Boston Consolidated Gas Co.

In the Matter of BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL- 849, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 1-RC-2O5.Decided August 31, 1948 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board 'Members. * Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner and Gas and By-Product Coke Workers' Local Union 12003, U. M. W. A., herein called the Intervenor,l are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. • 3. No question concerning representation of employees of the Em- ployer exists within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, under the following circumstances : The Employer and the Intervenor entered into a collective bargain- ing agreement on January 31, 1944, which, as amended on February 17, 1947, was to continue until October 15, 1948, and for successive 1-year periods thereafter unless either party notified the other of a desire to cancel or amend the agreement 30 days prior to an anniversary date. In January 1948 the Employer and the Intervenor began nego- tiations to modify this contract. On February 17, 1948, the Employer, 'Houston, Murdock, and Gray. The Intervenor has not complied with Section 9 (f) and (h) of the Act but was per- mitted to intervene because of its present contractual relationship with the Employer. 79 N. L. R. B., No..42. 337 338• DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by a letter to the Intervenor, proposed a wage increase and modifica-- tion of the established vacation policy in return for the Intervenor's promise not to exercise its right to amend or cancel the agreement prior to October 15, 1949. On February 20, 1948, the Intervenor signified its acceptance of these terms by signing the Employer's letter. Prior to the Intervenor's acceptance, however, by letter dated Feb- ruary 17, 1948, the Petitioner informed the Employer that it repre- sented the Employer's engineers and firemen, and on February 18, 1948, it filed the petition herein. Where, as here, a collective bargaining agreement contains no re- negotiation clause, negotiations to modify the terms of the agreement "open up" the agreement and permit the making of a representation claim during the pendency of the negotiations.? As the new contract was not finally executed until signed by the Intervenor, the contract between it and the Employer was open until February 20, 1948,3 and therefore did not constitute a bar to the making and filing of a repre- sentation claim by the Petitioner on February 17 and 18, 1948 4 - The Petitioner seeks -a unit composed of all the engineers and fire- men- employed at the Employer's Everett, Massachusetts, plant. The same circumstances, which recently, in Matter of Lynn Gas and Elec- tric'Company,5 caused us to find a similar unit inappropriate in an- other Massachusetts company, exist in this case. The proposed unit consists of first- and second-class firemen and of second- and third- class engineers. Although the State licensing provisions require 1 year's experience for a first-class fireman and 11/2 and 2 years' experi- ence for third- and second-class engineers respectively, no experience is required for second-class firemen, a category to which two members of the proposed unit belong. While the Employer encourages em- ployees to qualify for and obtain higher licenses, neither it nor the Petitioner provides, as far as the record shows, any training which would enable them to do so. Employees in various departments are transferred to jobs as firemen and engineers as vacancies occur if they have obtained the necessary licenses. Five of the employees-sought by the Petitioner hold licenses despite the fact that in the capacity in which they work neither the State nor the Employer requires them to do so. Although it is to the advantage of the Company to'have 2 Matter of Odin Industries, 67 N. L. R B 1043. 3 Matter of Eicor, Inc., 46 N L R B. 1035 ' - ' " In view of this conclusion, we need not deal with the question raised by both the Employer and the Petitioner, whether, under the circumstances outlined above, the contract between the Employer and the Intervenor was prematurely extended. 578• N. L. R: B. 3. ' . BOSTON CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY 339 as much licensed personnel on hand as possible, these employees could be replaced by non-licensed ones. Of the employees sought by the Petitioner, 5 work in the boiler house, 3 in the blower room, 3 in the exhauster house, 9 or 10 in the booster -house, and 2 are engaged in operating a steam crane all over the' plant. All these properties are physically separate and in some instances an appreciable distance apart. These employees differ from the usual powerhouse group which, on occasion, we have set up as a separate unit,6 in that their operations are an integral part of the manufacturing process-of, the Employer's product. Thus in the instant case approx- imately 50 percent of the steam produced in the boiler house is used in the manufacture of watergas, which is a component of the product sold by the Employer. The engineers in the blower room operate stean1 turbines which supply air to the generator, thus creating the heat neces- sary to the manufacture of watergas. The engineers in the exhaust room operate steam turbines which pump the manufactured gas from the relief holder to the storage holders, and the engineers in the booster house pump the gas into the city mains. The 2 crane operators, while occasionally employed in the exhaust and blower rooms, use their crane to load and unload materials necessary to the Employer's manufac- turing process all over the plant. During the day shift, the employees sought by the Petitioner are under the separate supervision of the chief engineer, but they are under the same supervision as other employees of the plant during the, afternoon and night shifts. Each year from approximately May to October, the Employer obtains its gas requirements from outside sources and therefore does not operate its watergas plant. All the- employees sought by the Petitioner, except the booster engineers and the crane operators, are engaged in other activities in the maintenance department during that period. Since 1937 the Employer has bargained with the Intervenor on a system-wide basis.7 Under the contracts resulting from this bargain- ing, the employees sought by the Petitioner work under the same working conditions and receive the same- benefits as do the other- employees of the Employer. In only 3 of the 26 utility companies operating in Massachusetts have separate units for firemen and engineers been established. Our policy ° See Matter of Lynn Gas and Electric Co., supra , and cases cited there. Of the 1 ,585 employees of the Employer, only 191 work at the Everett plant. The record does not reveal whether work similar to that done by the employees sought by the- petitioner is performed in other parts of the system. .340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD has been to favor system-wide units in the utility field," and t'he, facts set forth above present no reason for deviation either from the indus- trial pattern or our established policy. We therefore find that under the circumstances set forth above, the employees sought by the- Peti- tioner are not a skilled craft group and do not on any other basis con- stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. We shall therefore dismiss the petition herein. ORDER IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, .dismissed. 8 Matter o f Lynn Gas and Electric Co , supra, and cases cited there.