Philadelphia Gas Works Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 638 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT , AFL, PETITIONER
Case No.4^.-R-2568.-Decided July 25, 19/7
Mr. Charles Riegel, of Philadelphia, Pa.; for the Employer.
Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. F. N. Ker-
shaw, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. L. Halpern Miller, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Intervenor.
Mr,-. A. Suiimner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held at Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, on May 6, 7, 8 and 9, 1947, before Helen F.
Humphrey, 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
Philadelphia Gas Works Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, has
its principal office and place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of gas,
and the sale and distribution of gas appliances and equipment. In
the course of these operations, the Employer uses annually raw mate-
rials consisting of gas, coal, coke, and oil of value exceeding $6,000,000,
of which approximately 9 percent of the coal and coke is shipped to
the Employer's Philadelphia plant from points outside the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania. The Employer also uses annually in the
course of its operations, various supplies, supply parts, and equipment
having a value in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 57 per-
cent is shipped to it from points outside the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania.
74 N. L R B., No. 125
638
PHILADELPHIA GAS WORKS COMPANY 639
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.1
Gas Works Employees Union, herein called the Intervenor, is an
unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a physical unit of production, distribution
and maintenance employees, excluding clerical and supervisory em-
ployees. The Employer, supported by the Intervenor, contends that
the proposed unit is inappropriate in that it excludes clerical em-
ployees, contrary to the unit established by the history of collective
bargaining between the Employer and the Intervenor. In addition,
the Intervenor. contends that the proposed unit is inconsistent with
Board policy in regard to units of employees in public utilities par-
ticularly as set forth in certain decisions of the Board involving the
power and light industry.2
The evidence reveals that since 1937, following a consent election,
the Intervenor has represented the employees of the Employer under
a series of contracts in a unit including both physical and clerical
employees. As in all public utilities, the work of the physical em-
ployees in the present instance is closely integrated with that of the
clerical employees. There is abundant evidence in the record to the
effect that there exists a community of interest among the physical
and clerical employees from a social and econoinic point of view.
The record also discloses that there has been a considerable amount
of interchange between physical and clerical employees. While we
have on occasion found appropriate units of physical employees in
a public utility apart from clerical employees,3 we are of the opinion
that in the present proceeding the long history of collective bargain-
ing, the high degree of integration in the Employer's operations, the
substantial interchange between clerical and physical employees, and
I The Intervenor contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization, by reason of
the fact that it does not aduut employees directly to membeiship therein This contention
has been frequently rejected by the Board See Matter of Hall Level & Manufacturing
Works, 72 N L R B 165.
2 See Matter of Pennsylvania Edison Company, 36 N L R B 432; Matter of Pennsyl-
vania Power cC Ltght Company, 64 N L R. B 874
a See Matter of Boston Edison Company, 51 N L R B. 118 ; Matter of Indianapolis
Power & Light Company, 51 N L R B 670.
755420-48-vol 74-42
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the undisputed community of interest among both groups of em-
ployees, require a finding that only a unit of physical and clerical
employees is appropriate within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.5 Accordingly, we find that the unit proposed by the Petitioner
is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we
shall dismiss the petition.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition
is inappropriate , as stated in Section III, supra , we find that no ques-
tion concerning representation of employees of the Employer within
an appropriate unit has arisen within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and the entire
record in this proceeding, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives of employees of Philadelphia Gas Works Company, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, filed by Metal Trades Department, A. F. of L.,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
4 See Matter of Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, supra.