French Broad Electric Membership Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 22, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 86 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of FRENCH BROAD ELECTRIC MMABERSIIIP CORPORATION,
EMPLOYER cued INTERNATIONAL BRO-1 HERHOOD OF EELCTRICAL WORK-
ERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 5Ti17-R-28.-Decided October 22, 194.7
Messrs. J. M. Baley, Jr., and D. M. Robinson, of Marshall, N. C., for
the Employer.
Mr. Henry F. Adair, of Charlotte, N. C., and Mr. A. M. DeBruhl,
of Asheville, N. C., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petitition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Mar-
shall, North Carolina, on May 7, 1947, before Harold M. Weston, hear-
ing officer. At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer moved that
the petition herein be dismissed because of the inappropriateness of
the requested unit. For reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the
motion is hereby granted. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS or FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
French Broad Electric Membership Corporation, a North Carolina
cooperative with its principal office in Marshall, North Carolina, is
engaged in the generation and distribtuion of electric power in the
States of North Carolina and Tennessee.' It maintains offices in the
towns of Marshall, Burnsville, and Bakersville, all in the State of
North Carolina.' The Employer is an affiliate of the Rural Electri-
fication Administration, but is entirely owned by the individuals who
consume the power and energy which it generates and distributes.
IAlthough all the power supplied by the Employer to its consumers is obtained float
within the State of North Carolina, 50 pei cent of this power is obtained from the Carolina
Power and Light Co, a large public utility
2 It is contemplated that another office will be established shortly at Mars Hill, Nom th
75 N. L. R B No. 12.
Caiolina Buinsville is only 23 miles, and Bakersville 35 miles, from Marshall
86
FRENCH BROAD ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 87
During the year 1946 the Employer purchased copper, poles, hardware,
and electrical appurtenances used in generating electric current valued
at over $131,000, of which 95 percent was purchased from the Graybar
Electric Company in Asheville, North Carolina, which, in turn, pur-
chased 40 percent of the material it shipped to the Employer from
sources outside the State. During the same period, the Employer sold
approximately $167,000 worth of electric power to its members, of
which about $88,000 or 53.3 percent represented sales to residential
consumers, about $31,000 or 18.8 percent represented sales to industrial
or large power consumers, about $3,000 or 1.8 percent represented sales.
to towns for street lighting, and about $43,000 or 26.1 percent repre-
sented sales to stores, churches, dairies, and other miscellaneous small'
local consumers. Of the total revenue received by the Employer,
$2,980.36, or 1.7 percent represented sales to residential consumers
in the State of Tennessee; all other revenue was derived from con-
sumers in the State of North Carolina.
On all these facts, and on the entire record in the case, we find that
the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act.3
TI. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. TIlE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner requests a unit confined to the Employer's Marshall,
North Carolina, operations. It would include therein all mainte-
nance and power house operators, ineter men and linemen, ground-
men and helpers, truck drivers and construction men on line and
substation work, the stockroom man, and the foreman, and would
exclude therefrom, office and clerical employees, the superintendent,
general manager, and Board of Directors. The Employer, while agree-
ing m virtually every respect with the composition of the unit, takes
the position that the requested unit is too limited in scope and should
be enlarged to encompass similar employees throughout its entire sys-
tem; viz, those working out of Burnsville and Bakersville.
As noted above, the Employer maintains its principal office in Mar-
shall, North Carolina, and two other offices, one at Burnsville, and
the other at Bakersville, North Carolina.4 The policies enunciated by
3 N L It B v Faiablatt, et al, 306 U S 601 , ^11attet of Gibson County Elects is Menebei-
ship Go) poratvon, 65 N L It B 760
4The total number of employees located in Mai shall in the requested categories is ap
proximately 20 in similar categories, there aie appiotinmately 19 employees in Burnsville
and 2 in Bakersv]Ile.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board of Directors of the Employer are effectuated by a general
manager located in Marshall , and an assistant manager located in
Burnsville . The Employer 's working force, exclusive of clericals with
whom we are not here concerned , is, in effect , divided into two groups:
operational employees and construction employees . The operations
group is headed by an engineer who supervises three hydro -electric
plant operators in Marshall , three in Burnsville , a stockroom man in
Marshall, and two maintenance men in Bakersville . The construc-
tions group is headed by two foremen , one of whom resides in Mar-
shall and the other, in Burnsville . 5 Under each foreman is a separate
crew which is subject to call anywhere within the system.
The system is rather small and is well integrated . Thus all pur-
chases for the entire system are made by the Marshall office,, all finan-
cial and personnel records are tabulated there ,' and the pay roll of
the Employer is kept alphabetically without designation thereon to
indicate an employee 's location . Furthermore , the vacation plan is
formulated on the basis of a system -wide grouping, as are the promo-
tio7i plan, the wage policy , and the seniority plan; all employees in the
system have the same hours , are subject to the same general working
rules, and have similar intermediate supervision , the general manager
in Marshall effectively directing the entire system of 61 employees
through close personal contact. And , significantly , operational em-
ployees in different towns have the same immediate supervision.
In support of its contention that a unit limited to the Employer's
Marshall employees would be appropriate , the Petitioner points to the
fact that , when hired, a construction worker is told to "report to the
Marshall gang" or "the Burnsville gang, " and that these respective
groups of employees report daily to Marshall and Burnsville to start
their work. However, it appears that the Employer has its employees
report to Burnsville , rather than to Marshall , merely to prevent un-
necessary traveling on the part of the employees who reside in Burns-
ville. The Petitioner further points to the facts that three employees
remain in Burnsville at all times to operate the hydroelectric plant
in that community , that both Bakersville employees are permanently
stationed there so as to afford emergency service when necessary, and
that there is very little interchange or transfer of employees between
the groups . While certain work , such as plant operation , obviously
requires steady employment at one location , the record reveals that the
,construction crews are subject to call throughout the entire system,
and that, from time to time , the work of these crews overlap , resulting
5 No construction men are located ip Bakersvilie.
9 However , each branch office may make purchases amounting to less than $ 5 00 from its
own petty cash fund
' Each branch office maintains daily records which are forwarded to the Marshall office.
FRENCH BROAD ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION 89
in their operating together. The Petitioner also maintains that the
propriety of the requested unit is shown by the Employer's mainte-
nance of separate offices and warehouses in each of the towns in which
it operates. In this connection, testimony adduced at the hearing re-
veals that the offices in Elurnsvllle and Bakersville do not function as
subdivisions of the Employer's system, but are, in effect, collecting
offices and convenient places to report line trouble.
There has been no history of collective bargaining among employees
of the Employer. It does appear, however, that in June 1946 the Peti-
tioner sought recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent for a
system-wide unit of employees in categories similar to those involved
herein; that a cross-check was conducted ; and that the Petitioner
lacked a majority among the employees involved.
Under all these circumstances, including the shall size of the Em-
ployer's operations , the identity of immediate supervision of opera-
tional employees throughout the system, the similarity of hours, wages,
working conditions and employees' privileges at all offices of the Em-
ployer, and the considerable contact between the construction em-
ployees throughout the system, and on the entire record in the case, we
are of the opinion that the Marshall, North Carolina, unit sought by
the Petitioner is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Petitioner
is not appropriate, as found in Section III, above, we find that no
question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act.
ORDER
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining , and upon the basis of the above
findings of fact, and the entire record in the case,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives of employees of French Broad Electric
Membership Corporation, Marshall, North Carolina, filed herein by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A . F. of L ., be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS MURDOCK and GRAY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.