The Insco Systems Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1975

217 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

THE INSCO SYSTEMS CORPORATION
The Insco Systems Corporation a andLocal 68, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers; AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 22-RC-6158
March 20, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO
On October 11, 1974, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 22 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he
found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit lim-
ited to six heating and air-conditioning operators
(hereinafter AC operators) employed at the Employer's
Neptune, New Jersey, facility, rejecting the Employer's
contention that the appropriate unit must encompass
all employees in the Employer's building operations
department at that location. Thereafter, in accordance
with- Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the Acting
Regional Director's decision on the grounds, inter alia,
that in making his unit determination he departed from
precedent and made findings of fact which are clearly
erroneous.
The Board, by telegraphic order dated December 12,
1974, granted the request for review with respect to the
Acting Regional Director's unit finding and stayed the
election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the
Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs on 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
proceeding, including the briefs on review filed by both
parties, with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Employer is engaged in the business of providing
data processing and systems services at its Neptune,
New Jersey, facility. The building operations depart-
ment, which is under the supervision of Facilities Su-
perintendent Viscido,' consists of approximately 32
employees, including the 6 AC operators, 1 trainee,
approximately 16 custodians, 7 or 8 security
employees,2 1 maintenance mechanic, and 1 electri-
cian. There is no history of collective bargaining. The
Acting Regional Director, relying largely on the nature
1 The Board in its ruling on the Employer's request for review affirmed
the Acting Regional Director's finding that one of the AC operators, D'O-
nofrio, is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act However, the record
reveals D'Onofrio's supervisory authority is not limited to the AC operators.
2In its brief on review the Employer concedes that the security employees
are guards within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded from the
unit found appropriate.
1
of the AC operator's duties, i.e., performing air-condi-
tioning and boiler functions, and their required special-
ized training, found that they constitute a separate,
functionally homogeneous group and thus form an ap-
propriate unit. Based upon our review of the record, we
disagree.
The record discloses that the requested AC operators,
are primarily responsible for the operation and mainte-
nance of the Employer's heating and air-conditioning
equipment, which includes two automatic low pressure
boilers, two chillers, and eight- water pumps all of
which are located in the boiler room; fans and blowers,
located in the air-conditioning room; return fans
located in a separate room; exhaust fans located on the
roof; duct work in the ceilings throughout the Em-
ployer's building; and a cooling tower located 10-20
yards from the Employer's building. AC operators
make minor repairs to the above equipment but major
repairs are performed by outside contractors. They also
check thermostats throughout the Employer's building
and make hourly inspections of a motor generator,
located in a separate room, which insures a steady
supply of electricity for the Employer's computer
equipment. About 60 percent of the AC operators' time
is spent in the rooms housing the heating and air-condi-
tioning equipment and the motor generator. In addi-
tion to the above-described duties, AC operators, like
custodians, also perform custodial functions; however,
such tasks are largely limited to the rooms housing the
heating and air-conditioning equipment.'
It also appears that there is regular contact between
the AC operators and other operations department em-
ployees, and that both groups perform certain related
duties. Thus, AC operators and other building opera-
tions employees use the same maintenance shop, which
is entered from the boiler room, and have access to the
storage room for custodial supplies. In addition, all
building operations employees may perform work in
the air-conditioning room. The record also shows that
AC operators and the electrician check the cooling
tower and the motor generator and work on certain
equipment at the same time and the electrician, in per-
forming his duties, on occasion works in the boiler
room. The AC operators may also receive assistance
from the maintenance mechanic or custodial em-
ployees.
The record also discloses that all building operations
department employees share many similar working
conditions and terms of employment. Although AC
operators and security employees are the only ones
employed in a three/shift 24-hour basis, all building
3 While the record evidence is conflicting with respect to the extent of
general custodial duties performed by AC operators outside of the rooms
which house their equipment, it appears that some AC operators sweep the
maintenance shop "more often than not," and in an emergency situation an
AC man could be asked for assistance with custodial duties
217 NLRB No. 4
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations department employees are hourly paid, are
subject to the same wage review and wage adjustment
policy, and enjoy the same fringe benefits including a
pension plan , hospitalization insurance , accident insur-
ance, holidays , and vacations , among others . There is
a separate locker room for employees of the building
operations department, and, with the exception of the
security employees, all other employees in the depart-
ment wear the same uniform.
The job description for the AC operators requires
them to be high school graduates with specialized field
training and 2 years of experience. However, the Em-
ployer does not require its AC operators to be licensed
to operate boiler and refrigeraton equipment, and has
in the past- hired employees without such licenses.4
While the Employer currently employs one individual
as an AC operator- trainee , who works with an AC
operator, the record does not disclose that the Em-
ployer maintains any formal training or apprenticeship
program for AC operators.
In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole,
particularly the facts that AC operators lack separate
immediate supervision , perform duties throughout the
Employer's facility and have contact with other build-
ing operations department employees , share similar
fringe benefits and conditions of employment with such
employees , are not required to be licensed , and perform
tasks in addition to those involving heating and air-
conditioning equipment, we find that a unit limited to
the AC operators is too narrow in scope and does not
constitute an appropriate unit.' Accordingly, we shall
dismiss the petition.'
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
I disagree with the view that, a unit of heating and
air-conditioning equipment operators is inappropriate
in this case.
My colleagues cite as a primary basis for their deci-
sion what they refer to-,as the appearance that the
equipment operators perform related duties and have
regular contact with other building operations depart-
ment employees.
- Yet, upon a careful review of the record the majority
would discover persuasive evidence to the contrary.
The equipment operators solely perform their assigned
duties, for which the Employer requires specialized
4 The record discloses that five of the six AC operators working as of the
hearing date are licensed boiler operators and one has a refrigeration license.
5 See Marriott Hotels; Incorporated, 187 NLRB 399 (1970).
6 In veiw of the disposition herein, Employer 's request for oral argument
is hereby denied.
training and experience unlike that of any other em-
ployee and for -which five of the six -operators are lic-
ensed , as required by the State: Their-specialized duties
require that most of their time is spent in the heating
and cooling machinery rooms. The remaining time is
spent making emergency repairs and periodically
checking all related equipment both inside and outside
the building leaving little time , as the record shows, for
performing work outside their specialized field.
Of necessity , the equipment operators' work brings
them to every part of the building and at times they
may perform their work in close proximity to other
operations department employees . Occasionally, they
may even perform maintenance on the same equipment
that another operations department employee is work-
ing on , but when this occurs the record clearly indicates
that each such employee performs his assigned duties
independently of the other and neither performs the
work of the other . If time allows, they may perform
limited custodial duties in their own work areas, a re-
sponsibility the Employer places on all its employees.
This evidence does not , in my view , justify the finding
that work functions are so related or that the intermit-
tent contact between these employees and others is of
such a pattern that deprives the operators of their func-
tional identity . The additional fact that the operators
work three shifts covering 24 hours a day, working at
times when no other operations department employees
are scheduled, further belies my colleagues' wisdom in
resting their decision upon the appearance of regular
contact or related duties.
Unpersuasive, indeed, is the . evidence of similar
working conditions , limited as it is . The record clearly
indicates the wage review policy and fringe benefits are
also shared by all other employees in this data process-
ing company and whether an hourly wage is similarly
applied is not shown . In my view , the fact that these
operators are the only employees allowed to perform
their specialized work, for which they are specifically
trained; experienced, and licensed , clothes them with
an identity apart from other employees,, unaffected by
the presence of.companywide working conditions.
Additionally, the majority relies on its bare conclu-
sion that the heating and air-conditio ning equipment
operators lack separate immediate supervision. That
finding, unsupported as it is by the record, ignores the
import of the Acting Regional Director's finding that
Equipment Operator D'Onofrio is a supervisor, a find-
ing my colleagues and I have adopted and which the
record supports . D'Onofrio's supervisory responsibility
over other operations department employees, which in
my view is caused by the temporary lack of familiarity
with the department by a newly hired departmental
supervisor , should not result in a finding that ignores
THE INSCO SYSTEMS CORPORATION
his primary duty as supervisor of the equipment opera-
tors.
Finally , the majority relies upon Marriott Hotels,
Incorporated, 187 NLRB 399 ( 1970), which is clearly
inapposite . Here, unlike in Marriott, even my col-
leagues have noted that more than half of the operators'
worktime is spent in the rooms housing the machinery
for which they are responsible . That, coupled with the
time spent monitoring and repairing equipment both
3
inside and outside the building , underscores some of
the significant factual differences of this case.
Based upon their specialized training, experience,
and work which supports finding that these operators
are a functionally distinct group and the absence of
evidence to the contrary, I would adopt the Acting
Regional Director 's findings and direct an election in
the unit petitioned for.