Battle Creek Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1961

132 N.L.R.B. 1528 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All employees employed at and working out of the Employer's
'Zanesville, Ohio, area office under the supervision and direction of the
local supervisor, but excluding office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act 4
Though the unit found appropriate is not sought in the petition,
we shall, as stated above, direct that an election be held in the ap-
propriate unit, as the Petitioner has stated its desire to represent such
:unit that we might find appropriate. However, it does not appear on
the record before us whether the Petitioner has an adequate showing.
Accordingly, we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with
the election herein directed until he shall have first determined that
the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the
employees in the appropriate unit who are eligible to vote in the
election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
' The Employer requests that technical employees be excluded from the unit . In view
of our determination with respect to the status of employee Hinkle, there is no evidence
that there are any such employees at the Zanesville area office. Also, the Employer re-
quests that temporary employees be excluded. However, the record shows that there are
at present no employees alleged to be temporary and that the Employer has no present
plans for hiring such employees . In view of the foregoing , we shall make no determina-
tion with respect to the unit placement of temporary and technical employees.
Battle Creek Gas Company 1 and Utility Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-4652. August
30, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jon P. Desenberg, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
. 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the
,Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
'Local 335, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, intervened at the
hearing.
132 NLRB No. 137.
BATTLE CREEK GAS COMPANY 1529
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Eniployer within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The Employer is a public utility engaged in the distribution of
natural gas in Michigan. In its petition, as amended at the hearing,
Petitioner seeks two units, as follows: (1) all operating and trade
employees, including assistant working foremen, journeymen installer-
pipefitters, journeymen servicemen, journeymen meter repairmen, ap-
prentice installers-pipefitters, and apprentice meter repairmen, but
excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors; and (2) all operating and trade employees, including
stockroom employees, laborers, janitors, and meter readers, but ex-
cluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors. If Petitioner wins both groups, it proposes to represent
all the employees in a single unit. The Intervenor has been the bar-
gaining representative of the employees in group (1) since 1937. It
agrees with the unit positions of the Petitioner but desires to partici-
pate in an election in the historical unit alone. The Employer main-
tains that only a single, overall unit is appropriate and it would ex=
elude meter readers therefrom.
The only operation of the Employer mentioned in the record is the
distribution plant and the only employees adverted to are those dis
cussed herein. Regarding them, the record shows that the journeymen
servicemen have served as journeymen appliance installers and pipe-
fitters and they maintain all types of gas equipment. Journeymen
installers-pipefitters install, adjust, and service domestic gas appli-
ances. Journeymen meter repairmen repair, adjust, and test metering
devices. Assistant working foremen are highly skilled leadmen who
assist the aforementioned employees. Laborers also assist those em-
ployees, under the same supervision, by performing the heavier work
involved. Storeroom employees issue the items used by the aforemen-
tioned 'employees. Janitors clean the physical facilities. Meter read-
ers are accounting section personnel who make readings and calcula-
tions which are returned to the accounting department for billing
purposes.
As the Employer argues, it is Board policy to favor a systemwide
unit in the public utility field. However, such a unit is not found to
be the only appropriate unit in this field at all times and in all circum-
stances. Collective-bargaining history and existing bargaining rela-
tionships are considered by the Board as bearing on the question of an
appropriate unit. In this case, the long bargaining history in favor
of (1) above supports the appropriateness of the unit 4 As the Inter-
s Intervenor 's motion to dismiss on the ground that Petitioner allegedly violated an
AFL-CIO "No Raiding Agreement" by filing its petition has no merit and is denied.
The Steck Company, 122 NLRB 12.
'The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 126 NLRB 676.
1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
venor does not seek to add the previously unrepresented employees in
group (2) to the existing unit, but does desire to participate in an
election in the existing unit, we shall not make a final unit determina-
tion at this time. Rather, we shall first conduct an election among the
employees in the existing unit to ascertain whether they desire to con-
tinue to be represented by the Intervenor.
We shall therefore direct separate elections in the two voting groups
of employees at the Employer's Battle Creek, Michigan, distribution
plant, as described below, excluding from each voting group meter
readers 5 and other office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act : 6
Group (1)-operating and trade employees employed as assistant
working foremen, journeymen servicemen, journeymen installers-
pipefitters and apprentices, and journeymen meter repairmen and
apprentices.
Group (2) -all operating and trade employees, including stockroom
employees, laborers, and janitors.
In the event that a majority of voting group (1) selects the Inter-
venor, we find that to be an appropriate unit. In these circumstances,,
if a majority of voting group (2) selects the Petitioner, we find that
group (2) is also a separate appropriate unit.
If a majority of the employees in the existing unit do not vote for the
Intervenor, we shall include the employees in the two voting groups
in a single overall unit which, under the circumstances, we find to be
an appropriate unit and we shall pool their votes.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from'publication.]
5 The meter readers would be excluded from any of these units as office clericals. The
Houston Corporation, 124 NLRB 810.
9 We shall place the name of the Petitioner on the ballot in both elections and the
name of the Intervenor only on the ballot in the election among the employees in
group (1).
IFelia, Half & Brother, Inc, 132 NLRB 1523 If the votes are pooled they are to be
tallied in the following manner : The votes for the Intervenor shall be counted as valid
votes, but neither for nor against the Petitioner which is seeking the more comprehensive
unit. All other votes are to be accorded their face value , whether for representation by
Petitioner or for no union.
Miller & Miller , Inc. and Local No. 51 , Amalgamated Lithog-
raphers of America, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC-4952. August
30, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Donald G. Mayhall,
132 NLRB No. 117.