Black River Electric Cooperative

BLACK RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 539 BLACK RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE and UTILITY WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 14-RC-1576. March 11, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry G. Carlson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is a Missouri corporation having its principal office at Ironton, Missouri, with suboffices located at Fredricktown, Elling- ton, and Lutesville, Missouri. It is financed by the Rural Electrifica- tion Adminstration and is engaged in the distribution of electric power to its 6,700 members in the general area of Ironton, Missouri. During the year 1950 its sales of electrical current exceeded $460,000 in value. During this same period the Employer purchased materials and supplies consisting of poles, wiring, and equipment valued in excess of $122,000, $72,000 of which was shipped directly to the Employer from points outside the State of Missouri. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act., We find, further that a cooperative utility of the type involved herein should, for these purposes, be treated as a public utility. Therefore, in, accordance with the Board's established policy to take jurisdiction over public utilities, we shall, in order to effectuate the policies of the Act, assert jurisdiction in this case.3 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees 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. All parties agree that the unit of construction, maintenance, and material handlers, requested by the Petitioner, comprises an appropri- ate unit. The sole issue concerns the supervisory status of certain persons whom the Employer has classified as foremen. 1 Although the Petitioner , Utility Workers of America, CIO, objected to the intervention of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of America, Local No. 2, AFL, on the ground that its interest was not current, the hearing officer permitted the latter to intervene We find no merit to the Petitioner's objections as the Board has held that the determination of the adequacy and currency of a showing of interest is an administrative matter See J P. Stevens & Co., Inc., Republic Cotton Mills Div., 93 NLRB 1513. We are satisfied that the Intervenor made a sufficient showing of interest. ' Buckeye Rural Electric Co-operative, Inc, 88 NLRB 196. ' Cherokee County Rural Electric Cooperative Association, 92 NLRB 1181. 98 NLRB No. 86. 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Maintenance foremen: The Employer employs three individuals, named respectively, Thompson, Heitman, and England, whom it clas- sifies as maintenance foremen. The Employer and the Petitioner agree that these men are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Intervenor maintains that they are nonsupervisory employees. The three named individuals are in charge of customer service and line maintenance at Fredricktown, Lutesville, and Ellington, Mis- souri, respectively. Each so-called maintenance foreman heads a group consisting of one helper and an office clerk, and operates from an office in one of the afore-mentioned towns which are from 50 to 65 miles from the Employer's home office at Ironton . Maintenance foremen are responsible for maintaining the service lines, making meter changes , and handling consumer complaints in their respective districts. The usual daily procedure for these maintenance foremen is to report in the morning at their offices , pick up orders or complaints received by the office clerk, make out work schedules for the day, and call the line superintendent at Ironton for further orders and for approval of the proposed work schedule. Although nominally in charge of a group in the field, each maintenance foreman has a truck from which he has radio contact with the line superintendent so that he may receive additional orders from time to time, or discuss with the line superintendent any problem that arises during the day. Thus, the daily operations are actually planned by the line super- intendent with little need for further action on the part of the main- tenance foreman. Moreover the record indicates that the crews of the maintenance foremen are capable of working by themselves with limited direction, such direction, therefore, confining itself largely to the routine transmittal of orders received from the line superin- tendent' The above facts support the Intervenor 's contention that the main- tenance foremen are not supervisors. Further support for this con- tention is found in a comparison of the wage rates of the maintenance foremen and their helpers . Such a comparison indicates that the helpers are experienced men who need little if any supervision from the maintenance foremen. Thus, while Thompson and Heitman are each paid $1.50 per hour and England receives $1.45 per hour, the helpers' hourly rates which range from $1.10 to $1.35 reach to within 10 cents of the rate of one of the maintenance foremen. There is no evidence that any of the maintenance foremen have the authority, nor have they had the occasion , to recommend changes in employee status. 4 Appalachian Electric Cooperative, 93 NLRB 1348. BLACK RIVER ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE 541 In view of the foregoing, and because they have no other indicia of supervisory authority, we find that the maintenance foremen are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act.' Construction foremen: The "construction foremen" comprise three individuals, Graham, Price, and Keith. There are three construction crews, two in Ironton and one in Lutesville. These crews build new lines and tap the old lines when new service is added in the vicinity of existing lines. Graham and Price are in charge of the construc- tion crews located at Ironton, and Keith directs the construction crew- at Lutesville. The parties are in agreement that both Graham and Price are not supervisors, but disagree as to the status of Keith, the Petitioner and Intervenor denying that he has supervisory status while the Employer contends that he is a supervisor. Keith generally has a crew of three, a number which varies with the amount of work in the vicinity. Although Keith has authority to and on occasion has hired temporary help, he has no general author- ity to hire or discharge regular employees and in fact has had no occasion to exercise such authority. So far as his direction of the crew is concerned, Keith receives orders each morning from the line superintendent which he transmits to the members of his crew. For such other problems as may arise his truck is equipped with a two-way radio permitting him to be in contact with the line superintendent all day. Keith devotes practically full time to working along with his men. Upon these facts, we are of the opinion that the direction by Keith of the activities of his crew are routine in nature. Furthermore, we do not believe that his infrequent hiring of additional laborers for the duration of a special installation job constitutes Keith a supervisor within the meaning of the Act as such authority is only irregularly and sporadically exer6sed.6 Accordingly, upon the basis of the entire record, we find that Keith is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and shall therefore include Keith in the unit. Labor foremen: The Company employs two individuals, Szabo and Arnold, whom it classifies as labor foremen. However, there is no evidence that either of these persons has the authority to, or has ever, effectively recommended the hire or discharge of any of the employees with whom they work. A similar lack of supervisory authority exists with respect to the direction of their respective crews. Szabo's crew ranges from one to five and Arnold's crew generally consists of two or three men. Both of these employees receive daily orders from the line superintendent and both of them work full time along with , Ibid. e Del Rio and Winter Garden Telephone On., 85 NLRB 199. 542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their fellow crew members. Thus, it would appear that they do not responsibly direct employees, nor do they possess any other indicia of supervisory status. Accordingly, we find that they are not super- visors within the meaning of the Act and shall include them in the unit. Staking chief.- Symonds is classified by the Employer as staking chief. With the aid of one or two employees, he determines and marks the locality of the poles to be erected for the new lines. The record does not indicate that he has the authority effectively to recommend the discharge, or the hiring of employees, nor does it indicate that he responsibly directs the employees with whom he works. Although he is responsible for getting the job tickets and determining the loca- tion of new poles to be erected, the record reveals that he receives daily instructions on the subject from the line superintendent. Further- more, not only has he never been informed that he has any super- visory authority, but the improbability that he would receive such authority is indicated by the fact that he has less experience than. one of the men working with him. Accordingly, we believe that Symonds, is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, shall, therefore, include him in the unit. We find that all construction, maintenance, and material handler employees of the Employer at its Ironton, Lutesville, Ellington, and Fredricktown, Missouri, branches, including Thompson, Heitman, England, Cox,7 Graham, Price, Keith, Szabo, Arnold, and Symonds, but excluding guards and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 7 The parties stipulated that Cox was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. CROSSETT PAPER MILLS, DIVISION OF CROSSETT LUMBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-614. March 11, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Kyle, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 98 NLRB No. 87.