Florida Power & Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 484 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER &,- LIGHT COMPANY and ELECTRICAL &
RADIO WORKERS DIVISION OF THE I. U. M. S. W. A., C. I. 0., LocAL
No. 59
In the Matter of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L.
Cases Nos. 10-R-1439 and 10-R-1453, respectively.Decided August
23, 194
Mr. Alfred L. McCarthy, of Miami, Fla., for the Company.
Mr. Charles N. Smolilco ff , of Miami, Fla., for the C. I. O.
Mr. A. C. McGraner, of Miami, Fla., for the I. B. E. W.
Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
'ORDER
STATEMENT OF TIIE -CASE
Upon separate petitions duly filed by Electrical & Radio Workers
Division of the I. U. M. S. W. A., C. I. 0., Local No. 59, and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein respec-
tively called C. I. O. and I. B. E. W., each alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning .the representation of em-
ployees of Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Irvin C. Catts, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Miami, Florida, on May 18,
1945. The Company, the C. I. 0., the I. B. E. W., and Gas Depart-
ment Employees' Association, appeared and participated.' All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
' The Association, having been served with notice of hearing in this proceeding, appeared
specially through its former president, F. D Irvin He testified that on April 23, 1945,
the Association posted throughout the Company's plant at Miami, Florida, notices of
intention to dissolve, and that, subsequently, on April 25, 1945, at a special meeting held
by the Association, its members unannnousl' voted to dissolve and disband the Association
as a labor organization , claiming no further interest in the representation of employees of
the Company
63 N L B B, No 74.
484
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 485
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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
Florida Power & Light Company is engaged in the generation, dis-
tribution, and sale of electric energy and the manufacture, sale, and
distribution of fuel gas in the State of Florida. During 1944, the Com-
pany's gross annual income from its sale of fuel gas was approximately
$500,000. During the same period, the Company purchased for its
gas department raw materials valued at approximately $200,000, all of
which was shipped from points outside the State of Florida. The Com-
pany sells fuel gas to ship repair yards, Army and Navy installations,
and other concerns which are admittedly engaged in interstate
commerce.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Electrical & Radio Workers Division of the I. U. M. S.. W. A., Local
59, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to.
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On February 22, 1945, the C. I. O. advised the Company that it
represented a majority of certain of its employees in the Company's
gas department at Miami, Florida, and wished to be recognized as the
exclusive bargaining representative of such employees. On or about
April 3,1945, the I. B. E. W. notified the Company that it represented
a majority of the employees working in all of the Company's gas plants
throughout the State of Florida, and desired to be recognized as their
exclusive bargaining representative. The Company replied that, since
it was operating under a current collective bargaining agreement with
the Association,2 it could not recognize either the C.' I. O. or the
I. B. E. W.
0
2 At the hearing, the Company stated that, since the Association is admittedly defunct,
it does not desire to claim a presently existing contract between it and the Association as
a bar to the present proceedings.
486 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Trial Examiner stated on the record that the C. I. O. and the
I. B. E. W. each represents a substantial number of employees in the
unit it alleges to be appropriate .3
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 UNIT
The Company and the I. B. E. W. desire a system-wide unit of all
gas department employees employed throughout the Company's gas
plants in the State of Florida, whereas the C. I. O. seeks a unit of gas
employees limited to the Company's Miami plant. The parties are
in dispute with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of certain cate-
gories of employees hereinafter discussed.
The Company is divided for purposes of operation and adminis-
tration into four geographical divisions coinciding with the eastern,
western, southern, and northern parts of the State of Florida. In
each division the Company has plants in which it is engaged in the
generation, distribution, and sale of electrical energy, and in the man-
ufacture, distribution, and sale of fuel gas 4 Only the Company's gas
employees are involved in the instant case.
The operations of each geographical division are under the direct
supervision of a divisional manager who, in turn, is responsible for
his activities with respect to fuel gas to a general superintendent of
gas operations stationed at the Company's main office in Miami, Flor-
ida. The record shows that all matters of general policy, including
Wages, hours of work, standards of employment, and job evaluations
are determined at the Company's main office in Miami, Florida.
While interchange of employees among the four divisions is infrequent,
the Company maintains a policy of allowing transfers from one divi-
sion to another upon proper application of any employee. Thus, it
appears that there is uniformity in employees' functions throughout
the Company's gas plants and that the gas employees' interests are sim-
ilar and closely related., Under such circumstances, we have repeat-
edly held that a system-wide unit of a public utility is appropriate
whenever there is a labor organization in a position to represent em-
ployees throughout the system.5
A The Trial Examiner stated on the record that the C I 0 submitted 26 membership,
cards dated February 1945, and that the unit alleged to be appropriate by the C I 0 is
composed of approximately 35 employees He also stated that the I . B E W submitted
45 membership cards, of which 39 were dated between February and May 1945 and 6 were
undated ; and that there were 52 employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate by the
I B E W
s The Company's gas operations are carried on in the cities of Miami, Daytona Beach,
Lakeland, and Palatka , Florida.
6 Matter of Pennsyls,ania Electric Co , 56 N . L. R B. 625 , Matter of Wisconsin Gas and
Electric Co, 57 N L R B 285; Matter of Duquesne Light Go, 57 N L. R. B 770.
8
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 487
The Board in a previous cases involving the Company herein found,
in absence of any system-wide organization of Company's gas em-
ployees, that a unit of such employees confined to the Company's Miami
plant was appropriate.7 In the instant case, however, the record shows
that there is a labor organization whose organizational activities have
extended among the employees throughout the Company's gas plants
and which seeks to represent them in a system-wide unit. In view of
these facts we find that a system-wide unit is presently appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining on behalf of the employees in-
volved herein. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition for investiga-
tion and certification filed by the C. I. 0., but, in accordance with its
request, shall afford the C. I. 0. the opportunity to participate in the
election hereinafter directed.
As to the composition of the unit the parties are agreed that it
should comprise all the Company's employees engaged in the manu-
facture and distribution of gas, including construction, operation,
maintenance, and meter repair employees, but excluding office and
clerical employees, sales employees, meter readers, collectors, and prop-
erty protection employees.
The disputed categories are as follows : $
Plant foreman B: The Company employs four plant foremen B,
one at each of the Company's four gas plants. While they are classi-
fied as working foremen, the uncontradicted testimony of the Com-
pany's general superintendent shows that they supervise crews of men
engaged in the operation and maintenance of gas plants and that
they have the authority either to hire and discharge employees under
their supervision or to recommend effectively such action. The Com-
pany and the C. I. 0. desire to exclude them, whereas the I. B. E. W.
wishes them included. We shall exclude them from the unit, as
supervisory employees.
Distribution foremen B: The Company employs two distribution
foremen B, one at the Daytona Beach plant and the other at the Lake-
land plant. The record shows that- each foreman supervises the work
of six employees and receives a substantially higher remuneration
than any worker under his supervision. The uncontradicted testi-
mony of the Company's general superintendent is that the distribu-
tion foreman B employed at Lakeland can hire and discharge em-
ployees under his supervision, and the distribution foreman B at
Matter of Florida Power & Light Company, 42 N. L It B. 742
However, the Board found in the same case that , since a system -wide organization of
the Company ' s electrical employees was then in existence , a unit of such employees on a
System-wide basis was appropriate. -
8In the absence of any dispute between the parties, the Board included many of these
categories of employees in the unit found appropriate in the previous case involving the
Company herein . See Matter of Florida Power & Light Company, supra . However, in
the instant case we shall dispose of these categories of employees in accordance with the
evidence adduced at the hearing and the Board 's present policies.
Ogg DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Daytona Beach can recommend effectively such action . The Com-
pany and the C. I. 0. contend that these employees should be excluded,
whereas the I. B. E. W. urges that they be included. We find that
they are supervisory employees and we shall exclude them.
Crew, foremen : The Company has one crew foreman at the Miami
plant. He is now engaged in installing and maintaining gas mains
and performs manual labor most of his working time. Although the
Company's general superintendent testified that in normal times a
crew foreman supervises a crew of men and has the authority to
recommend effectively the hire and discharge of employees, the rec-
ord shows that at present , due to the shortage of labor, this employee
has no workers under his supervision. The I. B. E. W. and the C. I. 0.
desire his inclusion, whereas the Company wishes his exclusion. In-
asmuch as the only man now classified as a crew foreman does not
appear to exercise supervisory authority; we shall allow him to vote
as an ordinary production and maintenance employee. We make no
determination respecting the category of crew foremen as such.
Service supervisors : The Company has one service supervisor who
is stationed at the Company's Miami plant. His duties consist of
supervising from six to seven servicemen in the plant 's gas distribu-
tion section. The uncontradicted testimony of the Company's gen-
eral superintendent shows that the service supervisor has the authority
to recommend effectively the hire and discharge of employees under
his supervision . The I. B. E. W . and the C. I. 0. desire his in-
clusion, whereas the Company urges his exclusion. We shall exclude
him as a supervisory employee.
Meter shop foremen: The Company employs one meter shop fore-
man at its Miami plant. His main function is to supervise four men
engaged in the repair of all gas meters and governors used in the
Company's gas distribution section. The Company's general super-
intendent testified, without contradiction, that the meter shop fore-
man has authority to recommend effectively the hire and discharge
of employees under his supervision . The C. I. 0. and the I. B. E. W.
seek to have this employee included in the unit , but the Company
wishes to have him excluded . We shall exclude him.
Gas clerks : The Company hires three gas clerks whose duties are
to do typing , filing, attend to telephone calls , and perform general
office work . Their wage range is below that of the Company's produc-
tion and maintenance employees , and there appears to be no com-
munity of interest between these employees and the regular production
and maintenance employees . The Company and the C. I. 0. desire
their exclusion , whereas the I. B. E. W. contends that they should be
included. In conformity with our general policy of segregating office
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 489
clerical employees from production and maintenance employees, we
shall exclude them.9
Gas office assistants: The Company employs one gas office assistant
who is stationed at the Company's Miami plant. His duties consist of
making general statistical analyses of the Company's operations and
the keeping of general records. He performs all his work in the office
and it appears that his interests are similar to those of the Company's
office clerical employees. The Company and the C. I. O. take the
position that he should be excluded, whereas the I. B. E. W. wishes his
inclusion. We shall exclude him as an office clerical employee.
Chemists: The Company employs one chemist at its Miami plant.
He is a highly skilled technical employee and has no community of
interest with the production and maintenance employees. The C. I. O.
desires his exclusion, whereas the I. B. E. W. wishes to have him
included. With respect to this employee, the Company takes n&
position. We shall exclude him as a technical employee.-
We find that all of the Company's employees engaged throughout
the Company's plants in the State of Florida in the manufacture and
distribution of gas, including construction, operation, maintenance,
and meter repair employees, but excluding gas clerks, gas office assist-
ants, office and clerical employees, sales employees, meter readers,
collectors, property protection employees, chemists, plant foremen B,
distribution foremen B, service supervisors, meter shop foremen, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
0 See Matter of Boston F,dison Company , 51 N L . R. B 118
10 See Matter of Boston Edison Company , supra.
490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Florida Power &
Light Company , Miami, Florida, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty ( 30) days from
the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Tenth 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
employees in the unit 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
those employees 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 they desire to be represented by Electrical & Radio
Workers Division of the I. U. M. S. W. A., Local No. 59, C. I. 0., or by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A . F. L., for the
purposes of collective bargaining , or by neither.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the cases , the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of Florida Power & Light Company, Miami, Florida,
filed by Electrical & Radio Workers Division of the I. U. M. S. W. A.,
Local No. 59 , C. I. 0., in Case No. 10-R-1439, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Direction of Election, and Order.