The Houston Corp.

810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD which each cashier keeps his daily receipts. `Ve find that the checker- cashiers have similar interests and working conditions with those em- ployees whom the parties have agreed to include, and we shall, accord- ingly, include them in the unit. Cf. Walgreen Co., of New York, Inc., 97 NLRB 1101, 1104; John W. Thomas ct Co., 104 NLRB 868, 872. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All employees at the Employer's Miami Beach, Bal Harbour, Florida, hotel, including food checkers and cashiers, but excluding all office and clerical employees, lifeguards, timekeepers, social counselors, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] The Houston Corporation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC- 515. September 1, 1959 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 H. C. Thompson, Jr., 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 Bean and Fanning]. 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 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. 4. The Employer contends, and the Petitioner, Machinists, and Chemical Workers deny, that the only appropriate unit is a statewide unit encompassing all the Employer's Florida facilities. The Peti- tioner seeks a unit of the Employer's employees at Miami, Lakeland, and Daytona Beach, but it is willing to represent a unit which also i International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Lodge No. 1754, hereafter called Machinists, and International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO , Local No. 359, here- after called Chemical Workers, intervened on the basis of current contracts. They re- quested to be placed on the ballot only if a systemwide unit was found appropriate. 124 NLRB No. 106. THE HOUSTON CORPORATION 811 includes the employees at the Employer's Eustis, Umatilla, and Mt. Dora operations. The Employer, which was formed in 1957, is engaged as a public utility in the distribution and sale of gas at various locations in the State of Florida. During 1958; the-Employer acquired-gas manufac- turing and distribution properties at Miami, Lakeland, and Daytona Beach from Florida Power and Light Company, at Orlando from South Atlantic Gas Company, at Jacksonville from Jacksonville Gas Corporation, and at Eustis, Umatilla, and Mt. Dora from Tri- angle Gas Company. The Employer has honored the contracts which were in effect between the former employers and the Machinists at Jacksonville, and the Chemical Workers at Orlando ; upon the termi- nation of the preexisting contract, the Employer negotiated a new contract with the Chemical Workers; and, at the time of the hearing, was in the process of negotiating a new contract with the Machinists. The Petitioner had represented both the gas and electric employees of Florida Power and Light since 1945, and when the Employer acquired the gas properties from that Company, it honored the terms of the existing agreementwith the Petitioner, affecting the gas employees until its expiration in September 1958. There is no collective-bargain- ing history affecting the employees at the properties acquired from Triangle Gas Company. Since acquiring the above-described properties, the Employer had made plans for converting its product from manufactured to natural gas, and for a greater degree of integration of operations, uniformity of personnel policies, and centralized control, than formerly existed. The Employer has also taken certain steps to implement its plans to adopt more uniform personnel policies, and has established a central staff, under a superintendent of operations, to coordinate the opera- tions of the various distribution facilities, the facilities at each sepa- rate city being designated as a separate division. Nevertheless, there has as yet been no substantal functional or administrative integration of the previously independent operation facilities. Each division, which is supervised by a division manager who is responsible for the division's operations, has retained a substantial degree of local auton- omy in matters affecting labor relations; all hiring and discharging is done locally; and there is no interchange of employees among the divisions. Although the Board's long-established policy has been to favor systemwide units in the public utility field, the Board has also held that where no union is seeking the optimum unit, a unit more limited in scope, such as one coextensive with a smaller administrative sub- division, or one based upon an established bargaining history, may also be appropriate z The Board has also held that when changes 2 See The Hartford Electric Light Company, 122 NLRB 1421, and cases cited therein. 812 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD effected since a merger have not materially,. affected an existing unit, that unit remains an appropriate unit and may not be absorbed into a systemwide unit without affording the-..employees therein a self- determination election.3 As noted above, the employees in the historic units at Jacksonville and Orlando continue to be represented by the Machinists and the Chemical Workers, respectively, and the changes effected since the merger have not affected the independent identity of such units ; the employees in such units would therefore be entitled to a self-determination election before being absorbed into a system- wide unit. However, the Petitioner does not seek to represent such employees and the Machinists and Chemical Workers do not desire an election in the unit they presently represent . In these circum- stances, we shall exclude the employees at Jacksonville and Orlando- from the unit hereinafter found appropriate , and shall not direct a separate election among them.' As noted above, the Petitioner, as its, primary unit request, seeks to represent the gas employees at Miami,. Lakeland, and Daytona Beach, whom it formerly represented as part of a unit with the elec- tric employees of Florida Power and Light. This proposed unit is, however, only a segment of the unit historically represented by the Petitioner, and therefore cannot be found to be appropriate on the basis of the bargaining history.' Nor is it coextensive with any administrative subdivision of the Employer 's operations, but rather consists of three of the six presently unrepresented divisions. We find, accordingly, that the Petitioner's primary request is for an in- appropriate unit. We find, however, that a unit which also includes. the employees in the other three unrepresented divisions, and which the Petitioner seeks as an alternative, is appropriate , as it includes all the Employer's unrepresented physical employees. As the Peti- tioner has made an adequate showing of interest in such a unit, we shall direct an election therein. The Employer contends that the meter readers should be excluded from any unit, and the Petitioner contends that they should be in- cluded. The meter readers are engaged in the reading of meters, and do not engage in physical work as do the employees in the re- quested unit. They are under the separate supervision of the Em- ployer's accounting department . On these facts, we-find that these employees are office clerical employees, and shall exclude them from the unit.' . The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act : All construction, operation, maintenance, service, and 8 Brooklyn Union Gas Company, 123 NLRB 441. 4 Brooklyn Union Gas Company , supra. 5 The Hartford Electric Light Company , supra. 6 The Gas Service Company, 115 NLRB 944, 94.6. INT'L LONGSHOREMEN & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION 813 meter repair employees employed at the Employer's divisions at Miami, Lakeland, Daytona Beach, Eustis, Umatilla, and Mt. Dora, Florida, excluding all meter readers, office clerical employees, sales- men, collectors, guards, chemists, foremen, and all supervisors as defined by the Act. 5. The Employer contends that when it converts from manufac- tured gas to natural gas, significant changes will take place in the size and composition of the physical work force and that an election among its employees at this time is therefore premature. At the time of the hearing, the Employer had an overall complement of 232 employees in physical job classifications. Although its plans are to have 520 employees in such classifications, following the conversion to natural gas, no date has been established for such conversion. In these circumstances, we find that the petition is not premature.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] ° Springfield Body & Trailer Co., 112 NLRB 1287. International Longshoremen & Warehousemen's Union, and Local No. 13, International Longshoremen & Warehousemen's Union and Catalina Island Sightseeing Lines. Case No. 21-CC- 305. September 2, 1959 DECISION AND ORDER On March 9, 1959, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Inter- mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Re- spondents filed exceptions and supporting briefs, each also adopting the exceptions and briefs filed by the other, and the Charging Party filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report and in answer to certain of the Respondents' exceptions. 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 Bean and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi- ate Report, 1 the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the 1 The Intermediate Report has been amended, as requested by the Trial Examiner,. to correct a typographical error and to show the appearance for Local 13 of George E. Shibley rather than George Shipley. 124 NLRB No. 103.