Dallas Power & Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 1088 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

O
In the Matter of DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-69, AFL
In the Matter of DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-69, AFL
Cases Nos. 16-R-1097 and 16-R-1136, respectively.Decided.
March 6, 1945
Messrs. Floyd McGowan and W. Tilden Spell, of-Dallas, Tex., for
the Company.
Mr. W. A. Coombs, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. W. J. Cox, of Dallas,
Tex., for the Union.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local B-69, AFL, herein called the Union,l alleging that
questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Dallas Power,' & Light Company, Dallas, Texas,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before
Glenn L. Moller, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Dallas,
Texas, on January 2, 3, 4, and 5, 1945. The Company and the Union
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor=
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to in-
troduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmec?. The Company's motion for a "new trial" is hereby denied.2
1 The name of the Union which was set forth in the petition and other formal papers in
Case No. 16-R-1136 as " International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers," was amended
without objection at the hearing to correspond with the description used in Case No.
16-R-1097.
2 The Company orally moved at the hearing for a "new trial " by reason of alleged inter-
ference on the part of the Trial Examiner in the presentation of the Company 's case as the
result of the Trial Examiner ' s interrogation of a witness for the Company . The Company
wits thereafter given opportunity to reexamine the witness upon the conclusion of the
examination conducted by the Trial Examiner. The Company has filed no written motion
60 N L. 'R B , No. 180.
1088
DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1089
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Dallas. Power & Light Company, a Texas corporation, is engaged
in the county of Dallas, Texas,,in the generation' of electric power -
and energy. During the past year, the Company distributed approxi-
mately 300 million kilowatt hours of electrical energy, to various cus-
tomers in the county of Dallas, including airlines, railways, motor
freight companies, bus companies, telephone companies, telegraph
companies, and newspapers, with revenue therefrom amounting to
approximately $8,500,000. During the same year, the Company pur-
chased for use in its operations, supplies and parts valued in excess
of $50,000, a substantial portion of which was purchased outside the
State of Texas.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B -69, affil-
iated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor -organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Prior to the filing of the petitions in the present proceeding, the
Union requested that the Company recognize it as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative for the employees referred to in each of said
petitions. The Company declined to recognize the Union in either
instance until certified by the Board.
Statements of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced in
evidence at the hearing, indicated that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in each of the units claimed to be
appropriate.3
in support of its contention and makes no mention thereof in either of its briefs filed subse-
quent to the hearing. We find that the conduct of the Trial Examiner did not constitute
prejudicial error and that the Company ' s motion for, a new trial based thereon is without
merit
8 The Field Examiner in the case involving the Plant Department unit ( 16-R-1097)
reported that the Union had submitted 77 authorization cards of which 74 bore the names
of persons listed on the Company ' s pay roll of October 26, 1944, containing the names
of 164 employees in the claimed appropriate unit.
The Field Examiner in the case involving the building maintenance employees unit
(16-R-1136 ) reported that the, Union had submitted 32 authorization cards, all of which
bore names of persons listed on the Company's pay roll of November 22, 1944, containing
the names of 33 persons in the claimed appropriate unit.
628563-45-vol 60-70
1090 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS.
The Union seeks two units consisting of (1) all employees in the
Plant Department, working in the Company's Mountain Creek Plant,
the Griffin Street Plant, and the Company's substations, including op-
erating foremen and watch engineers, but exclnchng division heads,
assistant division heads, master mechanic, the maintenance man-relay
and meter, electrical engineer, chemist, mechanical engineer-, plant
betterment, mechanical engineer, junior mechanical engineer, rain
gaugers, and all supervisors above the level of gang foreman; and
(2) all employees in the Building Operation Division of the Corporate
Department, including elevator operators, elevator starter, building
and equipment engineers, office building janitors, office building maid,
office building painter, watchmen, and the janitor and porter super-
visor, but excluding all other supervisory employees. The Company
is in substantial agreement with the Union regarding the latter's unit
contentions. So far as the Plant Department unit is concerned, the
only classifications in dispute relate to the various operating foremen
together with employees known as watch engineers, all of whom the
Company contends should be excluded as supervisory employees.
With respect to the building maintenance employees' unit, the only
controversy between the parties concerns the classification of janitor
and porter supervisor whom the Company contends should be excluded
from such unit because of his alleged supervisory authority.
Of the various exclusions sought by the Company from the several
units, the exclusions relating to the Plant Department unit are first in
order of consideration.
The operating foremen in the Mechanical Division: With respect
to the four operating foremen in this division,` it appears that each of
the foremen in question has the right to ask for the transfer from his
department of employees who do unsatisfactory work and that the
Company generaly complies with such requests. In addition thereto,
the record discloses that all such foremen have the right not only to
recommend but also summarily to discharge employees; 5 that all fore-
men in this group have the right to recommend with -respect to dis-
4The operating foremen herein concerned within the classifications of foremen operat-
ing boiler maintenance , foreman operating machinist , foreman operating pipe titters, and
foreman operating construction , work in the 'Mechanical Division under the common
supervision of the master mechanic
, The Company ' s superintendent of power plants testified that if one of these foremen
did not want a man on the job and sent him to the Office, the man would be "through"
and that the action of the foreman in every instance would be accepted by the master
mechanic. -
DALLAS POWER &. LIGHT COMPANY 1091
cipline, wage increases and promotions and that such recommendations
would in most cases be respected by the Company. In-view of the
foregoing evidence, we are of the opinion that the operating foremen
in question are supervisory employees within the meaning of our usual
'definition. We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit herein-
after found appropriate.
The operating foremen in the Electrical Division: The evidence
reveals that these' foremen do little or no manual labor except in
emergencies and spend practically all their time either supervising or
in activities closely related thereto. Such foremen have the right to
recommend wage increases and promotions, which recommendations
are generally followed and made effective by the Company. We find
that operating foremen are employees with substantial supervisory
powers. We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the Plant Depart-
ment unit herein found appropriate.
Watch engineers: At each power plant there are watch engineers
who rotate from one shift to another and who, during the period
covered by their respective shifts, have charge of approximately
seven men each and are responsible for the proper operation of the
entire plant. During the evening shifts, the night shifts, and on
holidays and Sundays when the operating superintendent is custom-
arily absent from the plant, the watch engineers are the sole persons
in authority at their particular plant locations. As a result thereof,
watcki,enigineers are authorized to act upon their own initiative and
may not only discipline employees,' but also may, in emergency situa-
tions, call in other employees and assign or transfer employees from
one operation to another in the plant. In addition thereto, watch
engineers have authority to and have frequently recommended wage
increases, which recommendations have been followed by the Company.
We find that watch engineers are supervisory employees within the
meaning of our usual definition. In conformity with our usual prac-
tice with respect to employees of this type," we shall exclude watch
engineers from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
There remains for consideration the question of exclusions from
the unit of building maintenance employees. The only dispute with
respect to this unit concerns the classification of janitor and,porter
supervisor. The Union contends that, while the employee in this
classification bears the title of "supervisor," he has, in fact, no substan-
41'he evidence discloses that watch engineers ma} send home an employee who reports
for work in an intoxicated condition and may remove from his work an employee who
creates a serious disturbance in the plant
The Board has considered the emergencv authority of foremen' and the absence of any
other person in anthorit at certain Mines as indicating it superusoiy status See Matter
of Midvale Company , 57 N L It B 1359
8See`Matter of Indianapolis Water Companat, 48 N I, R B 1399, Matter of Roston
Edison Company ; 51 N I , It B 118.
1092 DECISIONS ,OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tial supervisory authority and should be included within the unit of
building maintenance employees. The Company, on the other hand,
maintains that the janitor and porter supervisor has supervisory
authority which requires that he be excluded from such unit. The
record discloses that, while the janitor and porter supervisor is paid
a modest salary not greatly in excess of that received by his highest
paid subordinate, he directs the work of approximately 14 janitors and
porters; all' of whom work while the building is out of service for, the
night. Due to the fact that his immediate superior, the building
superintendent, works during the day and is rarely present for more
than a short time during the working hours of the janitors and porters,
the janitor and porter supervisor is the only person in authority with
respect to such janitors and porters during substantially the entire
period covered by the working hours of such employees. ' In addition
thereto, it appears that the janitor and porter supervisor, whose work
is nearly all of a supervisory nature, not only makes effective recom-
mendations with respect to the status of employees under his supervi-
sion,9 but also has the authority to discharge, which authority he has
exercised when the occasion required it. We find that the janitor and
porter supervisor is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our
usual definition. We shall, accordingly, exclude him from the unit
of building maintenance employees hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all employees in the Company's Plant Department
working in the Griffin Street and Mountain Creek power plants and the
substations, excluding division heads, assistant division heads, the mas-
ter mechanic, the maintenance man-relay and meter, the electrical
engineer, the chemist, the mechanical engineer, the mechanical engi-
neer-plant betterment, the junior mechanical engineer, rain gaugers,
.operating foremen in all departments, watch engineers, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
We further find that all employees in the Building Operation Divi-
sion of the Corporate Department of the Company, including elevator
operators, the elevator starter, building and equipment engineers, jan-
itors and porters, the maid, the painter, and watchmen-elevator oper-
ators, but excluding the building superintendent, the janitor and porter
supervisor, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
'The evidence reveals that aside from making recommendations with respect to indi-
vidual porters and janitors , the janitor and porter supervisor has, by his recommendation
to the Company, effected the adoption of a new wage system for janitors and porters
whereby they are granted wage increases upon the basis of length of service and the
combined judgment of the building superintendent and the janitor and porter supervisor
DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1093
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
,of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
e
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by means of separate elections by secret ballot
among the employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Dallas Power &
Light Company, Dallas, Texas, separate elections by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and'supervision of
the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the em-
ployees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding.
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local B-69, AFL, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
0
0