The Connecticut Light and Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 768 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

768 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cern alone' Accordingly, we find that the division clerks are not
supervisors as defined in the Act
Upon the entire record in this case, we are of the opinion that the
division clerks have a sufficient community of interests with the other
employees in- the operating and maintenance unit currently repre-
sented by the Union to warrant their inclusion therein However, as
they have not been represented in the past in the broader bargaining
unit, they are now entitled to a self-determination election for the
purpose of deciding, as a separate group, whether they wish to be rep-
resented by the Union and added to the existing bargaining unit 8
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following group of
employees employed in the Employer's Cincinnati, Ohio, public
transportation system
All division clerks,' excluding all other employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act
If a majority of the employees in this voting group cast their ballots
for the Union, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
be represented by the Union in the existing unit, and the Union may
bargain for such employees as part of that unit If, however, a
majority of the employees in this voting group vote against the Union,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain outside
the existing unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of results of election to that effect
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
7 The Baltimore Transit Company supra, Santee Print Works , 111 NLRB 1362, at
page 1365
The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, as amended , 109 NLRB 312, 862
The parties agree that subelerks who perform some division clerk work, but who
spend a majority of their time driving and who are presently represented by the Union
in the operating and maintenance unit, are not included herein '
The Connecticut Light and Power Company and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No 1-RC-5208 September 4, 1958 ,
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William I Shooer, 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"ita powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [4Iembers Rodgers, `Bean, and J'enkins].
121 NLRB No 94
THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY 769
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to add the Employer's 5 senior load dis-
patchers, 3 load dispatchers, herein called junior load dispatchers, and
a load forecaster, all of whom are unrepresented, to the production
and maintenance unit which it currently represents., The Employer
contends that all the load dispatchers are supervisory or managerial
personnel who do not constitute an appropriate unit, or in the alterna-
tive, that the senior load dispatchers are supervisors. It would, in any
event, also exclude the load forecaster from any unit found
appropriate.
The Employer is a public utility company engaged in the produc-
tion, distribution, and sale of gas and electricity throughout the State
of Connecticut. It operates generating stations, turbine plants, hydro-
stations, and substations and miles of transmission lines. The em-
ployees sought are located at the Employer's main ' office in Berlin,
where there are no generating or transmission facilities. They are in
the load dispatching department, headed by a dispatching superin-
tendent, and their immediate supervisor is the chief load dispatcher.
The senior and junior dispatchers herein were all former production
employees. They are responsible for coordinating all loading opera-
tions throughout the entire system so that the Employer is able to
meet all increased or decreased demands for power by use of the most
economical generating facilities available. They are in constant con-
tact, by telephone, with power station and substation personnel to
whom they give instructions and orders to increase or decrease use of
generating facilities to meet changing demands for power. They are
also in control of emergency curtailment of power and, when advised
of any trouble occurring throughout the system, notify operating per-
sonnel as to the necessity for maintenance or repair work and as to
which lines or units are to be taken out of service and which are to be
opened to supply the demand for current. They also arrange for the
exchange of power with other public utility companies, either to sup-
ply them with power or to obtain additional power to meet increased
demands, and to take advantage of lower costs.
Admittedly, load dispatchers are skilled and experienced in con-
ducting the Employer's operations. However, ,in the.performance
1 The Employer's request for oral argument is denied as the record and briefs adequately
point out the issues and positions of the parties. i
487926-59-vol. 121=50
770 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of their duties they are governed by, and must conform to, a detailed
set of operating rules and procedures promulgated by the Employer
for the coordination of its operations, as well as rules and regulations
established by the State Public Utilities Commission relating to the
safe operation of power transmission. The instructions given by load
dispatchers to employees throughout the system' relate primarily to
regular mechanical operations to be performed in the proper handling
of power and do not cover, and never have covered, the manner in
which the employees perform such daily operations. Although they
make reports of errors committed by employees in carrying out in-
structions, such reports, required by company and State rules and reg-
ulations, constitute but a part of a daily record of activities which also
includes a log of telephone conversations, an account of instructions
given and carried into effect, and of any trouble reported.
We are not convinced that load dispatchers are management em-
ployees as contended by the Employer. Although they receive a
higher salary and are carried on a different payroll from other produc-
tion employees, there is no evidence that they participate in the for-
mulation of company policy matters or in any other manner are closely
allied to management. They exercise no managerial function when
they arrange to obtain power from other companies to take advantage
of lower costs. This is a routine operation and requires no negotia-
tions by the load dispatcher on behalf of the Employer.
In cases involving other power companies the Board has previously
considered the status of load dispatchers who performed similar duties
under circumstances comparable to those of the load dispatchers here
involved and in each instance found, in the absence of authority to
change or effectively recommend the change in status of employees,
that the load dispatchers were not supervisors.' In fact, in all in-
stances where there has been a dispute as to the unit placement of load
dispatchers, the Board has included them in the production and main-
tenance unit.
The Employer contends, however, that all its load dispatchers have
been specifically vested with supervisory authority by its directive
dated April 10, 1958. This directive provides, in effect, that the load
dispatchers have authority to (1) issue orders directly to the em-
ployees who are to carry out the orders; (2) effectively recommend
the discipline, suspension, discharge, or transfer- of anyone assigned
to carry out their orders; and (3) make effective recommendations as
to promotions, demotions, retention, and performance ratings of cer-
2 Employees who receive instructions from load dispatchers are all located outside of
Berlin, as far -as 70 miles away.
!Carolina Power & Light Company, 80 * NLRB 1321 and cases cited therein . Also see
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 97 NLRB 1397 , and Rural Cooperative Power Associa-
tion, 97 NLRB 235.
THE CONNECTICUT LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY 771
tain employees 4 in the field. It provides further that senior load dis-
patchers have the authority effectively to recommend the discipline,
suspension, discharge, transfer, or promotion of junior load dis-
patchers.
We are not convinced that this directive, issued about 1 week
before the hearing, is determinative of the supervisory status of the
load dispatchers. We must consider all the circumstances to deter-
mine whether such supervisory authority actually exists.' It is noted
particularly that, at about the time this directive was issued, the
Employer also revised the job descriptions of its load dispatchers but
did not indicate therein that any employees were to work under their
supervision or that they had the authority effectively to recommend
the change of status of employees. Furthermore, the employees to
whom the load dispatchers issue instructions are under specific local
supervision. Under all the circumstances, we find that the load dis-
patchers do not exercise supervisory authority and are not sufficiently
allied to management to constitute them supervisory or managerial
employees. We find further that load dispatchers constitute an
appropriate voting group which may be included in the existing pro-
duction and maintenance unit, if they so desire.
Nor are we convinced that the senior load dispatchers are super-
visors over the junior load dispatchers. A senior load dispatcher is
on duty at all times, 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, on a rotating
basis. A junior load dispatcher works in the same room with him
during the morning and evening hours when the workload is heaviest.
Although the junior load dispatcher is expected to assist the more
experienced senior load dispatcher in his work, both perform the
identical functions at the same time and are both supervised by the
chief load dispatcher. The relationship of the senior load dispatcher
to the junior load dispatcher is more like that of an experienced crafts-
man to a less experienced employee than that of a supervisor. We
shall therefore include the senior load dispatchers in the voting
group-
A load forecaster works in the same department with the load
dispatchers and under the same supervision. He makes mathemati-
cal computations and calculations from which he prepares statements
of the electric load to be anticipated in the future, usually on a 24-
hour basis. These statements are utilized by the load dispatchers in
the performance of their work. We find, therefore, that the load
forecaster has sufficient interests in common with the load dispatchers,
and shall include him in the voting group.
6 Those classified as control operator, control operating assistant , station operator,
shift electrician , substation operator , and operating attendant.
. 5 See Santee Print Works, 111 NLRB 1362, 1365.
772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
However, as the senior load dispatchers, load dispatchers, and load
forecasters are presently excluded from the bargaining unit, we be-
lieve that they should not now be included without being given an
opportunity, by a self-determination election, to express their desire
to be included in the existing unit or to remain unrepresented.6
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group :
All senior load dispatchers, load dispatchers, and load forecasters
at the Employer's. operations in Berlin, Connecticut, excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group cast their
.ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a part of the existing production and maintenance
unit currently represented by the Petitioner, and the Petitioner may
bargain for such employees as part of that unit. If a majority of
them vote against the Petitioner 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
B The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, as amended 109 NLRB 312 and 862.
Leach Corporation , Inet Division and Local Union 1710, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21=RC-5092. September 4, 1958
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued on April 29,.
1958,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 20,1958, under
the direction and supervision of the acting Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, among the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Compton, California, plant. Following the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties which showed
that of 155 ballots cast, 47 were for the Petitioner, 46 were for the
Intervenor,2 56 were against the participating labor organizations,
and 6 were challenged. _
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investiga-
tion of the challenges and thereafter, on July 2, 1958, issued and duly
served on the parties a report on challenges. In his report, the Re-
Not published. _
2 International Association of Machinists , District Lodge No. 94, Local Lodge No. 311,
AFL-CIO.
121 NLRB No. 99.