Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL pay to the strikers entitled to reinstatement any loss of earnings that they may have suffered by reason of the fact that we did not reinstate them to their former jobs on December 15, 1965. WE WILL pay to strikers Bud Moss, Wayne Camper, and Frank Tennison any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of the fact that we did not reinstate Moss and Camper on October 18, 1965, when they applied, and did not reinstate Tennison when he applied on October 12, 1965. WE WILL reinstate to their former jobs all drivers removed or transferred from their jobs on or about May 28, 1965. WE WILL pay to the aforesaid drivers any loss of earnings they may have suffered by reason of our action in removing or transferring them from their driving jobs on or about May 28, 1965. WE WILL pay to striker Wallace Carter any loss of earnings he may have suffered from December 15, 1965, until such time as he is offered reinstatement to his former job. FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE GIN ASSOCIATION, Employer. Dated ------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify the above -named employees if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica- tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Train- ing and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced , or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth Floor Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102, Tele- phone 335-2145. Public Service Company of New Hampshire and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-8997. November 10, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert N. Garner on June 10, 1966, at Boston, Massachusetts. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem- bers Jenkins and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case,' the Board finds : 1. Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 1 Only the Employer filed a brief to the Board 161 NLRB No. 81. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 915 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning representation of employees within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer is a New Hampshire corporation engaged in the gen- eration, transmission, and distribution of electricity in New Hamp- shire, Maine, and Vermont, with headquarters in Manchester, New Hampshire. Its Hooksett, New Hampshire, service building, located 5 miles from Manchester, is the location involved in this case. It houses the administrative division known as the General Construction and Maintenance Department (herein called the GCMD) which han- dles construction, repair, and maintenance of the Employer's produc- tion facilities throughout the system. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to all electricians at this facil- ity, numbering 12 employees.2 Petitioner did not introduce any evi- dence in support of its petition at the hearing, but indicated in its brief to the Regional Director that the employees in the requested unit constituted either a craft or departmental unit. Petitioner did not explain whether it considered the electricians entitled to craft status as traditional craft electricians, or within the specialized context of the electric utility field; we have therefore considered both possibil- ities. The Employer, urging dismissal of the petition, contends that its Hooksett electricians are not craftsmen and the unit sought is otherwise inapproprite under Board policy in the public utility indus- try since it does not correspond to an identifiable and functionally distinct administrative department or division. The only appropriate unit, claims the Employer, is one encompassing the approximately 45 hourly paid employees within the GCMD.3 There is no collective- bargaining history for any of the Employer's employees at its Hook- sett location involved in the present petition 4 The Employer classifies all electricians as electrician I, II, and III. These sought by Petitioner are the only ones engaged in servicing the "system" as a whole by performing construction and maintenance work. The others, colloquially known as "station" electricians, are per- lnanently assigned to a particular facility. Their exact duties are not 2 The Employer has identical collective -bargaining contracts with several locals of the Petitioner covering employees in a variety of job classifications , including electricians, at a number of different locations within New Hampshire , and a contract with the United Mine Workers of America, District 50, covering certain employees at its location in Nashua, New Hampshire The pay schedules and benefits are identical for all employees in a given job classification whether or not they are represented. 3 This would include, in addition to electricians , the following groups of employees: dis- tribution equipment servicemen ; relay testers , metermen and testers ; stockmen , rubber equipment testers ; general construction men , mechanics ; Instrument men and rodmen. 4Initially at the hearing Petitioner sought to include in the unit six additional em- ployees classified as Working Foremen, Electrical . However, Petitioner later stipulated that these six are supervisors under the Act and should be excluded. 916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD disclosed by the record: apparently they do maintenance (sometimes working with the "system" electricians), and repair work, inter alia, at their respective locations, but they do not take part in construction projects. At present in the GCMD there are eight electricians in the highest grade, I, and two each in grades II-and III. Applicants for electrician take the same general aptitude test administered to all prospective employees and are selected for employment without regard to past experience.5 Once hired, an electrician is placed on trial in the learner category at the III level, advancing to full rank after about 6 months.e He will be promoted to the next higher classification when- ever lie attains a requisite degree of proficiency in that classification's performance requirements, regardless of the length of time he has spent at the lower grade. Most newly promoted employees are placed in the learner category for a 6-month trial period, but some have skipped this step at the II grade level.' The employer does not conduct a formal on-the-job training pro- gram for electricians," nor does it require them to attend outside classes. Employees acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for the performance of their jobs through some sort of informal training pro- gram. However, the record does not indicate whether the program is operated as a modified apprenticeship, for example, or in less sys- tematic fashion. The electricians in question perform all general elec- trical tasks on the construction and maintenance projects which GCMD handles," though they will share some nonelectrical work with other specialty groups in the GCMD involved in the project. They usually work under the supervision of an electrical foreman except when the work in progress on a given day requires only the incidental services of an electrician. At such time an electrician will be assigned to, and be supervised by, the working foreman of the specialty group involved in that phase of the project. The record only lists the job duties of the electricians as a group, without describing how these duties are assigned among the .different job classifications, and contains no explanation of the range and type of skills which the employees exercise in the performance of these duties. Also unknown are the proficiency standards which the Em- , Some of the electricians within the requested unit previously worked in other divisions of the Company, but were not necessarily performing electrical work. The GC\ID has not hired any experienced electricians during the past 4 years, but presumably, if one were hired, he would be started at whatever level his background warranted. T This information was derived from the employment records of the electricians who are the subject of this proceeding. There was no explanation as to why the promotion policy of placing employees in the learner category is not uniformly applied s There are such programs for linemen , customer contact employees , and substation operators , and one is being developed for metermen 9 Certain specialized electrical tasks are performed by relay testers and linemen, work- ing with the "system" electricians . See infra. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 917 ployer follows in evaluating employee performance, or, as noted above, the details of the informal training program , and how it differs from that given electricians permanently assigned to production facilities. We conclude that the record, as made, does not permit a finding that the "system" electricians in the requested unit may be separately rep- resented on a craft basis. We turn now to the contention that the requested unit is appro- priate as homogeneous and functionally distinct administrative divi- sion of the Employer. The GCMD was established in 1962 as an administrative division of the General Engineering Department to coordinate the activities of those employees engaged in construction of new facilities, includ- ing the automation of manned substations, and preventive mainte- nance and repair work throughout the system. Included within the department at its inception were certain groups, like the electricians and the relay testing employees, already located at Hooksett, and sev- eral others who reported to work in Manchester. Pending construc- tion of additional facilities at Hooksett, these latter groups continued to report to their several locations for daily assignment to jobsites elsewhere, but their supervisors were reassigned to Hooksett. In June 1966, the anticipated date for the completion of the building exten- sion and the consequent geographical consolidation of the GCMD, was the end of the month.10 We have therefore considered this con- solidation in evaluating the appropriateness of a unit limited to elec- tricians with the GCMD. Practically, consolidation means that all employees report to Hooksett each morning even if they are on a con- tinuing assignment, unless the jobsite is so far away that the Com- pany has arranged jobsite lodging. After picking up tools and equip- ment from the stockroom, they are transported to their respective jobsites. The GCMD is divided into five major departments, each under the direction of a single supervisor : Electrical Maintenance, General Meter Shop, Construction, Transmission Construction, and Mechani- cal Maintenance and Machine Shop. Within the Electrical Mainte- nance department, which is under the supervision of L. Hilliard, are three subdivisions involved in some facet of electrical work. Directly under Hilliard in the electricians' group are two electrical supervisors and two electrical engineers, all of equal rank, to whom the six elec- trical working foremen report. The other two subdivisions are the Distribution Equipment shop, the central facility to which reclosers,, regulators, and transformers are brought for servicing and mainte- nance, and Relay Testing, which is responsible for inspection and 10 The Employer 's witnesses so testified at the June 10, 1966, hearing 918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD testing of relays and similar electrical devices during construction, maintenance, and repair projects. While 'the electricans sometimes assist, and are assisted by, employees in both these group's, each group has exclusive responsibility for work within its special jurisdiction. Several different GCMD project are usually in progress throughout the State at any given time. Although manpower requirements for construction and maintenance projects, at least, can be estimated in advance, they are of course subject to constant revision as work pro- gresses. Responsibility for manpower planning and the assignment of crews is borne by the supervisors who work together under the direc= tion of the division chiefs and the GCMD manager. Each specialty is supervised on the job by its own foreman, except when the need for a particular skill is incidental to the central operation. Electricians, like most of the other GCMD groups," are engaged in all phases of the department's operations: construction, automation, maintenance, and repair. The only electrical tasks which Hooksett electricians do not perform alone involve the testing of electrical relays and similar devices, handled by relay testers, and work handled by linemen from other divisions with the aid of electricians, such as the installation of equipment connected by high tension wires. On occasion, Hooksett electricians help in the Distribution Equipment shop to repair transformers, reclosers, and regulators. In addition to their electrical operations, they perform certain nonelectrical tasks in common with other employees, principally construction workers. For example, electricans alone wire switchboards once cables are installed or adjust air brake switches mounted on,steel structures, but either they, or construction workers, or both working together, might erect steel in substations; mount electrical equipment; and install insulators or cables. In sum then, there is, in addition to a high degree of administra- tive integration at the GCMD planning level, a certain degree of operational integration 12 at the working level among its component subdivisions. In addition, while the work of the Hooksett electricians, particularly its systemwide nature, is distinct from that of other elec- tricians, Hooksett electricians are not similarly distinctive within the GCMD, as all groups of.GCMD employees have systemwide jurisdic- tion, share the same-geographic headquarters and ultimate supervision, and are similarly engaged in the construction, maintenance, and repair of the -Employer's production system. We therefore conclude that the "Apparently , distribution equipment employees and certain meter testers do not make field trips, but work solely within their respective shops at Hooksett. 12 The Employer introduced evidence indicating some degree of operational cooperation and assistance between electricians and other groups of employees , as indicated in the text , but in the absence of any indication as to the frequency of such contracts, we are unable to determine whether the operational integration is substantial. ATLANTIC METAL PRODUCTS, INC. 919 requested unit is neither such an independent administrative subdi- vision nor such a functionally and geographically distinctive group 13 as to warrant separate representation upon such a basis. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 13 Arkansas-Missouri Power Company, 152 NLRB 1600. Atlantic Metal Products, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, AFL-CIO. Case &2-CA-2603. November 10, 1966 DECISION AND ORDER On May 9, 1966, Trial Examiner Thomas A. Ricci issued his Deci- sion in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. Thereafter, both the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision, with supporting briefs, and the Respondent filed an answering brief to the General Counsel's exceptions. Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its pow- ers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and, except as noted infra,l finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the exceptions filed by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Board adopts the Trial Examiner's findings only to the extent consistent with this Decision, and does not adopt his conclusions and recommendations. The complaint alleged that the Respondent had violated Section 8(a) (3) of the Act by discharging four employees-Mair, Pugh, and Lamberti-in order to discourage union activity. The four employees had been the chief participants, along with a fifth employee (Wisse) whose employment was not terminated, in a union organizing cam- paign, which had begun in October 1965. In the several months prior 1 See footnote 3, infra. 161 NLRB No. 82.