Electric Machinery Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 28, 1984

269 N.L.R.B. 499 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

ELECTRIC MACHINERY, INC.
Electric Machinery Enterprises, Incorporated and
Local 915, International Brotherhood of Electri-
cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 12-
RC-6388
28 March 1984
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 6 July 1983 the Regional Director for Region
12 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
which he found, inter alia, that the petitioned-for
unit, limited to only one of the Employer's con-
struction sites, was inappropriate and that the
smallest appropriate unit should include all of the
Employer's jobsites located within Hillsborough
County; Florida. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of
Procedures, the Employer filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision. The
Employer contended that the Regional Director
erred on a substantial factual issue and departed
from officially reported precedent, and that the
only appropriate unit was one which included all
jobsites within its "Tampa Construction Division."
The Petitioner filed a statement in opposition to the
request for review.
The Board, by telegraphic order dated 9 August
1983, granted the request for review and stayed the
scheduled election.' Thereafter, the Employer filed
a brief on review.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review,
including the Employer's brief on review, and
makes the following findings:
The Employer, an electrical contractor, performs
work both within and without the State of Florida
at a variety of construction sites. At the time of the
hearing, its Tampa Construction Division included
51 jobsites located in 11 cities within 8 counties
(mainly in northern and central Florida) with the
majority of sites located in Hillsborough County,
and several in contiguous or nearby counties such
as Pasco, Pinellas, and Lee. Thirty-two of these
projects are located in the Tampa area, including
the Big Bend project, which Petitioner maintained
I Review also was granted as to the issue of the unit placement of the
positions of material transporters and main office mechanics whom the
Regional Director excluded from the unit he found appropriate. Inas-
much as this Decision on Review dismisses the petition, it is not neces-
sary to reach that issue.
269 NLRB No. 89
was so distinct from all other projects as to consti-
tute a single appropriate unit.
There is a prior history of bargaining between
the Employer and the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers; and between 1945 and 1977 the
Employer was party to collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Local 915, the Petitioner, and other
locals covering its journeymen, apprentices, and
electrical wiremen. These agreements covered par-
ticular jobsites within the geographical jurisdiction
of the locals, with the exception of the Employer's
"Sound and Signal" and "Service" divisions which
another IBEW local has represented on a division-
wide basis for the past 15 years.
The Tampa Construction Division is headquar-
tered in Tampa itself and is highly centralized in its
operations and administration. All billing, purchas-
ing, personnel, and payroll records are handled at
that office. There are four project managers for the
Division who report directly to the Employer's
president, Jaime Jurado, who is also the head of
the Tampa Construction Division. In addition, the
managers of the Employer's other divisions-Fort
Lauderdale Construction, Service, Sound and
Signal, Modular, and North American Telephone-
all report to Jurado. Of the four Tampa Construc-
tion project managers, only one is assigned to a
single project-Big Bend-while the other three
oversee the remaining 50 sites. In addition, there is
an on-site project superintendent or general fore-
man who supervises day-to-day operations at each
location.
Jurado testified that the Employer does not hire
for a specific job, but assigns employees to its vari-
ous sites as needed. Job applicants generally come
into the main office and fill out an application
package which is reviewed by one of the project
managers. The project manager then screens the
applicant. If found to be satisfactory, the applicant
is referred to one of the jobsites. Occasionally, an
applicant might be told to meet a project manager
at a particular site and the interview is conducted
there. The Big Bend project manager testified he
has directed his project superintendent to interview
on-site occasionally (or the two general foremen
may interview if neither he nor the project superin-
tendent is available), and that these individuals may
hire an applicant they have interviewed.
The Employer has established a general wage
scale for the entire division. The project manager
sets an initial salary by assigning the employee to a
particular job classification. Merit increases may be
initiated by the project foreman, then reviewed and
approved by the project manager. The Big Bend
project manager testified that new employees gen-
erally are reviewed after 30 days for such merit in-
499
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
creases, and that other projects follow the same
policy. Uniform labor relations policies are set by
Jurado as well as uniform companywide benefits
including a health and welfare insurance plan, va-
cations, holiday schedules, and rate of overtime
pay. Seniority is determined on a divisionwide
basis, rather than by project, and employees are
either transferred or laid off by seniority when a
project is completed. The same job classifications
exist at the various sites. Employee skills and train-
ing are similar, as is the work performed at all
sites, so that when an employee is transferred from
one project to another his earnings and job classifi-
cation remain the same. The Employer also partici-
pates in an apprenticeship program through the
Electrical Workers Association and apprentices are
transferred from project to project under that pro-
gram.
The Employer began work at Big Bend around
January 1982, with 12-15 employees transferred in
from other projects. Documentary evidence sub-
mitted by the Employer reveals that between
March 1982 and March 1983, approximately 47 em-
ployees transferred to Big Bend, including approxi-
mately 10 foremen; and that approximately 32 of
the transfers came from other Hillsborough County
sites. In addition, the project superintendent and
the two general foremen at Big Bend were trans-
ferred from other projects. The Employer's exhib-
its also show that in the 6-month period between
January and July 1982, approximately 30 of the 35
employees transferred from Big Bend to other
projects were transferred to other sites within
Hillsborough County. These transfers included su-
pervisors, journeymen, helpers, and apprentices. At
the time of the hearing, there were 180 employees
at Big Bend.
In seeking a unit limited to Big Bend, the Peti-
tioner contended that the work being performed
there is distinct from the work being performed at
the Employer's other projects, and that the owner
and manager of the Big Bend project impose cer-
tain controls over the Employer which are not im-
posed at any other project. Further, both new em-
ployees and employees who have been transferred
to Big Bend have been required to take welding or
pipe bending tests, even though they may have
worked for the Employer for several years and on
many projects. These tests are not given at any of
the other projects. The record shows that the work
being performed at Big Bend is of the same nature
as that being performed at the various other
projects throughout the Division. It does appear,
however, that the Employer's contract with the
Tampa Electric Company (the owner of the Big
Bend project) requires certain quality control pro-
cedures or requirements that the other projects do
not impose, and that the Employer has chosen
these tests as a means of ensuring compliance with
those guidelines. Moreover, the Big Bend project
manager testified that although all welders em-
ployed at Big Bend must be certified, it is not a
condition of employment for employees other than
welders to pass the test. Also, he indicated that
other projects may have certain tests or certifica-
tion requirements which would not be required
throughout the Division.
A single location unit is presumptively appropri-
ate, unless it is established that the single location
has been effectively merged into a more compre-
hensive unit so as to have lost its individual identi-
ty. Petrie Stores Corp., 266 NLRB 75 (1983);
Frisch's Big Boy, 147 NLRB 551 (1964). Thus,
while the Regional Director found that the Big
Bend project alone did not constitute a single ap-
propriate unit, he determined that a unit consisting
of all projects within Hillsborough County would
be appropriate, notwithstanding evidence of divi-
sionwide centralized administration, common over-
all supervision, uniform benefits and labor relations
policies, substantial transfers, and similar work and
skills. In so finding, he relied on the facts that 62
percent of all of the Employer's jobsites are in
Hillsborough County and transfers at Big Bend
have been mostly to and from other Hillsborough
County sites.
We agree with the Regional Director's finding
that the evidence does not demonstrate a separate
and distinct community of interest at Big Bend
warranting a single location unit. However, we
cannot agree with his finding that a unit limited to
Hillsborough County sites would be appropriate
where the record demonstrates the substantial com-
munity of interest shared throughout the entire
Tampa Construction Division.
It is clear that all employees in the Division
share the same skills, perform similar work in the
same job classifications, are hired to work for the
Company in general rather than for a specific
project, and are paid according to a general wage
scale set for the Division. In addition, the Employ-
er often transfers employees into comparable jobs
throughout the Division, and the apprentices in its
apprenticeship program are transferred from
project to project. All labor relations and discipli-
nary policies are uniform and administered divi-
sionwide, as are all benefits including a health and
welfare plan, paid holidays, and paid vacation time.
Seniority is established divisionwide, rather than by
project or county, and this seniority status is used
to determine choice of vacations as well as layoffs.
Although the majority of the Division's work is
500
ELECTRIC MACHINERY, INC.
done within Hillsborough County, the record
shows that 38 percent of the Employer's jobsites,
over one-third, are located in other counties. In
many instances, the jobsites located outside Hills-
borough County are actually closer to the Employ-
er's main office than are some of the jobsites within
the county itself. Moreover, while the Big Bend
project apparently requires the largest number of
employees and has its own project manager, the
record shows that transfers to or from Big Bend
are not "almost exclusively" contained within the
County, but are made according to layoffs and
project completions wherever they occur; and that
at least 32 percent of the transfers to Big Bend
came from outside Hillsborough County and 17
percent of the transfers from Big Bend were to job-
sites in counties other than Hillsborough.
In light of the factors discussed above, particu-
larly the uniform working conditions and employee
skills, the significant employee interchange between
all jobsites in the Division, the common hiring and
wage rates, the Employer's centralized administra-
tion and operations, the divisionwide seniority
system, and the lack of substantial autonomy on the
part of the superintendent or foremen at each con-
struction site, we find that neither a unit limited
only to the Big Bend jobsite nor a unit limited only
to sites within Hillsborough County is appropriate
for collective bargaining. Petrie Stores Corp., supra;
Orkin Exterminating Co., 258 NLRB 773 (1981).
Rather, we find that the smallest appropriate unit
must include all of the Employer's construction
sites within its Tampa Construction Division.
Since we have found that both the unit sought
by the Petitioner and the unit found appropriate by
the Regional Director are inappropriate for collec-
tive bargaining, and the Petitioner has not indicat-
ed that it desires to proceed to an election in a
broader unit, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is ordered that the petition be dismissed.
501