New England Power Co.

666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although the testimony by John Ulene was clearly and flatly that the Joint Coun cil had gone out of existence in 1955 , Sam Schwartz, business agent for the Joint Council and for the Joint Board , testified that the picketing was being conducted for the Joint Council. Obviously, the picketing was under the direction of the Joint Council or under that of the Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board in the name of the Joint Council. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Joint Council set forth in section III, above , occurring in connection with the operations of the employers set forth in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com- merce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY - Having found that the Joint Council has violated Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, and it appearing that the Joint Board is for all purposes of interest here the successor to the Joint Council, it will be recommended that the Joint Council and its successor cease and desist from the conduct found violative of the Act herein. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record.in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Joint Council of Sportswear, Cotton Garment, Undergarment & Accessory Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and Los Angeles Dress and Sportswear Joint Board are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Harou , Inc., and En Tour are engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 3. By picketing the premises of Harou and En Tour for the purpose of obtain- ing recognition, the Joint Council has restrained and coerced employees of Harou and En Tour and has thereby engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] New England Power Company (Western Division) and Brother- hood of Utility Workers of New England , Inc., Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-5115. April 30, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William I. Shooer, 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. 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 employees of the Employer. 120 NLRB No. 98. NEW ENGLAND POWER COMPANY 667 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner, Utility Workers, seeks, in effect, to add employees of the Employer's Western Division to a two-division group of employees which it and its locals currently represent. The Employer and the Intervenor, Local 849, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, move to dismiss the petition on the ground that a unit limited to the Employer's Western Division, alone, is inappro- priate because of integration of operations and bargaining history on a broader basis. The Employer, New England Power Company, is one of 26 subsid- iaries of New England Electric System, herein called NEES. NEES is the parent corporation of a public utility system serving four New England States with electric power. The wholesale power for the sys- tem is generated and transmitted by the Employer and by another NEES subsidiary known as the Southern Division. The Employer is administratively subdivided into four Divisions, known as the Western, Northern, Northeastern, and Central Divisions. Each of these four Divisions and the Southern Division of NEES is allocated a geographical service area in the system, supplying power to the retail distribution subsidiaries therein situated. Like the Employer's other Divisions and their retail subsidiaries, the electric powerlines of the Employer's Western Division and the lines of the three retail distribution subsidiaries within its geographical area 1 are interconnected, and Western Division employees perform switching and tagging operations for distribution subsidiary employees, and vice versa. The Employer's Western Division maintains the generating stations, the transmission lines, and substations of these subsidiaries, which have no maintenance departments of their own. There is some interchange of employees between the retail distribution subsidiaries. Since 1939, the Petitioner, the IBEW, and their locals have repre- sented the operating, maintenance, and clerical employees in the 26 subsidiaries of NEES. From time to time since that date, these unions have sought, and NEES has accorded, recognition for newly organized groups at these subsidiaries. It has been the practice of NEES to negotiate separately with the Petitioner and the IBEW in behalf of their respective locals for all the employees represented by these unions. This pattern of bargaining has resulted in the effective merger of the Petitioner's and the IBEW's piecemeal groups into larger, separate, bargaining units which generally have followed NEES' administrative lines. Thus, the Petitioner and its locals have 1 Of the 4 retail subsidiaries within the Western Division area, 3 distribute electric power, while the fourth distributes gas only. 668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for years represented employees of the Employer's Central Division and its Southern Division, as well as employees in retail distribution subsidiaries therein situated. Similarly, the IBEW and its locals have for nearly 20 years represented employees of the Employer's Western Division, herein sought, together with employees of the retail distribu- tion subsidiaries therein situated. In addition, they have represented the employees of the Employer's Northern and Northeastern Di- visions.2 Accordingly, the Employer's Western Division employees sought herein have for a substantial period of time been a part of a larger bargaining group represented by the IBEW unions. Further- more, although individual contracts have been executed and admin- istered at the local level, the contract terms have been uniform for all employees throughout NEES, whether in the bargaining groups rep- resented by the Petitioner or by the IBEW. Board policy with respect to the public utility industry regards the systemwide unit as the optimum bargaining unit because of the in- herent integration and interdependence of all operations in such an industry, and favors the larger unit over the smaller units Although, absent bargaining history on a broader basis, units coextensive with a smaller administrative entity of an employer's operations may be established, the Board is most reluctant to fragmentize or otherwise disturb a historical bargaining unit, where such unit also conforms generally with the Employer's administrative lines and has been estab- lished by bargaining for a considerable period of time.4 This is the situation in the instant case. For, as indicated above, the Employer's Western Division and its distribution subsidiaries constitute a func- tionally integrated administrative entity of NEES, and the employees within the Western Division have been a part of the larger bargaining group separately represented by the IBEW and its locals for a con- siderable period of time. By its unit request limited to the Employer's Western Division, the Petitioner is seeking to fragmentize not only the IBEW's a larger historical bargaining unit, but, in view of its omis- sion of the employees in the retail distribution subsidiaries, it would also fragmentize one of NEES' integrated administrative entities, namely, the Employer's Western Division and the subsidiaries it serves. This we cannot permit. Further, it is apparent that the Peti- tioner's unit request is based essentially upon the extent of its organi- zation of employees, a factor which, under Section 9 (5) of the Act, may not be controlling in the determination of the appropriate unit. Accordingly, upon the entire record, and particularly in view of the 2 Employees of the retail distribution subsidiaries in the Northeastern Division are represented either by the Petitioner and its locals, or by the IBEW and its locals. Em- ployees of the retail distribution subsidiary in the Northern Division are unrepresented. s Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 115 NLRB 1396, at page 1398; Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc , 111 NLRB 618, at page 621 a Ibid. See also New England Power Company (Worcester Central Division), Case No. 1-RC-3502 (1954),' not published. THE ILLINOIS CANNING CO. 669 integration of operations between the Western Division and the retail distribution subsidiaries located therein and the long bargaining his- tory on a broader basis, we find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate.' We shall therefore grant the motions to dismiss the instant petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 6 In New England Power Company ( Worcester Central Division ), supra, a petition was filed for a unit of employees limited to another Division of the Employer represented by the Petitioner in the instant case. The Board, taking cognizance of the integration of operations between the Division and its retail distribution subsidiary , and of the broader 10-year bargaining history, dismissed the petition on the grounds that the unit was too narrow in scope . We do not perceive any cogent reason for departing from the decision in that case, or for not applying herein the rationale of that case. The Illinois Canning Co. and United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-5565. April 30, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on June 11, 1957, an election by secret ballot was conducted on June 25, 1957, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the agreed appropriate unit. Following the election, the Regional Direc- tor served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 134 eligible employees 140 cast ballots, of which 63 were for the Petitioner, 61 were against the Petitioner and 16 were challenged. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director conducted an investiga- tion and on August 29, 1957, issued and served upon the parties his report on challenged ballots in which he recommended that the chal- lenges to the ballots of Thomas Dalton, Grover Hollen, Roy Borders, William Hardwig, Harley Huckleby, John McIntyre, and M. H. Cran be sustained, and that the challenges to the ballots of Chapman Jones, Theodore Clayborn, Cleve Kirts, Henry Gothberg, Kelly Cox, Jeff Dean, Charles Felleure, Harold Galloway, and Lovell Wood be overruled. On September 6, 1957, the Petitioner filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.' On November 12, 1957, the Board ordered a hearing held with respect to the issues raised by the challenged ballots of Borders, 'As no exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's findings and recommendations that the challenges to the ballots of Thomas Dalton and Grover Hollen be sustained and that the challenges to the ballots of Chapman Jones and Theodore Clayborn be over- ruled, those four recommendations are hereby adopted pro forma. 120 NLRB No. 94.