Ets-Hokin Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 932 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. As' indicated above, substantially in excess of 50 percent of the
Employer's revenue is derived from intrastate transportation of
school children and substantially more than 50 percent of the Em-
ployer's operating time and of the working time of its employees is
spent in connection with the operation and servicing of such local
transportation. While the Employer's bus service is available to
others by -charter, the revenue derived therefrom is a relatively minor
part of the Employer's total revenue. Further, the transportation of
children outside New York, on the occasions when the school districts
require it, would not appear materially to change the substantially
local nature,of the Employer's operations. It thus appears that the
Employer is a local bus enterprise engaged primarily in the intra-
state transportation of school children. In these circumstances, the
Camp Baumann and Raybern precedents would be controlling here-
in, , and the Board would decline to assert jurisdiction because it
would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over
local bus transportation companies, such as the Employer herein,
which are substantially local in character and which operate pri-
marily in aid of local communities in the field of education.
Accordingly, the parties are advised under Section 102.103 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, that, on the
allegations present herein, the Board would not assert jurisdiction
over the Employer's operations with respect to labor disputes cog-
nizable under Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Act.
Ets-Hokin Corporation, Employer-Petitioner and IBEW Local
Union 769, AFL-CIO I and Laborers ' District Council in the
State of Arizona, Including Locals 479 , 383, 556, Construction
Locals in the State of Arizona of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America , Including Locals 1089,
2402, 906, 1216 , 1538, 1100 , 1914, 471 , 857, 2096, 1153, 1061 , 445, 326,
and 2763; Locals 83 and 310 of the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
and Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International
Association, Local Union No. 395, and Operating Engineers,
Local 428.2 Case No. 28-RM-146. May 17,1966
DECISION AND ORDER -
Upon a . petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Roy H. Garner, of the National Labor Relations Board. The
1 Intervenor IBEW Local 769, , AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of
its current contract which covers the unit being sought.
' Intervenors Operating Engineers , Local 428 and the Basic Crafts unions were per-
mitted to intervene at the hearing based on contracts with the Employer -Petitioner
which contain classifications which overlap with the unit sought and the contract be-
tween IBEW Local 769 and the Employer -Petitioner . Neither the Operating Engineers,
Local 428 nor the Basic Crafts desired to he included on a ballot in an election directed
by the Board.
158 NLRB No. 86.
ETS-ROSIN CORPORATION, EMPLOYER-PETITIONER 933 ,
Hearing Officer's rulings made at. the hearing are' free from prej -
udicial error - and • are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, Intervenor
IBEW. Local 769 and Intervenors Operating Engineers Local 428
and the Basic Crafts each filed briefs which the Board has
considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations 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 Hof the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons:
Both the Employer-Petitioner and Intervenor IBEW Local 769
state that the appropriate unit is "all employees of Ets-Hokin Cor-
poration engaged in outside electrical construction work employed,
within its operation within the State of Arizona, including cable
splicers, linemen, technicians, equipment operators, welders, equip-
ment mechanics, powdermen, jackhammer operators, ground men and
linemen apprentices; excluding casual employees such as right-of-
way clearance employees, teamsters, cement masons, carpenters, iron
workers, and their apprentices and helpers, office clerical employees,
guards, watchmen, supervisors as defined in the Act." Intervenor
Operating Engineers, Local . 428 and the four Basic Crafts contend
that the requested unit is inappropriate because it consists of an
arbitrary segment of construction employees without overriding
special interest.3
The Employer-Petitioner, a California corporation, is engaged as a
general and, electrical contractor in the construction and erection of
a 345 kv. electric power transmission line from Glen Canyon Dam,
Arizona, to Flagstaff, Arizona (known as line 2), pursuant to a con-
tract between the Employer-Petitioner and the Bureau of Reclama-
a The Intervenor Operating Engineers , Local 428 and the four Basic Crafts also contend
that the unit is inappropriate because (1) the employees excluded as casual employees are
not casual or temporary but just as permanent as employees included in the unit; and
(2) if this petition were granted , it would remove the representation of the Operating
Engineers , Local 428 and the four Basic ' Crafts and . would have the effect of decertifying
the Operating Engineers , Local 428 and the four Basic Crafts. In view of our dismissal
of the petition on other grounds stated in the Decision, we deem it unnecessary to consider
these contentions.
934 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion, an agency of the U.S. Government.4 The construction work on
an electrical transmission line consists of four basic consecutive,
phases: (1) the clearing of the right-of-way and the building of
access roads; (2) the footing operation which involves (a) excavat-
ing holes for tower foundations, (b) trimming, (c) transportation'
of templar bars and pins to the construction site, (d) -driving pins
and setting templars and cross-bars, (e) pouring the concrete tower
foundation and footing, (f) stripping, and (g) backfill operations;
(3) the erection.of steel towers; and (4) the attachment of insulators
to, and the stringing- of wires from, the towers. The unit sought by
the Employer-Petitioner is composed of all employees engaged in
phases 3 and 4 and those employees -engaged in hauling, drilling
and excavation, backfilling, tamping, and cleanup work in connection
with the preparation of the tower footing of phase 2. The Employer-
Petitioner would exclude all employees engaged in operations in-
volving phase 1 and those remaining operations involving phase 2.5
Employees presently on the job are completing phases 3 and 4.
Normally, electricians will be assigned almost all work on phases 3
and 4; while Operating Engineers and the four Basic Crafts will be
assigned all work on phase 1. As for phase 2, the footing operation,
there does not appear to be any clear cut pattern of assignment.
Thus, on line 2, the work was divided between the Operating Engi-
neers and four Basic Crafts on one segment (trimming, transporta-
tion, setting, pouring, and stripping) and the IBEW the remainder
(drilling, excavating, backfilling, tamping, and cleanup work), but
on line 1 that part of the footing work performed by IBEW on line
2, was performed by the Operating Engineers. Thus, on phase 2 of
the operation, if electricians are used, they work at a time when the
Operating Engineers and four Basic Crafts are also present although
in different crews.
The Employer-Petitioner, although naming employees sought in
this petition as cable splicers, linemen, technicians, equipment opera-
tors, welders, equipment mechanics, powdermen, and linemen appren-
4 As part-of its contract, the Employer-Petitioner has completed work on a powerhouse
and switchyard at Glen Canyon, Arizona, and on a 345 kv. electrical transmission line
from Glen Canyon, Arizona, to Pinnacle Peak, Arizona (known as line 1). At present
there are no contracts for additional work, and the work in this case is expected to be
completed by July 1966.
6The Employer-Petitioner would also exclude employees employed in the Flagstaff work
shop, the batch plant, the powerhouse and waterline construction. The record is unclear
as to the inclusion or exclusion of employees operating the borrow pit or performing hand'
tamping and maintenance work.
ETS-HOKIN CORPORATION, EMPLOYER-PETITIONER 935
tices, actually classifies its employees only as linemen, equipment
operators, and ground men. Many of these functions are performed
by employees other than IBEW members, e.g., rough grading work
which precedes the right-of-way work and involves the use of heavy
equipment, j ackhammers, and blasting, is performed by the Operat-
ing Engineers and the four Basic Crafts. Some functions, such -as
maintenance and repair, are performed by a mixed crew consisting
of employees represented by Electricians, Operating Engineers, and
Teamsters.. Thus, some of the employees sought appear to be en-
gaged in_ work which is similar in nature to that performed by other
employees .who are not sought. There is nothing in, the record to
indicate that employees of the proposed unit work under conditions
which are substantially different from those worked by employees
sought to be excluded from the unit.
Here the Employer-Petitioner and IBEW Local 769 seek a unit
which- is not limited to employees performing the traditional work
of electricians, but would include those. performing work normally
associated with h-a variety of other jobs and crafts. The appropriate-
ness of such a unit depends on- whether these employees constitute -a-
distinctive working force with a separate community of interest such
as to warrant its representation separate from other employees per-
forming similar functions. If the operation has become so integrated
that historical distinctions between the crafts have become blurred,
perhaps no unit other than an overall unit consisting of all con-
struction employees is entitled to representation, but on the other
hand, if the various phases of the operations are so distinctive, then
perhaps something less than an overall unit might be appropriate.
The present record does not permit us to make that determination.
Moreover, based on this record, we find that the employees presently
employed do not perform much of the operation comprising outside
electrical work, and, therefore, the employees working do not con-
stitute a representative complement of the total work force. A di-
rection of election at this time would disenfranchise a substantial
number of employees. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
6 In so dismissing, we are not deciding the merits of the proposed unit, but will leave
this issue for consideration at a time when a petition is filed, based on a record demon-
strating that a representative number of employees fulfilling other functions normally
performed on the jobsite are then currently employed.