Southwest Gas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 4, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 486 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Southwest Gas Corporation and Laborers ' Internation-
al Union of North America, Local 1234 , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case -31-RC-2103
October 4, 1972
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND PENELLO
On July 5, 1972, the Regional Director for Region
31 issued his Decision and Order in the above-entitled
proceeding, in which he found inappropriate the re-
quested unit confined in scope to employees in the
Employer's Southern California Division. Thereafter,
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the
Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Re-
gional Director's Decision, on the ground that the
Regional Director departed from officially reported
precedent.
The National Labor Relations Board, by tel-
egraphic order dated August 9, 1972, granted the re-
quest for review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Petitioner contends that the Regional Direc-
tor, in denying the request for a unit confined to one
of the Employer's three retail gas distribution divi-
sions , erroneously distinguished United Gas.'
The Employer is a public utility engaged in the
retail sale of natural gas in the Southwestern United
States. It has its headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada,
and has subdivided its operations into three adminis-
trative divisions: Southern California, Nevada, and
Arizona. The Southern California Division obtains its
natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric Company
at a delivery point in southern California. The Ne-
vada and Arizona Divisions obtain their natural gas
from El Paso Gas Company.
The Employer's Las Vegas main office performs
the following functions for the entire system: billing,
general accounting, recordkeeping, accounts receiva-
ble, payroll, collections, administrative services, in-
surance, and customer relations. It also establishes
marketing policies and design engineer and construc-
tion standards. Items of equipment whose cost is over
l 190 NLRB No. 123
$100 are purchased centrally and shipped by the man-
ufacturer directly to the division. Las Vegas personnel
visit the divisions and retrain employees if a new tech-
nique is to be instituted.
Each division is administered by its own division
manager and has its own supervisory hiearchy. The
Southern California Division has a complete staff of
construction, customer service, office, sales, engineer-
ing, warehouse, and meter reader employees. The di-
vision managers make decisions to hire and discipline
their own employees. However, except in emergen-
cies , all hiring requires the ultimate approval of the
Las Vegas office. The divisions have different salary
levels for the same job classifications, as salaries are
based on the division's cost of living index. All em-
ployees have similar fringe benefits. If a division man-
ager needs additional employees in a particular job
classification, he requests of the Las Vegas office, and
in most instances is granted, the permission to hire
them. The record is unclear as to whether the division
manager can discharge employees without Las Vegas
approval. Efficiency tests, although developed by Las
Vegas, are given to employees by the divisions.
The Employer fills job vacancies on the basis of
systemwide job bidding. When a vacancy occurs in
any division the information is sent to the other two
divisions and all employees then have an opportunity
to bid on the vacancy. Of the Southern California
Division's 62 employees, 13 have transferred or bid
into the division. Temporary assignments between di-
visions are limited to emergencies or unusually large
promotional campaigns. Since January 1971, there
have been two such emergencies. The record does not
contain evidence of any other instances of temporary
transfers.
Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that
United Gas is controlling herein. In so concluding we
rely especially on the facts that the employees in the
requested unit constitute a separate administrative
subdivision of the Employer's retail natural gas sys-
tem, that the division managers have a substantial
degree of autonomy in controlling the day-to-day op-
erations of the division, that there is a lack of tempo-
rary interchange of employees except for emergencies,
and that there is no recent history of bargaining on a
broader basis 2 and no union seeks to represent a sys-
temwide unit. Moreover, there is no indication that a
work stoppage in one division would have a substan-
tial impact on the operations of the other divisions
due to the Southern California Division's complete
staff and its separate source of natural gas.
2 The Regional Director noted that there is an apparent history of collec-
tive bargaining; the record indicates that, in a colloquy between the attorneys
for the parties and the Hearing Officer, the Employer's attorney stated that
there has been bargaining on a companywide basis by an association, but was
unable to answer the Hearing Officer's question on when the bargaining
occurred.
199 NLRB No. 77
SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION
Accordingly, we find that following employees of
the Employer have a sufficient community of interest
to constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of 9(b) of the
Act:
All employees of the Employer employed at its
487
Southern California Division, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, watchmen, profes-
sional employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Direction of election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]