Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc.

618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion area and exercise his influence to see that work is being turned out by the employees according to schedule. In view of the foregoing, I find that The F. & S. Company presently is the em- ployer of the employees in the unit under consideration in the instant case, and further, that no essential attribute of the employment relationship has changed as a result of the lease arrangement .7 [Recommendations omitted from publication.] 7 Under similar circumstances , where a transfer of ownership was made, after a Board- directed election, the Board granted the Petitioner 's motion to amend its certificate to con- form to the identity of the successor employer. Malden Lumber Company, 90 NLRB 1361. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and LOCAL 1393, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL , PETITIONER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and LOCAL 135, INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA , INC. and LOCAL 1393 , INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL , PETITIONER PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. and UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 35-RC-1009,35- RC-1015,35-RC-1016, and 35-RC-1021 . February 14,1955 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before John W. Hines, 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 certain em- ployees 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 in Case No. 35-RC-1009. No 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 in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015, 1016, and 1021, for reasons set forth below. The Employer, an Indiana corporation, is engaged as a public util- ity in producing electrical energy in the State of Indiana. It pro- vides services directly to approximately 333,830 consumers in 724 I The IBEW intervened in Cases Nos . 35-RC-1015 and 1021 . The CIO intervened in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1009 and 1016. 111 NLRB No. 105. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. 619 communities located in 70 counties in Indiana. It also sells electrical energy to other utilities for resale by them. Most of the energy sold by the Employer is generated in four main generating stations which are interconnected by an extensive transmission and distribution system. The Employer has bargained with IBEW as representative of cer- tain of its employees since 1938. In 1944 the IBEW was certified as the representative of a systemwide unit of all production, construction, generating, transmission, distribution, operating maintenance, repair service, and meter reading department employees? In 1950, as a re- sult of an election directed by the Board, the stores employees were added to the unit represented by the IBEW.3 The most recent contract between the IBEW and the Employer ex- pired on May 1, 1954. The petitions involved in this proceeding were all filed during the course of the negotiations for a new contract. On April 2,1954, the IBEW filed its petition in Case No. 35-RC-1009, re- questing that it be certified as the representative of approximately 17 employees classified as A, B, and C technicians, who work in the gen- erating stations, and who are not included in the certified unit. On April 29, 1954, the IBEW filed its petition in Case No. 35-RC-1016, as a result of the Employer's announced intention not to negotiate any longer with respect to certain classifications of employees, presently included in the bargaining unit, but whom the Employer contends are supervisory employees. On April 29, 1954, the Teamsters filed its petition in Case No. 35-RC-1015, seeking to sever a unit of stores em- ployees from the certified unit. On May 7,1954, the CIO filed its peti- tion in Case No. 35-RC-1021, seeking to sever a unit of all generating station employees from the certified unit. Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015, 1021: The Teamsters' petition and the CIO's petition present the same basic issue, namely, whether depart- mental units may be severed in the face of a long history of bargain- ing on the basis of a comprehensive systemwide unit of all physical employees. The Teamsters seeks to carve out a unit of all senior stockmen, stock- men, and stockman drivers, located in all storerooms of the Employer. The Employer operates 39 storerooms. Fifteen of these are in the charge of storekeepers under whom work senior stockmen and stock- men. Three stores are manned by senior stockmen and stockmen, 16 stores are manned entirely by senior stockmen, and 4 are manned en- tirely by stockmen. The Employer also employs two stockman drivers who are located at general headquarters and who transport materials to points anywhere in the system. This is basically the same unit as that involved in Case No. 35-RC-304,4 which resulted in the addition 8 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., 56 NLRB 643. 8 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., 89 NLRB 1253. 6 Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc., supra. 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of the stores employees to the systemwide unit represented by the IBEW. Except for the fact that the Employer no longer employs any typist clerks in the storerooms and did not at the time of the earlier case employ any stockman drivers, the operations of the stores divi- sion has not changed since the Board's decision in the earlier case. The duties of the typists clerks have been eliminated in part, and in part have been taken over by senior stockmen or stockmen. The Teamsters contends that a unit of senior stockmen, stockmen, and stockmen drivers is appropriate, notwithstanding the past bar- gaining history on a broader basis, because it is "exactly the same as that called for in the alternative by the IBEW in 1950. . . . (with the exception of the typists clerks)," and the only reason why the Board did not find such a unit to be appropriate in the earlier case was because the employees in the 1950 election voted for the IBEW, and thus the Board held that they had indicated a desire to be repre- sented by the IBEW in the larger unit. The Teamsters points out that in that election, the stores employees had no opportunity to vote for a union other than the IBEW, and that they should now be given such an opportunity. The Teamsters argues that the stores employees comprise a functionally distinct, homogeneous group of employees con- stituting an appropriate departmental unit severable from the larger unit in accordance with the American Potash decision 6 The CIO seeks to carve out a unit of all production and mainte- nance workers employed in the Employer's generating stations (includ- ing the technicians A, B, and C, who are the object of the IBEW's petition in Case No. 35-RC-1009) and travelling mechanics. In the alternative the CIO will accept any unit that the Board may deem to be appropriate. The CIO contends that the Employer's generating station employees comprise a functionally distinct, homogeneous group of employees constituting an appropriate departmental unit which may be severed from the larger unit if the employees desire. The CIO relies on the American Potash decision as authority for its position. It argues that in its decision in that case the Board did not include public utilities among the industries in which it would not permit severance and there- fore the decision must be read as permitting severance of craft or department units from historically established systemwide units in the utility industry notwithstanding the integrated nature of the industry. The reliance of the CIO and Teamsters on the American Potash decision is misplaced. The Board's policy that a systemwide unit in a public utility is the optimum appropriate unit, is a principle apart from the National Tube doctrine. Therefore, the American Potash decision, which sharply limited the application of that doctrine is not 5 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF INDIANA, INC. 621 relevant to a determination of the severance issue in this case which involves a public utility. However, even assuming the applicability of the National Tube policy to the utility industry, it is clear that the American Potash decision was not intended to revise that policy, for in that decision the Board stated : However, as we do not deem it wise or feasible to upset a pattern of bargaining already firmly established, we shall continue to de- cline to entertain petitions for craft or departmental severance in those industries in which the Board has already applied National Tube and where plant-wide bargaining prevails. Thus it is clear that the question of the appropriateness of the units sought by the CIO and the Teamsters must be decided in the light of the Board's established policies with respect to the utility industry. That policy has clearly been to favor the larger unit over the smaller unit, and to regard the systemwide unit as the optimum appropriate unit for collective bargaining.6 Where such a unit has been established for a considerable period of time as is the case here, we are most re- luctant to disturb it.' For this reason and because (1) the record discloses that the Employer's operations, as is typical of the utility industry generally, are highly integrated, with each phase and each department dependent upon all others in order for each to carry out its assigned functions; (2) the Employer's labor relations policies are centrally controlled; and (3) there exists a definite community of in- terests between the employees involved in these two petitions and the other employees in the certified unit, we find that the units sought by the Teamsters and the CIO are inappropriate. Accordingly, we shall dismiss their petitions. Case No. 35-RC-1016: As indicated above, the IBEW filed its peti- tion in this case as a result of the Employer's announced refusal to bargain with it concerning employees employed in the classifications of substation construction foreman A, line foreman A, and control operator at Noblesville and Wabash River generating stations, load dispatcher (general headquarters), and load dispatcher (Bedford and Kokomo). Neither the IBEW nor the Employer desires an election among these employees or among the employees in the existing certi- fied unit, and in no other way does the Employer challenge the ma- jority status of the IBEW or the validity of the existing certification. We find, therefore, that the petition raises no question concerning rep- resentation of the Employer's employees and accordingly, shall dis- miss the petition as such and treat it as a motion to clarify the descrip- tion of the certified unit.' 6 Potomac Electric Power Company, 107 NLRB 886, Rockland Light & Power Company, Southern Colorado Power Company, 104 NLRB 926. 9 Southern Colorado Power Company, supra 8 United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division, 108 NLRB 52. 622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD At the hearing the Employer stated that it intended to place into, effect new position descriptions covering each of the disputed classi- fications, which descriptions are designed clearly to set forth the re- sponsibilities of the employees in the disputed classifications so as to eliminate all doubt as to their supervisory status. The proposed new position descriptions carry the title of supervisor, and specify in unmistakable language that the duties of the individuals herein in- volved will include the responsibility, inter alia, "for discipline, when necessary on the job, and for recommending promotions, demotions,. transfers, discharges or reassignment of employees" under their super- vision, and in some cases for hiring of employees. Under these circumstances, it would serve no useful purpose for the Board to make a determination as to the unit placement of employees in the disputed classifications, and we make none.' And while we make no disposition as to the status of these employees when the proposed new position descriptions go into effect, we note that possession of authority effectively to recommend promotions, demotions, transfers, discharges, and hiring of employees, would clearly render them super- visors within the meaning of the Act, and they would be excluded, as such, under the terms of the existing certification. 4. Case No. 35-IBC-1009: In this case the IBEW seeks to add 3 tech- nicians A, 4 technicians B, and 7 technicians C to the existing system- wide unit which it currently represents. These employees are pres- ently unrepresented. The CIO intervened in this case in order to pro- tect its interest in these employees, in the event that the Board directed an election in a voting group of all generating station employees, con- tending that in that event the technicians should be included in such a voting group. The technicians work in the four main generating sta- tions, under the supervision of an engineer (station efficiency). They perform manual maintenance and repair of water, steam and air valves, and make routine analytical tests of coal and water samples. Technicians C are recruited as high school graduates and advance to technician B and technician A. The parties are agreed that the tech- nicians are not technical employees, and may appropriately be added to a unit which includes the generating station employees with whom they have a close community of interests. None of the parties desires an election in the systemwide unit currently represented by the IBEW. We can find no basis for establishing these employees as an appro- priate unit by themselves. However, they may be appropriately added to the existing systemwide unit.10 B Supra 10 The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, American Can Company, 108 NLRB 1209. Though the CIO indicated that it desired to appear on the ballot if an election were directed among the technicians A, B, and C, it does not have a petitioner 's showing of interest among these employees. Therefore without deciding whether the technicians might con- stitute an appropriate residual unit , were a petitioner to seek to represent them on a sepa- rate basis , we shall deny the CIO's request to appear on the ballot . Cf. Cadillac Motor Car Division, 94 NLRB 217 ; Seaboard Machinery Corporation, 98 NLRB 537 ; Boeing Air- plane Company, 86 NLRB 368. THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA, COMPANY '623 Accordingly we shall direct an election in a voting group consisting of all technicians A, B, and C employed in the Employer's generating stations at Dresser, Edwardsport, Noblesville, and Wabash River, in order to accord these employees an opportunity to express their de- sires as to whether they wish to be added to the established unit now represented by the IBEW. If these employees select the IBEW as their bargaining agent, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to be included in the existing unit, and the IBEW may bargain for such employees as part of that unit. If a majority of them vote against the IBEW they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain outside the existing unit, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 35-RC-1015, 35-RC-1016, and 35-RC-1021.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY and RETAIL FOOD CLERKS UNION, LOCAL 1500 RCIA, AFL, PETITIONER and FOOD HANDLERS' LOCALS 400 & 489 AND AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & RETAIL FOOD STORE EMPLOYEES LOCAL 342, AFFIL. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF N. A., AFL. Cases Nos. 2-RC-6898, 2-RC-6899, and 2-RC-6900. February 15,1955 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed August 3, 1954, an election by secret ballot was conducted on September 15, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region among employees in the stip- ulated unit. The tally of ballots furnished the parties after the elec- tion shows the following : Approximate number of eligible employees------------------------ 6, 500 Void ballots--------------------------------------------------- 6 Votes cast for Retail Clerks Union, Local 1500, RCIA-AFL--------- 1, 942 Votes cast for Amalgamated Food Handlers Union, Locals 342, 400, 489, AFL -------------------------------------------------- 2,409 Votes against participating labor organizations ---------------------- 131 Valid votes counted------------------- ------------------------- 4,482 Challenged ballots- --------------------------------------------- 210 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots---- -------------------- 4, 692 On September 22, 1954, the Petitioner filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election. Pursuant to Board Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of the objections, and on December 3, 1954, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections recommending that the objections 111 NLRB No. 106.