The Ohio Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 320 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE OHIO POWER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L., PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 8-RC-16.-Decided April 03, 1948
Mr. John 0. Ketterer, of Canton, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. J. S. Knight, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Steuben-
ville, Ohio, on December 9, 1947, before John A. Hull, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Ohio Power Company is a corporation engaged in the produc-
tion, sale, and distribution of electrical energy. It has its principal
offices at Canton, Ohio, and it serves customers in 55 counties in the
State of Ohio. It furnishes electrical energy to industrial concerns,
including Timken Roller Bearing Company, Republic Steel Corpora-
tion, Lima Locomotive Company, and American Rolling Mills Com-
pany, and it receives equipment, such as wire and turbines, from points
outside the State. It also transmits and receives electrical energy
across State lines.
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 American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
77 N. L. R. B., No. 44.
320
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
321
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner is seeking a unit composed of physical employees.
of the Employer in the East Liverpool-Wellsville area. The Employer
and Petitioner disagree as to the geographical extent of the unit. The
Employer contends that a unit limited, as proposed by Petitioner, to
the East Liverpool-Wellsville area would be inappropriate, and that
the unit should include the adjacent Steubenville area. These two
areas or "districts" now constitute the Employer's Eastern Division.
The Employer and Petitioner are in substantial agreement as to the
categories of employees to be included in the unit,'- except that the
Petitioner would include, and the Employer would exclude, all pro-
bationary employees.
Geographical extent of unit: The Employer operates its public
utility business through administrative units called "divisions," which,
in turn, are subdivided into "districts." Division managers participate
in the formulation of the Employer's labor relations policies. District
managers are subject to the control of their division manager. At
the time of the filing of the instant petition on October 23, 1947, the
Employer had nine such divisions, including the East Liverpool-
Wellsville and Steubenville Divisions. On November 1, 1947, a week
after the instant petition was filed, the Employer created a new
"Eastern Division" by consolidating the Steubenville and East Liver-
pool-Wellsville Divisions, which were consequently reduced to the
status of districts within the new division.2 The Eastern Division is
headed by a division manager, to whom the managers of the Steuben-
ville and East Liverpool-Wellsville districts are subject.
i At the hearing the parties agreed that the following job classifications were to be
included in the unit: transmission and distribution patrolmen, troublemen, linemen and
groundmen, substation operators, maintenance men, metes men, appliance seivice men,
utility men, storeroom men, janitors, district service men, service metes ieaders, collectois,
and maintenance men The parties also agieed to exclude all office clerical and technical
employees, watchmen, guards, full-time working foienien, all "supervisory employees ' and
employees who have not had 6 months of service with the Employer.or who are employed in
a specific temporary job
' The establishment of the Eastein Division, so far as the record discloses, was motivated
solely by economic and administrative considerations, and this division is still one of the
smaller divisions of the Employer's operations.
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is for the physical employees in the newly created East Liverpool-
Wellsville district that the Petitioner is now seeking a separate unit.
However, in the bulk of the Employer's operations collective bargain-
ing for physical employees has been on the broader, division-wide
basis,,' and the Employer contends that, in view of this bargaining
pattern, the district-wide unit sought by the Petitioner is inap-
propriate.
The East Liverpool-Wellsville employees have not heretofore been
organized. In 1941, the Board certified the Petitioner as the repre-
sentative of the Steubenville employees.4 The Petitioner accordingly
urges that a unit comprising the entire Eastern Division, as proposed
by the Employer, would be inappropriate because the Board has al-
ready set up part of that division-namely, the Steubenville district-
as a separate unit, and because the Petitioner has bargained for
employees in that unit since 1942. The Petitioner in effect contends
that the Board's prior unit determination for the Steubenville em-
ployees, as reinforced by the foregoing bargaining history, precludes
the merging of the Steubenville unit in a larger unit comprising the
entire Eastern Division, and requires that the East Liverpool-Wells-
Ville district be established as a separate, residual unit in the Eastern
Division.
We do not believe that the policies of the Act would best be effectu-
ated by the establishment of two separate district-wide units in the
Employer's Eastern Division. At the time of the Board's prior
determination that the Steubenville employees constituted an appro-
priate unit, the Steubenville operations constituted a separate division.
The unit determination was, therefore, consistent with the general
pattern of division-wide bargaining in the Employer's operations.
This basis for the Board's determination has now been destroyed,
however, by the reconstitution of Steubenville as a district within the
new Eastern Division.5
Moreover, the evidence with respect to the separate bargaining his-
tory of the Steubenville unit is inconclusive. On June 1, 1942, the
Petitioner and the Employer executed a contract for the Steubenville
employees. This contract, which contained an automatic renewal
clause, has not yet been formally terminated, and the Petitioner con-
tends that the contract is, therefore, still in effect. The Employer
3 This is true of six of the eight existing divisions of the Employer 's operations. The
two remaining divisions consist of the Ohio Valley Division which , so far as the record
sho«s, has not been organized , and the Eastern Division , which is the one involved in the
instant proceeding . Its bargaining history is discussed below.
4 Matter of The Ohio Power Company, 33 N. L. R. B. 772.
i Matter of Central New York Power Corporation , 64 N. L. It . B. 461 ; Matter of Atlas
Powder Company , 62 N. L R B 1179 ; Matter of Illinois Power Company , 75 N L R B
1221.
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY, 323
,maintains, however, that the Petitioner has abandoned this contract
and has not actively represented the Steubenville unit since 1943.
While the Petitioner denies this, it is clear from the record that the
Petitioner has not bargained specifically 6 for the Steubenville em-
ployees since 1942, and has not processed any grievances for them.
In view of these circumstances, and particularly in view of the
Employer's general history of division-wide bargaining and the pre-
sent organizational integration of the East Liverpool-Wellsville and
Steubenville districts, we find that a unit narrower than the divi-
sion-wide unit would be inappropriate in this case.7
The probationary employees: The Employer hires probationary
.employees for a 6-months' period, with the expectation that they will
be permanent if their work proves satisfactory. There is no evidence,
however, as to what proportion of these employees the Employer
actually retains after the expiration of their probationary period.
The Board has in the past excluded probationary employees from
units established in other areas of the Employer's operations 8 We
shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit here sought.
We, accordingly, find that all employees of the Employer in its
Eastern Division, including transmission and distribution patrolmen,
troublemen, linemen and groundmen, substation operators, mainte-
nance men, meter men, appliance service men, utility men, storeroom
men, janitors, district service men, service meter readers, collectors, and
maintenance men, but excluding clerical office and technical employees,
watchmen, guards, probationary employees, employees (other than
probationary) with less than 6 months' service with the Employer,
employees employed in a specific temporary job, full-time working
foremen, and all other supervisors, 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
purposes of collective bargaining with The Ohio Power Company,
Canton, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
6 The Petitioner concedes that it has not since 1942 , negotiated directly for the Steuben-
ville employees , but asserts that benefits obtained by the Petitioner , in negotiating for the
employees in the Employer 's Sunnyside Division , were extended to the Steubenville em-
ployees under the Employer 's policy of preserving uniform terms of employment throughout
its operations in view of this policy, the Petitioner claims it felt there was no need to
negotiate separate terms for Steubenville
4 The Petitioner stated at the hearing that if the Board found a division -wide unit to be
appropriate , it desired to be placed on the ballot in an election directed among employees
in such unit The showing of interest made by the Petitioner is sufficient to warrant
compliance with this request.
8 Matter of The Ohio Power Company, 73 N L. R B 384 and 74 N. L. R. B 625.
324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eighth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who,,were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood-of
Electrical Workers, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.