California-Pacific Utilities Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 747 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES COMPANY 747
ployees of the Employer at its Los Angeles, California, plant, ex-
cluding professional, administrative, and office employees, truck
drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES COMPANY and LOCAL 125, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL , PETITIONER.
.Case No. 36-RC-560. March 9, 1951
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 Robert J. Weiner, 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the Employer's
Eastern Oregon Division, excluding clerical and professional em-
ployees, building service employees, and supervisors. The Petitioner
would include, and the Employer would exclude, the agents, tank
truck drivers, gas serviceman, line foremen, and the chief operator
at the Rock Creek hydro plant. In addition, the Employer contends
that a division-wide unit is inappropriate, and that, if an election is
directed, it should be limited to the employees in the John Day dis-
trict of its Eastern Oregon Division, or, in the alternative, to the
employees in the John Day and Burns districts of that division.
Geographical Scope of Unit
The Employer operates gas, electrical, and water utility systems in
the States of California, Nevada, Idaho, Wyoming, and Oregon. Its
93 NLRB No. 109.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations are divided for administrative purposes into divisions,
each of which contains a number of districts. There are four such
districts in the Eastern Oregon Division: John Day, Burns, Baker,
and La Grande.
The La Grande and Baker districts, which are in close proximity
to each other, constitute the northern part of the division. The John
Day and Burns district, comprising the southern part of the division,,
are contiguous, and are 35 miles from the closest point in the Baker-
La Grande area.'
There are two hydroelectric plants in the La Grande district and
two more in the Baker district. The John Day district has one such
plant. There is also a steam plant in the Baker district.' In addition,
the Employer purchases electric power from the Idaho Power Com-
pany, which is delivered, in part, to a point in the John Day district,
and, in part, to a point in the Baker district.
The main office of the Employer is in San Francisco, California.
The office of the division manager is at Baker. While each district
manager is, generally speaking, responsible directly to the president
of the Employer, the division manager acts in the capacity of techni-
cal advisor to the district managers. Requests by a district manager
for new installations flow to the main office through the division office,
which attaches its recommendation to the request. All accounting re-
ports and financial reports go directly from the district manager to-
the main office. Recommendations for transfers of employees between
districts may originate in the division office or the main office.2 Griev-
ances, if not settled at the district level, may be taken up with the
division office. In 1946 and 1947, the Employer was represented by
the division manager in contract negotiations with the Petitioner; in
negotiations conducted in 1948, 1949, and 1950 the division manager
was assisted by the personnel manager in the Employer's main office.
These negotiations resulted in single contracts between the Em-
ployer and the Petitioner covering the employees in the Baker and
La Grande districts. The first such contract, executed in 1946, has
been renewed each year with various amendments. The latest such
contract was executed on September 20, 1950 .'
I La Grande is the northernmost district in the division . To the south of La Grande is
Baker John Day is 35 miles southwest of Baker Burns is south of John Day and
contiguous to it
2 During the past 21/2 years there have been three permanent transfers between districts,
all of wh i ch originated in the Employer 's main office In addition , temporary assign-
ments are occasionally made between districts for a few days ' work . There was testimony
by one employee in the Baker district that (luring a 3-year period he had worked on six
such temporary assignments to the John Day and Burns districts together with employees
from those districts
"This contract does not appear to have a definite term.
There is no history of collective bargaining for the employees in the John Day or Burns
districts
A consent election held on March 14, 1949 , and limited to employees in the John Day
district , was lost by the Petitioner herein.
CALIFORNIA-PACIFIC UTILITIES COMPANY 749
In view of this separate bargaining history of the Baker-La Grande
employees, and the other circumstances cited above, the Employer
contends that it would not be appropriate to grant the', Petitioner's
request that all four districts be merged in a single unit. The Em-
ployer asserts also that if such request for a single unit is granted,
in view of the Petitioner's preponderance in the Baker-La Grande
area, and the relatively small number of employees in the other dis-
tricts,' the votes of the latter could have no effect on the election results,
and they would therefore be,effectively denied freedom of choice if
included in the larger unit. The Employer, accordingly, contends
that the employees in the John Day and Burns districts should be
granted a separate self-determination election.
Although there are factors which militate against such a finding,
we are persuaded, upon a consideration of all the evidence, that a
division-wide unit is appropriate. As already indicated, there is
some interchange of, and contact between, personnel in all four dis-
tricts. The employees in all four districts are subject to uniform
personnel policies, established either in the Employer's main office
or in its division office. Moreover, it is particularly significant that
in the past, bargaining for the Employer has been conducted prin-
cipally by the division manager, without any participation by the
district managers., While there is a history of bargaining here on
the basis of a less than division-wide unit, it has been the policy of
the Board in the public utility field to favor the larger unit over
the smaller unit, even when bargaining has been on the basis of the
smaller unit.6 Although even in the public utility field 7 an unrepre-
sented group will not necessarily be denied a self-determination elec-
tion such as is alternately requested by the Employer, we find no
occasion for such an election in the present instance, as the only labor
organization involved seeks an election in the basic appropriate unit
in which the unrepresented districts are properly included.8
Under these circumstances, we find that the employees of the Em-
ployer in its Eastern Oregon Division constitute an appropriate unit
for collective bargaining purposes.
The Disputed Categories
The existing contract between the Petitioner and the Employer
for the Baker-La Grande operations covers the following principal
' There are approximately 28 employees in the Baker-La Grande contract unit ; as against
approximately 12 in the John Day-Burns area, who are in the same lob classifications
° See Lone Star Producing Company, 85 NLRB 1137
G Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257, Niagara Hudson Power Corpoiation,
79 NLRB 1115
4 Public Service Company of Tndiana, 89 NLRB 1253
aWateious Company, 92 NLRB 76
750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
categories : Line crews , including the line foremen , groundmen, serv-
icemen, metermen , electricians , plant operators , firemen, fuel handlers,
the chief operator at the Rock Creek plant, and the pipeline main-
tenance man . The Petitioner would add to the categories in the
contract unit the agents , the tank truck driver, and the gas service-
man. The Employer opposes the inclusion of these three categories
in the proposed unit. There is a question , moreover , as to the super-
visory status of the line foremen and the chief operator at the Rock
Creek plant , who are presently in the contract unit.
Agents.-There are two agents , who prior to the 1950 contract were
covered by the contracts between the Employer and the Petitioner.
They were excluded from the 1950 contract by agreement of the
parties. They devote 35 to 40 percent of their time to manual labor
in connection with the servicing of facilities ,9 and about 30 percent
of their time is spent in reading meters .!" The balance of their time
is spent in minor accounting , handling customers ' complaints , develop-
ing new business , and discussing contracts for right -of-ways with
local authorities . Their immediate supervisor is the district manager,
In view of their prior inclusion in the bargaining unit, -and in view
of the fact that they spend a substantial part of their time in doing
physical work, we will include the agents in the unit herein found
appropriate .'-'
Tank truck driver.-There is one tank truck driver , who delivers
propane gas to tank gas customers of the Employer in the La Grande
and Baker districts . He also collects bills and reads meters for such
customers , installs and removes tanks, repairs appliances , unloads
cars of propane gas, and assists in operating the propane air gas plant
in La Grande . He spends about 15 percent of his time in promoting
the sale of gas. His immediate supervisor is the district manager.
He has not heretofore been included in the contract unit.
As his work is predominantly physical, we will include him in the
unit herein found appropriate.
Gas serviceman.-There is one gas serviceman , who sets and removes
gas meters , connects and disconnects service for gas customers, runs
minor gas line extensions , repairs gas customers ' appliances, assists in
the operation of the propane air gas plant , and unloads cars of propane
gas. His immediate supervisor is the district manager.
As his work is predominantly physical , we will include him in the
unit.
"Similar work is done by servicemen or linemen, who are presently included in the
contract unit. Under the 1949 contract, the agents were required to be journeymen
linemen
10 Meter readers have not been covered by past contracts and, so far as appears from the
record, would be excluded from the unit requested as clerical employees
11 See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257, 265.
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, ETC. 751
The line foremen.-There is one line foreman in each district. He
is in charge of the linemen, groundmen, and plant operators, and has
power effectively to recommend hiring and discharge. The line fore-
men in Baker and La Grande are covered by the existing contract. We
find, upon the record, that all line foremen are supervisors and will
therefore exclude them from the unit.
The chief operator at the Rock Creek hydroelectric plant in the
Baker district has as his subordinates four plant operators at the Rock
Creek plant and two employees at the Fremont plant. He has the•
power effectively to recommend hiring and discharges. We find,,
therefore, that he is a supervisor, and will exclude him from the unit.
Upon the entire record, we find that all nonsupervisory employees
in the Employer's Eastern Oregon Division, including the agents, the
tank truck driver, and the gas serviceman, but excluding clerical
and professional employees, building service employees, the line fore-
men, the chief operator at the Rock -Creek plant, and other super-
visors, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining purposes-
-within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. -
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this,
volume.]
CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION, LOCAL No. 320 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS
UNION OF AMERICA, AFL, AND ROBERT L. SLATER, AS ITS AGENT and
ARMCO DRAINAGE AND METAL PRODUCTS, INC. Case No. 36-CC-12.
March 12,1951
Decision and Order
On November 7, 1950, Trial Examiner Isadore Greenberg issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that,
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unf air-
labor practices, and recommending that they cease and desist there--
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the,
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Respondents also requested oral argument. This request is hereby-
denied because, in our opinion, the record, exceptions, and brief ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed-
' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated it&
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and,
Members Houston and Reynolds].
93 NLRB No. 122.