Boston Consolidated Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 337 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
LOCAL- 849, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-2O5.Decided August 31, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
'Members. *
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and Gas and By-Product Coke Workers' Local
Union 12003, U. M. W. A., herein called the Intervenor,l are labor
organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
• 3. No question concerning representation of employees of the Em-
ployer exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act, under the following circumstances :
The Employer and the Intervenor entered into a collective bargain-
ing agreement on January 31, 1944, which, as amended on February
17, 1947, was to continue until October 15, 1948, and for successive
1-year periods thereafter unless either party notified the other of a
desire to cancel or amend the agreement 30 days prior to an anniversary
date. In January 1948 the Employer and the Intervenor began nego-
tiations to modify this contract. On February 17, 1948, the Employer,
'Houston, Murdock , and Gray.
The Intervenor has not complied with Section 9 ( f) and ( h) of the Act but was per-
mitted to intervene because of its present contractual relationship with the Employer.
79 N. L. R. B., No..42.
337
338• DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by a letter to the Intervenor, proposed a wage increase and modifica--
tion of the established vacation policy in return for the Intervenor's
promise not to exercise its right to amend or cancel the agreement
prior to October 15, 1949. On February 20, 1948, the Intervenor
signified its acceptance of these terms by signing the Employer's letter.
Prior to the Intervenor's acceptance, however, by letter dated Feb-
ruary 17, 1948, the Petitioner informed the Employer that it repre-
sented the Employer's engineers and firemen, and on February 18,
1948, it filed the petition herein.
Where, as here, a collective bargaining agreement contains no re-
negotiation clause, negotiations to modify the terms of the agreement
"open up" the agreement and permit the making of a representation
claim during the pendency of the negotiations.? As the new contract
was not finally executed until signed by the Intervenor, the contract
between it and the Employer was open until February 20, 1948,3 and
therefore did not constitute a bar to the making and filing of a repre-
sentation claim by the Petitioner on February 17 and 18, 1948 4 -
The Petitioner seeks -a unit composed of all the engineers and fire-
men- employed at the Employer's Everett, Massachusetts, plant. The
same circumstances, which recently, in Matter of Lynn Gas and Elec-
tric'Company,5 caused us to find a similar unit inappropriate in an-
other Massachusetts company, exist in this case. The proposed unit
consists of first- and second-class firemen and of second- and third-
class engineers. Although the State licensing provisions require 1
year's experience for a first-class fireman and 11/2 and 2 years' experi-
ence for third- and second-class engineers respectively, no experience
is required for second-class firemen, a category to which two members
of the proposed unit belong. While the Employer encourages em-
ployees to qualify for and obtain higher licenses, neither it nor the
Petitioner provides, as far as the record shows, any training which
would enable them to do so. Employees in various departments are
transferred to jobs as firemen and engineers as vacancies occur if they
have obtained the necessary licenses. Five of the employees-sought
by the Petitioner hold licenses despite the fact that in the capacity
in which they work neither the State nor the Employer requires them
to do so. Although it is to the advantage of the Company to'have
2 Matter of Odin Industries, 67 N. L. R B 1043.
3 Matter of Eicor, Inc., 46 N L R B. 1035 ' - '
" In view of this conclusion, we need not deal with the question raised by both the
Employer and the Petitioner, whether, under the circumstances outlined above, the contract
between the Employer and the Intervenor was prematurely extended.
578• N. L. R: B. 3. ' .
BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY 339
as much licensed personnel on hand as possible, these employees could
be replaced by non-licensed ones.
Of the employees sought by the Petitioner, 5 work in the boiler house,
3 in the blower room, 3 in the exhauster house, 9 or 10 in the booster
-house, and 2 are engaged in operating a steam crane all over the' plant.
All these properties are physically separate and in some instances an
appreciable distance apart. These employees differ from the usual
powerhouse group which, on occasion, we have set up as a separate
unit,6 in that their operations are an integral part of the manufacturing
process-of, the Employer's product. Thus in the instant case approx-
imately 50 percent of the steam produced in the boiler house is used
in the manufacture of watergas, which is a component of the product
sold by the Employer. The engineers in the blower room operate stean1
turbines which supply air to the generator, thus creating the heat neces-
sary to the manufacture of watergas. The engineers in the exhaust
room operate steam turbines which pump the manufactured gas from
the relief holder to the storage holders, and the engineers in the booster
house pump the gas into the city mains. The 2 crane operators, while
occasionally employed in the exhaust and blower rooms, use their crane
to load and unload materials necessary to the Employer's manufac-
turing process all over the plant.
During the day shift, the employees sought by the Petitioner are
under the separate supervision of the chief engineer, but they are
under the same supervision as other employees of the plant during the,
afternoon and night shifts. Each year from approximately May to
October, the Employer obtains its gas requirements from outside
sources and therefore does not operate its watergas plant. All the-
employees sought by the Petitioner, except the booster engineers and
the crane operators, are engaged in other activities in the maintenance
department during that period.
Since 1937 the Employer has bargained with the Intervenor on a
system-wide basis.7 Under the contracts resulting from this bargain-
ing, the employees sought by the Petitioner work under the same
working conditions and receive the same- benefits as do the other-
employees of the Employer.
In only 3 of the 26 utility companies operating in Massachusetts have
separate units for firemen and engineers been established. Our policy
° See Matter of Lynn Gas and Electric Co., supra , and cases cited there.
Of the 1 , 585 employees of the Employer, only 191 work at the Everett plant. The
record does not reveal whether work similar to that done by the employees sought by the-
petitioner is performed in other parts of the system.
.340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD
has been to favor system-wide units in the utility field," and t'he, facts
set forth above present no reason for deviation either from the indus-
trial pattern or our established policy. We therefore find that under
the circumstances set forth above, the employees sought by the- Peti-
tioner are not a skilled craft group and do not on any other basis con-
stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. We shall therefore dismiss
the petition herein.
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
.dismissed.
8 Matter o f Lynn Gas and Electric Co , supra, and cases cited there.