East Ohio Gas Co.

EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY 61 EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY and UTILITY WORKERS UNION or AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-1127. April 27, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Carroll L. Martin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' - Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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 reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all of the Employer's production, maintenance, and distribution employees, excluding all clerical, sales, professional, and confidential employees, watchmen, and supervisors. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate because it excludes the clerical em= ployees who have been included together with the Employer's physical employees in a single unit, and because of the integration of the Em- ployer's operations. Since 1937 the Intervenor has represented the Employer's em- ployees under a series of contracts in a unit which included both physical and clerical employees.' The Employer's employees fall into the usual categories of employees found in gas utility systems. The Petitioner concedes that in the instant case, as in other public utility operations, the work of the physical employees is closely integrated with that of the clerical employees. There have been many permanent and temporary transfers among the two groups of employees. The' record shows that there exists a community of interest among the physical and clerical employees from a social and economic point of view. ' The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and Natural Gas Workers Union, Independent , hereinafter called the Intervenor , to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner was not appropriate 11,01 the reasons stated infra, these motions are hereby granted. 'Although the recognition clauses of the contracts from 1937 to 1943 do not mention the office, clerical, or technical employees ; the record shows that the Employer and the Intervenor bargained 'for these employees and considered that the substantive terms of the contract applied to them. Whenever a general wage increase was negotiated for the physical employees it was also applied to all clerical employees . Since 1943, the contracts have specified that the Intervenor was recognized as the bargaining representa- tive for the clerical as well as the physical employees. 94 NRLB No. 1. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD While the Board has found appropriate units of physical employees in a public utility apart from clerical employees,3 we are of the opinion that in the present proceeding the long history of collective bargain- ing, the high degree of integration in the Employer's operations, the transfers between physical and clerical employees, and the community of interest among both groups of employees, require a finding that only a unit of physical and clerical employees is appropriate.4 Ac- cordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall dis- miss the petition. Order Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of the East Ohio Gas Company, Cleveland, Ohio, filed by the Utility Workers Union of America, CIO, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 3 Indianapolis Power & Light Company, 76 NLRB 136; Kansas City Power & Light Company, 75 NLRB 609. 4 Philadelphia Gas Works Company, 74 NLRB 638; Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, 64 NLRB 874. ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT CO., INC. and CHARLES PENCHANSKY. Case No. 2-CA--867. April 30, 1951 Decision and Order On May 29, 1950, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the charging party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and supporting briefs. The charging party also requested oral argument. This request is denied as the record and briefs, in our opinion, adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions, and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and, except as they relate to discharge of Penchansky, hereby 94 NLRB No. 19.