Laclede Gas Light Co.

In the Matter of LACLEDE GAS LIGHT CO_IIPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER- NAT1ONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCALS No. 2A, 2B, AND 2C, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 1.-RC-299.Decided February 2, 19.19 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 the case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following rea- sons: The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit composed of the licensed and operating engineers employed at Station A and the Shrewsbui!y plant of the Employer. The Employer and the Intervenor 1 contend, inter alia, that the present petition should be dismissed as untimely filed, because at the time of its filing the requested employees were involved in another representation proceeding that was then pending before the Board.2 * Houston, Reynolds , and Murdock. ' United Gas , Coke , and Chemical workers of America , Local 6, C. I 0 2 The record shows that ^ t the 'utset of the hearinn Tntern'tional Union of Operating Engineers , Local 148 , A F L , made an appearance, and after entering a formal objection to the proceedings, it then withdrew 81 N. L. R. B., No. 82. 462 LACLEDE GAS LIGHT COMPANY 463 On May 21, 1947, almost a year before the instant petition was filed, the Employer filed a petition for certification of representatives-3 A hearing on the Employer's petition was held on August 13 and 14, 1947, and on February 14, 1948, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election.' On April 27, 1948, the Board having recon- sidered that decision, issued a Supplemental Decision, Order Setting Aside Direction of Election, and Second Direction of Election .5 11, this Supplemental Decision, as later corrected and amended, the Board directed that an election be held among the following group of employees who it found constituted an appropriate unit: all employees employed in the Employer's water gas manufactur- ing and gas distribution department in St. Louis County and in the Employer's departments in the City of St. Louis listed in Appendix A, including dispatchers, but excluding engineers, clerks, estimators, office employees, and all supervisors,' .. . 'The exclusions herein enumerated apply to both the St. Louis County and the City of St. Louis operations of the Employer. The Board's official records show that on November 24, 1948, pur- suant to the results of the election held in the earlier proceeding on August 31, 1948, the Board certified the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the above-described appropriate unit. The Petitioner argues that the licensed and operating engineers employed at Station A and the Shrewsbury plant of the Employer were excluded from the unit found appropriate in Case No. 14-RE-18 by reason of the fact that the employee classification "engineers" is listed among the excluded categories in the Board's unit finding therein. We disagree. The description of the unit found appro- priate in that case was intended to cover all employees of the Employer on behalf of whom the Intervenor and Local 148 had bar- gained for several years. Since 1935 the operating engineers at Sta- tion A had been included with other employees of the Employer's City of St. Louis operation in the bargaining unit represented by the Intervenor and its predecessor. Since 1941 the operating engineers employed in the Shrewsbury plant had been represented by Local 148 as part of a unit of the production and distribution employees of the St. Louis County operation which the Employer acquired shortly before it filed its petition in the prior case. The bargaining contract covering the employees of the St. Louis County operation in effect at the time that operation was acquired by the Employer listed ' Case No. 14-RE-18. 4 76 N L R B 199 6 77 N. L. R. B. 354 464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4'engineers" as an excluded category. Evidence adduced at the hear- ing indicates that the term "engineers" as used in that contract was intended to cover only professional engineers. The term "engineers" appearing in our description of the appropriate unit in Case No. 14-RE-18 is likewise limited to professional engineers as distin- guished from operating engineers . Accordingly, we find that the licensed and operating engineers whom the Petitioner is here seeking to represent are included in the unit found appropriate in the earlier case. The Petitioner filed its petition herein on May 3, 1948 . At that time, as noted above, there was pending before the Board, another proceeding which involved , among others, the employees claimed by the Petitioner . Although the Board's decision in the earlier case had already issued when the Petitioner 's petition was filed, the elec- tion had not yet been held. In effect, therefore , the Petitioner was seeking intervention in the earlier proceeding although its claim was asserted in the form of a petition rather than in the form of a mo- tion to intervene . The Board has frequently permitted labor organi- zations to intervene in representation proceedings after the close of the hearing if they establish that, as of the time of the hearing, they had a representative interest among the employees with whom the proceeding is concerned .r The Board's official records indicate that at the time of the hearing in the earlier case, the Petitioner did not have a representative interest in the employees it currently desires to represent . In fact, it did not show an interest in those employees until several months after that hearing had closed . In view of these circumstances, we find that the Petitioner was not entitled to inter- vene in the earlier proceeding or assert a claim with respect to the employees who were involved in that proceeding by filing a petition.7 We shall therefore dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 6 Matter of Harris Transfer & Warehouse Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1420. 7 Matter of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, 80 N. L. R. B. 118.