The Housatonic Public Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 877 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE HOUSATONIC PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 877
THE HOUSATONIC PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, PETITIONER and UTIL-
ITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. O. AND LOCAL 404, AND
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERIIOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
UNION 1817, AFL. Case No. 1-RM-198. March 7, 1955
Decision and Order
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 hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Both Unions contend that no question of representation exists
in this case. The petitioning Employer is a merger of three corpora-
tions : The Derby Gas and Electric Light Company , The Wallingford
Gas Light Company, and The Danbury & Bethel Gas and Electric
Light Company. The merger was consummated in December 1953.
Before that a holding company owned all the stock of the three com-
panies. The president of the new corporation held the presidency
or a directorship in each of the original corporations . The new
corporation continues to serve the same Connecticut areas, with its
main office at Derby and district managers in each of the original
three areas . The Utility Workers was certified to represent employees
in units at Derby and at Wallingford in 1952 and 1953 respectively;
the IBEW was certified for a unit of Danbury employees in 1953.
Three contracts covering those units expired in 1954. The Unions
seek to continue representation of the same employees , but neither
seeks to represent employees represented by the other . The Employer,
however, wishes to consolidate the unit and bargain on a systemwide
basis. It urges the Board's customary finding that systemwide units
are the "most" appropriate for public utilities , and emphasizes its
centralized management and supervision , as well as plans to build its
own electric power plant to supply all three areas . The Unions urge
that there has been no change of operation at the working level since
the merger , therefore there is no reason to disturb the existing units
which conform to operating divisions.
Although systemwide industrial units have been considered by the
Board the optimum in public utility cases , the Board finds units of
lesser scope appropriate and particularly so when no labor organiza-
111 NLRB No 144
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion seeks to represent the employees on a systemwide basis.' It is.
clear that either the systemwide unit or the existing divisional units
may be appropriate in this case.2 However, inasmuch as neither
Union wishes to represent a systemwide unit, and no party desires an
election in the respective divisional units now existing, we find that no
question concerning representation of employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) exists.'
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. In our view of this case
it is unnecessary to pass upon the Unions' contention that their par-
ticipation in the AFL-CIO No-Raiding Agreement of June 10, 1954,
should be treated as a contract bar.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 See Philadelphia Electric Company, 110 NLRB 320; Florida Telephone Corporation,
92 NLRB 1696, at footnote 4.
1 See Montana-Dakota Utilities Co, 110 NLRB 1056; Upper Peninsula Power Company,
110 NLRB 1082
3 See Pennsylvania Electric Company, 110 NLRB 1078.
EXTRAL CORPORATION and SHOPMEN 'S LOCAL UNION No. 698 , INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON WORKERS, AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 10-1C-2925. ['larch
7,1975
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 Allen Sinsheimer, Jr.,
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 a Florida corporation engaged at its plant in
Miami, Florida, in the manufacture of aluminum extrusions. Since
it began operations in February 1954, it has sold goods valued at
$135,814.47 to Superior Window Company, located in Miami. The
latter company, which had direct out-of-State shipments in excess of
$50,000 in 1953, directly utilizes the products of the Employer in the
manufacture of casement windows, projected windows, and jalousies.
Accordingly, as it appears that the Employer's sales meet the indirect
outflow standard as recently announced in the Jonesboro Grain Drying
Cooperative' case, we find that the Employer is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction.
1 110 NLRB 481.
111 NLRB No. 143.