Iowa Public Service Co.

IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 701 are paid at a higher hourly rate than the other employees in that department. The record indicates that they possess, and have exer- cised, the authority effectively to recommend the discharge of the crew members. Accordingly, we find that the wire-bound machine operators are supervisors as defined in the Act,' and we exclude them from the unit. The log checker works directly under the supervision of the Em- ployer's office manager and vice president. Although he is hourly paid and works in the plant logyard, he does no manual labor. He checks logs and makes entries of amounts and sizes of logs in a record book which he turns into the office. Inasmuch as his duties are purely clerical in nature and he is under the supervision of the Employer's office manager, we exclude him from the unit as an office clerical employee.' We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's wood crate and box manufacturing plant at Bainbridge, Georgia, includ- ing sizer machine operators and lumberyard grader, but exclud- ing office clerical employees, the log checker, professional employees, guards, watchmen, the plant superintendent, assistant plant super- intendent, foreman of the lathe department, foreman of the saw- mill, night foreman, dryer operators, millwright, crane operator (vat foreman), wire-bound machine operators, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Diamond Bros. Company, supra. 7 Granite Textile Mills, Inc., 76 NLRB 613; John F. McLeod and Eva T. McLeod, Co- partners d/b/a John F. McLeod Veneer Company, 62 NLRB 540. IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 944, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC- 1699. January 27,1953 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 Max Rotenberg, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 102 NLRB No. 61. 7 02 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 certain employees of the Employer. 3. Since September 1946, certain of the employees here sought have been covered by collective-bargaining agreements between the Em- ployer and the Intervenor-United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 209. The most recent such agreement, executed August 22,1951, provided for an initial period of 1 year and contained, as did the 1946 contract, the following provision : This agreement . . . shall continue in full force and effect from year to year ... unless written notice is given by either party hereto to the other, on or before sixty (60) days prior to the annual expiration date, requesting that the Agreement be can- celled or amended, or added to. If an amendment or an addition is desired, the contents of such an amendment or addition shall be submitted by either party hereto to the other not later than thirty (30) days prior to any expiration date. During the negotiation of such an amendment or addition this Agreement shall remain in effect until the negotiation is concluded. Changes in the Agreement mutually agreeable to the parties hereto may be made at any time. [Emphasis added.] Pursuant to this provision, each of the parties gave timely written notice to the other of its desire to negotiate certain contract changes. On October 9, 1952-during the course of negotiations and before formal agreement of the parties-this petition was filed. The Inter- venor contends that the August 1951 contract, because by its terms it remains in effect pending conclusion of negotiations, constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Employer, while acknowledging the existence of a contract, takes no position as to what effect, if any, it may have on the IBEW's petition. The Board has held that where either party to a contract gives notice pursuant to a provision which (1) permits modification after timely notice with reference to the "Mill B" date, and (2) continues the contract in effect after the terminal date and while such modifi- cations are being negotiated, the contract during its extended period is deemed one of indefinite duration and hence no bar.' The Inter- venor's motion to dismiss is accordingly denied. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 Worthy Paper Company Association, 80 NLRB 19. This situation is to be distinguished, however, from one involving a "contract of indefinite duration " of the type considered by the Board in Schaeffer Body, Inc., 78 NLRB 1247, Herboth Tractor Co , 79 NLRB 431, and other similar cases. Such contract has no fixed expiration date from its very inception and is deemed a bar during the first 2 years of its existence. IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 703 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all physical workers of the Employer's east division, including the employees of the "High-line Crew," but excluding the employees of the Eagle Grove and Clarion districts. The excepted employees are presently included in another bargaining unit for which there is an outstanding contract between the Employer and another local union.2 The Intervenor, although it does not contest the general propriety of the proposed unit, urges that the gas plant and gas distribution employees of the Waterloo district-whom it has represented for a period of 6 or more years-should be permitted to retain their own bargaining unit. The Employer, a public utility serving a substantial area in north- ern Iowa and a few contiguous points in South Dakota and Nebraska, is engaged in the production and distribution of electricity, manu- factured gas, and steam, and in the purchase and distribution of natu- ral gas and water. The east division, 1 of 3 such administrative groupings and the 1 with which we are here primarily concerned, em- braces within its 13 districts substantially all phases of the Em- ployer's productive and distributive operations.3 Policy decisions, formulated by the executive staff in consultation with the 3 division managers, issue from the Employer's main office in Sioux City and are implemented in the east division by the division manager with the aid of the respective district managers, superintendents, and fore- men. There exists, as in most public utilities, an extensive decree of coordination among all the Employer's various operations 4 While there is some dissimilarity between the employee classifications of the various systems, their tasks, required degree of skill, and em- ployment conditions and benefits are largely uniform. On the other hand, the Waterloo gas plant and gas distribution employees, whom the Intervenor would maintain in the separate unit for which it is the certified representative, are immediately supervised by their own superintendent, perform their tasks exclusively within the Waterloo district, and are not interchanged with other employees either within or without the district. In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the physical workers of the Employer's administrative east division-exclusive of those en- gaged in the Eagle Grove and Clarion districts presently covered by Z Certain electrical generation, distribution, and service employees of the Waterloo dis- trict, as well as employees of the high-line crew, also compose a separate unit for which there is a contract in existence. However , Local B-288, IBEW, party to that contract, by letter to the Board dated September 12, 1952, relinquished all bargaining rights to the Petitioner. The Employer does not assert that contract as a bar. 3 Some of these districts have operations restricted to electrical distribution ; in others, electricity is generated as well as distributed ; and in still others , various combinations of electric, gas, water , or steam services are rendered. * Thus it is shown that in the Charles City district, the exhaust steam from the electricity generation plant is sold to an industry for beating purposes . Engineering services are rendered to the entire division by the Employer's main office, and there exists a degree of centralized purchases and accounting. Hiring and discharges are subject to main office approval. 704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a contract of another local union-may constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. However, because the Waterloo gas plant and gas distribution employees have been represented for a substantial period of time in their own Board-sanctioned bargaining unit, we shall first ascertain their desires as expressed in a separate election before deter- mining their unit placement .5 Accordingly, we shall direct that sep- arate elections be conducted among the employees in the following voting groups, excluding from each group all office and clerical em- ployees and supervisors 6 as defined in the Act : (1) All employees of the Waterloo gas plant department and Waterloo gas distribution department, except service and meter de- partment employees. (2) All other employees of the Employer who regularly perform their work within the east division, including those of the high-line crew, but excluding those of the Eagle Grove and Clarion districts. If a majority of the employees in group (1) vote for the Inter- venor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain in a separate bargaining unit, and in that event the Regional Director conducting the election is herewith instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organization for such unit, which the Board under such circumstances finds to be appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining. Similarly, in the event the Petitioner receives a majority of the votes cast in either or both of voting groups (1) and (2), the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for a single unit comprising the employees of such group or groups, which unit the Board under these circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 6IiZinois Cities Water Co., 87 NLRB 109; Reeves and Teichert, 89 NLRB 54. 6 The Petitioner would include , and the Intervenor would exclude , certain "working foremen." The Employer asserts no position . Although these foremen do not have the authority to hire, fire, discipline , or suspend employees under their charge, they do, never- theless, regularly assign jobs , responsibly direct the manner in which the jobs are to be performed , and discuss minor grievances . They spend less than 50 percent of their working time performing manual labor. We find that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and accordingly exclude them from the voting groups. BRAzos RIVER TRANSMISSION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 72, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1026. January 27, 1953 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives On September 19, 1952, the Board issued an order directing a hear. ing in this proceeding on certain issues raised by objections filed by 102 NLRB 66.