W. L. Golightly, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1968

172 N.L.R.B. 2155 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

W. L. GOLIGHTLY, INC. 2155
W. L. Golightly , Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner . Case 23-AC-18
September 19, 1968
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 23, 1967, a representation election' was
conducted among the employees of the Employer,
hereinafter referred to as Golightly, in an ap-
propriate unit .2 Thereafter, on July 3, 1967, the Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the
Union, was certified as the representative of the
employees of Golightly. On February 8, 1968, the
Union filed this petition to amend the certification
to include the Houston Natural Gas Corporation, of
Houston, Texas, hereinafter referred to as Houston,
as a joint or "co-employer" of the employees com-
prising the aforementioned appropriate unit.
Golightly and Houston oppose the granting of the
amendment, contending, inter alia, that the factors
on which the Board historically relies in finding a
joint-employer relationship are not currently
present in this case
A hearing was held on March 5 and 6 and April
9, 10, and 11, 1968, at Houston, Texas, before
Hearing Officer Van. B. Jones. Subsequently, pur-
suant to a motion to reopen the record filed by
Houston , a supplemental hearing was held on June
10, 1968. Thereafter, the Regional Director for Re-
gion 23 transferred this case to the Board for
original consideration. Briefs were filed by
Golightly, Houston, and the Union.
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
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the initial and supplemental
hearings and finds that they are free from prejudi-
cial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
Golightly, which employs approximately 150-300
employees depending upon the amount of work
available, is a contractor primarily engaged in the
installation and repair of gas pipelines. It secures its
construction work through the medium of "blan-
ket" contracts' or by virtue of being low bidder on
advertised proposed construction. Golightly
received approximately 53 percent of its 1967
revenue from services performed for Houston
under bid and blanket contracts. The remainder of
its revenue was received from bid contracts with
other gas companies operating in the Houston, Tex-
as, area.
Golightly normally maintains two mainline crews,
averaging from 12 to 15 employees, and 2 or 3 ser-
vice crews, averaging from 6 to 8 employees. The
employees comprising the aforementioned crews,
who are supervised by Golightly crew foremen, re-
port to Golightly's Liberty Road terminal each
morning before being dispatched to pipe installa-
tion or repair jobs for Houston and other gas com-
panies with which Golightly has contracts.
Golightly also employs some 10 to 15 employees
who work primarily at its Liberty Road terminal
repairing Golightly-owned equipment. Additionally,
Golightly employs approximately 15 employees
who report to the Liberty Road terminal daily and
are shuttled to Houston's Southwest Service
Center. Lastly, Golightly employs some 55 em-
ployees who report on a daily basis directly to
Houston's Gene George Service Center. These
latter two groups of employees, until recent
months, worked alongside and with employees of
Houston in mainline or service crews, all of which
were under the supervision of Houston personnel.
All the aforementioned Golightly employees, with
the exception of crew foremen, appear to be
covered by the certification issued in Case
23-RC-2880.4
Houston, a gas utility, is engaged in the installa-
tion, maintenance, and operation of gas distribution
facilities in and around Houston, Texas. In addition
to its own mainline crews it has service and leak
crews which work primarily out of Houston's Gene
George and Southwest Service Centers.' Pursuant
'Case 23-RC-2880
The appropriate unit, as set forth in the Board's Decision, is All
production and maintenance employees, including terminal, warehouse
and shop employees, and truckdrisers employed by the Employer at its
place of business in Houston , Harris County, Texas
In essence , a cost-plus contract provdmg for the supply of men and
equipment at specified rates per classification
Although the record indicates that Golightly also employs a number of
employees who generally work on hid contracts for gas companies other
than Houston , the exact number of such employees is not set forth in the
record It would appear from ai literal reading of the certification that in-
asmuch as they work out of Golightly's "place of business in Houston. Har-
ris County. Texas," the) would he included in the Golightly unit currently
represented by the Union Honeser, since this matter was not fully litigated
during the instant proceedings we make no definiti\ e determination on this
point
'On December 15, 1966, the Union was certified as the collectixe-bar-
gaining representative of Houston s production and maintenance em-
ployees, including crew foremen, located at Houston's Gene George and
Southwest Service Centers Cases 23-RC-2843, 23-RM-178, and
23-UC-17
172 NLRB No. 244
2156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to written contractual agreements, Houston also
utilizes the services of Golightly and other contrac-
tors for pipeline installation and service work. As
noted previously, the blanket contract in effect
between Golightly and Houston obligates Golightly
to furnish Houston with equipment and men at
specified rates per classification.
With the exception of the approximately 70 em-
ployees who report directly or are transported daily
to the Gene George or Southwest Service Centers"
pursuant to the blanket contract, Golightly
generally fills Houston's work orders with mainline
or service crews composed solely of Golightly em-
ployees and Golightly foremen. Although the
record indicates that Houston inspectors may occa-
sionally have given orders directly to individual
Golightly employees, such inspectors or supervisors
normally limited their orders to achievement of the
ultimate objective and not to the manner or means
by which the actual work is to be performed. This is
consistent with the blanket contract, which gives in-
spectors the right to disapprove a particular job and
require the work to be redone to their satisfaction.
With respect to the approximately 70 Golightly
employees who work out of Houston's Gene
George and Southwest Service Centers, the record
reveals that prior to April 1968, these employees
worked alongside various Houston employees in
mixed crews lead by Houston's crew foremen.
However , beginning around April 1968, Houston,
in accordance with its practice at several of its
other installations , decided to cease using mixed
crews and use crews staffed solely by its own em-
ployees, or , where an independent contractor is
utilized , such crews will be staffed solely by the
contractor 's own employees. Houston has since im-
plemented its aforementioned decision and hired a
number of employees for crews working under
Houston supervision . Among the new hires were 23
former Golightly employees . Houston contemplates
that by September 1, 1968, at the latest, no em-
ployees of Golightly or any other contractor will be
working on a Houston crew under Houston supervi-
sion.
From the facts previously recited, it appears clear
that a substantial portion of Golightly's employees,
namely, the terminal employees, the crew working
for employers other than Houston, and ttlil a crews
fully manned by Golightly employees under
Golightly supervision, are under little or no control
of Houston, and Houston, therefore, cannot be
deemed a joint employer as to them. It is only with
respect to the Golightly crews (numbering approxi-
mately 70 employees), working out of the Gene
George and Southwest Service Centers in mixed
crews consisting of Golightly and Houston em-
ployees under Houston supervision, that any basis
for a joint-employer contention existed. However,
in view of the recent changes instituted by Houston
whereby utilization of mixed crews and supervision
has been all but eliminated, we conclude that no
basis now exists for making a joint-employer find-
ing.' Accordingly, we shall deny the petition to
amend the certification.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein to
amend certification filed by the Oil , Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO,
be, and it hereby is, denied.
"It is the work and supervision of these employees upon which the Union
primarily relies in support of its contention that Golightly and Houston
should be considered joint employers
7 See Gene,al Pran%fei, !na , 168 NLRB 30