University of Rochester

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 22, 1976

222 N.L.R.B. 532 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
University of Rochester and Physical Plant Skilled
Trades Association, Petitioner.
University of Rochester and Local 71-71A, Interna-
tional Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Cases 3-RC-6227 and 3-RC-6244
January 22, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND PENELLO
On August 8, 1975, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 3 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding in
which he found, inter alia, that separate units of the
Employer's steam distribution employees I and all
other physical plant employees could be appropriate
depending on the outcome of elections directed by
him in two voting groups corresponding to such
units.' Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for
review of the Acting Regional Director's decision on
the ground that in making his unit determination
concerning steam distribution employees he had
both misread the record and departed from estab-
lished precedent. No party 3 questions that a unit of
all the unrepresented physical plant employees may
be appropriate.
On October 1, 1975, the Board by telegraphic or-
der granted the request for review and stayed the
elections pending decision on review. The Employer
thereafter filed a brief on review and the Operating
Engineers filed a statement in support of the Acting
Regional Director's decision.
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
case with respect to the issues under review, includ-
ing the Employer's brief and the Operating Engineers
statement, and finds, contrary to the Acting Regional
Director, that the unit described as limited to steam
distribution employees is not appropriate for the fol-
lowing reasons:
i This is the unit petitioned for by the Operating Engineers in Case
3-RC-6244.
2 The Skilled Trades Association seeks a unit of all physical plant employ-
ees, including steam distribution employees
31199 National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees,
RWDSU, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene at the hearing It repre-
sents a unit of service employees
There are approximately 100 employees in various
classifications in the Employer's physical plant de-
partment. At the Employer's River Campus they in-
clude: (1) central utility plant employees under the
immediate supervision of Charles Steffan, currently
represented by the Operating Engineers;' (2) carpen-
ters, painters, and masons under Don MacDonald;
(3) electricians under John MacDonald; (4) steamfit-
ters and plumbers under Harvey Smith; (5) steam
distribution operators and mechanics supervised by
Richard Weigert; and (6) air conditioning and refrig-
eration employees under Edgar Chamblee. At the
Employer's Eastman Campus which is some 2 to 3
miles away, Richard Edinger has under him employ-
ees in substantially all the foregoing classifications
except those in the central utility plant. The "steam
distribution unit" found appropriate by the Acting
Regional Director includes those employees under
the immediate supervision of Smith, Weigert, Cham-
blee, and Edinger,' and thus includes not only steam
distribution employees but also air conditioning and
refrigeration employees, steamfitters, and plumbers.'
In finding that the foregoing employees constitute
an appropriate unit, the Acting Regional Director re-
lied basically on their separate supervision, on "the
fact they are also functionally distinct from other
plant employees," and on the conclusion that the
Employer referred to them as "its steam distribution
employees." The Operating Engineers, in support of
the Acting Regional Director's finding, argues that
"steam distribution, air conditioning and refrigera-
tion employees" constitute a "homogeneous and sep-
arate departmental unit" by reason of "the function-
al system of air conditioning and steam distribution."
There is, however, no evidence that the employees
here in question are referred to by the Employer as
its steam distribution employees or that the Employ-
er in any other manner views them or treats them as
a separate identifiable group within its physical plant
operations. Furthermore, as the Employer argues, the
Acting Regional Director was in error in finding that
the "steam distribution employees" are subject to
separate supervision.'
4 The Opera ting Engineers does not in this proceeding seek to have the
steam distribution employees added to its established unit of central utility
plant employees
' In the case of Edinger, only those employees under his supervision com-
ing within the classifications supervised by Smith, Weigert , and Chamblee
are included in the unit
6 At the hearing, the Operating Engineers stated it did not seek the inclu-
sion of air conditioning and refrigeration employees in its proposed unit,
but contends at this stage of the proceeding that they are properly included
7 The Operating Engineers contends not that there is in fact separate
immediate supervision of employees in the steam distribution unit , but rath-
er that the Employer's position confuses certain differences in supervision
with the basic issue of community of interest in a functional system that the
employees sought are charged with maintaining and operating This argu-
ment that there is in substance , if not in form , a proper steam distribution
222 NLRB No. 87
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER
Smith, Weigert, and Chamblee, who supervise the
River Campus employees in the proposed steam dis-
tribution unit, are formally classified as supervisors
and report to Physical Plant Assistant Superinten-
dent Veeder, who in turn is responsible to Dungan,
the superintendent of the entire physical plant. How-
ever, Edinger at the Eastman School is not, as found
by the Acting Regional Director, classified as a su-
pervisor but rather is an assistant superintendent, re-
porting not to Veeder but directly to Superintendent
Dungan. Consequently, the only supervision shared
by all the "steam distribution" employees is that on
the superintendent level (Dungan's) which is, of
course, that shared by all employees in the physical
plant operations. Thus, the grouping of the steam
distribution employees in a separate unit, as defined
by the Operating Engineers, finds no support in the
Employer's organizational structure.
Furthermore, we find no basis for the Acting Re-
gional Director's conclusion that the steam distribu-
tion employees are "functionally distinct from other
plant employees," however that statement is con-
strued. As concluded above, they clearly are not
functionally distinct in terms of constituting a recog-
nized separate department or other organizational
substructure of the employer's operations. And con-
trary to the position taken by the Operating Engi-
neers, noted above, their specific work and responsi-
bilities do not somehow bring them together in what
might be considered a de facto department. To be
sure, all the work of all the "steam distribution em-
ployees" involves in some way pipes of one kind or
another located on the two university campuses; but
this element common to all is hardly sufficient to
bring together as a necessary departmental unit,
which is separate from other physical plant employ-
ees, groups of steam distribution employees having
work shops at various campus locations,' who, for
departmental unit is considered below.
The Eastman School "steam distribution employees" work, of course,
permanently at a location several miles from where the River Campus
"steam distribution employees" work
533
example, are concerned with operations as different
as high pressure steam systems and unpressurized
sewer piping. In short, we find no basis for conclud-
ing that the "steam distribution employees" are a
functionally distinct group,9 even assuming, without
deciding, that they would constitute an appropriate
unit if they were functionally distinct.10
In view of the foregoing, we find no basis for con-
cluding that the unit sought by the Operating Engi-
neers is appropriate and we shall, therefore, dismiss
the petition filed in Case 3-RC-6244. Consequently,
we further find that the unit sought by the Skilled
Trades Association is, in the circumstances here
alone appropriate, and we shall, therefore, direct that
an election be held among the following employees
of the Employer who, we find, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining under
Section 9(c) of the Act:
All regular full-time and part-time physical
plant employees, including steam distribution
and air conditioning employees and grounds-
keepers, employed by the Employer in Monroe
County, New York, excluding employees at
Strong Memorial Hospital, service employees,
central utility employees, office clerical employ-
ees, professional employees, and guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.i'
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit-
ted from publication.]
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in Case
3-RC-6244 be, and it hereby is , dismissed.
9 The Acting Regional Director cited California Institute of Technology,
192 NLRB 582 ( 1971), in support of his result. But that case is clearly
inapposite if for no other reason than that the limited functionally distinct
powerhouse unit there found appropriate included only employees who
were under separate supervision and all of whom worked in and out of a
single location which did not house other employees
Thus, we note in passing that the various trades work side by side in the
ongoing renovation and repair of campus facilities under the coordinated
direction of different supervisors
ii As the Operating Engineers indicated at the hearing that it desired to
participate in any election in which the employees it sought were involved,
we shall provide that its name be placed on the ballot.