Pioneer Natural Gas Co.

502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD development technician, laboratory technician, insulation and winding technician, assistant buyer, and chemical and process engineer; but ex- cluding all other employees, and all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appro- priate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a sepa- rate unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, on the other hand, a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] PIONEER NATURAL GAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, LOCAL UNION No. 351, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1541. February 3,1955 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis A. Ward, 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 organization involved claims 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 to represent a unit of certain transmission and distribution employees who reside and work in the Amarillo, Texas, area of the Employer's operations. The Employer opposes the unit sought on the ground that it is too limited in scope and contends that only a systemwide unit of all its transmission and distribution employ- ees is appropriate. The Employer, a Texas corporation, is a public utility engaged in the transmission, distribution, and sale of natural gas. It was formed I The hearing officer referred to the Board , the Employer's motion to dismiss the peti- tion. For the reasons stated , infra, this motion is granted. 111 NLRB No. 75. PIONEER NATURAL GAS COMPANY 503 on December 31, 1953, by a reorganization of the Southwestern Devel- opment Company, a holding corporation, and four wholly owned sub- sidiary distribution companies.2 Its interconnected transmission lines serve consumers in approximately 50 towns and numerous rural com- munities covering an area about 275 miles long and 125 miles wide in the Panhandle and South Plains area of Texas. The Employer's home office is in Amarillo, Texas, where the heads of the various departments active in the conduct of the Employer's business are located. Personnel records of all employees throughout the system are maintained in Amarillo. Management control of the Employer is vested in the president and a management committee composed of the executive vice president, five vice presidents, and the controller. This committee makes all major policy decisions and con- trols the Employer's operations on an overall systemwide basis. The committee handles the Employer's labor-management problems. The Employer operates its facilities as a single integrated system. Thus local managers, who are in charge of the Employer's business and distribution operations in their own areas, are responsible to and report directly to the vice president in charge of distribution in Amarillo. Equipment, tools, and installations are uniform through- out the system. Employees are classified in accordance with a uniform systemwide classification plan, and each job is placed in a wage grade according to an overall job evaluation plan. Employees are frequently interchanged, both on a temporary and permanent basis, between Amarillo and other points on the system. Working conditions, hours of employment, seniority, and other employee benefits are uniform throughout the system. The unit sought by the Petitioner does not correspond to any admin- istrative division of the Employer's operations, but corresponds only to the geographical location of one of the Employer's operations. Moreover, the unit sought does not include all transmission and dis- tribution employees at this location. Thus the Petitioner is not seek- ing to include those employees at Amarillo classified as compressor repairmen, and operators A, B, and C. And of 4 employees at Amarillo classified as service inspector B, the Petitioner would include only 2. The Board has frequently considered requests for units in the public utility field and has generally considered the optimum unit to be sys- temwide.' In certain circumstances, the Board has found appropriate smaller units corresponding to administrative divisions or depart- 2 These were Amarillo Gas Company, West Texas Gas Company, Dalhart Gas Company, and Clayton Gas Company. 8 See, for example, Pennsylvania Electric Company, 110 NLRB 1078; Philadelphia Elec- tric Company, 110 NLRB 320; Rockland Light and Power Company, 105 NLRB 365; Southern Colorado Power Company, 104 NLRB 926. 504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ments.' In the instant case, the integrated nature of the Employer's operations, its central control of management and labor relations, the employee interchange, the similarity of classifications, and the uni- formity of wage scales and working conditions throughout the system, together with the fact that the Petitioner does not seek all the em- ployees in the Amarillo area and the unit sought does not correspond to any administrative division or department of the Employer, all indicate that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate. Ac- cordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappro- priate for purposes of collective bargaining, and shall dismiss the petition.' [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4 See, for example , Philadelphia Electric Company, 95 NLRB 71; Southwestern Elec- tric Service Company, 89 NLRB 114, 117. s Afrossessippe River Fuel Corporation, 110 NLRB 708; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 108 NLRB 1041; Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, 96 NLRB 1385 ; Eliza- bethtown Consolidated Gas Company, 93 NLRB 1270. PINKERTON 'S NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY and YONKERS RACEWAY UNIFORM PATROLMEN'S ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER. PINKERTON'S NATIONAL DETECTIVE AGENCY and YONKERS RACEWAY UNIFORM USHERS ASSOCIATION, INDEPENDENT, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 2-RC-4020 and 2-RC-6924. February 3,1955 Decision and Order Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Jacob Lazarus, 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 consolidated proceeding, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. The Intervenor contends that the Board has no jurisdiction on the ground that the employees involved work exclusively during the racing season at the Raceway, which sport the Board has held is not sufficiently related to interstate commerce to warrant the Board in asserting jurisdiction.' As we dismiss the petitions on other grounds, we do not find it necessary to consider the question of asserting juris- diction as a policy matter at this time. 2. The labor organizations 2 involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 1 See Pari-hfutuei Employees Guild (Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc. ), 90 NLRB 20. 2 The Intervenor, Local 32E, Building Service Employees International Union, AFL, was permitted to intervene on the ground of contractual interest in the employees involved. 111 NLRB No. 76.