Southern California Gas Co.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY Southern California Gas Company and Gas Utility Workers Council , Affiliated With Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 21-RC-1 1143 September 24, 1969 DECISION AND ORDER By MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer I W. Em. Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 21. this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, the Petitioner and the Intervenor, Southern California Professional Engineering Association, filed briefs which have been duly considered. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer is a public utility engaged in the sale and distribution of gas in southern California. The Petitioner seeks a self-determination election in a unit, as amended at the hearing, of all air conditioning servicemen, industrial servicemen, and service technicians employed 'by the Employer, but excluding all other employees, guards, and professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. The employees in the aforesaid unit are currently represented by the Intervenor as part of a larger unit of Employer's professional, technical, and sales employees, and the Petitioner seeks to add them to its overall unit. The intervenor contends that its contracts with the Employer covering the employees in the proposed unit constitute a bar to an election herein, and accordingly, that the petition is untimely. We find no merit in this contention. At the time the petition was filed Intervenor had three separate agreements with the Employer. Two of these agreements, a pension agreement and a savings plan 607 agreement, are for a period of 3 years ending on April 1. 1970. As these agreements are limited to supplemental topics they do not constitute a bar to an election. Appalachian Shale Products Co., 121 NLRB 1160, 1163: Pipe Foundri & Machine Co., 106 NLRB 828: Bethlehem Steel Corp. 95 NLRB 1508. The third agreement, covering wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment, was for a 1-year period ending May 1, 1969. As the petition was filed on February 6. 1969, it was filed within the 30-day open period and was timely. Leonard Wholesale Meals, Inc, 136 NLRB 1000, Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. Accordingly. we shall consider the petition on its merits. 4. In 1939, Petitioner was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for a unit of Employer's employees. Subsequently Petitioner has been certified as the collective-bargaining representative for other units of Employer's employees. In each case, the newly organized employees have been included in the contract which was subsequently negotiated by Petitioner and Employer. Petitioner currently represents approximately 3,000 of the Employer's approximately 5,000 employees. In 1946, the Intervenor was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for certain of Employer's technical and professional employees In 1951, intervenor petitioned for a systemwide unit of sales, technical, and professional employees, which included the service technicians, industrial servicemen, and air conditioning servicemen at issue in the present proceeding. The Petitioner herein intervened in that case. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the Board found that the proposed unit was appropriate and directed an election.' Subsequently, alter a Board conducted election, the Intervenor was certified as the collective-bargaining representative for these employees. Since that time these employees have been covered by successive collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by the Intervenor and the Employer. At present there are approximately 400 employees in this unit. Petitioner now seeks a self-determination election in order to sever the approximately 60 servicemen from the unit as presently represented by the Intervenor and to include these employees in the large overall unit represented by Petitioner. It contends that the disputed employees are not properly included in the larger unit represented by the Intervenor, but, rather have a clear relationship to the servicemen already represented by the Petitioner,' relying primarily on the degree of interchange between the employees in the proposed unit and these employees. In addition, Petitioner contends that there have been changes in the duties of the classifications in the proposed unit since 1951. '96 NLRB 1070 'Petitioner currently represents the following four classifications of servicemen , parts truck serviceman (specializes in the installation of parts 178 NLRB No 97 608 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD After a careful consideration of all the relevant facts in this case we conclude that the proposed unit is not appropriate and, accordingly . we shall dismiss the petition. Contrary to Petitioner' s contention , the record shows that the duties of each of the classifications in the proposed unit are substantially the same as they were in 1951. The Service Technician is principally concerned with the installation of gas air conditioning, and the difficult servicing of units, balancing of air flow and related matters . He works frequently with sales employees ' and works daily with the air conditioning servicemen . A substantial proportion of the service technician 's time is spent calling on air conditioning dealers in order to advise them on how gas air conditioning should be installed and consulting with customers , either with respect to new installation or with respect to problems which have developed after installation . When making these calls he wears a businessman's suit and tie. The Service Technician also has the responsibility for determining whether or not the Employer should warrant certain equipment . Anywhere from one-third to two-thirds of the time of the service technician is spent working as an air conditioning serviceman on a "downhill" ' basis. The classification of service technician was created in 1951. At the time of the 1951 representation hearing there was one employee in this classification .' At the present time there are 18 service technicians. The Industrial Serviceman performs adjustment and equipment service on industrial gas fired equipment. At the time of the 1951 representation hearing there were six employees in this classification .' At present only one employee - holds this classification and, when this employee leaves, the Employer expects to discontinue the classification . The Air Conditioning Serviceman does routine servicing of gas air on various appliances and doing the more difficult call back jobs that a serviceman I cannot handle), commercial serviceman (specializes in servicing restaurant and hotel equipment and commercial cooking equipment), serviceman I (does mechanical work and routine service on domestic appliances in the home), and serviceman 2 (lower classification also working on residential appliances , principally in the area of turning gas on and off) 'The sales employees are included in the unit as presently represented by the Intervenor An employee is working "downhill" when he is performing work in a lower classification, but without any reduction in pay. 'In 1951 the parties stipulated that this classification was a professional classification. 'in 1951 the parties stipulated that this classification was a professional conditioners and air conditioning equipment. Only employees trained as serviceman l are considered for promotion to this classification.' Prior to performing any duties in this classification an employee must receive 4 weeks of specialized training consisting of 16 days of classroom training, and 4 days of field training. Thereafter he received followup on the job training. At the time of the 1951 representation hearing there were five employees in this classification. At present there are 41. In our opinion the employees in the proposed unit do not have a separate identity of interest from those in the Intervenor's unit which would justify a change in their unit placement. While there is a certain amount of interchange between the employees in the proposed unit and those in the unit currently represented by the Petitioner, we do not regard this as a significant factor in determining whether to direct an election permitting the requested self-determination election for possible severance from the unit represented by the Intervenor. The employees involved are skilled in the installation and servicing of air conditioning equipment, doing much the same work as they have since their 1951 inclusion in the sales, technical and professional unit. The service technicians, and the air conditioning servicemen to a lesser extent, have frequent contact with the sales employees. There are now many more gas air conditioning units in use and the service technicians have reached the stage where a substantial percentage of their time is spent consulting with dealers and customers rather than doing the manual labor ordinarily associated with the work of a serviceman. On this record it does not appear that the air conditioning service technicians, the industrial technicians, and the air conditioning servicemen share a community of interest so separate and distinct from that of their fellow unit employees in sales, technical, and professional classifications as to warrant the election sought. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed. classification 'This includes all servicemen represented by Petitioner except the servicemen 2