Hamilton Gas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 24, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 269 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of HAMILTON GAS CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 9-R-1986.-Decided January 24, 1947
Steptoe d Johnson, by 111r. Guy Farmner, of Washington, D. C., and
Mr. Lloyd Leckie, of Charleston, W. Va.; and Mr. Charles W. Rock-
hold, of Charleston, W. Va., for the Employer.
Mr. William. V. Flower, of Toledo, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Warren H. Leland, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Charles-
ton, West Virginia, on September 4, 1946, before William O. Murdock,
hearing officer. 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 OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Hamilton Gas Corporation, a West Virginia corporation with its
principal office in Charleston, West Virginia, is engaged in the produc-
tion and sale of natural gas. The Employer operates gas wells in
central and southern West Virginia and in eastern Kentucky.' It de-
livers the gas which it produces and purchases for resale, principally
to various gas public utility companies, which receive and take title to
the gas at or near its wells. These purchasers transport the gas
through their own gas lines to their main transmission pipe lines. It
would appear that they are themselves engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act. During the 12-month period ending July 31,
1946, the Employer produced and purchased for resale approximately
3,927,362 M cubic feet of gas, valued at about $510,000, all of which
the Employer sold.
' The Employer does not transport any gas across State lines.
72 N. L. R. B., No. 50.
269
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the Employer's operations affect commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of all production and main-
tenance employees of the Employer's Eastern Division, excluding cer-
tain casual laborers, clerical employees and supervisory employees.
The Employer, on the other hand, contends that the unit sought is
improper, and urges in its brief that the appropriate grouping should
consist of all its production and maintenance employees together with
those of Southeastern Gas Corporation.2
The record reveals that the Employer and Southeastern Gas Cor-
poration are subsidiaries of the Southeastern Corporation, which owns
all the stock of the Southeastern Gas Corporation and a majority of
the stock of the Employer.3 Both companies are managed by Loeb
& Eames, a partnership located in New York City. Loeb & Eames,
in addition to managing the Employer and Southeastern Gas Cor-
poration, manages another group of companies engaged in the pro-
duction of natural gas in the same general area of Ohio-West Virginia-
Kentucky. Managerial functions are generally performed by a cen-
tral office in Charleston, West Virginia. At the head of this office is
a general manager who is responsible directly to Loeb & Eames, and
indirectly to the companies under its control, including the Employer
and Southeastern Gas Corporation. The actual expense of operating
the office is shared on a proportionate basis by the several companies.
Beneath the general manager is a general superintendent who super-
vises the work of all field employees in the Hamilton-Southeastern
group; in performing his functions the general superintendent is as-
sisted by division superintendents, whose responsibility, for the most
part, is limited to the supervision of the operation of the wells, meters,
and lines in their respective divisions.
But the Employer and Southeastern Gas Corporation operate in-
dependently of each other. Although their properties are located
in the same general area, each operates its own wells, meters, and
2 At the hearing, the Employer stated that a unit comprised of employees in all its
divisions would be acceptable.
7 Both the Employer and Southeastein Gas Corporation , in turn , have their own respec-
tive subsidiaries , the subsidiary of the Employer is Thompson Gas Company , and the
subsidiary of Southeastern Gas Corporation is Southeastern Development Company.
HAMILTON GAS CORPORATION 271
lines. Basically, each of these companies employs its own personnel
for the maintenance and operation of its properties, despite some in-
terchange between them of production and maintenance workers. In
view of the operational independence of the Employer and the South-
eastern Gas Corporation, their separate corporate identities and prop-
erties, their basically different working staffs, and the presumptive
propriety of an employer unit,4 we reject the Employer's contention
that the appropriate unit should include not only its employees, but
those of Southeastern Gas Corporation as well.
However, we are not persuaded that a unit consisting only of em-
ployees in the Employer's Eastern Division is appropriate. The Em-
ployer's activities are divided into 6 divisions, covering 10 counties in
West Virginia, and 3 in Kentucky. The Employer employs approxi-
mately 22 workers throughout all its divisions.5 Although each of
the Employer's divisions is operated independently of the others,
similar functions are performed by them and the record discloses
a substantial amount of interchange of personnel among them. In
each of 2 of the divisions the Employer has but 1 employee, and in
no division does it have more than 8., Considering the substantial
interchange of personnel among the Employer's divisions, the small
number of employees engaged throughout its operations, and the simi-
larity of functions performed by all its divisions, we are of the opinion
that a unit less than employer-wide in scope is inappropriate.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the Petitioner
is inappropriate, as stated in Section III, above, we find that no ques-
tion has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within an hppropriate unit, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of
employees of Hamilton Gas Corporation, Eastern Division, Charles-
ton, West Virginia, filed herein by Oil Workers International Union,
CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
AIR. JoIIN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
See Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act
This figure includes employees of Thompson Gas Company , the Employer 's subsidiary,
which we regard as an integral part of the Enmplover ' s operations
731242-47-vol. 72-19