Brockton Taunton Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 11, 1969

178 N.L.R.B. 404 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brockton Taunton Gas Company and Utility
Workers' Union of America AFL-CIO, Local
Union No. 273, Petitioner . Case 1-UC-57
September 11, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
By MEMRI^RS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition of the Utility Workers' Union of
America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 273, filed on
March 21, 1969, under Section 9(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act. as amended, a hearing was
held on April 14, 28 and 29, and on May 5 and 27,
1969, before Hearing Officer Norman Zankel. On
June 20, 1969, the Acting Regional Director for
Region I issued an order transferring the case to the
National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter, briefs
were timely filed by the Petitioner and Employer.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby
aft irmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
The Employer is engaged in the business of
distributing gas for commercial and residential use,
primarily from locations at Brockton and Taunton,
Massachusetts. The Company, as it is presently
constituted, resulted from a merger in 1952 between
Brockton Gas Light Company and Taunton Gas
Company. The Petitioner has represented
production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at Brockton for 25 years.' The Union
filed the petition in this case seeking clarification
with respect to the unit placement of certain
employees classified as dispatch-supervisors, who it
claims are part of its existing unit.' The Employer
contends that the Union's petition raises a question
concerning representation which may not be
resolved in a unit clarification proceeding. The
Employer further contends that the
dispatcher-supervisors are supervisors within the
meaning of Section 2(1 1) of the Act.
The record indicates that persons in the category
of dispatcher did not vote in the election which
resulted in the original certification herein, although
the Employer had utilized the services of dispatchers
prior to the advent of the Union. It is noted that
'On April 17, 1943, the Board certified the predecessor of Local 273,
Utility Workers' Union of America, AFL-CIO. as the bargaining
representative of all shop, distribution , garage, and production plant
employees . including distribution and production plant clerks, but
excluding executives , office employees, supervisory employees nonworking
foremen, plant guards, meter readers, bill collectors , and secretaries to the
representative , Local Union 356 (a sister local to the Petitioner) By vole
of the National Executive Board of the Union on March 10 1969, Local
356 was merged into Local 273. superintendent, at Brockton Gas Light
Company, Brockton , Massachusetts fhe record shows that the raunton
production and maintenance employees, sometime prior to 1952,
designated as its
'The existing contract between the parties , executed on March 2, 1968
recognizes Petitioner as the representative of Brockton and Taunton
some time later and over the years certain unit
employees have performed some dispatching duties
at the Employer's Brockton facilities. However, unit
employees did not usually do such work during
normal working hours but rather did it on a rotating
basis on evenings and weekends. During the normal
workweek, Monday-Friday. 8 a.m.-5 p.m., the
dispatching was performed by nonunit dispatches.
The record further shows that all dispatching at the
Taunton facilities had been performed by
dispatchers who at no time have been included
within the bargaining unit. In connection with the
Employer's Taunton operation, the record discloses
that in 1963 the Employer proposed a training
program for its employees which included training
in dispatching duties. In addition to proposing this
particular training, the Employer also indicated that
it wished to have unit employees perform
dispatching duties evenings and weekends on the
same basis as they were performed in Brockton
Neither of these proposals was adopted by the
parties in the 1964 collective-bargaining agreement.
Likewise, the Union's proposal in the 1968 contract
negotiations that a classification for dispatcher be
included in the bargaining unit was not adopted, as
reflected in the most recent collective-bargaining
agreement. Thus, although it appears that
subsequent to the original certification, unit
employees have performed some nighttime and
weekend dispatching duties at Brockton. such use
never became contractual; it has now been
discontinued; and regular dispatchers have not been
included in the unit, nor have their terms and
conditions of employment been a subject of
bargaining between the parties.
Clarification of a certification or amendment of a
unit description may be in order where a new
employee classification has been created, or an
employer's operations have been expanded
subsequent to a certification, and the employees
involved are normal accretions to the certified unit.3
Here. however, the classification of dispatcher is not
new, since it antedates the certification, and
dispatchers do not constitute an accretion to the
existing unit.' Consequently, the proper procedure
for resolving the issue concerning the unit placement
of dispatchers would be that initiated by a petition
filed pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act, seeking an
election. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition
for clarification of the unit.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
employees in a single-unit described as follows All production and
maintenance employees , except engine and boilerroom employees in
Brockton , including garage employees, meter readers , collectors,
draftsman-clerks, and working foremen
'See Brockton Taunton Gas Company, 132 NLRB 940, Lufkin Foundry
and Machine Company, 174 NLRB No 90, and cases cited therein
'Although it is now alleged that their duties have undergone some
change such change concerns itself with the question of whether the
additional duties given these employees have created supervisory
responsibility, a question we need not decide
178 NLRB No. 60