Wisconsin Electric Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 316 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Wisconsin Electric Power Company , Employer-Peti-
tioner and Local 2, United Association of Office,
Sales and Technical Employees and Local 3,
Independent Utility Workers Union
Wisconsin Electric Power Company and Local 2,
United Association of Office, Sales and Technical,
Employees , Union-Petitioner and Local 3, Inde-
pendent Utility Workers Union. Cases
30-RM-226, 30-UC-67, and 30-RC-1458
September 23, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
KENNEDY
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a consoli-
dated hearing was held before Hearing Officer Larry
R. Brennan. Following the hearing and pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, these cases were transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board for decision by
direction of the Regional Director for Region 30.
Briefs have been filed by both of the Unions and the
Employer. The Intervenor, Local 2150, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, also filed a letter
brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding the Board
finds:
1. Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No questions affecting commerce exist concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Employer is a Wisconsin public utility corpora-
tion which has as its principal business the generation,
transmission, and distribution of electric energy to in
excess of 600,000 customers in 15 counties in
southeastern Wisconsin and the operation of a steam
Hereafter referred to as Local 2
s Hereafter referred to as Local 3
heating utility serving customers in downtown Mil-
waukee. The Petitioner-Union, Local 2, United
Association of Office, Sales and Technical Employees
Union 1 represents approximately 1,300 employees in
a unit consisting of clerical, technical, and sales
employees. Local 3, Independent Utilities Workers'
Union,2 represents approximately 250 employees in a
unit also consisting of clerical, technical, and sales
employees. The Intervenor represents similar types of
employees in units not directly involved in this
proceeding.
Employer has recently undergone a partial reorgan-
ization of its administrative divisions with the result
that Local 2- and Local 3-represented employees with
identical or virtually identical job functions have been
placed together in the same administrative division
and under the same immediate supervision. As more
fully set forth below Employer in its UC petition seeks
to have the Board clarify the units to determine
whether these employees should be represented by
Local 2 or by Local 3. Employer has also filed an RM
petition and Local 2 has filed an RC petition so that in
the event the Board is unable to clarify the units the
Board can direct an election. All the parties have
indicated that they would prefer that the Board clarify
the unit.
Prior to 1968, the Company was organized into two
major systems; the metropolitan system and the
extension system. The metropolitan system was
organized on the basis of centralized control from the
operating headquarters at the Company's principal
office located in downtown Milwaukee. The exten-
sion system was organized on the basis of three
divisions; a lakeshore division, a western division, and
a northern division, each under the direction of a
division manager with total responsibility for the
activities within his division. Local 2 represents a unit
of employees which is historically coextensive with
the metropolitan system. Local 3 represents a unit of
employees which is historically coextensive with the
extension system. In 1968, the Company determined
that it would reorganize so as to incorporate the best
features of the centralized control which was exer-
cised in the metropolitan system and the decentral-
ized control which was exercised in the extension
system. In 1969, the Waukesha division was formed
from the old western division and part of the old
metropolitan system. Also in 1969 a southern metro-
politan division was formed. In 1970 a new division
known as the northern metropolitan division was
formed. This division was created by combining the
Menomonee Falls district of the northern division
and a part of the metropolitan system known as the
north urban area. All of the other division reorganiza-
193 NLRB No. 46
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 317
tions were completed without any special difficulty as
to union representation as the reorganization was
within the geographic limits of the collective-bargain-
ing units. However, here Employer has combined two
areas with differing union representation-the em-
ployees in the north urban area having been repre-
sented as part of the unit represented by Local 2 and
the employees in the Menomonee Falls district having
been represented as part of the unit represented by
Local 3. As a result employees with identical or
related occupations with different union representa-
tion have been commingled under the same
supervision.3 Almost exactly half of the employees in
the new division come from each of the older
divisions.4
As previously noted, all of the parties take the
position that the Board, if possible, should clarify the
unit without directing an election. Employer takes the
position that all employees should be represented in
the unit represented by Local 2 or in the unit
represented by Local 3, but does not take a position as
to which of these units the employees belong. Local 2
and Local 3 each claim that all of the employees
should be included in the unit it represents on the
basis that the employees previously represented by the
other union constitute an accretion to the unit it
represents. Moreover, each claims that its contract
with the Employer constitutes a bar to an election.5
Intervenor supports Local 3's contention that the
employees in the northern metropolitan division
previously represented by Local 2 constitute an
accretion to the unit represented by Local 3. As an
alternative to its contention that it represents all of the
employees on the basis of accretion, Local 3 urges that
there is a functionally related rational basis for a
division of the employees between the unit represent-
ed by Local 2 and Local 3 with the employees
performing the technical and sales functions being
included in the unit represented by Local 2 and the
dispatchers, stores personnel, analysts, and account-
ing and office employees being included in the unit
Local 3 represents 6 Employer, while preferring that
all the employees be represented in one or the other of
the units, supports Local 3's alternative if its first
position is rejected, stating that the most important
factor is to have employees performing the same or
similar functions included in the same unit. Local 2,
as an alternative to its claim, asks that an election be
directed to allow the employees to choose to be
represented by either Local 2 or Local 3.7 Local 2
3 At present , the reorganization has not resulted in the physical
relocation of any employees . However , Employer has indicated that he
expects to make some such changes, but has not done so pending the
completion of this proceeding.
' Of these employees, 28 come from the unit represented by Local 2 and
27 come from the unit represented by Local 3
5 Both contracts expire March 31, 1972
opposes Local 3's position as to splitting the unit on
the ground that this would be a complete frustration
of the consolidation.
All of the parties contend that the situation herein
requires that the Board clarify the units and agree that
the RM and RC petitions were filed so that the Board
could direct an election if it concluded that it was
unable to clarify the units without an election.
Although difficult issues are presented with both
Unions asserting meritorious claims, we have deter-
mined that we are able to clarify the units and
accordingly the RM and RC petitions shall be
dismissed.
The question as to which unit these employees
belong is difficult in that the claims of both Local 2
and Local 3 are quite substantial. The number of
employees in the new division coming from each unit
is virtually identical; 28 coming from the unit
represented by Local 2 and 27 coming from the unit
represented by Local 3. The employees coming from
each of the units previously performed and are now
performing essentially the same functions except that
more employees performing technical and sales
functions came from Local 2's unit and more
employees performing other functions came from
Local 3's unit. Local 2 relies on the fact that virtually
all of the supervisors formerly supervised employees
in the unit it represents. However, this factor is largely
the result of the Employer's choosing in large part the
metropolitan system type of administrative organiza-
tion for this division and this is not a particularly
significant factor as to this issue. Local 2 also points to
the fact that more of the new division's customers
come from the area formerly serviced by the employ-
ees it represented. Whatever weight, if any, this factor
has is neutralized by the fact that more of the
geographical territory covered by the division comes
from the area formerly serviced by employees
represented by Local 3. Local 2 points to the fact that
only it represents employees in all of the classifica-
tions in the new division. However, this factor is
largely neutralized by the fact that Local 3 represents
employees in virtually all of the new classifications. If
we were to clarify the unit on the basis of the factors
suggested by Local 2, we would be attaching great
significance to what are in the circumstances of this
case relatively insignificant factors. This we decline to
do.
Rather, we have determined that the alternative
solution suggested by the Employer and Local 3 is the
6 It is this alternative contention which Local 3 emphasizes in its brief to
the Board
7 Local 2 contends that that should be the only choice , that the
employees should not be given the choice of voting for another union or no
union. Intervenor contends that if an election is directed it should be
permitted on the ballot.
318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
most satisfactory, if not a completely satisfactory,
result in this situation. In our opinion, such a result
will not seriously affect the administrative viability of
the Employer's consolidation of these two areas.
Although the record shows that Local 2 and Local 3
represent employees performing essentially the same
functions, Local 2 tends to represent more sales and
technical personnel than does Local 3 because of the
headquarters nature of the old metropolitan system.
On the other hand, because of the field nature of the
old extension system, employees represented by Local
3 were for the most part employed in the day-to-day
functions necessary to the distribution of electrical
power. On that basis we have concluded that the
technical and sales employees have a closer communi-
ty of interest with the employees represented by Local
2 and that the Local 2 represented unit should be
clarified to include these employees. Also on that
basis, we have concluded that the dispatchers, stores
personnel, analysts, and accounting and office em-
ployees have a closer community of interest with the
employees represented by Local 3 and that the Local
3 represented unit should be clarified to include these
employees.8
Accordingly, we shall order the units clarified as
indicated above.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the unit represented by
s The result of this clarification will be that Local 3 will represent 29 of
the employees in the new division and Local 2 will represent 26 of these
employees Eight employees formerly represented by Local 3 will now be
represented by Local 2 and ten employees formerly represented by Local 2
Local 2, United Association of Office, Sales and
Technical Employees be, and it hereby is, clarified to
include the technical and sales employees in the
northern metropolitan division.
It is hereby ordered that the unit represented by
Local 3, Independent Utility Workers Union be, and
it hereby is, clarified to include the dispatchers, stores
personnel, analysts, and accounting and office em-
ployees in the northern metropolitan division.
It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed herein in
Cases 30-RC-1458 and 30-RM-226 be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
MEMBER KENNEDY, dissenting:
I would direct an election on the representation
petitions. In the amalgam of employees resulting from
the creation of the new division, neither group of
employees represented by Local 2 and Local 3 were
predominate. Both unions have sought recognition
from the Employer as the bargaining representative of
the new division. In my view, there is a question
concerning representation, and employees of the new
division should be afforded the opportunity to select
their bargaining representative through our election
procedures .9 I deem our UC procedures appropriate
only where there is an absence of a question
concerning representation.10
will be represented by Local 3.
9 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 144 NLRB 455; General Electric
Company, 170 NLRB 1272.
10 Sec 102.60(b) of the Board 's Rules and Regulations.