Atlanta Gas Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 20, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 240 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determina-
tion of Dispute, Local #69, International Typographical Union,
AFL-CIO, shall notify the Regional Director for Region 8, in writing,
whether it will or will not refrain from forcing or requiring the Com-
pany, by means proscribed by Section 8(b) (4) (D), to award the
work in dispute to its members rather than to employees represented
by Local 245.
Atlanta Gas Light Company and Truck Drivers and Helpers
Local Union 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 10-RC-6411, 10-RC-6452, and 10-RC-6504. April 20,
1966
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, hearings were held at Atlanta, Georgia, on
September 2 and 21 and November 2, 1965, before Hearing Officers
Robert C. D. McDonald and John B. Luke. The Hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Jenkins and Zagoria].
Upon the entire record in these cases, including the Employer's
brief, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization and claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In Case No. 10-RC-6411, the Petitioner seeks a unit limited to
some of the clerical employees employed in the Employer's Atlanta
division in an office building located at Caroline Street SE., Atlanta,
Georgia. The limited unit sought would consist of about 25 clerks
employed in a separate partitioned area, the dispatcher's office, and
radio room of the service department. These employees dispatch
work orders to service employees to provide repair and maintenance
service to the Employer's customers, and also maintain accurate rout-
158 NLRB No. 25.
ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY 241
ing and completion records concerning such work. The Petitioner
would exclude from the unit sought about 11 clerical employees who
work in the same service department, but outside the partition, filing
and maintaining records pertaining to the repair and maintenance
services. In addition, the Petitioner would exclude approximately
42 clerks in the customer service bureau who handle telephone and
other customer requests for such services.' The customer service
bureau clerks work in immediate proximity to the service depart-
ment's clerks and process to them service requests for transmission
by radio and telephone to servicemen in the field. The Petitioner
would also exclude more than 100 remaining Atlanta division clerks
who perform clerical work which is related to applications for serv-
ice, and various other functions. Finally, Petitioner would exclude
the Atlanta division clerical employees who work in several branch
offices, performing functions such as those described above.
While contending that the unit of clerk-dispatchers sought is an
appropriate one, because its employees have the same conditions of
employment and perform a distinct function in a particular area,
Petitioner alternatively asserts its willingness to participate in an
election in any unit found appropriate which includes the clerk-
dispatchers.
The Employer contends that a trait of all of its clerks processing
work for the Atlanta division would constitute the appropriate unit.
The above evidence shows that clerk-dispatchers in the service
department during the day spend about 90 percent of their time in
the radio room area sending work orders to servicemen and main-
taining routing and completion records on such work. However,
they spend a substantial amount of time at night performing the
same clerical duties carried out by customer service bureau clerks
during the day. In addition, the clerk-dispatchers consult and main-
tain both service department and customer service bureau files on the
night and early morning shifts 2 Further, the service functions per-
formed by clerical employees in both the customer service bureau and
the service department are closely related to the functions performed
by other clerical employees in the Atlanta division.
Under all of the above circumstances, we find that the limited clerk-
dispatcher unit requested in Case No. 10-RC-6411 is not an appro-
priate one for collective-bargaining purposes. While Petitioner has
1 The customer service bureau is not a part of the service department , but is functionally
responsible to the head of that department as regards customer service. Clerks in this
bureau bear the classification clerk or clerk-dispatcher depending on whether they are
employed during the day or at night , the latter classification carrying a slight differential
in pay for night duty.
2 Customer history cards are maintained in the customer service bureau and may have
a bearing on current service request.
221-731-67-vol. 158-17
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
indicated a willingness to accept some broader unit which would
include the clerk-dispatchers, we do not find the present record to be
one which is fully enough developed to enable us to determine what
broader unit of the Employer's clerical employees would constitute
an appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition filed
in Case No. 10-RC-6411.
In Case No. 10-RC-6452, the Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the
five meterreaders employed in the accounting department at the
Employer 's Marietta , Georgia, office . The Employer contends that
such a unit is not an appropriate one for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and that an appropriate unit encompassing the meterreaders
would be a unit of all accounting department employees at its Marietta
office. Such a unit would include, in addition to the meterreaders,
five clerks who use the data collected by the meterreaders for billing
purposes , and two collectors who obtain payment of delinquent
accounts . The meterreaders , clerks, and collectors all work under the
supervision of a single office supervisor . As the Petitioner indicated
at the hearing its willingness to represent any unit found appropriate
at Marietta which includes the meterreaders, we find appropriate a
unit of all employees in the Employer 's accounting department at its
Marietta office.
In Case No. 10-RC-6504, Petitioner seeks a unit of all distribution
and service employees employed in the Employer's Macon, Georgia,
division, excluding office clerical and all other employees. The unit
requested would encompass a divisionwide group of operating employ-
ees in the Employer's service and distribution departments. How-
ever, Petitioner would also include four clerk-dispatchers who are
employed at the Mulberry Street service center , five meterreaders
employed at the downtown office, and one warehouse clerk. The
service department employees . install meters , service customer appli-
ances, and perform related work in Macon and surrounding com-
munities in the Macon division. The distribution department employ-
ees construct and maintain gas mains and customer service lines
throughout the same area.
The Employer agrees that a divisionwide unit of its distribution
and service employees constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining, but maintains that the clerk-dispatchers,
warehouse clerk, and meterreaders should be excluded from the unit
as office clerical employees in view of the clerical nature of their duties
and the close relation their work bears to that performed by other
clerical employees throughout the Macon division.
The record shows that the four clerks with dispatching duties,
whom Petitioner would include in the unit, receive immediate super-
vision as regards their dispatching and clerical duties from a chief
ATLANTA GAS LIGIIT COMPANY 243
dispatcher. It also shows that these clerk-dispatchers regularly per-
form many of the same clerical duties as four other clerks at the serv-
ice center whom Petitioner would exclude. Moreover, the clerk-
dispatchers are generally interchanged with these other clerks as work
requirements necessitate, and they receive supervision from the chief
clerk not only as regards some of their clerical duties but also in such
administrative matters as their time vouchers.3 As it is evident that
the duties of the four clerk-dispatchers are typical of those customarily
performed by other excluded office clerical employees in the Macon
division and that they do not perform distribution or service duties,
we shall exclude them from the present unit as office clerical employees.
The five employees who work out of the Employer's downtown
office reading meters in the Macon division area are also alleged by the
Petitioner to be service employees who should be included in the unit.
The Employer, however, asserts that these employees perform duties
(the reading, but not the installation or repair of meters) which are
more closely related to those of clerks who record the meter readings
returned to the office, and to those of several collectors, who, on the
basis of information compiled by the clerks, collect delinquent
accounts. These clerks, meterreaders, and collectors work under
supervision of an office supervisor, who in turn is responsible to the
Employer's accounting department, and ultimately to its treasurer.
On the basis of the above evidence, we find that the meterreaders'
interests are more closely related with office clerical employees, and,
in accordance with our usual practice, we shall exclude them from the
distribution and service Unit .4
The record contains only scant evidence concerning the exact duties
of the warehouse clerk. Since the available evidence is insufficient to
enable us to determine whether he is a plant clerical or office clerical
employee, we shall permit him to vote subject to challenge in the
election directed herein.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute sepa-
rate units appropriate for collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
(1) In Case No. 10-RC-6.1150: . All employees in the accounting
department of the' Employer's Marietta, Georgia, office, including
meterreaders, clerks, and collectors, but excluding guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.5
?Both the chief clerk and chief dispatcher are responsible for the proper performance
of'their duties to the shop superintendent of the Employer ' s service center.
* Louisiana Gas Service Co., 126 NLRB 147, 150.
6 We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner submitted an adequate showing
of interest to direct an election in this unit . However, as the unit herein found to be
appropriate is larger than the unit originally sought, the Petitioner may withdraw its
petition in Case No . 10-RC-6452 , without prejudice , upon written notice to the Regional
Director within 10 days after issuance of this Decision and Direction of Elections.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) In Case No. 10-RC-6504: All distribution and service employ-
ees of the Employer's Macon, Georgia, division, including crewmen,
distribution mechanics, laborers, meter repairmen, servicemen, and
helpers, but excluding meterreaders, office clerical employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 10-RC-6411.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publications]
An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible
voters in each of the respective units in which an election is hereby directed , must be
filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 10 within 7 days after the
date of this Decision , Order, and Direction of Elections. The Regional Director shall make
each such list available to all parties to the elections. No extension of time to file these
lists shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement with respect to an election herein directed shall
be grounds for setting aside that election whenever proper objections are filed . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., at al., 156 NLRB 1236.
Graber Manufacturing Company, Inc. and Lodge No. 1406, Inter-
national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 30-
CA-174, and 30-CA-228. April 21,1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 17, 1965, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci-
sion. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Exam-
iner's Decision and brief in support thereof. The Charging Party
also filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, and Respond-
ent filed an answer thereto.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Zagoria].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing, and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial
Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in this proceeding, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board adopted the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order.]
158 NLRB No. 37.