Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 14, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 618 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion area and exercise his influence to see that work is being turned out by the
employees according to schedule.
In view of the foregoing , I find that The F. & S. Company presently is the em-
ployer of the employees in the unit under consideration in the instant case, and
further, that no essential attribute of the employment relationship has changed as a
result of the lease arrangement .7
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
7 Under similar circumstances , where a transfer of ownership was made, after a Board-
directed election , the Board granted the Petitioner 's motion to amend its certificate to con-
form to the identity of the successor employer . Malden Lumber Company, 90 NLRB 1361.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA , INC. and LOCAL 1393 , INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL , PETITIONER
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and LOCAL 135, INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA , INC. and LOCAL 1393 , INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL , PETITIONER
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and UTILITY WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 35-RC-1009,35-
RC-1015,35-RC-1016, and 35-RC-1021 . February 14,1955
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before John W. Hines,
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 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 in Case No. 35-RC-1009.
No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015,
1016, and 1021, for reasons set forth below.
The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged as a public util-
ity in producing electrical energy in the State of Indiana. It pro-
vides services directly to approximately 333,830 consumers in 724
I The IBEW intervened in Cases Nos . 35-RC-1015 and 1021 . The CIO intervened in
Cases Nos . 35-RC-1009 and 1016.
111 NLRB No. 105.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. 619
communities located in 70 counties in Indiana. It also sells electrical
energy to other utilities for resale by them. Most of the energy sold
by the Employer is generated in four main generating stations which
are interconnected by an extensive transmission and distribution
system.
The Employer has bargained with IBEW as representative of cer-
tain of its employees since 1938. In 1944 the IBEW was certified as
the representative of a systemwide unit of all production, construction,
generating, transmission, distribution, operating maintenance, repair
service, and meter reading department employees? In 1950, as a re-
sult of an election directed by the Board, the stores employees were
added to the unit represented by the IBEW.3
The most recent contract between the IBEW and the Employer ex-
pired on May 1, 1954. The petitions involved in this proceeding were
all filed during the course of the negotiations for a new contract. On
April 2,1954, the IBEW filed its petition in Case No. 35-RC-1009, re-
questing that it be certified as the representative of approximately 17
employees classified as A, B, and C technicians, who work in the gen-
erating stations , and who are not included in the certified unit. On
April 29, 1954, the IBEW filed its petition in Case No. 35-RC-1016,
as a result of the Employer's announced intention not to negotiate any
longer with respect to certain classifications of employees, presently
included in the bargaining unit, but whom the Employer contends are
supervisory employees. On April 29, 1954, the Teamsters filed its
petition in Case No. 35-RC-1015, seeking to sever a unit of stores em-
ployees from the certified unit. On May 7,1954, the CIO filed its peti-
tion in Case No. 35-RC-1021, seeking to sever a unit of all generating
station employees from the certified unit.
Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015, 1021: The Teamsters' petition and the
CIO's petition present the same basic issue, namely, whether depart-
mental units may be severed in the face of a long history of bargain-
ing on the basis of a comprehensive systemwide unit of all physical
employees.
The Teamsters seeks to carve out a unit of all senior stockmen, stock-
men, and stockman drivers, located in all storerooms of the Employer.
The Employer operates 39 storerooms. Fifteen of these are in the
charge of storekeepers under whom work senior stockmen and stock-
men. Three stores are manned by senior stockmen and stockmen, 16
stores are manned entirely by senior stockmen, and 4 are manned en-
tirely by stockmen. The Employer also employs two stockman drivers
who are located at general headquarters and who transport materials
to points anywhere in the system. This is basically the same unit as
that involved in Case No. 35-RC-304,4 which resulted in the addition
8 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., 56 NLRB 643.
8 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., 89 NLRB 1253.
6 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., supra.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the stores employees to the systemwide unit represented by the
IBEW. Except for the fact that the Employer no longer employs any
typist clerks in the storerooms and did not at the time of the earlier
case employ any stockman drivers, the operations of the stores divi-
sion has not changed since the Board's decision in the earlier case. The
duties of the typists clerks have been eliminated in part, and in part
have been taken over by senior stockmen or stockmen.
The Teamsters contends that a unit of senior stockmen, stockmen,
and stockmen drivers is appropriate, notwithstanding the past bar-
gaining history on a broader basis, because it is "exactly the same as
that called for in the alternative by the IBEW in 1950. . . . (with
the exception of the typists clerks)," and the only reason why the
Board did not find such a unit to be appropriate in the earlier case
was because the employees in the 1950 election voted for the IBEW,
and thus the Board held that they had indicated a desire to be repre-
sented by the IBEW in the larger unit. The Teamsters points out
that in that election, the stores employees had no opportunity to vote
for a union other than the IBEW, and that they should now be given
such an opportunity. The Teamsters argues that the stores employees
comprise a functionally distinct, homogeneous group of employees con-
stituting an appropriate departmental unit severable from the larger
unit in accordance with the American Potash decision 6
The CIO seeks to carve out a unit of all production and mainte-
nance workers employed in the Employer's generating stations ( includ-
ing the technicians A, B, and C, who are the object of the IBEW's
petition in Case No. 35-RC-1009) and travelling mechanics. In the
alternative the CIO will accept any unit that the Board may deem to
be appropriate.
The CIO contends that the Employer's generating station employees
comprise a functionally distinct, homogeneous group of employees
constituting an appropriate departmental unit which may be severed
from the larger unit if the employees desire. The CIO relies on the
American Potash decision as authority for its position. It argues that
in its decision in that case the Board did not include public utilities
among the industries in which it would not permit severance and there-
fore the decision must be read as permitting severance of craft or
department units from historically established systemwide units in the
utility industry notwithstanding the integrated nature of the industry.
The reliance of the CIO and Teamsters on the American Potash
decision is misplaced. The Board's policy that a systemwide unit in a
public utility is the optimum appropriate unit, is a principle apart
from the National Tube doctrine. Therefore, the American Potash
decision, which sharply limited the application of that doctrine is not
5 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. 621
relevant to a determination of the severance issue in this case which
involves a public utility. However, even assuming the applicability
of the National Tube policy to the utility industry, it is clear that the
American Potash decision was not intended to revise that policy, for
in that decision the Board stated :
However, as we do not deem it wise or feasible to upset a pattern
of bargaining already firmly established, we shall continue to de-
cline to entertain petitions for craft or departmental severance in
those industries in which the Board has already applied National
Tube and where plant-wide bargaining prevails.
Thus it is clear that the question of the appropriateness of the units
sought by the CIO and the Teamsters must be decided in the light
of the Board's established policies with respect to the utility industry.
That policy has clearly been to favor the larger unit over the smaller
unit, and to regard the systemwide unit as the optimum appropriate
unit for collective bargaining.6 Where such a unit has been established
for a considerable period of time as is the case here, we are most re-
luctant to disturb it.' For this reason and because (1) the record
discloses that the Employer's operations, as is typical of the utility
industry generally, are highly integrated, with each phase and each
department dependent upon all others in order for each to carry out
its assigned functions; (2) the Employer's labor relations policies are
centrally controlled; and (3) there exists a definite community of in-
terests between the employees involved in these two petitions and the
other employees in the certified unit, we find that the units sought by
the Teamsters and the CIO are inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall
dismiss their petitions.
Case No. 35-RC-1016: As indicated above, the IBEW filed its peti-
tion in this case as a result of the Employer's announced refusal to
bargain with it concerning employees employed in the classifications
of substation construction foreman A, line foreman A, and control
operator at Noblesville and Wabash River generating stations, load
dispatcher (general headquarters), and load dispatcher (Bedford and
Kokomo). Neither the IBEW nor the Employer desires an election
among these employees or among the employees in the existing certi-
fied unit, and in no other way does the Employer challenge the ma-
jority status of the IBEW or the validity of the existing certification.
We find, therefore, that the petition raises no question concerning rep-
resentation of the Employer's employees and accordingly, shall dis-
miss the petition as such and treat it as a motion to clarify the descrip-
tion of the certified unit.'
6 Potomac Electric Power Company, 107 NLRB 886, Rockland Light & Power Company,
Southern Colorado Power Company, 104 NLRB 926.
9 Southern Colorado Power Company, supra
8 United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, 108 NLRB 52.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing the Employer stated that it intended to place into,
effect new position descriptions covering each of the disputed classi-
fications, which descriptions are designed clearly to set forth the re-
sponsibilities of the employees in the disputed classifications so as to
eliminate all doubt as to their supervisory status. The proposed new
position descriptions carry the title of supervisor, and specify in
unmistakable language that the duties of the individuals herein in-
volved will include the responsibility, inter alia, "for discipline, when
necessary on the job, and for recommending promotions, demotions,.
transfers, discharges or reassignment of employees" under their super-
vision, and in some cases for hiring of employees.
Under these circumstances, it would serve no useful purpose for the
Board to make a determination as to the unit placement of employees
in the disputed classifications, and we make none.' And while we make
no disposition as to the status of these employees when the proposed
new position descriptions go into effect, we note that possession of
authority effectively to recommend promotions, demotions, transfers,
discharges, and hiring of employees, would clearly render them super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, and they would be excluded, as
such, under the terms of the existing certification.
4. Case No. 35-IBC-1009: In this case the IBEW seeks to add 3 tech-
nicians A, 4 technicians B, and 7 technicians C to the existing system-
wide unit which it currently represents. These employees are pres-
ently unrepresented. The CIO intervened in this case in order to pro-
tect its interest in these employees, in the event that the Board directed
an election in a voting group of all generating station employees, con-
tending that in that event the technicians should be included in such a
voting group. The technicians work in the four main generating sta-
tions, under the supervision of an engineer (station efficiency). They
perform manual maintenance and repair of water, steam and air
valves, and make routine analytical tests of coal and water samples.
Technicians C are recruited as high school graduates and advance to
technician B and technician A. The parties are agreed that the tech-
nicians are not technical employees, and may appropriately be added
to a unit which includes the generating station employees with whom
they have a close community of interests. None of the parties desires
an election in the systemwide unit currently represented by the IBEW.
We can find no basis for establishing these employees as an appro-
priate unit by themselves. However, they may be appropriately
added to the existing systemwide unit.10
B Supra
10 The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, American Can Company, 108 NLRB 1209. Though
the CIO indicated that it desired to appear on the ballot if an election were directed
among the technicians A, B, and C, it does not have a petitioner 's showing of interest
among these employees. Therefore without deciding whether the technicians might con-
stitute an appropriate residual unit , were a petitioner to seek to represent them on a sepa-
rate basis , we shall deny the CIO's request to appear on the ballot . Cf. Cadillac Motor
Car Division, 94 NLRB 217 ; Seaboard Machinery Corporation, 98 NLRB 537 ; Boeing Air-
plane Company, 86 NLRB 368.
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA, COMPANY '623
Accordingly we shall direct an election in a voting group consisting
of all technicians A, B, and C employed in the Employer's generating
stations at Dresser, Edwardsport, Noblesville, and Wabash River, in
order to accord these employees an opportunity to express their de-
sires as to whether they wish to be added to the established unit now
represented by the IBEW. If these employees select the IBEW as
their bargaining agent, they will be taken to have indicated a desire
to be included in the existing unit, and the IBEW may bargain for
such employees as part of that unit. If a majority of them vote
against the IBEW they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
remain outside the existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue
a certification of results of election to that effect.
[The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015,
35-RC-1016, and 35-RC-1021.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY and RETAIL FOOD
CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1500 RCIA, AFL, PETITIONER and FOOD
HANDLERS' LOCALS 400 & 489 AND AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS &
RETAIL FOOD STORE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 342, AFFIL. AMALGAMATED
MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF N. A., AFL. Cases Nos.
2-RC-6898, 2-RC-6899, and 2-RC-6900. February 15,1955
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
executed August 3, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on September 15, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Second Region among employees in the stip-
ulated unit. The tally of ballots furnished the parties after the elec-
tion shows the following :
Approximate number of eligible employees ------------------------ 6, 500
Void ballots--------------------------------------------------- 6
Votes cast for Retail Clerks Union , Local 1500 , RCIA-AFL--------- 1, 942
Votes cast for Amalgamated Food Handlers Union , Locals 342, 400,
489, AFL -------------------------------------------------- 2,409
Votes against participating labor organizations ---------------------- 131
Valid votes counted-------------------------------------------- 4,482
Challenged ballots- --------------------------------------------- 210
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------------------------ 4, 692
On September 22, 1954, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con-
duct affecting the results of the election. Pursuant to Board Rules
and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of
the objections, and on December 3, 1954, issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections recommending that the objections
111 NLRB No. 106.