Union Electric Co. of Missouri

In the Matter of UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI AND ITS SUB- SIDIARY, THE Mississippi RIVER POWER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 148, AFL In the Matter of UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION No. 148, AFL Cases Nos. 14-R-856, 14-R-858, 141-R--859, 14-R-860, 141-R-917 and 14-R-918 respectively.Decided November 15, 19441 Igoe, Carroll, Keefe d Coburn, by Messrs. Robert J. Keefe and David Y. Campbell, both of St. Louis, Mo., for the Companies. Mr. William H: Thomas, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Neal La- Velle, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Engineers. Mr. Robert A. Roessel, of St. Louis, Mo., and Messers. Robert A. Roessel and Herman Cooper, of New York City, for the Tri-State. Messrs. James Preston and Frank Jacobs, both of Washington, D. C., for the IBEW. Mr. Joseph C. Wells, of counsel to the Board. DECISION ORDER AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATE] ENT OF THE CASE Upon separate petitions duly filed by International Union of Oper- ating Engineers, Local Union No. 148, AFL, herein called the Engi- neers, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Union Electric Com- pany of Missouri, and its subsidiary, The Mississippi River Power- Company, herein jointly called the,Companies, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and provided for an appro- priate hearing upon due notice before Harry G. Carlson, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on July 24, 25, 26, and 27, 1944, and August 3, 4, and 5, 1944. - The Companies, the Engineers, the Tri-State Utility Workers Union, affiliated- with 59 N. L. R. B., No. 58. - 276 - UN1ON ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI 277 the United Utilities Union of America, herein called Tri-State, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the IBEW, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded -full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam- iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and .are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. The Engineers' request for oral argument is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES Union Electric Company of Missouri, a Missouri corporation having its principal office and place of business at St. Louis, Missouri, and The Mississippi River Power Company, a Maine corporation, the, voting stock of which, except for a minor part thereof, is owned by Union Electric Company of Missouri, together with other subsidiaries of Union Electric Company of Missouri,' are engaged, under common management and control, in the production, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric and gas energy in Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa; and the facilities of Union Electric Company of Missouri and its sub- sidiaries, including The Mississippi River Power. Company, are inter- connected and operated together as a joint enterprise for this purpose. The Companies, and each of them, in the course and conduct of the joint enterprise, cause substantial quantities of materials used to be transported in interstate commerce from and through States other than the States of Missouri, Illinois, and Iowa, and a substantial portion of the electric energy produced by them to be transmitted and distributed in interstate commerce among the States of Missouri, Illi- nois, and Iowa. We find that, as an integrated enterprise, the Companies, and each of them individually, are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.2 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 148, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza- tion admitting to membership employees-of the Companies. - ' Namely : Iowa Union Electric Company and Union Electric Company of Illinois, both Illinois corporations , and the St . Louis County Gas Company , a Missouri corporation, which together with the above-named entities are herein collectively called the Utilities. 2 Employees of Union Colliery Company, East St. Louis-Belleville Railroad , and Union Land & Development Co., also affiliates of Union Electric Company of Missouri are not claimed by any of the labor organizations involved herein. 278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Tri-State Utility Workers Union, affiliated with the United Utilities Union of America, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Companies. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Companies. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Companies have refused to grant recognition to the Engineers as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of their employees .until the Engineers has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. A statement of the Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates' that the Engineers represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate 9 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Companies, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In Case No. 14-R-856, the Engineers seeks a unit comprised of production and maintenance employees, excluding professional, cler- ical, - and supervisory employees, at the Companies' hydroelectric power plant at Keokuk, Iowa. In Case No. 14-R-858, the Engineers alleges that all production, maintenance, and distribution employees, except for clerical and supervisory employees, in the Companies' steam-heating department constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. In Case No. 14-R-859, the Engineers requests the Board to find that all production and maintenance employees, excluding clerical and supervisory employees, working in the Companies' utility shops and salvage department located at 1825 Gratiot Street, St. Louis, Missouri, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. In Case No.14-R-860, the bargaining unit alleged by the Engineers to be appropriate is comprised of the Companies' load dispatchers and subtransmission dispatchers, excluding the chief and the assistant chief load dispatchers. a The Field Examiner reported that in Case No. 14 -R-860 the Engineers submitted 10 undated authorization cards which bore the names of 10 employees in the unit alleged by the petition in that case to be appropriate and whose names appeared on the pay roll of the Companies for the period ending March 1, 1944. There are approximately 10 employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate. Since Tri-State presently represents a large number of employees of the Companies, and has expressed a desire to represent those in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate, we shall afford it a place on the ballot although it submitted no evidence of representation among this group. UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI 279 In Case No. 14-8-917, the Engineers seeks a unit comprised of all employees, excluding supervisory employees , in the cable division of the Companies' underground department. In Case No. 14-R-,918, the unit sought by the Engineers is comprised of certain professional or technical employees at the Companies' Cahokia and Venice No. 1 steam power plants in the "test depart- ment." 4 The employees of the Companies Employees of the Utilities perform duties involved in the produc- tion, transmission, distribution, and sale of electric and gas energy in the territories serviced by the Utilities, and at the electric power plants and gas production plants operated by the Utilities. They operate seven electric power plants. One of these is located in St. Louis, Missouri, and is known as the "Ashley Street" plant ; three are located in Illinois at points directly across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri, and are known as the "Venice No. 1," "Venice No. 2," and "Cahokia" plants ; a plant known as the "Osage" plant is located on the Osage River in Missouri , about 175 miles west of St. Louis, Missouri ; the "Keokuk" plant is located at Keokuk, Iowa, approximately 200 miles north of St. Louis, Missouri; the "Rivermines" power plant, which is used as a "stand-by" plant, is located about 65 miles south of St. Louis, Missouri, but is not presently being operated. The electric energy produced at these power plants is "pooled" and transmitted to points in the territories serviced as needed. More than 50 percent of this electric energy is consumed in the St. Louis, Missouri , metropolitan area, while the remainder is distributed to districts in Illinois , Iowa, and Missouri, located as far as 200 miles from the City of St . Louis. It appears that whenever the nature of their duties makes it possible, employees engaged in the production and distribution of electricity integrate their func- tions with 'the functions of other employees engaged in the produc- tion and distribution of gas. For example, meter readers read both gas and electric meters in the territories where the Utilities distributes both types of energy. It is apparent that, while groups of employees are in some instances separated geographically, all of the Utilities' employees are closely integrated and interdependent with respect to the duties which they perform, and the Utilities' supervisory and administrative structure reflects such integration and interdependence . Labor relations and personnel matters are handled by the Utilities through one office. 4 There are approximately 37, 21, 54, 10 , 48, and 19 employees, respectively , In the units described above. The number of employees In the Utilities' Electric System, including supervisory employees , is approximately 3,500. 280 . DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD History of collective bargaining among the Companies' employees The IBEW has represented approximately 185 of the Utilities' em- ployees for more than 10 years and presently ,is a party to a union-shop contract with the Utilities covering these employees.5 On June 27, 1941, pursuant to petitions filed by the Engineers and Tri-State, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elections 6 wherein it found 6 separate groups of the Utilities' employees to be units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Four of the units were comprised of production and maintenance employees at the "Osage," "Cahokia," "Venice No. 1," and "Ashley Street" power plants, respectively. Another of the 6 units was a system-wide unit consisting of clerical, office, and sales employees. The remaining unit was comprised of employees of the Utilities' water-gas manufacturing plant and gas distribution department (St. Louis County Gas Com- pany). On August 27, 1941, following elections by secret ballot, the Board certified the Engineers as bargaining representative for the "Osage," "Cahokia," and "Venice No. 1" power plant units, and the water-gas plant and gas distribution department unit. At the same time the Board certified Tri-State as the bargaining representative for the "Ashley Street" power plant unit and for the clerical, office, and sales Unit .7 At the time of the Board's Decision and Direction of Elections," there were approximately 169 and 1,383 employees in th6 "Ashley Street" power plant unit and the clerical, office, and sales unit, respectively; and a total of approximately 688 employees in the 4 units for which the Engineers was certified as bargaining repre- sentative. On October 18, 1941,.the Utilities and the Engineers entered into a, single contract covering the - employees in the units for which the, Engineers had been certified as bargaining representative. Similar contracts were executed in 1942 and 1943." Since December 1, 1941, the Utilities and Tri-State have covered, in single contracts, the employees in the clerical, office, and sales unit;, the "Ashley Street" power plant unit; and the approximately 1,000• employees whom the Board failed to include in any unit.10 All of :These employees are employed in the East St. Louis and Alton, Illinois , territory where the Utilities distribute both electricity and gas. 6 Matter of Union Electric Company of Missouri, et at., 33 N L. R B 1 The Board did not include in any unit finding more than 1,000 employees of the Utilities working in the "Keokuk" and "Rivermines" power plants and in various distribution and transmission, departments. 7 Matter of Union Electric Company of Missouri, et at., 35 N. L. R. B. 19. 8 Footnote 6, supra. 9 Also included in the coverage of these contracts were employees at the "Venice No. 2" power plant which began operation subsequent to the Board 's certifications 10 See footnote 6, supra In the contract executed December 1, 1941, by the Utilities and Tri-State these employees were identified as being employed in the following depart- ments : 1. Building Service ; 2 . Country Club , 3. Keokuk Gas , 4. Keokuk Power Plant;. UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI 281 these contracts excluded, inter alia, all employees earning more than $275 per month.,, Summary The Engineers proposes that the Board carve out of the group pres- ently represented by Tri-State five separate units; one comprised of employees at one power plant and the other four of departmental or semidepartmental groups of maintenance, distribution, or professional employees. The remaining unit sought by the Engineers is comprised of employees who are not presently represented by any labor organi zation involved herein. The largest of the units so sought is comprised of less than 2 percent of the total number of Utilities' employees. The Engineers contends that the Board's prior Decision,12 wherein similar small units were found to be appropriate, and Tri-State's practice of establishing separate chapters for administrative purposes among the group bargained for by Tri-State as one unit demonstrates the appropriateness of the units proposed. Tri-State, the IBEW, and the Companies oppose the establishment of the units sought by the Engineers, the Companies contending also that the groups presently bargained for by Tri-State and the Engi- neers do not constitute appropriate bargaining units. In general, the Companies argue that the Utilities' employees, excluding office, clerical and sales employees, the employees for which the IBEW is the present bargaining agent, and professional and supervisory employees, should constitute two separate units; one comprised of all employees-at Utilities' seven power plants, and the other comprised of all remaining distribution, maintenance, and transmission employeeslg Conclusion In numerous recent cases,14 the Board has expressed its view that, absent a limited or inchoate state of organization among employees, the optimum unit for the purposes of collective bargaining for public utilities' employees in proper functional segments is -generally system- wide in scope. Inasmuch as the Utilities' employees in virtually all categories and areas are presently organized and covered by contracts, and one of the labor organizations here involved is assertedly in a 5. Meter Reading ; 6 Meter ; 7. Overhead , Underground , Trouble and Installation ; 8. Rivermines Power Plant : 9. Steam Heating ; 10 Stores , Utility Shop and Salvage ; 11. Substation , 12. Transmission ; 13. Transportation. 31 Since all employees sought by the Engineers in Case No . 14-R-860 are paid more than $275 per month , they were excluded. a Matter of Union Electric Company of Missouri, footnote 6, supra. 18 The Companies did not'speciflcally indicate what disposition it would make of Utili- ties' professional employees who apparently are now represented by Tri-State. 14 See Matter of Duquesne Light Company, 57 N. L. R. B. 770; Matter of Pennsylvania Electric Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 625; Matter of Kansas City Power & Light Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 647; Matter of Central Ohio Light and Power Co., 51 N. L. R. B. 522. 282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD position to represent them in system-wide groupings, it is apparent that the units here sought by the Engineers in other than the load dispatcher case are such as we generally disapprove in utility cases. It is true that a majority of the Board, with one member dissenting, found 3 years ago, in a case which arose very shortly after the Board had ordered the disestablishment of a company-dominated union which had theretofore purported to represent the Utilities' employees, that several units similar in scope to the power-plant unit proposed in Case No. 1I-R--456 were appropriate. However, we do not regard that case as determinative of the issue in any of the cases now before us, because of material differences in the facts. When the prior case was decided there had been no history of bona fide bargaining on the basis of units broader than those proposed by Engineers. Moreover, since the decision and certifications in that case, the Engineers, as well as Tri-State, have bargained with the Utilities on the basis of consoli- dated units broader than those found appropriate by the Board. Thus the conduct of the parties themselves has demonstrated the practi- cability in this instance of our general view that system-wide group- ings are best calculated to ensure the full benefits of collective bar- gaining to utility workers. In the light of these considerations we find that, with one exception, the units herein are inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The issues presented in the instant proceeding are resolved by our ,finding that the units sought by the Engineers are inappropriate. However, we do not intend to imply by this finding that the history of collective bargaining has established the appropriateness of the pres- ent unit structure among the Utilities' employees. In Matter of Bos- ton Edison Company,15 the Board said : "Although we are not unmind- ful of the fact that these groups have for several years been represented as one unit, we are not persuaded that we should depart from our usual practice of not grouping office and clerical employees, production and maintenance employees, and technical employees in the same unit, and we shall not do so." Thus, were it proposed here, as it is not, that the Board find homogeneous and system-wide groups of employees to con- stitute appropriate bargaining units, such as, for example, the power- plants group urged by the Companies, we would not base our findings with respect to such a proposal on the criterion of whether or not such units conform in scope to the established units. The latter, it is ap- parent, are less than system-wide in scope and are afflicted with defects similar to those in the established units in the Boston Edison case, supra. On the other hand, we can perceive no merit in the proposi- tion that units, such as proposed by the Engineers in the instant pro- ceeding, acquire merit solely by the presence of certain defects in the existing unit structure. m51N. L.R.B.118. - UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY OF MISSOURI 283 In view of the foregoing circumstances and the entire record in the case, we shall dismiss the petitions filed by the Engineers in Cases Nos. 14-R-856, 14-R-858, 14-8-859, 14-8-917, and 14-R-918. In Case No. 14-R--860, the unit sought is comprised of employees designated as load dispatchers and employees designated as subtrans- mission dispatchers whose duties are to determine and control the amount of electric energy permitted to flow through the various trans- mission lines throughout the Utilities' system. No other employees of the Utilities occupy similar positions and, thus, this to some degree, is a system-wide unit. Although these employees in the performance of their duties constantly transmit orders to other workers, it is apparent that their duties are not supervisory within the meaning of the Board's usual definition,16 Since these employees are not presently bargained for, we shall find that they now constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. However, our finding shall not preclude their-inclusion at a later date in a bargaining unit covering other occupational categories. We find that all load dispatchers and all subtransmission dispatch- ers, excluding the chief load dispatcher and the assistant chief load dispatcher, employed by the Companies, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc- tion. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Union Electric Company of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula- 70 Matter of West Penn Power Company, 55 N. L. R. R. 246. 284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tions, 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 riot work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the -polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been 'discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 148, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or by Tri-State Utilities Workers Union, affiliated with the United Util- ities Union of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. ORDER - Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the cases, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions for investigation and certification of repre- sentatives of employees of Union Electric Company of Missouri and its subsidiary, The Mississippi River Power Company, St. Louis, Missouri, filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 148, AFL, in Cases Nos. 14-R-856, 14-R-858, 14-R-859, 14-R-917, and 14-R.-918, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.