Gibson Electric, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1976

226 N.L.R.B. 1063 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

GIBSON ELECTRIC
Gibson Electric, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 443, Peti-
tioner . Case 15-RC-5908
November 19, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
By MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND WALTHER
On May 24, 1976, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 15 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the peti-
tion filed herein, finding that the Employer's opera-
tions were going to cease on a date certain. In
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8,
as amended, the Petitioner filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision.
By telegraphic order dated August 18, 1976, the
Board granted the request for review. Thereafter, the
Employer and the Petitioner respectively filed briefs
on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
proceeding with respect to the issues under review
and makes the following findings:
Petitioner seeks a single unit of journeymen and
apprentice wiremen at the Employer's jobsite at the
South Central Bell building in Montgomery, Ala-
bama. The Regional Director dismissed the petition,
finding, in accord with the Employer's contention,
that due to scheduled completion of the work by
June 18 , 1976, the Employer's work force would soon
be terminated and, hence, an election would not be
appropriate. The Petitioner has contended, on the
other hand, that a substantial portion of the work
force is and will be employed long enough to warrant
an election. We agree.
The Employer is engaged in the business of electri-
cal installation in residential, commercial, and indus-
trial establishments in several States. Its main office
is in Tifton, Georgia, where payroll checks are is-
sued, bids and purchases processed, and clerical rec-
ords maintained. The Employer's labor relations are
formulated in the Tifton office. Hiring for the vari-
ous projects is done locally by the engineer or super-
intendent for each project. While fringe benefits are
the same for all of the Employer's wiremen, the wag-
es vary according to the local rates.
1063
At the hearing, the Employer contended that by
June 18, 1976, it would have completed its work to
such an extent that it would only have 1 individual at
the Bell Company building out of a work force which
at one time numbered 19 employees. The Employer
contended that this one remaining person would be a
nonunit supervisory employee and that the other em-
ployees would be laid off with no expectation of
being transferred to any of its other projects. The
only work which would remain would be some trim
work.
In its request for review, the Petitioner stated that
the majority of employees would be retained through
December 1976, and possibly through March 1977.
In its brief on review, dated August 27, 1976, and in
response to the Board's specific inquiry of the par-
ties, the Petitioner stated that the project had been in
"full force" since the issuance of the Regional
Director's order. Further, according to Petitioner,
other workers at the same jobsite stated that the
Employer's job would continue for "at least another
four months." The Employer has not refuted
Petitioner's contentions, which have been served
upon it, and it is clear that the Employer' s initial
anticipated completion date was inaccurate. Under
the circumstances, since it appears that the jobsite in
question is still in progress, we find no impediment to
ordering an election at this time.
The Employer also contends that the petition
should be dismissed because it seeks a unit based on
either the extent of the Union's organization or the
Union's jurisdictional area. Contrary to the
Employer's contention, we find that the employees at
this jobsite constitute an appropriate unit for the pur-
pose of collective bargaining.
This project, as is the case with all of the
Employer's fobs, is essentially an autonomous opera-
tion. The project engineer or superintendent hires
employees for the job from the local area, and their
wages are determined by the area's prevailing rate.
Decisions concerning suspensions of employees are
made at the jobsite between the engineer and the
foremen. Foremen assign the daily job tasks and de-
termine if any work needs to be redone. There is
minimal transfer of employees from one jobsite to
another and virtually no contact between the em-
ployees at the Employer's several jobsites.
Accordingly, upon the entire record and for the
reasons mentioned above, we find that the following
employees of the Employer, limited to the South
Central Bell' jobsite, constitute a unit appropriate
In addition to the above-mentioned factors which make the Employer's
Montgomery, Alabama. jobsite an appropriate unit, we note that the dis-
tance between this and the Employer' s nearest jobsites is between 180 and
200 miles See also Raymond Construction Company, of Puerto Rico, 126
NLRB 268. and The Arthur A Johnson Corporation, et al, 97 NLRB 1466
226 NLRB No. 170
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the tral Bell building, excluding all office clerical
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: employees, foremen, and supervisors as defined
All journeymen wiremen, apprentice wire-
in the Act.
men, laborers and helpers employed at the [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
Employer's Montgomery, Alabama, South Cen- ted from publication.]