Southern California Water Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1977

228 N.L.R.B. 1296 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southern California Water Company and Utility
Workers Union of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 31-RC-3647
April 7, 1977
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Carlos
Zaragoza. Pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, this
case was transferred by direction of the Acting
Regional Director for Region 31 to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the
Employer and the Petitioner each filed a brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding the
Board finds:
1. The parties stipulated and we find that the
Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Utility Workers Union of America, AFL,
CIO, seeks a unit limited to the approximately 64
employees in the Employer's Metropolitan Division;
the Employer contends that the only appropriate unit
is systemwide in scope, consisting of about 195
employees. Other than the issue of unit scope, there
is no disagreement as to what employee classifica-
tions or which individuals should be included within
the unit.
Southern California Water Company is a public
utility engaged primarily in the sale and distribution
of water and electricity to residences and commercial
establishments in 10 counties and 60 to 70 incorpo-
rated cities in California. It is administratively
organized into several departments including engi-
neering, personnel, purchasing, data processing,
accounting, rate and valuation, and operations, each
of which is headed by a high management official.
The operations department, headed by Vice Presi-
dent Roscoe Anthony, is involved in expansion and
replacement of equipment and facilities, operation of
the system, and restoration of interrupted service.
The department consists of 16 water districts, an
electric district, and a construction crew; the 16
water districts are variously combined into 4 divi-
sions. The most distant districts are approximately
700 miles apart. Over the years the divisions have
been created, dissolved, and altered, and districts
have been shifted from one division to another. The
most recent reorganizations stem from the Employ-
er's acquisition of another company, California
Cities Water Company. The Metropolitan Division,
which operates in and around Los Angeles, consists
of the Southwest and the Central Basin Districts.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the employees in
the Metropolitan Division, specifically the service-
men, customer service representatives, assistant
service foremen, and service foremen. This is the
same unit that voted in a Board election a year prior
to the instant petition. In Southern California Water
Company, 220 NLRB 482 (1975),1 the Board found
that, although the district did not form the basis of
an appropriate unit, the division did. The Employer
contends that the decision is not controlling because
the issue was not fully litigated in that proceeding
and because the Employer's operations have
changed.
The operations of public utilities generally are
highly centralized. The Employer is no exception. It
has central warehousing, purchasing, accounting,
personnel records, and payroll. Working rules, hours,
wages, and benefits are uniform, or nearly so,
throughout the Employer's operations. In addition, it
now has, as it had not previously, a central system of
job posting and bidding. Vice President Anthony
must approve purchases in excess of $15 or $20. He
approves all hiring, discharges, and formal written
discipline. Anthony is in regular telephone and radio
contact with division and district managers. He tries
to meet with each division manager once a week. Of
course, he also regularly checks various written
reports.
Although the Employer maintains central job
posting, division managers and district managers
interview most applicants and make recommenda-
tions to Anthony which are generally followed. The
actual hiring takes place at the district level. District
and division managers play similar roles in promo-
The transcript of that proceeding was included as an exhibit herein.
228 NLRB No. 170
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY 1297
tions and discipline. They make recommendations
which are generally followed. Division and district
managers play a substantial role over minor disci-
plinary matters within their divisions and districts.
Division managers can approve emergency overtime.
The number of transfers into or out of the division
is not substantial. There have been four permanent
transfers in the past year. Temporary transfers are
more common, occurring once a week on average.2
Because of the inherent integration and interdepen-
dence of operations in public utilities, the Board has
considered the systemwide unit to be optimal for
bargaining in public utilities.3 However, it has also
been Board policy to permit the establishment of a
unit less than systemwide in scope, where the
employees requested have no history of bargaining
on a broader basis,4 work in a distinct administrative
or geographic subdivision, and enjoy a community of
interest sufficient to make separate bargaining for
them a feasible undertaking.5 In the instant case, the
record shows that the Metropolitan Division is both
an administratively and geographically distinct
subdivision of the Employer. In addition, the division
and district managers have substantial autonomy in
2 Member Fanning views permanent transfers as normally made at the
request of the employee involved, thus of little significance on the issue of
unit scope He notes that, according to its brief, the Employer facilitates
permanent transfers by its "formal systemwide job posting and bidding
system " Temporary transfers-the stuff of which true interchange is
made-are referred to by the Employer as "principally ordered" by it when
the need arises , such as illness , vacation, and special project
their authority over day-to-day operations including
hiring, promotions, and discipline. As found in the
previous case , supra, and not disputed herein, the
Employer's operations are not so functionally inte-
grated that a cessation of work in one division would
cause a systemwide shutdown of operations. Bargain-
ing at the division level is patently feasible. On the
other hand, the large distance between the further-
most districts would make organization and bargain-
ing at the systemwide level difficult. Therefore, we
find that the employees sought constitute a separate
distinct unit for the purpose of collective-bargaining.
Accordingly, we shall follow the previous decision
and direct an election in the Metropolitan Division.
The following unit of employees is appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer in its
Metropolitan Division, excluding guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
3 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co, 115 NLRB 1396 (1956)
4 There is no history of collective bargaining for water distribution
employees on the district, division, or systemwide level
5 Connecticut Light and Power Company, 222 NLRB 1243 (1976)