Officer position
`
`was first posted by the Employer on October 3, 2001, for the sales department. The
`
`position was also posted by the Employer for the wholesale department on several
`
`occasions effective from October 15, 2001, to October 19, 2001; February 7, 2002 to
`
`February 13, 2002; June 25, 2003, to July 1, 2003; July 16, 2003 to July 23, 2003;
`
`and May 26, 2004 to June 2, 2004. Information about the vacancy announcements
`
`was distributed through an e-mail broadcast to all employees which included a
`
`description of the duties of the position.
`
`As a result of the creation of this new position, by letter dated October 8,
`
`2001, Annie Cruz, Union’s President, requested, a copy of the job description for the
`
`Customer Relations Development Officer position to the Employer. There is a
`
`dispute as to when the Employer provided to the Union the job description. The
`
`
`
`5 The petition filed on June 20, 2005, included 36 petitions, among them, the Customer Relations
`Development Officer position. At the Regional Office’s request, the Union withdrew this petition on
`December 21, 2006, and on that same date filed several unit clarification petitions dividing the original
`petitioned-for classifications into seven different groups and/or petitions.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Employer alleges that it was sent to the Union on April 30, 2003. The Union alleges
`
`that it did not receive the job description from the Employer until October 22, 2004.
`
`The Union and the Employer began bargaining negotiations for a new
`
`collective bargaining agreement on August 19, 2003, and the parties ultimately
`
`executed a collective bargaining agreement on April 15, 2004, effective from January
`
`1, 2004 through December 31, 2008.
`
`Notwithstanding the Union’s allegation that the Employer had not provided
`
`the Customer Relations Development Officer job description to the Union, on August
`
`26, 2003, during bargaining negotiations, the Union, sought to include the Customer
`
`Relations Development Officer position as part of the appropriate bargaining unit, in
`
`addition to other newly created positions.6 The Employer, however, rejected the
`
`Union’s proposal in that respect. On September 18, 2003, the Union withdrew its
`
`proposal regarding the inclusion of the Customer Relations Development Officer
`
`position, and other requested positions, and decided to defer the issue of the
`
`inclusion of the classification for resolution after negotiations before the appropriate
`
`forums.7 The unit description remained unchanged from the previous collective
`
`bargaining agreement that had expired by its terms.8
`
`After the execution of the collective bargaining agreement, by letter dated
`
`August 26, 2004, the Union requested to the Employer a number of job descriptions,
`
`including that of
`
`the Customer Relations Development Officer. By letter dated
`
`October 4, 2004, the Employer responded that the Customer Relations Development
`
`Officer’s job description had been previously submitted to the Union on April 30,
`
`
`
`
`
`6 See Joint Exhibit 6.
`7 See Joint Exhibit 7.
`8 Prior to the extant agreement, the previous agreement was in effect from October 23, 1999 to
`October 22, 2003.
`
`4
`
`

`

`2003. In a letter dated October 13, 2004, the Union reiterated its request for said job
`
`description, among others, alleging that the job description had not been received by
`
`the Union. The Employer sent the Customer Relations Development Officer job
`
`description, among two others, to the Union on October 22, 2004. By letter dated
`
`May 24, 2005, the Union requested information regarding vacancies and number of
`
`employees in twenty-five positions, including the Customer Relations Development
`
`Officer position.
`
`At no time, after the execution of the collective bargaining
`
`agreement, the Union made any effort to negotiate and/or change the composition of
`
`the agreed upon bargaining unit to include the Customer Relations Development
`
`Officer position.
`
`V.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`The Board has traditionally refused to entertain a unit clarification petition filed
`
`mid-way during the term of an existing collective bargaining agreement where the
`
`bargaining unit is clearly defined and the party filing the petition has not reserved its
`
`right to file the petition during the course of bargaining. Wallace-Murray Corp., 192
`
`NLRB 1090 (1971). Notwithstanding this general rule, the Board recognizes a limited
`
`exception in cases where parties cannot agree on whether to include or exclude a
`
`disputed classification "but do not wish to press the issue at the expense of reaching
`
`an agreement." St. Francis Hospital, 282 NLRB 950, 951 (1987). In such a case,
`
`the Board will process a unit clarification petition filed "shortly after" the contract is
`
`executed so long as the party filing the petition did not abandon its position in
`
`exchange for bargaining concessions.
`
`In this case, the Union reserved its right to pursue the matter of the inclusion
`
`of the Customer Relations Development Officer in the unit at the Board. The
`
`evidence does not show that the Union ever withdrew from this position or
`
`5
`
`

`

`renounced its reservation in exchange for any concession from the Employer. Thus,
`
`the only issue remaining, under the St. Francis “limited circumstances” exception is
`
`whether the petition here, filed 14 months after the contract was executed, was
`
`timely filed.9 I conclude that it was not timely filed.
`
`In a recent Decision on Review and Order issued by the Board in Cases 25-
`
`UC-224, and 25-UC- 225, G/T/E and Hermandad Independiente de Empleados
`
`Telefonicos (the same parties in the instant case), the Board dismissed as untimely
`
`a unit clarification petition filed by the Union, where the Union knew of the position
`
`before the execution of the contract and waited 17 months after its execution to file
`
`the petition. In that case, where the Union failed to raise the issue during the contract
`
`negotiations, the Board held that even assuming that the issue had been raised, the
`
`petition was untimely filed.
`
`In Sunoco, Inc., 347 NLRB No. 38 (June 16, 2006), during bargaining
`
`negotiations the employer initially proposed to exclude terminal operators from the
`
`bargaining unit, but withdrew the proposal so as to permit a contract agreement
`
`between the parties. When the employer withdrew its proposal it expressed its intent
`
`to file a unit clarification petition as to the position. The contract was ratified by the
`
`Union membership in May 2004, whereupon the employer retroactively implemented
`
`wage increases back to March 2004. The employer ultimately filed a unit
`
`clarification petition in January 2005, eight (8) months after the ratification of the
`
`contract, which was considered timely filed by the Board. The Board there noted
`
`that after the ratification of the petition, the employer, in September 2004, again
`
`
`
`9 For purposes of analyzing the timeliness of the petition in this case, the date of the initial unit
`clarification petition filed by the Union, June 20, 2005, whereupon they sought to include the Customer
`Relations Development Officer position in the unit, is being used. Inasmuch as said petition was
`withdrawn at the request of the Regional Office, I find that the same tolled the time period for the filing
`of a unit clarification petition.
`
`6
`
`

`

`expressed to the Union its intention to file a unit clarification petition unless the Union
`
`agreed to exclude the terminal operators from the unit. Thereafter, the parties
`
`engaged in negotiations with respect to the issue of separate units in October and
`
`again in early January 2005. Since the parties’ negotiations were unsuccessful, the
`
`employer filed its unit clarification petition on January 19, 2005. The Board held that,
`
`under those circumstances,
`
`the employer had timely filed the unit clarification
`
`petition after the negotiations proved unsuccessful since the period for measuring
`
`the timeliness of the petition was tolled by the parties’ decision to engage in further
`
`negotiations on this issue.
`
`In this case, the Union was aware of the Customer Relations Development
`
`Officer position and sought information regarding the position and/or a job
`
`description prior to the start of bargaining negotiations. Subsequently, the Union
`
`proposed to include the position in the bargaining unit during the negotiations, and
`
`the Employer rejected the Union’s proposal.
`
`In light of the Employer’s refusal to
`
`include the position in the bargaining unit, the Union agreed to withdraw its proposal
`
`but reserved its right to seek its inclusion before the Board. Notwithstanding the
`
`Union’s expressed intention during negotiations to take this issue before the Board,
`
`the Union did not seek to clarify the unit until it filed the clarification petition on June
`
`20, 2005, 14 months after the collective bargaining agreement was signed. Unlike
`
`the Sunoco case, there is no evidence in the record that after the signing of the
`
`contract, the Union made efforts to engage in further negotiations to change the
`
`composition of the agreed-upon bargaining unit to include the Customer Relations
`
`Development Officer. Although in October 2004, the Union made an information
`
`request as to the job description for the Customer Relations Development Officer
`
`position, among others positions, and later, on May 2005, requested the number of
`
`7
`
`

`

`incumbents in the position, these actions by the Union cannot be construed as an
`
`effort to raise the issue about the unit composition again and cannot be considered
`
`sufficient to toll the time for measuring the timeliness of the petition. Thus, during
`
`the time period between the signing of contract and the filing of the clarification
`
`petition, the Union did not engage in any action that would be construed as an event
`
`that would toll the time period use to measure the timeliness of the petition in this
`
`case.
`
`Accordingly, I find that, in the context of this case, the gap between the
`
`signing of the contract and the filing of the clarification petition went beyond the
`
`Board’s “shortly after” requirement and rendered the petition untimely.
`
`VI.
`
`ORDER
`
`Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, IT IS HEREBY
`
`ORDERED that the Employer’s motion to dismiss the petition as untimely is granted,
`
`and the Petition filed herein is dismissed.
`
`VII.
`
`RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW
`
`Under the provisions of Section 102.67 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations,
`
`a request for review of this Decision may be field with the National Labor Relations
`
`Board, addressed to the Executive Secretary, 1099 14th Street, N.W. Washington,
`
`D.C. 20570-0001. This request must be received by the Board in Washington by
`
`5:00 p.m., EST on August 27, 2007. The request may not be filed by facsimile.
`
`VIII. NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
`
`In the Regional Office’s initial correspondence, the parties were advised that
`
`the National Labor Relations Board has expanded the list of permissible documents
`
`that may be electronically filed with the Board in Washington, D.C. If a party wishes
`
`to file one of these documents electronically, please refer to the enclosed
`
`8
`
`

`

`Attachment supplied with this Decision and Direction of Election for guidance in
`
`doing so. The guidance can also be found under “E-Gov” on the National Labor
`
`Relations Board web center: www.nlrb.gov.
`
`Dated at San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 13th day of August 2007.
`
`/s/
`Efrain Rivera-Vega
`Acting Regional Director
`National Labor Relations Board
`Region 24
`La Torre de Plaza, Suite 1002
`525 F.D. Roosevelt Avenue
`San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1002
`Website: www.nlrb.gov
`
`H:\R24COM\R CASES\UC Decisions\2007\DOR.24-UC-233.doc
`
`9
`
`