Louisiana Gas Service Co.

LOUISIANA GAS SERVICE CO. 147 Louisiana Gas Service Co. and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 1101, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC- 2042. January 14, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Andrew C. Partee, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provision 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 Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : At the hearing, the Employer through its counsel moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that: (1) The Regional Office of the Board failed to properly investigate the authenticity of the signatures on the authorization cards; (2) the Regional Office failed to properly investigate the showing of the 30-percent interest; (3) the Regional Office failed to afford the Employer due process by its failure to grant Employer's request for a postponement; (4) there was no competent evidence to show that the Employer was engaged in commerce as defined in the Act; and (5) that the units requested by the Petitioner are inappropriate. Employer also questioned whether the Petitioner was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. As to (1) and (2), these motions are denied. The preliminary in- vestigations described in Sections 101.17 and 101.18 of the Board's Statements of Procedure, including that of the Petitioner's showing of interest, are matters for administrative determination only and are not litigable by the parties.' As to (3), this motion is denied. The record shows that the petition was filed on July 27, 1959, and the hearing was scheduled for August 14, 1959. The Employer's counsel requested a month's postponement for the reasons that he was engaged in several other legal matters during the period before the hearing, that he would not be able to prepare the case properly, and further that he had made arrangements for an extended vacation to begin at the time of the hearing. However, the Employer through its vice president in charge of operations and its counsel appeared at the hearing. Inasmuch as the hearing was not concluded on August 14, it was continued until August 24, giving the Employer an additional 10 days in which to prepare its case. Upon careful examination of the record we are convinced that the 'Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, 107 NLRB 1327, 1328. 126 NLRB No. 17. 148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer was afforded sufficient opportunity to prepare for the hear- ing, and did, in fact, fully develop the facts and its position in the case. The failure to grant the postponement to permit the Employer's counsel to take care of other legal matters and to permit him to take an extended vacation does not indicate any bias or abuse of due process to the Employer. 1. The Employer through its vice president in charge of operations together with its counsel was present at the hearing but upon advice of counsel refused to testify on matters relating to commerce. A subpoena duces tecum 2 had been directed to C. J. Puckett, the Em- ployer's assistant treasurer, to testify in regard to commerce and jurisdiction, but he did not appear. Because of the failure of the Employer to give any evidence relating to commerce, the hearing officer received into evidence, as Board's Exhibit No. 2, a statement relating to the Employer's gross operating revenue prepared by the Louisiana Public Service Commission and signed by the Director, Utilities Division. The statement revealed that during the calendar year 1958, the gross operating revenue of the Employer amounted to $7,698,633.12. In addition the testimony of two employees of the Employer revealed that the Employer supplied gas to commercial enterprises. Among them are American Cyanamid 3 and American Creosote 4 over whom the Board had previously asserted jurisdiction. The foregoing evidence conclusively demonstrates that the Employer is extensively engaged in interstate commerce.' Under the circum- stances, the evidence was properly received.6 Upon the evidence submitted by the Louisiana Public Service Commission and the testi- mony of the employees of the Employer, we have determined that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.' 2. The record demonstrates that the Petitioner is a labor organ- ization within the meaning of the Act and that it claims to represent certain employees 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 appropriate unit : At the hearing the Petitioner amended its petition by requesting four separate units as follows: (1) All employ- 2 Employer's counsel moved to revoke the subpena on the grounds that an improper official had issued the subpena and on the fiirther ground that 5 full days had not been allowed in which to answer. The hearing officer declined to revoke the subpena, but did not insist that Mr Puckett comply with it 8 The American Cyanamid Company ( Santa Rosa Plant ), 15-RC-1914 ( unpublished). 4 American Creosote Works, 15-RC-841 (consent election), May 19, 1953. 5 Tropicana Products Inc, 122 NLRB 121 9 Section 10(b) does not require strict adherence to the evidentiary rules. W. B. Jones Lumber Co , Inc, 114 NLRB 415. Representation hearings are essentially investigative and technical rules of evidence are not controlling. Edward H Goodwin, at al, d/b/a Pacific Tent & Awning Co., 97 NLRB 640 7 Siouan Valley Empire Electric Association , 122 NLRB 92. LOUISIANA GAS SERVICE CO. 149 ees of the Employer at its East Jefferson District; (2) all employees of the Employer at its West Jefferson District; (3) all employees of the Employer at its St. Bernard District; and (4) all employees of the Employer at its Pines (Hammond) District, but excluding inspec- tors, service operators, foremen, and all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional and technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the appropriate unit should be a systemwide unit consisting of all employees of the Employer in its St. Bernard, Winsboro, East Jeff- erson, Pines, West Jefferson, and Bastrop Districts, excluding office clerical employees, janitorial employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Board policy with respect to the public utility industry regards the systemwide unit as the optimum bargaining unit because of the inherent integration and interdependence of all operations in such an industry and favors the large unit over the smaller unit.' Absent bargaining history on a broader basis, however, units coextensive with a smaller administrative entity of an employer may be established.' The record shows that there is no prior bargaining history for the Employer's employees, either on a systemwide or separate unit basis. Each of the districts appears to be an administrative entity. The record shows the Employer has a general office in Harvey where administrative matters are handled. The Employer has six districts and each district "is in charge of seeing that the construction work is carried on in that particular area and also that the customer receives all of the services that they are entitled to." Each district is in charge of a district manager, who decides what jobs need to be done, prepares the paperwork, and then gets the approval of the general office and proceeds with the actual physical work. There is practically no interchange of employees. The employees are permanently assigned to particular districts, under the direct supervision of the particular district manager. At times, employees are assigned to other districts to help out in cases of need, but they are continued on the payroll of the district to which they are permanently assigned. These employees report to work at the district to which they are permanently assigned and report back to the district to which they are permanently assigned. There is no connecting link between the districts and there are no interconnecting lines. The six districts con- sist of isolated gas systems in those communities which the Employer serves. Accordingly, upon the entire record, we find that the units sought by the Petitioner are appropriate. e Montana-Dakota Utilities Co , 115 NLRB 1396. e See New England Power Company ( Western Division), 120 NLRB 666, 668. 150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer is generally in agreement with the composition of the unit sought by the Petitioner, except that it would include inspec- tors and service operators. The Employer would also include the head meter reader and the janitors, as to whom Petitioner expressed no opinion. The inspectors work closely with both the Employer's crew and with other contractor crews doing excavating work for the Employer. They are subject to the same supervision as the other employees are. Their function is to know where the water mains, storm sewers, and the Employer's facilities are located so that such facilities are not damaged. Their work is primarily in the field. It appears that the interests of these individuals are more clearly identified with the rank- and-file employees rather than with management.10 We shall, accord- ingly, include them in the unit. The head meter reader is excluded because he responsibly directs the meter readers whom we are excluding and exercises supervisory duties over them. The meter readers follow assigned routes, visit customers, and read meters. It appears that their interests are more closely related with the office clerical employees." The service operators perform functions of communicating to the construction and service crews all requests for work to be done, trouble to be cleared, and maintenance that is immediately necessary. There is nothing in the record which would show that the service operators are required, in the performance of these duties, to exercise the degree of independent judgment necessary to establish that they are super- visors within the meaning of the Act. Therefore we shall include them in the unit.12 The welder at St. Bernard shall be excluded from the unit because the record shows that there is no foreman at St. Bernard and that the welder in that district exercises the duties of the foreman. The janitor is included because his work is closely related to that of the other employees.13 Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute sep- arate units appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: (1) All employees in the East Jefferson District of Louisiana Gas 'Service Co., including inspectors, service operators, and janitors, but excluding foremen, head meter reader, meter readers, and all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional and technical em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All employees in the West Jefferson District of the Louisiana Gas Service Co., including inspectors, service operators, and janitors, but excluding foremen, head meter reader, meter readers, and all office 10 See Pacific Gas and Electric Co , 87 NLRB 257, 266. 11 The Gas Service Company, 115 NLRB 944. 12 Pacific Gas and Electric Co , supra 13 Roanoke Gas Company, 94 NLRB 1431. HEINTZ DIVISION, KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY 151 clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional and technical em- ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. (3) All employees in the St. Bernard District of Louisiana Gas Service Co., including inspectors, service operators, and janitors, but excluding foremen, head meter reader, meter readers, the welder (act- ing as foreman), and all office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, professional and technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, as the Petitioner has made no showing of interest in the Pines (Hammond) District, the petition is dismissed insofar as it relates to the Pines District. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Heintz Division, Kelsey-Hayes Company and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-3932. January 14, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on July 14, 1959, under the di- rection and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region. Following the election, the Regional Director served upon the parties a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 1,377 eligible voters, 1,299 cast valid ballots, of which 604 were for the Petitioner, 682 were for the Intervenor, Heintz Employees Union (Independent), and 13 were against the participating labor organiza- tions. There were seven void ballots. On July 16, 1959, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investiga- tion and on September 14, 1959, issued and served upon the parties his report on objections in which he found merit to the objections and recommended that the election be set aside and a new one directed. The Intervenor and the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board has considered the objections, the Regional Director's Report, and the exceptions thereto, and upon the entire record in this case, finds as follows : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 126 NLRB No. 16.