Southwest Gas Corp.

486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Southwest Gas Corporation and Laborers' Internation- al Union of North America, Local 1234, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case -31-RC-2103 October 4, 1972 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY MEMBERS JENKINS , KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On July 5, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 31 issued his Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found inappropriate the re- quested unit confined in scope to employees in the Employer's Southern California Division. 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 Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the Re- gional Director's Decision, on the ground that the Regional Director departed from officially reported precedent. The National Labor Relations Board, by tel- egraphic order dated August 9, 1972, granted the re- quest for review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Petitioner contends that the Regional Direc- tor, in denying the request for a unit confined to one of the Employer's three retail gas distribution divi- sions, erroneously distinguished United Gas.' The Employer is a public utility engaged in the retail sale of natural gas in the Southwestern United States. It has its headquarters in Las Vegas, Nevada, and has subdivided its operations into three adminis- trative divisions: Southern California, Nevada, and Arizona. The Southern California Division obtains its natural gas from Pacific Gas and Electric Company at a delivery point in southern California. The Ne- vada and Arizona Divisions obtain their natural gas from El Paso Gas Company. The Employer's Las Vegas main office performs the following functions for the entire system: billing, general accounting, recordkeeping, accounts receiva- ble, payroll, collections, administrative services, in- surance, and customer relations. It also establishes marketing policies and design engineer and construc- tion standards. Items of equipment whose cost is over l 190 NLRB No. 123 $100 are purchased centrally and shipped by the man- ufacturer directly to the division. Las Vegas personnel visit the divisions and retrain employees if a new tech- nique is to be instituted. Each division is administered by its own division manager and has its own supervisory hiearchy. The Southern California Division has a complete staff of construction, customer service, office, sales, engineer- ing, warehouse, and meter reader employees. The di- vision managers make decisions to hire and discipline their own employees. However, except in emergen- cies, all hiring requires the ultimate approval of the Las Vegas office. The divisions have different salary levels for the same job classifications, as salaries are based on the division's cost of living index. All em- ployees have similar fringe benefits. If a division man- ager needs additional employees in a particular job classification, he requests of the Las Vegas office, and in most instances is granted, the permission to hire them. The record is unclear as to whether the division manager can discharge employees without Las Vegas approval. Efficiency tests, although developed by Las Vegas, are given to employees by the divisions. The Employer fills job vacancies on the basis of systemwide job bidding. When a vacancy occurs in any division the information is sent to the other two divisions and all employees then have an opportunity to bid on the vacancy. Of the Southern California Division's 62 employees, 13 have transferred or bid into the division. Temporary assignments between di- visions are limited to emergencies or unusually large promotional campaigns. Since January 1971, there have been two such emergencies. The record does not contain evidence of any other instances of temporary transfers. Contrary to the Regional Director, we find that United Gas is controlling herein. In so concluding we rely especially on the facts that the employees in the requested unit constitute a separate administrative subdivision of the Employer's retail natural gas sys- tem, that the division managers have a substantial degree of autonomy in controlling the day-to-day op- erations of the division, that there is a lack of tempo- rary interchange of employees except for emergencies, and that there is no recent history of bargaining on a broader basis 2 and no union seeks to represent a sys- temwide unit. Moreover, there is no indication that a work stoppage in one division would have a substan- tial impact on the operations of the other divisions due to the Southern California Division's complete staff and its separate source of natural gas. 2 The Regional Director noted that there is an apparent history of collec- tive bargaining; the record indicates that, in a colloquy between the attorneys for the parties and the Hearing Officer, the Employer's attorney stated that there has been bargaining on a companywide basis by an association, but was unable to answer the Hearing Officer's question on when the bargaining occurred. 199 NLRB No. 77 SOUTHWEST GAS CORPORATION Accordingly, we find that following employees of the Employer have a sufficient community of interest to constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of 9(b) of the Act: All employees of the Employer employed at its 487 Southern California Division, excluding office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, profes- sional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of election and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]