East Ohio Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 27, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 61 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY 61
EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY and UTILITY WORKERS UNION or AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1127. April 27, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' -
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all of the Employer's production,
maintenance, and distribution employees, excluding all clerical, sales,
professional, and confidential employees, watchmen, and supervisors.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought by
the Petitioner is inappropriate because it excludes the clerical em=
ployees who have been included together with the Employer's physical
employees in a single unit, and because of the integration of the Em-
ployer's operations.
Since 1937 the Intervenor has represented the Employer's em-
ployees under a series of contracts in a unit which included both
physical and clerical employees.' The Employer's employees fall into
the usual categories of employees found in gas utility systems. The
Petitioner concedes that in the instant case, as in other public utility
operations, the work of the physical employees is closely integrated
with that of the clerical employees. There have been many permanent
and temporary transfers among the two groups of employees. The'
record shows that there exists a community of interest among the
physical and clerical employees from a social and economic point of
view.
' The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and Natural
Gas Workers Union, Independent , hereinafter called the Intervenor , to dismiss the petition
on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner was not appropriate 11,01 the
reasons stated infra, these motions are hereby granted.
'Although the recognition clauses of the contracts from 1937 to 1943 do not mention
the office, clerical, or technical employees ; the record shows that the Employer and
the Intervenor bargained 'for these employees and considered that the substantive terms
of the contract applied to them. Whenever a general wage increase was negotiated for
the physical employees it was also applied to all clerical employees . Since 1943, the
contracts have specified that the Intervenor was recognized as the bargaining representa-
tive for the clerical as well as the physical employees.
94 NRLB No. 1.
62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
While the Board has found appropriate units of physical employees
in a public utility apart from clerical employees,3 we are of the opinion
that in the present proceeding the long history of collective bargain-
ing, the high degree of integration in the Employer's operations, the
transfers between physical and clerical employees, and the community
of interest among both groups of employees, require a finding that
only a unit of physical and clerical employees is appropriate.4 Ac-
cordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall dis-
miss the petition.
Order
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of the East Ohio Gas
Company, Cleveland, Ohio, filed by the Utility Workers Union of
America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
3 Indianapolis Power & Light Company , 76 NLRB 136; Kansas City Power & Light
Company, 75 NLRB 609.
4 Philadelphia Gas Works Company, 74 NLRB 638; Pennsylvania Power & Light
Company, 64 NLRB 874.
ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT CO., INC. and CHARLES PENCHANSKY . Case
No. 2-CA--867. April 30, 1951
Decision and Order
On May 29, 1950, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the
charging party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs. The charging party also
requested oral argument. This request is denied as the record and
briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions
of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and, except as they relate to discharge of Penchansky, hereby
94 NLRB No. 19.