The Ohio Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 384 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE OHIO POWER CoirPANY, EMPLOYER and UT=Y
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2463.-Decided April 14,1947
Day, Cope, Letterer, Raley & Wright, by Messrs. D. W. Raley and
Fred R. Shedd, of Canton, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. William R. Munger, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. George M. Yaghjian, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Canton,
Ohio, on January 30, 1947, before John A. Hull, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Ohio Power Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the
production, sale, and distribution of electrical power and light. Its
main offices are located at Newark, Ohio, and it serves customers in 55
counties in the State of Ohio. It furnishes electrical energy to various
industrial concerns, including Timken Roller Bearing Company, Re-
public Steel Corporation, Lima Locomotive Company, and American
Rolling Mills Company. It receives various equipment, such as wire
'Among other rulings, the hearing officer over ruled the objections of counsel for the
Employei to the eliciting of testimony by the hearing officer on matters in issue between
the parties The Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 4, Section 203 50 (a) states :
"It shall be the duty of the hearing officer to inquire fully into all matters in issue and
necessary to obtain a frill and complete record upon which the Board may discharge its
duties under Section 9 of the Act " In view of the foregoing provision and the fact that
a proceeding for the investigation and certification of repiesentatives is not an adversaiy
pioceecling, but a proceeding for the purpose of ascertaining the facts upon which the
Board may act in an administrative capacity under the provisions of the Act, the objections
above noted to the conduct of the heaiing officer are without mciit Matter of Sperry Gyro-
scope Company, Inc , 60 N L R B. 344 , Mattel of Standai d Oil Company of Calitoi Troia,
63 N L R B 471.
73 N L. R. B., No. 73.
384
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 385
and turbines from outside the State of Ohio. The Employer has inter-
connections with utility companies in Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
and Indiana. It transmits and receives electrical energy across State
lines. The instant proceeding concerns only the Tidd plant located
near Brilliant, Ohio.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the bargaining
representative of its employees contending that (1) no question con-
cerning representation has arisen because no request for recognition
was made by the Petitioner before it filed its petition, and (2) the
record is barren of any proof that the Petitioner has been designated
by any of the employees as their bargaining representative.
As to the Employer's initial objection, it is well settled that a re-
quest for recognition previous to the filing of a petition is not necessary
to the creation of a question concerning representation. A question
exists where, as here, the petitioning labor organization's status as
bargaining representative is in dispute at the time of the hearing and
recognition depends on certification by the Board.2 Moreover, the
Board has held that the filing of a petition per se creates a question
of representation.'
As to the Employer's second objection, it is without merit for the
reasons stated in the O. D. Jennings case 4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all regular employees at the Tidd
plant, including control operators, stores attendants, junior chemist,
junior test engineer, laboratory tester and janitors, but excluding
chemists, test engineers, guards, clerical employees, construction em-
ployees, probationary employees, part-time employees and supervisors.
2 Mattel of C A Kelly Plow Company, 72 N. L. R. B 1147.
Matter of East Texas Electric Steel Company, Inc, 72 N L. R B. 1144.
Matter of 0 D Jennings J Company, 68 N L R B 516.
386 DECISIONS OF NkTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
The Employer would exclude control operators, stores attendants,
junior chemist, junior test engineer, laboratory tester and janitors, in
addition to the categories of employees whom the Petitioner would
exclude; the Employer does not otherwise object to the composition
of the proposed unit.
Control operators: The Tidd plant is probably the most highly
automatic electric generating plant in the industry. Practically all
the controls for operating the generating unit, consisting of boilers,
generators, fans, pumps and related auxiliary and accessoryturbine.
equipment, is concentrated in a single control room. Because of the
automatism of the equipment only one control operator aided by two
assistants, an assistant control operator and an auxiliary equipment
operator, are required to perform the work for which many more
operators are needed in less highly automatic generating plants. The
control operator spends practically all his time in the control room
controlling the various pieces of equipment by push buttons or
switches. Necessary York outside the control room is done by the
assistant control operator or the auxiliary equipment operator under
the direction of the control operator. The control operators are
licensed stationary engineers of the State of Ohio. They are paid the
highest hourly rate in the plant. The control operator is responsible to
the shift operating engineer who in turn is under the supervision of the
operations supervisor. The latter takes his orders from the plant su-
perintendent. According to the Employer's superintendent of plants,
recommendations of a control operator as to the employment, dis-
charge, or discipline of his assistants "would be given a great deal of
weight, but he would not, except under extreme circumstances, have
anything to do with that." In view of the foregoing, we find that the
control operators are not supervisors within the Board's customary
definition. As part of the regular operating force, we shall include
them in the unit.
Stores attendants: These employees work in the storeroom, storing,
issuing, and keeping records of tools, materials, and equipment. As
an incidental part of their duties, they drive company trucks used to
pick up articles for the plant. They are supervised by a storekeeper
who is responsible to the plant superintendent. The storeroom is
located in the office bay of the plant. Although much of the work of
the stores attendants involves the keeping of records of supplies in
the storeroom, the interests of these employees lie predominantly with
the manual rather than with the clerical employees. We shall include
them in the unit.5
5 Matter of Apache Powder Company, 59 N L R B 1133 , Matter of West Virginia A) ma-
tare Company, 65 N L R. B. 1015
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 387
Junior ehenzict and junior test engineer : These employees are assist-
ants, respectively, to the chemist and the test engineer. They are
graduate engineers and after a period of training, they may be ad-
vanced to the position of chemist or test engineer. We find that the
junior chemists and junior test engineers are professional employees.
In accordance with our practice, we shall exclude them
Laboratory tester: This employee works in the laboratory dividing
her time between making routine laboratory tests and performing
clerical and secretarial work for the chief chemist and his assistant.
Because of her work, the interests of the laboratory tester lie less with
the operating personnel than with the clerical and technical employees.
We shall exclude her.
Janitors: These employees spend all their time performing jani-
-tornil work in the office section of the plant. The work of the janitors
is manual and not clerical. We believe that, regardless of the place
of their employment, the janitors should be included in the same unit
with operating and maintenance employees generally. We shall in-
clude them.?
We find that all regular employees of the Employer's Tidd plant,
including control operators, stores attendants and janitors, but ex-
cluding guards, clerical employees, construction employees, proba-
tionary employees, part-time employees, laboratory tester, chemist,
junior chemist, test engineer, junior test engineer, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with The Ohio Power Company, Bril-
liant, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
Matter of The Temas Company , 63 N L R B. 1442
7 Matte) of Inlaid Steel Compat , 73 N L R B 19
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior
to the date of the, election, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by Utility Workers of America, C. I. O., for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
MR. JoaN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.