Grundy Electric Cooperative, Inc.

In the Matter of GRUNDY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 53, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 17-RC-605.Decided January 31, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held in this case at Tren- ton, Missouri, on November 29, 1949, before Martin Sacks, hearing officer. 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-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The business of the Employer : The Employer is a nonprofit Missouri corporation, wholly financed by the United States Government through the Rural Electrification Administration, with headquarters at Trenton, Missouri, where it is engaged in furnishing electricity to customers in a number of Missouri and Iowa counties. It is authorized to furnish such service in the rural areas of 7 Missouri and 3 Iowa counties and counties contiguous thereto to its members who would otherwise not receive central station electric service. At the present time, the Employer supplies electric power over 1,152 miles of transmission lines (including at least 15 miles inside the State of Iowa) to some 3,500 customers of whom 328 are located in Iowa. Included among its Iowa customers are an inter- state railroad which uses the power for 2 depots and its signal system, 2 municipalities, and a number of commercial concerns. In Mis- souri, the Employer furnishes electricity in substantial quantities to the Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, over which we have heretofore exercised jurisdiction,' an interstate railroad, 2 coal mines, and a D 1 Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 56 NLRB 227. This customer's bills averaged $382.50 for the 3 months before the hearing. At this rate, the sale of electricity to the Pipe Line Company alone represents more than 3 percent of the Employer's total sales. 88 NLRB No. 36. 424 GRUNDY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. 425 grain elevator. During the first 101/2 months of 1949, the Employer purchased, largely for use in line construction, approximately $293,000 worth of materials and supplies. of which at least 30 percent repre- sented out-of-State shipments. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is en- gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.2 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3: A 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. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner requests a unit consisting of all maintenance and construction employees of the Employer, excluding office and profes- sional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer contends that its construction workers are temporary employees and should therefore be excluded from the unit. There are approximately 31 employees on the Employer's payroll. Of these employees, 14 work in or out of the office,3 and they are prop- erly excluded from the unit. Of the remaining 17 employees, 7 are in the maintenance division and 10 are in the construction division. Maintenance employees service and repair existing lines. Construc- tion employees are engaged in the erection of new power lines. The 2 groups of employees have essentially the same skills, do the same type of work, receive approximately the same wages, are under the same supervision, and have the same general conditions of employ- ment. The record discloses that job interchange between construction and maintenance employees is not uncommon. It is clear from these facts that the maintenance and construction division employees together constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.' The Employer's contention with respect to the temporary status of the construction workers is, as the Employer in effect concedes, really a question of the eligibility of these employees to vote in the election hereinafter directed; this problem is considered in paragraph 5, below. We find that all maintenance and construction division employees of the Employer, excluding office and professional employees, easement 'East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Inc., 87 NLRB 64 ; French Broad Elec- tric Membership Corporation, 75 NLRB 86 ; Tishomingo County Electric Power Association, 74 NLRB 864 ; Gibson County Electric Membership Corporation, 65 NLRB 760. The case of Platte-Clay Electric Cooperative, Inc., 83 NLRB 863, relied upon by the Employer is distinguishable upon the ground that the employer there, also a Missouri electric cooperative , did no business outside Missouri and there was no evidence that any of its Missouri customers were engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Four of these employees are easement solicitors. See East Central Oklahoma Electric Cooperative, Inc., supra. 426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD solicitors, guards, and supervisors 8 as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. In support of its contention that construction division employees are temporary employees and therefore ineligible to vote in the elec- tion, the Employer claims that these employees were only hired to do new construction work; that they knew when hired that such work was temporary in nature; and that, in any event, the work of the con- struction employees will be terminated with the completion of the new construction programs The record indicates, however, and we find, that such construction employees are in fact not temporary employees or distinguishable in respect to status from the employees in the main- tenance division. The record clearly discloses that the construction division employees have never been told, either when they were hired or thereafter, that they were temporary employees. The Employer has not, at least up to the hearing in this case, indicated to the construc- tion employees that their status was any different than that of the employees in the maintenance division. In this regard, we think it is significant that the 10 construction employees, who have worked for the Employer for periods ranging from 18 months to 6 years, have sen- iority with the Employer which is approximately the same as that of the employees in the maintenance division; in fact, the 2 outside employees with the most seniority are in the construction division. Moreover, as mentioned above, construction employees have the same employee benefits as the maintenance employees, a fact which indicates that the former have an equally permanent employment status.7 Fi- nally, even if it is assumed that the construction employees have the status of temporary workers, it appears that they may reasonably expect continuous employment for at least another year." In view of this expectancy of continued employment for a substantial period of time, we find that they are eligible to vote in the election .9 Excluded as a supervisor is Charles Whorton, the foreman In charge of the maintenance and construction divisions. 6 The Employer's acting manager testified he believed that consulting engineers had estimated for the Employer that the saturation point for new power lines in the Employer's territory would be reached "around 1951 ," and that the Employer did not expect to build new lines after another year . This official further testified that the Employer might decide at any time to have an independent contractor do the new construction work, as it was becoming more and more uneconomical for the Employer to construct its own lines. The Employer contends that, in either event, the employment of the construction division employees would be terminated. r See Lake Superior District Power Company, 87 NLRB No. 3. Although the Employer indicates that it may at any time terminate the new construc- tion work, the discontinuance of such work is entirely speculative at this time , and it is equally speculative , even if the Employer stops doing new construction work itself, that the construction employees, two of whom have the greatest seniority of all the employees In the unit , will be selected for discharge. "Fall River Gas Works Company, 82 NLRB 962. GRUNDY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC . 427 DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re- instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain- ing, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 53, AFL.