Massachusetts Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1230 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their common ownership , should not be considered sufficiently integrated to merit
treatment as a single firm for jurisdictional purposes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Since the business operations of Respondent , considered separately , reflect no
participation in commerce sufficient to warrant exercise of the Board 's jurisdiction
under presently applicable jurisdictional standards , I recommend that the present
complaint be dismissed.
Massachusetts Electric Company and Utility Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO. Case No. I -RC-6798. July 10, 1962
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Orlando Rodio, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer, Massachusetts Electric Company, generates and
sells electric power in Worcester County, Quincy, Weymouth, Attle-
boro, northern Berkshire, southern Berkshire, and Northampton,
Massachusetts. The Petitioner seeks a single unit of employees at
Weymouth and Quincy, currently represented by the Intervenor,
Local 332, Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England, Inc.,
herein called the BUW. The Employer contends that a larger seg-
ment, covering its employees in Weymouth, Quincy, Attleboro, and
Worcester County, but excluding those in northern Berkshire, south-
ern Berkshire, and Northampton, currently otherwise represented, is
alone appropriate. The Intervenor is willing to accept whatever unit
the Board may find appropriate.
The Employer is 1 of 17 operating subsidiaries of New England
Electric System, a holding company with subsidiaries in several New
England States, including Massachusetts. For several years prior to
1961, the Employer, then known as Worcester County Electric Com-
pany, operated only in Worcester County. During the same period,
137 NLRB No. 128.
MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY 1231
six small operating subsidiaries, known as Quincy Electric Company,
Weymouth Light and Power Company, Attleboro Electric Company,
northern Berkshire Electric Company, southern Berkshire Power
and Electric Company, and Northampton Electric Lighting Company,
operated within their respective areas. On or about January 1, 1961,
the Employer, acquired these six operating companies by merger,
changed its name to Massachusetts Electric Company, took charge of
their operations, and assumed their labor contracts.
Before and after the merger, Locals 315, 322, 329, 330, 334, and 337
of the BUW represented the employees of the Employer and New
England Power Company, a wholesale subsidiary of N.E.E.S., in
Worcester County under a single contract. Since 1943, Local 332 of
the BUW has represented the Weymouth and Quincy employees in
a single bargaining unit covered by single contracts.' During the
same period, Local 319 of the BUW has likewise represented the
Attleboro employees. The latest contracts covering each of these
three areas were for an effective period from January 1, 1960, to
March 31, 1962. For several years before and after the merger, locals
of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have represented
the Employer's employees in northern Berkshire, southern Berkshire,
and Northampton.
Although the merger resulted in the centralization, in Worcester,
of corporate records and of labor and other company policies at the
top level, other factors establish that the Weymouth-Quincy unit it-
self has continued without substantial change since the merger. Thus
the latest contract for the Weymouth-Quincy unit remained in effect
for some 15 months after the merger. In addition, an assistant vice
president of the Employer, formerly vice president for both of the
Weymouth-Quincy subsidiaries, coordinates the Weymouth-Quincy
operations and public relations and administers labor contracts and
local grievances in this area alone. Moreover, transfers from
Weymouth-Quincy to other operating areas are rare, and the trans-
ferees do not carry their roster, or layoff, seniority to their new jobs.
Hiring is local.
In these circumstances, in view of the long bargaining history for
the single unit of Weymouth and Quincy employees, the fact that
their representation in a larger unit is not herein sought, and the fur-
ther fact that the merger and subsequent administrative and operation
changes have not materially affected the identity of the existing unit,
we find that a unit limited to the employees at the Employer's Wey-
mouth and Quincy locations is appropriate?
1 Sales employees at this location , the only location where they are organized, were
covered by a separate contract.
2 Brooklyn Union Gas Company, 123 NLRB 441, at 446. Compare Brooklyn Union Gas
Company, 129 NLRB 361. New England Power Company, Case No. 1-RC-3502 (not pub-
lished in NLRB volumes).
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all employees at the Employer's Wey-
mouth and Quincy, Massachusetts, electric service locations, including
office clerical employees and retail appliance sales department em-
ployees, but excluding professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 The composition of the unit is not in dispute.
Univac Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand
Corporation 1 and Francis H. Coyne, Petitioner and Business
Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board,
Local 459 International Union of Electrical , Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO .2 Case No. 3-RD-198. July 10, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Salvatore J.
Arrigo, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union, which is the certified bargaining representative of the em-
ployees involved herein, is no longer such representative as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks to decertify a unit of tabulating machine serv-
icemen at the Employer's locations in Syracuse and Elmira, New
York, excluding clerical employees, executives, salesmen, and all su-
pervisors as defined in the Act. The Union contends that the petition
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
a The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
137 NLRB No. 133.