Intermountain Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 4, 1977

231 N.L.R.B. 130 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Intermountain Gas Company and United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 19-UC-186
August 4, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
PENELLO AND WALTHER
On March 1, 1977, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 19 issued his Decision and Order in this
case in which the unit certified in Case 19-RC-4984
was clarified by including vaporization technicians in
the unit. Thereafter, pursuant to National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, Petitioner filed a timely request for review
of the Acting Regional Director's decision, contend-
ing that he had departed from precedent and made
findings of fact that were clearly erroneous by not
including several other classifications sought by
Petitioner in the unit clarification petition.
By telegraphic order dated April 11, 1977, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the request
for review insofar as it related to Petitioner's
requested inclusion of the classifications of leak
survey technician and insulation technicians and
applicators.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issue under review and
hereby makes the following findings:
The Employer is a public utility engaged in the
distribution, sale, and service of natural gas in
southern Idaho.
The Acting Regional Director found that the
classifications of leak survey technician and insula-
tion technicians and applicators were not properly
included in the existing unit by way of a unit
clarification petition and dismissed, inter alia, those
portions of the petition seeking the above-named
classifications. In making this determination, the
Acting Regional Director found that the leak survey
technician and insulation technicians and applicators
generally worked apart from the rest of the unit
employees and enjoyed a community of interest
sufficiently separate to warrant their exclusion from
the unit.
In disputing the Acting Regional Director's find-
ings, Petitioner asserts that the leak survey technician
' 162 NLRB 1513(1967).
performs functions that are essentially the same as
those traditionally performed by unit employees.
Similarly, Petitioner contends that the insulation
technicians and applicators perform tasks that, at
least in some measure, are identical to traditional
unit work.
We find merit in the contention of Petitioner that
the classification of leak survey technician is one
properly included in the existing bargaining unit, but
we agree with the Acting Regional Director that the
insulation technicians and applicators perform differ-
ent functions than those performed by existing unit
classifications.
With respect to the leak survey technician, the
record discloses that this is a new classification
instituted by the Employer since the date of the last
collective-bargaining agreement. The leak survey
technician's responsibility is to monitor the Employ-
er's Idaho pipeline system to determine the existence
of any leaks in the distribution system. To this end,
the employee presently retained in this position
travels alone in a small vehicle equipped with a gas
detection device and reports all leaks reflected on
this apparatus to the Employer's operations manager.
Because of traffic considerations, the leak survey
technician may work at times other than the normal
8 a.m.-to-5 p.m. schedule generally observed by the
Employer. As part of his duties, the leak survey
technician also maintains records of his activities for
the Department of Transportation, and is apprised of
that Department's regulations relevant to his duties.
In addition, the leak survey technician decides each
year which routes he will traverse in the coming
months.
The Acting Regional Director concluded that the
leak survey technician did not share a community of
interest with other employees in the unit, whose work
is directed and assigned by supervisors and who
work in contact with other unit employees. More-
over, relying on Crucible Steel Casting Division of
Howmet Corporation, 1 the Acting Regional Director
found that the leak survey function had existed prior
to the certification of the unit, albeit on a part-time
basis, as a responsibility of the Employer's cathodic
protection employees.
Initially, it is clear that the leak survey technician
could not be excluded from the unit as a technical
employee under our traditional definition of that
term.2 The leak survey technician admittedly makes
no independent judgment as to the severity of the
leak once it is detected, and only transmits his
findings to the operations superintendent, who will
then make a decision as to how to dispose of the
problem. Although the employee presently occupy-
2 See, e.g., Avco Lycoming Division, Avco Corporation. 173 NLRB 1199
(1968).
231 NLRB No. 22
130
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS COMPANY
ing this position has had previous experience in leak
survey detection, he has never received any formal
training other than a I-week orientation period in
Atlanta, where he was instructed in the use of the
vehicles and monitoring device he now operates.
With regard to those factors relied upon by the
Acting Regional Director in determining that the
leak survey technician does not share a community
of interest with other unit employees, the record
discloses that although he is not under any immedi-
ate supervision he nonetheless reports on a continual
basis to the operations superintendent. While, it is
true, as noted above, that the leak survey technician
occasionally works unusual hours to avoid the
constraints of city traffic and the vicissitudes of
atmospheric conditions, he admitted that he "gener-
ally" works the standard 8-to-5 schedule. Similarly,
while because of the nature of his tasks he is not in
frequent contact with other employees, this is a
working condition he shares with many employees
who are included in the unit.3 Finally, while the
Acting Regional Director correctly noted that the
leak survey function was at one time performed by
cathodic protection employees (an excluded classifi-
cation), the work of the cathodic protection employ-
ees is overwhelmingly technical in nature, and there
is no evidence that the portion of their time devoted
to leak survey functions contributed to their exclu-
sion from the unit. Indeed, a gas leak detection
function is also performed by employees included in
the unit, although on a smaller scale.
The classifications of insulation technicians and
applicators are also new employment categories
instituted subsequent to the execution of the last
collective-bargaining agreement between the Em-
ployer and Petitioner. These employees work in the
Employer's newly created "Home Guard" division, a
separate administrative division devoted to certain
"non-utility" functions, such as the sale and installa-
tion of solar hearing units, insulation, and home
appliances.
In finding that the insulation technicians and
applicators were not properly included in the existing
:1 For instance, the Employer's meter readers have extremely limited
contact with other unit employees.
bargaining unit, the Acting Regional Director deter-
mined that these employees performed either entirely
new functions (such as the installation of insulation)
or functions that were properly excluded classifica-
tions (sales). Furthermore, the Acting Regional
Director concluded that because of their different
lines of progression, rates of compensation, and
completely separate supervision, the insulation tech-
nicians and applicators did not share a sufficient
community of interest with other unit employees to
warrant their inclusion in the certified unit.
For its part, Petitioner contends that the new
functions of these employees are not dissimilar from
the type of work traditionally performed by unit
employees; i.e.. the installation of appliance units.
Beyond this, Petitioner urges that the factors relied
on by the Acting Regional Director to support a
finding of a separate community of interest are solely
attributable to the fact that these new classifications
have not been subject to collective bargaining.
It is clear from the record that in their work
insulation technicians and applicators employ skills
substantially different from those of other unit
employees. In this connection, technicians and
applicators are trained extensively in the use and
application of urea formaldehyde and cellulose
spray, and work with implements used exclusively
within the Home Guard division. Moreover, the
record reveals that these new classifications are in
fact an amalgam of different or previously excluded
functions, only a small part of which relates to the
traditional unit function of installing appliances.
In addition to the foregoing factors, we are in
agreement with the Acting Regional Director that
the separate supervision, different lines of pay and
progression, and lack of collective-bargaining history
all militate against a finding that the insulation
technicians and applicators are a proper accretion to
the existing certified unit.
Accordingly, the unit is clarified to include the
classification of leak survey technician, and to
exclude the classifications of insulation technicians
and applicators.
131