Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1971

194 N.L.R.B. 469 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY 469
Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company and Interna-
tional Chemical Workers Union, Petitioner. Case
7-RC-10424
December 8, 1971
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On May 12, 1971, the Regional Director for Region
7 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the
above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appro-
priate the requested unit of production and mainte-
nance employees in the Employer' s Big Rapids,
Michigan, District. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's Deci-
sion, on the grounds, inter alia, that in reaching his
unit determination he made findings of fact which are
clearly erroneous and he departed from officially
reported precedent.
The National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic
order dated June 9, 1971, granted the request for
review and stayed the election pending decision on
review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of prod-
uction and maintenance employees in the Big Rapids
District of the Employer's gas pipeline system. The
same group of employees was found to constitute an
appropriate unit in an earlier proceeding.' The
Regional Director found, notwithstanding certain
operational and administrative changes which the
Employer has made since 1966, that the requested
unit remained appropriate. The Employer contends
that he erred in so finding and that only a systemwide
unit of its employees is appropriate at this time.
The Employer supplies natural gas to 53 public
utility companies located along its pipeline. The facts
pertaining to the Employer's pipeline operations are
set forth in detail in the Regional Director's attached
Decision. As below indicated, since 1966 the Employ-
er has made changes in its operations which have a
bearing on the appropriateness of the Petitioner's unit
request.
When the earlier proceeding was instituted, as
pointed out in the Board's Decision therein, the
Employer's compressor department was subdivided
into four divisions, each headed by a superintendent.
The Woolfolk compressor station was one of seven
within the Muncie, Indiana, division; the Reed City
compressor station, which, together with the two
closely related Loreed and Michigan Stray storage
fields, had recently been acquired, was controlled
directly by the department superintendent at Detroit
headquarters. The pipeline department on the other
hand, was subdivided into six divisions each of which
was further divided into districts. The Big Rapids
pipeline district was one of three in the Grand Rapids
division. The Board there noted that, "because of the
Employer's method of subdividing its operating
departments , to accomodate supervisory load, it
would be impossible to establish any major adminis-
trative subdivision of the system in which the
geographic bounds of compressor and pipeline
divisions would coincide, short of the entire pipeline
system." 2 This circumstance, together with other
factors set forth in its Decision, particularly the facts
that the requested employees worked in a distinct
geographic area, that the storage fields performed a
unique function within the system, and that there was
no record evidence of significant interchange of
employees between that area and other segments of
the system, persuaded the Board that the requested
unit was an appropriate one.
Since 1966, as indicated in the Regional Director's
Decision, the Employer has created six major subdivi-
sions of its pipeline system called Areas. Most of the
Areas are further subdivided into Districts. Under the
present administrative scheme, the requested employ-
ees are grouped in the Big Rapids District, one of
three districts in the Detroit Area. Their immediate
supervisors apparently remain the same as before.
However, the Area manager, together with one or
more assistants and the District managers, now
provides intermediate level supervision for the day-to-
day operations necessary to implement policies
established by the Detroit headquarters office and to
carry out instructions received from the dispatch
office in Detroit. Within the Area, the District
managers may among themselves coordinate inter-
changes of employees; interchanges between Areas
are cleared through the Area manager.
The Big Rapids District has a complement of
approximately 100 employees: 34 maintenance men,
32 storage field operators, 25 station operators, 5
truckdrivers, 2 machinists, and 2 welders.3 The
facilities within the district include 2 compressor
stations, 269 miles of pipelines interconnecting the
I Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 164 NLRB 359, issued May 4, 3 The Hamilton and La Grange Districts of the Detroit Area have 56
1967. and 51 employees , respectively . Each of these districts has a heavy
2 Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line, supra, 360, fn. 8. equipment operator , a classification not found in the Big Rapids District.
194 NLRB No. 76
470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
storage fields and the compressor stations, 25 meter
stations, and 809 well connections. Most of these
facilities and employee classifications are found in all
Area subdivisions of the system. The well connections
in the storage and supply fields within the Big Rapids
District are similar to those found in the producing
areas at the southern extremities of the system.4 The
classification of "storage field operator" and
"machinist," found only in the Big Rapids District,
were utilized by the Employer's predecessor, Michi-
gan Consolidated Gas Company, when it operated the
fields. When the Employer acquired the facilities, it
retained the predecessor's employee classifications,
and has continued to use those classifications, despite
the fact that many of their duties and skills are similar
to those of its maintenance men.5
The Employer introduced evidence relating to the
frequency of temporary interchange of employees in
and out of the Big Rapids District since 1967. As
stated by the Regional Director, this evidence shows,
for the year 1970, that there were 109 instances6 of
transfers out, mainly to other Districts in the Detroit
Area, involving 16 employees; and there were 68
instances of transfers in, almost wholly from other
Districts in the Detroit Area, involving 13 employees.?
We are persuaded, in view of the above-described
administrative and operational changes which have
occurred since 1966, that the Board's Decision in 164
NLRB 359 is not controlling herein. In reaching this
conclusion, we attach significance to the changed
circumstance that the Big Rapids District, which now
4 We note, however, that within the Big Rapids District there is an
active oil field where the Employer is engaged in producing oil, removing
the gas , and processing the gas into propane and butane. It states that these
operations will come to an end in approximately 2 years when the oil is
depleted.
5 Examination of the statistics and employee interchange discussed
below reveals that storage field operators were temporarily transferred out
of the District in 43 instances , i.e., for 43 workdays, out of a total of 109
encompasses the requested employees, is one of the
three Districts in the Detroit Area, a major adminis-
trative-subdivision of the pipeline system. We also
note that the operations of the Employer are more
highly integrated than most utilities. As a source of
supply for a number of utility companies which
distribute gas to consumers in the areas they serve, the
Employer through its Detroit headquarters monitors
and regulates closely the flow of gas through its
pipeline system to insure the availability of gas to
meet the needs of those companies at all times. For
this reason, in establishing a bargaining unit for
pipeline employees, we are reluctant to fragmentize
them, absent compelling circumstances. Finally, the
present records shows that day-to-day supervision of
Big Rapids District employees is closely coordinated
with supervision of other Districts, especially those
within the Detroit Area, and that, concomitant with
such coordinated supervision, there is a significant
degree of employee interchange both in and out of the
Big Rapids District.
We therefore find, contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor, that the requested unit limited to Big Rapids
District employees is inappropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.8 Accordingly, we shall dismiss
the instant petition.9
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
instances of such transfers during 1970, and on many of those occasions
they performed the duties of maintenance men.
6 Each instance is a workday , of varying numbers of hours.
7 The transfers varied in duration from I to 10 workdays.
8 Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, 96 NLRB 1385.
9 We find it unnecessary herein to pass on the Employer 's contention
that the only appropriate unit for the requested employees is systemwide in
scope.