The Ohio Power Co.

In the Matter of THE OHIO POWER CoirPANY, EMPLOYER and UT=Y WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 8-R-2463.-Decided April 14,1947 Day, Cope, Letterer, Raley & Wright, by Messrs. D. W. Raley and Fred R. Shedd, of Canton, Ohio, for the Employer. Mr. William R. Munger, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. George M. Yaghjian, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Canton, Ohio, on January 30, 1947, before John A. Hull, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Ohio Power Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged in the production, sale, and distribution of electrical power and light. Its main offices are located at Newark, Ohio, and it serves customers in 55 counties in the State of Ohio. It furnishes electrical energy to various industrial concerns, including Timken Roller Bearing Company, Re- public Steel Corporation, Lima Locomotive Company, and American Rolling Mills Company. It receives various equipment, such as wire 'Among other rulings, the hearing officer over ruled the objections of counsel for the Employei to the eliciting of testimony by the hearing officer on matters in issue between the parties The Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 4, Section 203 50 (a) states : "It shall be the duty of the hearing officer to inquire fully into all matters in issue and necessary to obtain a frill and complete record upon which the Board may discharge its duties under Section 9 of the Act " In view of the foregoing provision and the fact that a proceeding for the investigation and certification of repiesentatives is not an adversaiy pioceecling, but a proceeding for the purpose of ascertaining the facts upon which the Board may act in an administrative capacity under the provisions of the Act, the objections above noted to the conduct of the heaiing officer are without mciit Matter of Sperry Gyro- scope Company, Inc , 60 N L R B. 344 , Mattel of Standai d Oil Company of Calitoi Troia, 63 N L R B 471. 73 N L. R. B., No. 73. 384 THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 385 and turbines from outside the State of Ohio. The Employer has inter- connections with utility companies in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Indiana. It transmits and receives electrical energy across State lines. The instant proceeding concerns only the Tidd plant located near Brilliant, Ohio. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the bargaining representative of its employees contending that (1) no question con- cerning representation has arisen because no request for recognition was made by the Petitioner before it filed its petition, and (2) the record is barren of any proof that the Petitioner has been designated by any of the employees as their bargaining representative. As to the Employer's initial objection, it is well settled that a re- quest for recognition previous to the filing of a petition is not necessary to the creation of a question concerning representation. A question exists where, as here, the petitioning labor organization's status as bargaining representative is in dispute at the time of the hearing and recognition depends on certification by the Board.2 Moreover, the Board has held that the filing of a petition per se creates a question of representation.' As to the Employer's second objection, it is without merit for the reasons stated in the O. D. Jennings case 4 We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all regular employees at the Tidd plant, including control operators, stores attendants, junior chemist, junior test engineer, laboratory tester and janitors, but excluding chemists, test engineers, guards, clerical employees, construction em- ployees, probationary employees, part-time employees and supervisors. 2 Mattel of C A Kelly Plow Company, 72 N. L. R. B 1147. Matter of East Texas Electric Steel Company, Inc, 72 N L. R B. 1144. Matter of 0 D Jennings J Company, 68 N L R B 516. 386 DECISIONS OF NkTIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD The Employer would exclude control operators, stores attendants, junior chemist, junior test engineer, laboratory tester and janitors, in addition to the categories of employees whom the Petitioner would exclude; the Employer does not otherwise object to the composition of the proposed unit. Control operators: The Tidd plant is probably the most highly automatic electric generating plant in the industry. Practically all the controls for operating the generating unit, consisting of boilers, generators, fans, pumps and related auxiliary and accessory turbine. equipment, is concentrated in a single control room. Because of the automatism of the equipment only one control operator aided by two assistants, an assistant control operator and an auxiliary equipment operator, are required to perform the work for which many more operators are needed in less highly automatic generating plants. The control operator spends practically all his time in the control room controlling the various pieces of equipment by push buttons or switches. Necessary York outside the control room is done by the assistant control operator or the auxiliary equipment operator under the direction of the control operator. The control operators are licensed stationary engineers of the State of Ohio. They are paid the highest hourly rate in the plant. The control operator is responsible to the shift operating engineer who in turn is under the supervision of the operations supervisor. The latter takes his orders from the plant su- perintendent. According to the Employer's superintendent of plants, recommendations of a control operator as to the employment, dis- charge, or discipline of his assistants "would be given a great deal of weight, but he would not, except under extreme circumstances, have anything to do with that." In view of the foregoing, we find that the control operators are not supervisors within the Board's customary definition. As part of the regular operating force, we shall include them in the unit. Stores attendants: These employees work in the storeroom, storing, issuing, and keeping records of tools, materials, and equipment. As an incidental part of their duties, they drive company trucks used to pick up articles for the plant. They are supervised by a storekeeper who is responsible to the plant superintendent. The storeroom is located in the office bay of the plant. Although much of the work of the stores attendants involves the keeping of records of supplies in the storeroom, the interests of these employees lie predominantly with the manual rather than with the clerical employees. We shall include them in the unit.5 5 Matter of Apache Powder Company, 59 N L R B 1133 , Matter of West Virginia A) ma- tare Company, 65 N L R. B. 1015 THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 387 Junior ehenzict and junior test engineer : These employees are assist- ants, respectively, to the chemist and the test engineer. They are graduate engineers and after a period of training, they may be ad- vanced to the position of chemist or test engineer. We find that the junior chemists and junior test engineers are professional employees. In accordance with our practice, we shall exclude them Laboratory tester: This employee works in the laboratory dividing her time between making routine laboratory tests and performing clerical and secretarial work for the chief chemist and his assistant. Because of her work, the interests of the laboratory tester lie less with the operating personnel than with the clerical and technical employees. We shall exclude her. Janitors: These employees spend all their time performing jani- -tornil work in the office section of the plant. The work of the janitors is manual and not clerical. We believe that, regardless of the place of their employment, the janitors should be included in the same unit with operating and maintenance employees generally. We shall in- clude them.? We find that all regular employees of the Employer's Tidd plant, including control operators, stores attendants and janitors, but ex- cluding guards, clerical employees, construction employees, proba- tionary employees, part-time employees, laboratory tester, chemist, junior chemist, test engineer, junior test engineer, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with The Ohio Power Company, Bril- liant, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted 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 Direc- tor for the Eighth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im- mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or Matter of The Temas Company, 63 N L R B. 1442 7 Matte) of Inlaid Steel Compat, 73 N L R B 19 388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding 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 or not they desire to be represented by Utility Workers of America, C. I. O., for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. MR. JoaN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.