Kansas City Power & Light Co.

In the Matter of KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AF- FILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER Case No. 17-R-1810.-Decided December 18, 1947 Messrs. J. W. B. Foringer and Irvin Fane, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Employer. Mr. G. A. Baldus, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Petitioner. Mr. Fred Ruarlc, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Kansas City, Missouri, on June 12, 1947, before Robert S. Fousek, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed., At the hearing, the hearing officer reserved for ruling by the Board the motion of the Intervenor to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner was inappropriate. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the Intervenor's motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Kansas City Power R Light Company is a Missouri corporation, having its principal office and place of business in Kansas City, Mis- souri. It is principally engaged in the production, transmission, and distribution of electrical energy to domestic, commercial, and indus- trial consumers in Missouri and Kansas. It is also engaged in the 'On July 16 , 1947, the Boaid received a stipulation , agreed to by all parties to the pro- ceeding , that the record be corrected in accordance with a list of corrections submitted theiewith The stipulation is hereby incorporated into the record , and the transcript ordered corrected accordingly. 75 N. L R. B, No. 69. 609 610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD production, distribution, and sale of steam heat in Kansas City, Mis- souri, and the sale of water in several communities in Missouri and Kansas. It sells at retail electrical appliances in all communities in which it operates. It also operates generating plants in Missouri and Kansas. , The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. The Independent Union of Utility Employees, herein called the Intervenor, is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Peti- tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Employer is engaged in the production and distribution of elec- tric energy. Employees in the generating stations are classified as production employees. Other employees are classified generally into two groups (1) physical employees, who are concerned with the dis- tribution of electric energy, and (2) office and clerical employees. Since 1940, the Petitioner has been the certified bargaining representa- tive of the Employer's production employees. During the sane period, the Intervenor has represented the remaining employees through collective bargaining agreements, encompassing office and clerical employees and physical employees. The Petitioner now seeks a unit of physical employees of the Employer, excluding production, office and clerical, and supervisory employees. The Intervenor contends that the appropriate unit for physical employees is the present bargaining unit which includes both physical and office and clerical employees. Physical employees in general are hourly paid; clerical employees are salaried. No established line of promotion exists by which employees are promoted from physical to clerical employment, or vice versa. The record discloses that contacts in the course of employment KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 611 between the two groups are infrequent and of minor importance. The Intervenor itself has separated physical employees from clerical employees in its organizational structure, dividing its IS locals equally between clerical and physical employees. The physical employee locals are represented by one grievance committee, and the clerical employee locals are represented by another. A disparity arising from the dissimilarity of their duties exists between the interests of clerical employees and those of manual work- ers, which makes separate units for these groups of employees prima facie appropriate.2 The close integration of work among all de- partinents of public utility operations, tending to minimize these differences, constitutes the basis of the broader units which we have sometimes found appropriate.' The record in this particular case does not persuade us that the integration of work among the physical or distribution employees and the office and clerical employees of the Employer, or the history of collective bargaining of physical em- ployees and office and clerical employees in a combined unit from which the production employees have been excluded, makes the unit proposed by the Petitioner inappropriate. We are, therefore, of the opinion that a unit limited to physical employees of this Employer, from' which office and clerical employees are excluded, is appropriate for bargaining purposes. The parties agree that the batteryman, instrument and relay man, assistant batteryman, and junior instrument and relay man in the Employer's system operating department, and apprentice service man, janitor, and appliance maintenance man in the Employer's meter service and laboratory department, all salaried employees, should properly be included in the unit of hourly paid physical employees. The Intervenor would also include in the, unit, of physical employees, janitors, elevator operators, maintenance men, and watchmen in the general office building department; janitors, timekeepers, order fillers, and junior clerks in the transportation department; janitors in the miscellaneous department; and elevator operators, janitors, order filler foreman, and foreman of the warehouse in the stores department. The Petitioner disagrees on the grounds that employees in these cate- gories are paid on a salary basis and that their work is dissimilar to 2Matter of Sierra Pacific Power Company, 56 N L R B 458, an cases cited therein; Matter of Cincinnati Gas and Electrio Company, 57 N. L R B 1298 3 As we stated in our decision in.Matter of PennsyltantarPower and Light Company, we have, in certain public utility cases , been impressed with the high degree of integration of work interests among all manual and clerical employees. Where such integration is shown, and especially where it long history of collective bargaining over a period of years has served to commingle the employment interests of-such employees ,• we have been reluctant to break up all-inclusive employee units. Matter of Pennsylvania Power and Light Com- pany, 64 N. L. R B. 874, and cases cited therein , Matter of Philadelphia Gas Works Company, 74 'N L. it. B. 638. 766972-48-vol 75-40 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD that of physical employees. The Employer agrees with the Petitioner with respect to the exclusion from the unit of the disputed classifica- tions, except as to janitors, who, it contends, should be included in the unit. We note that the parties are agreed that certain salaried categories should be included in the unit of hourly paid workers, despite the difference in their modes of payment. We do not consider mode of payment controlling on unit placement. We will look to the general interests, duties, and nature of work and working conditions of em- ployees to resolve the unit question.4 The general office employees above noted service the Employer's general office building, a consid- erable part of which is leased to other tenants. These general office employees have little or no contact with outside employees. Janitors and elevator operators in the transportation, miscellaneous, and stores departments have no regular contacts with and no duties similar to distribution employees, and other disputed employees in these depart- ments perform work of a clerical nature. All employees whose place- ment in the unit of physical employees is disputed have, in past bar- gaining, been deemed more closely aligned to office and clerical, than to distribution, employees. For these reasons we shall exclude them from the unit. We find that all physical employees of the Employer, including the batteryman, instrument and relay man, assistant batteryman, and junior instrument and relay man in the system operating department, and the apprentice service man, janitor, and appliance maintenance man in the meter service and laboratory department, but excluding all production department employees, office and clerical employees, jani- tors, elevator operators, maintenance men, and watchmen in the gen- eral office building department, janitors, timekeepers, order fillers and junior clerks in the transportation department, janitors in the miscel- laneous department, and elevator operators, janitors, order filler f ore- man, and foreman of the warehouse in the stores department, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner contends that temporary construction employees of the Employer should be eligible to vote. The Intervenor disputes their eligibility on the ground that they are appointed on a temporary basis with little or no prospect of permanent employment. The Employer takes no position on the issue. The Employer's'construction work is divided into three categories; operational, maintenance, and new construction. The employees in 4 Matter of E. I. du Pont de Nemour8 d Company, 62 N. L. R 'B. 146. KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 613 dispute are from time to time hired to work on new construction projects, the demand for which is wholly dependent upon the fluctuat- ing requirements of the Employer's customers. These employees, when hired, are notified that their employment is temporary and that they have little prospect of permanent employment. They work as laborers, digging ditches for underground conduits or setting up poles for overhead transmission lines; they do not perform any electrical work, nor are they engaged regularly in duties that bring them into contact with electrical workers. Most of them are paid off during the winter months and are not given any priority in reemployment when the slack period ends. Personnel among these employees constantly changes ; the Employer's pay roll of June 3, 1947, discloses that 64 percent of those whose names appear therein had worked for the Employer less than 6 months. We are of the opinion that temporary construction workers do not have a substantial interest in conditions of employment in the Employer's operations,5 and, therefore, shall exclude them from participation in the election. We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with-Kansas City Power & Light Com- pany, Kansas City, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lations-Series 5, 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 not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding temporary con- struction employees and 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 repre- sented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., or by Independent Union of Utility Employees, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. - 5 Mattei of Electronic Laboi atories. Inc , 69 N' L R B 413 9 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt ,request to , and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. .