Virginia Electric and Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1967

162 N.L.R.B. 1425 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

146,VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PO ,VER CO. ,.5
Virginia Electric and Power Company and System Council U--1,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner- and Utility Employees Association, Intervenor.
Case 5-C '-7. February 1, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition for clarification duly filed under Section 9(b) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held
before 11-ea,-ring Officer Maurice J. Nelligan of the National Labor
Relations Board. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
tire free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter,
briefs were filed by the Petitioner, herein called IBEW, the Em-
ployer, herein called VEPCO, and by the Intervenor, herein called
UEA.1
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. VEPCO is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction
herein.
2. IBEW and UEA are labor organizations claiming to represent
certain employees of VEPCO.
3. IBEW seeks a clarification of its certification which would
entitle it to represent 26 service desk operators, 4 statisticians, and 3
power station clerk typists, who have been represented by UEA in
the unit represented by IBEW, which includes electric serviceman
dispatchers and plant clerks, because of their overlapping duties.2
In 1944, VEPCO and the Virginia Public Service Company
(VPS), were merged. At the time of the merger, IBEW's predeces-
sor represented an agreed-upon unit of production and maintenance
employees of VPS which did not coincide with the unit at VEPCO
for which it iad been certified in 1943. This fact gave rise to a dis-
pute over the appropriate IBEW unit in the merged Company. The
same problem did not arise with respect to the clerical unit.
' IBEW is the successor to the "International Brotherhood of Local Unions on V.E.P.
Properties , AFL," which in 1943, in Cases 4-5227 and R-5228, was certified to represent
certain employees in a production and maintenance unit . UEA is the successor to the
Utility Workers Union , which In 1946 , in Cases 5-R-2347 and 5-P.-2348, was certified to
represent all office clerical employees.
2 The petition also listed distribution Inspector , which Petitioner currently represents,
among the classifications of employees as to whom an issue is raised , but this classification
was dropped during the hearing with the intention of resolving this dispute through pend-
ing arbitration proceedings.
162 NLRB No. 131.
264-047-G7-vol . 162-91
1426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Early in 1946, the dispute was resolved by an election , as a result
of which, on April 9, 1946, pursuant to a supplemental decision of
the Board in Case 5-R-2000, the classifications of "plant clerks,
clerks , line clerks , system operators , load dispatchers , electric service
men dispatchers ," and certain other groups , were added to the previ-
ously certified production and maintenance unit.
On April 16 , 1946, IBEW 's predecessor filed petitions for an elec-
tion in two companywide units consisting of (1) all technical and
professional employees ( Case 5-R-2347 ), and (2 ) all clerical employ-
ees (Case 5-R-2348 ). Thereafter , VEPCO, IBEW 's predecessor,
and UEA's predecessor , signed a stipulation for certification upon
consent election in a unit consisting of "All scientific , professional,
and technical employees . . . ." and an identical stipulation for an
election in a unit consisting of "All office and clerical employ-
ees ...." Among the eligible voters in the clerical unit were employ-
ees classified as service desk operators , statisticians , and distribution
department clerks. An election in each unit was held August 12, 1946.
A majority of the voters in each election chose UEA 's predecessor,
Utility Workers Union , as its representative , and the latter was duly
certified, on August 30, 1946, as the representative for the employees
in each unit . IBEW 's predecessor has continued to represent employ-
ees in the previously certified production and maintenance unit as
added to by the earlier supplemental decision of the Board dated
April 9 , 1946. Since its certification , UEA and its predecessor have
negotiated successive contracts with VEPCO, the recognition clause
being based upon the Board 's 1946 certifications in Cases 5-R-2347
and 5-R-2348.
IBEW now contends that, over the intervening years, VEPCO has
assigned work to the service desk operators , the statisticians, and
certain of the plant clerical employees which duplicates or substan-
tially duplicates the work performed by electric serviceman dispatch-
ers and plant clerks who are in the production and maintenance unit
represented by IBEW , and that the service desk operators , statisti-
cians, and certain clerk typists represented by UEA should be repre-
sented by IBEW. In short, IBEW asks the Board to clarify the pro-
duction and maintenance unit by including therein all employees
represented by UEA who are performing the work of the type per-
formed by classifications which IBEW represents . In its petition,
IBEW states that the clarification is desired "to prevent the employer
cutting back the number of employees in the petitioner 's certified
unit."
VEPCO contends that the instant dispute is essentially a dispute
over work assignments and that such disputes are not properly
resolved in a representation case . Further , VEPCO points out, and
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CO. 1427
the record clearly establishes , that the classifications of service desk
operator , statisticians , and clerk typists were in existence prior to
the certifications of 1946. Additionally, VEPCO maintains that all
employees in these classifications were listed , by agreement among
the parties , as eligible voters in the election for the clerical unit prior
to the election of August 12, 1946, and that they chose to be repre-
sented by UEA's predecessor.
Prior to the merger of VPS and VEPCO , electric serviceman dis-
patchers were employed only in VPS . Their duties consisted chiefly in
receiving trouble calls by telephone , writing up trouble orders and
new work orders , and assigning required work to servicemen. Sub-
stantially the same duties were performed in VEPCO by service desk
operators . With the expansion of the merged Company's operations
and demands for service , the workload of the dispatchers increased
to the point that additional service desk operators were employed to
relieve the dispatchers of most of their strictly dispatching duties. In
course of time, the number of electric serviceman dispatchers, all of
whom worked in the old VPS territories , was reduced through pro-
motions, retirements , the consolidation of offices and the generally
changed pattern of VEPCO 's operations , so that, as of July 1, 1966,
only two dispatchers were left on the Company 's payroll.
With respect to the plant clerks , statisticians , and clerk typists, the
record establishes that in 1945 , 1 year after the merger , VEPCO had
five plant clerks formerly with VPS, and five who were with VEPCO
prior to the merger. At some stations , record clerks were employed,
and at others , the same or similar work , was performed by statisti-
cians. As previously observed , IBEW was certified by the Board on
April 9, 1946 , to represent plant clerks and 8 days later petitioned
for a clerical unit including the statisticians but lost the election to
UEA's predecessor. The record herein contains a description of the
duties of the statistician used during the preelection conference held
between VEPCO and the two unions involved , showing that the
statisticians "keep plant records on maintenance and operations,"
and "compile data from plant -records as required for correct and
efficient operation .". Again , it is clear from the record that the con-
solidations or closing of certain plants or stations , and the general
change in the pattern of VEPCO's operations has resulted in a reduc-
tion of the number of plant clerks to the point where only one
employee is presently carried in that classification . For example, the
plant clerks formerly in VPS used to perform work that was done
by employees in the stores ' department in VEPCO and the latter has
added more employees to that department. These employees are
included in the production and maintenance unit. One former plant
clerk who used to work at the 12th Street power station, was trans-:
1428 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ferrecl to another job at her own request for lack of work. At another
station, the production records are kept by computers, thereby elimi-
nating the need for a plant clerk there.
An undisclosed number of clerk typists were shown to be employed
in the power stations and in the general offices of VEPCO. Those
employed in the power stations serve as switchboard operators and
receptionists, do most of the typing of various reports, requisitions,
memoranda, and keep certain simple records. It was stipulated at the
hearing that, with one exception, all clerk typists are properly
included in the unit represented by UEA. The one exception was the
statistician at the Bremo plant who was a clerk typist prior to her
promotion to the job she now holds. IBEW contends that even though
she was in the clerical unit as a clerk typist she should have been in
the unit represented by IBEW because the statisticians and the clerk
typists, in the plants, although performing separate duties, are each
performing the work that was formerly done by the plant clerks who
were in the IBEW unit.
As indicated, the record shows that the classifications in question
were in existence prior to the certification of IBEW's predecessor in
1946. Notwithstanding the latter's contention that they should be
included within its unit, those categories were held to be within the
unit for which UEA's predecessor was soon thereafter certified, which
unit has since been represented by UEA and its predecessor. The rec-
ord further reveals that there has been no substantial change in the
nature of the duties of the disputed categories. Under these circum-
stances, the IBEW cannot now, by way of this motion for clarification
of its certification, add these classifications to its unit.3 Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition to amend and clarify
certification.]
8 Cf. Lapp Insulator Co., Inc., 150 NLRB 596; Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 143
NLRB 592, 595-596.
Bedford Can Manufacturing Corp. and Local 810, Steel , Metals,
Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen , Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen
and Helpers of America and Allied Trades Union , Local 18,
Party to the Contract. Case 09-CA-450. February 3, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge duly filed on November 4, 1965, by Local 810, Steel,
Metals, Alloys and Hardware Fabricators and Warehousemen, Inter-
162 NLRB No. 133.