Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co.

MICHIGAN WISCONSIN PIPE LINE COMPANY 469 Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company and Interna- tional Chemical Workers Union, Petitioner. Case 7-RC-10424 December 8, 1971 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On May 12, 1971, the Regional Director for Region 7 issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appro- priate the requested unit of production and mainte- nance employees in the Employer' s Big Rapids, Michigan, District. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Deci- sion, on the grounds, inter alia, that in reaching his unit determination he made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous and he departed from officially reported precedent. The National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic order dated June 9, 1971, granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of prod- uction and maintenance employees in the Big Rapids District of the Employer's gas pipeline system. The same group of employees was found to constitute an appropriate unit in an earlier proceeding.' The Regional Director found, notwithstanding certain operational and administrative changes which the Employer has made since 1966, that the requested unit remained appropriate. The Employer contends that he erred in so finding and that only a systemwide unit of its employees is appropriate at this time. The Employer supplies natural gas to 53 public utility companies located along its pipeline. The facts pertaining to the Employer's pipeline operations are set forth in detail in the Regional Director's attached Decision. As below indicated, since 1966 the Employ- er has made changes in its operations which have a bearing on the appropriateness of the Petitioner's unit request. When the earlier proceeding was instituted, as pointed out in the Board's Decision therein, the Employer's compressor department was subdivided into four divisions, each headed by a superintendent. The Woolfolk compressor station was one of seven within the Muncie, Indiana, division; the Reed City compressor station, which, together with the two closely related Loreed and Michigan Stray storage fields, had recently been acquired, was controlled directly by the department superintendent at Detroit headquarters. The pipeline department on the other hand, was subdivided into six divisions each of which was further divided into districts. The Big Rapids pipeline district was one of three in the Grand Rapids division. The Board there noted that, "because of the Employer's method of subdividing its operating departments , to accomodate supervisory load, it would be impossible to establish any major adminis- trative subdivision of the system in which the geographic bounds of compressor and pipeline divisions would coincide, short of the entire pipeline system." 2 This circumstance, together with other factors set forth in its Decision, particularly the facts that the requested employees worked in a distinct geographic area, that the storage fields performed a unique function within the system, and that there was no record evidence of significant interchange of employees between that area and other segments of the system, persuaded the Board that the requested unit was an appropriate one. Since 1966, as indicated in the Regional Director's Decision, the Employer has created six major subdivi- sions of its pipeline system called Areas. Most of the Areas are further subdivided into Districts. Under the present administrative scheme, the requested employ- ees are grouped in the Big Rapids District, one of three districts in the Detroit Area. Their immediate supervisors apparently remain the same as before. However, the Area manager, together with one or more assistants and the District managers, now provides intermediate level supervision for the day-to- day operations necessary to implement policies established by the Detroit headquarters office and to carry out instructions received from the dispatch office in Detroit. Within the Area, the District managers may among themselves coordinate inter- changes of employees; interchanges between Areas are cleared through the Area manager. The Big Rapids District has a complement of approximately 100 employees: 34 maintenance men, 32 storage field operators, 25 station operators, 5 truckdrivers, 2 machinists, and 2 welders.3 The facilities within the district include 2 compressor stations, 269 miles of pipelines interconnecting the I Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 164 NLRB 359, issued May 4, 3 The Hamilton and La Grange Districts of the Detroit Area have 56 1967. and 51 employees, respectively. Each of these districts has a heavy 2 Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line, supra, 360, fn. 8. equipment operator, a classification not found in the Big Rapids District. 194 NLRB No. 76 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD storage fields and the compressor stations, 25 meter stations, and 809 well connections. Most of these facilities and employee classifications are found in all Area subdivisions of the system. The well connections in the storage and supply fields within the Big Rapids District are similar to those found in the producing areas at the southern extremities of the system.4 The classification of "storage field operator" and "machinist," found only in the Big Rapids District, were utilized by the Employer's predecessor, Michi- gan Consolidated Gas Company, when it operated the fields. When the Employer acquired the facilities, it retained the predecessor's employee classifications, and has continued to use those classifications, despite the fact that many of their duties and skills are similar to those of its maintenance men.5 The Employer introduced evidence relating to the frequency of temporary interchange of employees in and out of the Big Rapids District since 1967. As stated by the Regional Director, this evidence shows, for the year 1970, that there were 109 instances6 of transfers out, mainly to other Districts in the Detroit Area, involving 16 employees; and there were 68 instances of transfers in, almost wholly from other Districts in the Detroit Area, involving 13 employees.? We are persuaded, in view of the above-described administrative and operational changes which have occurred since 1966, that the Board's Decision in 164 NLRB 359 is not controlling herein. In reaching this conclusion, we attach significance to the changed circumstance that the Big Rapids District, which now 4 We note, however, that within the Big Rapids District there is an active oil field where the Employer is engaged in producing oil, removing the gas, and processing the gas into propane and butane. It states that these operations will come to an end in approximately 2 years when the oil is depleted. 5 Examination of the statistics and employee interchange discussed below reveals that storage field operators were temporarily transferred out of the District in 43 instances , i.e., for 43 workdays, out of a total of 109 encompasses the requested employees, is one of the three Districts in the Detroit Area, a major adminis- trative-subdivision of the pipeline system. We also note that the operations of the Employer are more highly integrated than most utilities. As a source of supply for a number of utility companies which distribute gas to consumers in the areas they serve, the Employer through its Detroit headquarters monitors and regulates closely the flow of gas through its pipeline system to insure the availability of gas to meet the needs of those companies at all times. For this reason, in establishing a bargaining unit for pipeline employees, we are reluctant to fragmentize them, absent compelling circumstances. Finally, the present records shows that day-to-day supervision of Big Rapids District employees is closely coordinated with supervision of other Districts, especially those within the Detroit Area, and that, concomitant with such coordinated supervision, there is a significant degree of employee interchange both in and out of the Big Rapids District. We therefore find, contrary to the Regional Direc- tor, that the requested unit limited to Big Rapids District employees is inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.8 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the instant petition.9 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. instances of such transfers during 1970, and on many of those occasions they performed the duties of maintenance men. 6 Each instance is a workday, of varying numbers of hours. 7 The transfers varied in duration from I to 10 workdays. 8 Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, 96 NLRB 1385. 9 We find it unnecessary herein to pass on the Employer's contention that the only appropriate unit for the requested employees is systemwide in scope.