Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 20, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1151 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC.,
EMPLOYER and UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
Case No. 35-RC-366.-Decided October 20, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
Seymour Goldstein, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members.
Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain. em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of'the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer at its Charlestown, Indiana, generating
station, including storeroom employees,2 excluding office employees,
chief operators and supervisors, guards, and professional employees
within the meaning of the Act. Both the Employer and the Inter-
venor oppose the units sought herein on the ground that only a
system-wide unit of all production and maintenance employees is
1 At the hearing, Local Union No. 1393, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,.
AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene on the basis of a con-
tractual interest in this proceeding . However, the contract which was executed subsequent
to the filing of the petition was not urged as a bar.
' The Board recently found appropriate a system -wide unit of all storeroom employees
of the Employer . See Public Service Company of Indiana , Inc., 89 NLRB 1253.
91 NJRB No. 185.
1151
1152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate." They urge, therefore, that the petition herein be dis-
missed. For reasons hereinafter stated, we agree with this contention.
The Employer, an Indiana corporation, 'is engaged as a public
utility in producing and distributing electric energy in the State of
Indiana. Electricity is generated in four main generating stations
located at Dresser, Edwardsport, and Charlestown, Indiana, as well
as a new station now under construction at Noblesville, Indiana, and
is subsequently transmitted and distributed to various consumers in
its operating area. Since 1934, the Intervenor has been the recog-
nized bargaining representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees on a system-wide basis.
The Petitioner here seeks only the,employees at the generating sta-
tion at Charlestown, Indiana. In support of its position, the Peti-
tioner contends that the Charlestown, Indiana, station has never been
part of the system-wide unit; that the Employer's employees have
not been covered by the collective bargaining agreements in the past;
and that they have not been represented by the Intervenor.
The record shows that the Charlestown generating station was
leased from the United States Government by the Employer late in
1948, and that for approximately 6 months thereafter it was being
established as part of the over-all operating system of the Employer.'
Because of certain language embodied in the contract between the
Employer and the Intervenor, a doubt arose as to whether or not this
recent acquisition was an operating utility property and therefore
within the terms of the collective bargaining agreements However,
the Employer now concedes that this is a permanent portion of its
system and made it known to the Intervenor that it considered these
employees as permanent employees and therefore within the bargain-
ing unit. The history of collective bargaining shows that the utility
properties previously acquired by the Employer were subsequently
absorbed and made a part of the collective bargaining unit by both
the Employer and the Intervenor.
The Employer's business is carried on as a highly integrated and
interdependent system of operation. All policies regarding dis-
charges, layoffs, recalls, transfers, promotions, and physical qualifi-
$ The Intervenor is representing all of the other production and maintenance employees
on a system-wide unit basis, and is willing to represent these employees in the over-all
unit.
4 During this period the Employer was in doubt as to whether this station was a
temporary or a permanent acquisition.
6 Article I, Section 3, of the contract provides : "If the Company at any time shall
acquire an operating utility property, and a majority of the employees thereof, who are at
such times working in the classifications listed in this agreement or engaged in performing
the same class of work as union employees shall desire the Union to represent them, and
such representation is not in conflict with any contractual obligations taken over by the
Company in connection with such acquisition, then by supplemental agreement hereto such
employees shall become union employees."
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. 1153
cations for employment, are all conceived, developed, and executed
by the Central Employment Committee located at the main office in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Furthermore, all hiring is done either di-
rectly or indirectly through the Committee after all the physical
qualifications have been met.
The energy which the Employer distributes to its customers is pro-
duced at its generating stations, and from there is channeled to main
centers of distribution- by means of a system of transmission lines with
which the generating plants are all interconnected. The generating
and transmission systems are all operated, directed, and supervised
by the chief engineer and his staff.6 A failure of any generating plant
in the, system would require an over-all system reduction affecting all
customers in Indiana. Employees who are required to maintain the
distributing lines in the Charlestown plant and the substation facilities
located on its grounds are not permanently located at the Charlestown
plant but are part of a roving power system group who do that work
and are under the, supervision of the chief engineer at the main office.?
Upon the basis of the facts set forth above, including the fact that
there is a long history of collective bargaining on a system-wide basis,
and the fact that the Employer's utility system is highly integrated
and interdependent, we find that the unit sought herein is inappro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining." Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein, be , and it hereby is,
dismissed.
The chief engineer is located at the Indianapolis office. '
a These maintenance crews operate out of either Jeffersonville or New Albany, Indiana,
a distance of approximately 30 miles from the Charlestown station.
See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257; Pacific Telephone f Telegraph
Co., 85 NLRB 713; LaClede Gas Light Company, 77 NLRB 354; West Texas Utilities
Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 192; Cf. Kentucky Utilities Company, 81 NLRB 1006.