Rural Cooperative Power Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 235 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

RURAL COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION 235
RURAL COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER and LOCAL
UNION No. 160, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, A. F. OF L.1
RURAL COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER and LOCAL
UNION No. 160, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, A. F. OF L.
RURAL COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION and LOCAL UNION No. 160,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. OF L.,,
PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 18-RM-84, 18-RM-85, and 18-RC-1193.
November 30,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held on September 19 and
20, 1951, before Max Rotenberg, 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a Minnesota corporation with its office and
principal place of business located at Elk River, Minnesota. The
Employer generates its own electricity for sale to its 6 member co-
operatives which, in turn, serve approximately 22,000 customers in
Minnesota.
During the year 1950, the Employer's sales totaled $1,000,000.
During the same year, its purchases of supplies amounted to $600,000,
of which over 80 percent was shipped indirectly to the Employer from
points outside the State of Minnesota.
Contrary to the Employer's contention, we find that the Employer is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Acts We find, fur-
I Herein called Local 160.
2 The Employer contends that the Petitioner did not make an adequate showing of inter-
est. The Board has consistently held that a showing of interest is an administrative
matter not subject to challenge by the parties. East Texas Steel Castings Company, 95
NLRB 1135.
'Local 160 offered as an exhibit a 1947 decision of the United States district court
wherein it was held that one of the member cooperatives of the Employer was engaged
in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act. As the Board's
jurisdiction is based on a commerce definition different from that contained in the Fair
Labor Standards Act, we find, apart from any other considerations, that the hearing officer
properly rejected the proffered exhibit . Cf. The Plumbing Contractors Association of Balti-
more, Maryland, Inc ., et at., 93 NLRB 1081; Earl McMillian, 81 NLRB 639.
97 NLRB No. 41.
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ther, that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in these cases:'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Local 160 seeks a system-wide unit 6 of all maintenance men, load
dispatchers, Diesel operators, linemen, groundmen, auto mechanics,
stockmen, timekeepers, Diesel oilers, shift engineers, first operators,
firemen, fireman helpers, coal and ash handlers, electricians, communi-
cations men, janitors and all other hourly rated employees at the Em-
ployer's generating stations and dispatching points at Elk River,
Cambridge, Hawick, Maple Lake, Milaca, Pine City, and North
Branch, Minnesota, excluding office employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act.7 The Employer takes the contrary position that
each plant constitutes a separate appropriate unit." Thus in Cases
Nos. 18-RM-84 and 18-RM-85, respectively, the Employer is petition-
ing for single-plant units at Pine City and Milaca. Only these two
plants, which were purchased from another company in 1947,9 have a
history of collective bargaining.10
The Employer's operations are highly integrated and interdepend-
ent. A general manager, whose headquarters are located at the home
office in Elk River, has under his direction the managers of each of the
Employer's plants. The latter have the authority to hire, discipline,
and discharge employees. They are also consulted by the home office
concerning pay raises, vacations, and other benefits. However, the
final decision on these and other matters rests with the home office,
which formulates all major policies, including those dealing with labor
relations. Elk River sets production requirements and determines
'work schedules and the number of employees for each plant. Major
purchasing, general accounting, and responsibility for plant expan-
sion contracts are also centralized at the main office. There is one
4 Cherokee County Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 92 NLRB 1181; W. C. King,
4/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623
6 The Employer 's contention that Local 160 is disqualified from . acting as bargaining agent
for its employees because Local 160 already represents the employees of a competing com-
pany is without merit We therefore affirm the hearing officer's rejection of the Employer's
offer of proof in this connection . Missouri Service Company, 87 NLRB 1142.
0 The description of the unit sought by Local 160 appears as amended at the hearing.
7 Elk River has a steam plant ; North Branch is a metering point ; the remaining locations
'have Diesel plants
"The Employer offered as an exhibit a letter by certain employees of the Pine City plant
addressed to the Board, dated November 27, 1950 , for the purpose of showing the employees'
preference for a separate election confined to their plant . As we pass upon the propriety of
-single-plant units infra, no prejudice resulted from the hearing officer 's rejection of the
proffered exhibit
o The other plants were built by the Employer at various times between 1941 and 1950.
10 A consent election held at the Cambridge plant was lost by Local 160 in 1950 ( Case No.
18-RC-584).
RURAL COOPERATIVE POWER ASSOCIATION 237
payroll for the whole system which is prepared from data provided
by the individual plants.
Job classifications are substantially the same throughout the Em-
ployer's system.", Employees in similar categories enjoy the same
benefits and receive the journeyman rate of pay with some adjustments
for greater skill and experience. Although employees are not ordi-
narily interchanged between the plants except in cases of emergency,
a Maple Lake construction crew during most of 1950 traveled to vari-
ous areas where they erected substations. 'Similarly, telephone con-
struction employees from the Cambridge plant and the Elk River
welder have been doing work in other locations 12
We have frequently stated that system-wide units are normally the
most appropriate bargaining units for employees of public utilities.'3
This is particularly true where, as here, the Employer's operations are
highly integrated and interdependent in character and a labor organ-
ization is prepared to represent the employees on a system-wide basis.
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the factors in sup-
port of a system-wide unit for the Employer's employees outweigh
the bargaining history on a less comprehensive scale. Accordingly, as
no cogent reason 14 exists in these cases for departing from the Board's
established policy, we find that the following system-wide unit is
appropriate for collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All maintenance men, load dispatchers, Diesel operators, linemen,
groundmen, auto mechanics, stockmen, timekeepers, Diesel oilers, shift
engineers, first operators, firemen, fireman helpers, coal and ash han-
dlers, electricians, communications men, janitors, and all other hourly
rated employees at the Employer's generating stations, warehouses,'-,
and dispatching points at Elk River, Cambridge, Hawick, Maple Lake,
Milaca, Pine City, and North Branch, Minnesota, excluding office
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
11 However, there is some variation chiefly at Elk River because It is a steam rather than
a Diesel plant.
12 The Employer states that it Is transferring the welder to another job in Elk River and
expects to complete the telephone construction work within 30 to 60 days from the date of
the hearing.
1a Elizabethtown Consolidated Gas Company, 93 NLRB 1270. Pacific Gas and Electric-
Company, 87 NLRB 257. Niagara Hudson Power Corporation, 79 NLRB 1115.
34 The Employer contends that if a system-wide unit is permitted , Elk River employees-
as the largest single group would dominate the unit. The Employer also argues that such
a unit is impractical because it would necessitate holding union meetings at a central loca-
tion. We find no merit in these contentions . California-Pacific Utilities Company, 93
NLRB 747.
"Although there was no specific request for the Inclusion of employees in the ware-
houses, we are including them in the unit because it appears from the record that their
Interests are related to those of the other employees in the unit.