Colorado Interstate Gas Co.

COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO 847 Colorado Interstate Gas Company and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 340, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 16-RC-5908 and 17-RC-6813 April 3, 1973 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER On April 18, 1972, the Regional Director for Region 16 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in Case 16-RC-5908, in which he found appropriate a unit of operating and maintenance employees in District 1 of the Employer's natural gas pipeline operations, rejecting its contention that the smallest appropriate unit must be systemwide in scope.' Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision, on the grounds, inter aka, that in reaching his unit determination he departed from officially reported precedent. The Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America was permitted to file an amicus curiae statement of position in support of the Employer's request for review. The National Labor Relations Board by telegraph- ic order dated July 31, 1972, granted the request for review of the Regional Director's Decision in Case 16-RC-5908 and stayed the election pending deci- sion on review. Thereafter, the Regional Director for Region 17 issued a notice of hearing in Case 17-RC-6813. Pursuant thereto a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Gerald A. Wacknov. Follow- ing the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 17, this matter was transferred to the Board for consolidation with Case 16-RC-5908 for purposes of decision. Thereafter, the Employer filed a brief in Case 17-RC-6813 and a brief on review in Case 16-RC-5908. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing in Case 17-RC-6813 and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. The two cases are hereby consolidated for purposes of decision. The Board has considered the entire records in both cases,2 includ- i On February 28, 1972, shortly after filing its petition for a unit of employees in District 1, the Petitioner filed a petition in Case 17-RC-6813 for a unit of similar employees in District 4 of the Employer's pipeline operations The Regional Director for Region 17 held the petition in abeyance pending disposition of Case 16-RC-5908 2 The parties stipulated that because of the similarity of the issues in the two cases the complete record and exhibits in Case 16-RC-5908 be included and made a part of the record in Case 17-RC-6813 3 District boundaries have been adjusted from time to time to achieve ing the briefs of the Employer and the amicus curiae, and makes the following findings: The Employer contends that there are no compel- ling circumstances present in the instant cases to warrant a fragmentation of its systemwide pipeline operations along district lines for collective-bargain- ing purposes. We find merit in this contention. The Employer, which has its headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colorado, operates a pipeline system for the purchase and production, transmis- sion, and sale of natural gas in the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Sales are primarily to public utilities, city utility departments, and natural gas transmission compa- nies. Other customers are large industrial users. The Employer produces and processes gas gathered from its own sources in the Texas Panhandle, and it purchases gas from others at gathering fields in many other locations throughout its system. After being gathered from the gas wells the natural gas is transported by pipeline to central areas where the Employer treats it by either dehydration, desulfuriza- tion, or removal of liquid hydrocarbons. The gas is then compressed and transmitted through larger pipelines to the Employer's customers. Compressor stations located along the pipeline regulate the flow of the gas. Operation and maintenance of the pipeline system is the responsibility of the Operations Department headed by a general superintendent. Separate depart- ments are set up to handle corrosion and communi- cations. The Operations Department is subdivided into nine districts,3 each headed by a superintendent. Districts 1-4 are grouped together as the Southern Division, and Districts 5-9, as the Northern Division. The general superintendent and superintendents for the two divisions have their offices at the Colorado Springs headquarters.4 District superintendents have offices within their geographic districts. Reporting to the district superintendents are various lower level area superintendents, chief operators, and foremen. Control of day-to-day operations of the pipeline system is administered from headquarters. There, pressure and flow within the entire pipeline system are monitored on a 24-hour basis. Decisions with respect to adjustments and daily operations and maintenance are made by central controls and transmitted to personnel in the districts through the greater administrative efficiency and to reflect changes which have taken place in the system with regard to points of sale and sources of gas supply 4 There was testimony that the two divisions were established in order to divide the overall supervisory load 5 Central control contacts customers daily to determine their exact needs and advises each district of the volumes and BTU control required, schedules the wells to be turned on or off to accommodate daily needs, schedules the daily activities of the district, and determines which facilities may be scheduled for repair 202 NLRB No. 122 848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer's communications system, complete with telephone lines, microwave equipment, two-way radios, and telemetering devices. Communications repairmen work in separate administrative subdivi- sions whose geographic boundaries do not coincide with the operations districts. The same is true with respect to the separate administrative subdivisions set up to control corrosion in the pipelines. The Employer employs approximately 917 employ- ees, 417 of whom work at headquarters. Of the remaining 500 field personnel, approximately 95 are supervisory, technical,6 or clerical employees, and 405 are operating and maintenance employees. Most of the latter are rate class 5 employees, comprised of classifications7 subject to systemwide bidding when vacancies exist. There are about 150 operating and maintenance employees in District 1 and about 66 in District 4. The operations of each district are the same. Job classifications, job duties, wages, and benefits are uniform systemwide. As indicated, rate class 5 job vacancies are posted and bid upon throughout the system and systemwide seniority is applied to bids. As a result, most of the higher paying jobs in rate class 5 are filled by bidding.8 As to temporary interchange of employees between operating dis- tricts, the Employer's records indicate that in the last 2 1/2 years District 4 rate class 5 personnels worked approximately 9,600 hours in other districts (3.7 percent of their total working time), and that during the first half of 1972 they worked outside their district approximately 3,900 hours (or 6 percent of the total hours they worked during that period). Although no statistical evidence was presented in the record relating to the requested District 1 unit, there was testimony that it occurred, and that it was not necessarily limited to emergency or unusual situa- tions but was incident to "normal construction and maintenance jobs." In view of the posting procedures for openings in higher paying jobs, virtually all hiring of new employees occurs at the entry level of laborer classifications. Such hiring is closely coordinated with headquarters personnel. Requests for permis- sion to fill vacancies are submitted to headquarters 6 The Employer views as technical rate class 4 employees in the classifications of senior communications repairman , corrosion repairmen, senior electricians, senior plant repairmen, and field dispatchers The Regional Director for Region 16 found it unnecessary to resolve their status as technical employees under the Board's definition, excluding the communications repairmen and corrosion repairmen on the basis that they have a separate community of interest, and including the others on the basis that they shared a community of interest with operating and maintenance employees 7 Including, inter alws, machinist helpers , welder helpers, meter inspec- tors, machinists, auto mechanics, auto mechanic helpers , meter tenders, oilers, heavy equipment operators, plant operators, senior plant operators, plant repairmen, station tenders, truck drivers, utility men, senior welders, well tenders, laborers, temporary laborers, roustabouts, welders, and for approval. If approved, district supervisors will screen applicants, the district superintendents will recommend the better ones to headquarters manage- ment personnel, and the latter will evaluate them and select one for hire. Similarly, the district superintend- ent, before taking disciplinary actions, including discharge, will discuss the situation with headquar- ters management personnel. Wages are set by central management. Rate class 5 employees do not receive merit increases but are given general wage increases determined periodically by the board of directors of the Employer. District superintendents cannot rec- ommend pay increases for individual employees but may recommend that a job classification be given a higher wage rate. Hours are uniform, and overtime, except in emergencies, must be centrally approved and be equalized pursuant to policy. Systemwide policy governs vacations and benefit programs. Grievances may be taken to headquarters for final determination. None of the Employer's employees are currently represented. The only collective-bargaining history involved employees engaged in certain operations acquired by the Employer in 1952 and made part of what is now District 1. The Petitioner represented these employees prior to the acquisition, and the Employer continued to bargain with the Petitioner as to them until 1957 when it was decertified. After an earlier petition filed by the Petitioner in November 1956 for a systemwide unit, a stipulation for certification upon consent election was entered into, and the Petitioner lost the election held pursuant thereto. Because of the essential services rendered to their customers and the integrated and interdependent nature of their operations, the Board has considered the systemwide unit to be optimal for collective bargaining in public utilities industries.10 It has also been the Board's policy to permit the establishment of a unit less than systemwide in scope, where the employees requested have no history of bargaining on a broader basis, they work either in an adminis- trative subdivision or a district geographic service area of the utility, and they enjoy a substantial painters 8 A systemwide survey indicated that during the years 1967 through 1971, 557 job openings were posted, and out of 491 filled by bidding, 121 required a transfer to another district During this period 38 of such moves involved the transfer of an employee in or out of District 1, and 37 in or out of District 4 Although higher paying rate class 4 positions , such as dispatcher and field clerks, are not subject to the bidding procedure, notices of vacancies are customarily posted throughout the system 9 Of the 66 employees in the requested District 4 unit, 59 are rate class 5 employees is Pioneer Natural Gas Company, IIl NLRB 502, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co, 115 NLRB 1396, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, 108 NLRB 1106 COLORADO INTERSTATE GAS CO. 849 community of interest sufficient to make separate bargaining for them a feasible undertaking.ii Yet, the Board has indicated that in establishing units for natural gas pipeline systems like the Employer' s, it is reluctant to fragmentize them, absent compelling circumstances. 12 In the instant case, we find the requested districtwide units to be too narrow in scope to be appropriate. The Employer's districts, we are persuaded, are not major administrative subdivisions of the type which would justify fragmentation of the Employer's pipeline system. On the record facts herein, we find that the employees in District 1 or District 4 do not share a sufficient community of interest apart from other employees in the system to warrant their establishment as appropriate units for purposes of collective bargaining.13 In reaching this conclusion, we rely especially on the high degree of control exercised by the Employer's headquarters management over the operational districts, the evidence as to substantial temporary interchange of employees between Districts 1 and 4 and other districts, the systemwide procedures applied in posting and bidding for openings in higher paying positions, the lack of substantial autonomy in the district superintendents with respect to day-to-day personnel matters, and the uniformity of wages, hours, and conditions of employment throughout the Employer's system. Accordingly, as we have found the requested units to be inappropriate and the Petitioner has made no alternative request for a broader unit, we find that no questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and we shall dismiss the petitions herein.14 ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petitions filed in Cases 16-RC-5908 and 17-RC-6813 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. MEMBERS FANNING AND PENELLO, dissenting: We would have denied the Employer's request for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction of Election in Case 16-RC-5908 and, upon review, affirmed his unit determination. In the consolidated proceeding, therefore, we would find that the two districtwide units requested by the II See United Gas, Inc, 194 NLRB No 19, Idaho Power Company, 179 NLRB 22, Arkansas-Missouri Power Company, 152 NLRB 1600, Western Light & Telephone Company, Inc, 129 NLRB 719, Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 164 NLRB 359 12 Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 194 NLRB No 76 (the earlier discussion, supra, was distinguished because of changes in the facts and circumstances), Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, 96 NLRB 1385 13 Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 194 NLRB No 76 14 In the circumstances, we find it unnecessary, on this record, to pass on Petitioner constitute separate identifiable administra- tive subdivisions within the Employer's systemwide pipeline operation and that such subdivisions, in the circumstances here, have traditionally been found appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining in the public utilities industry. i5 As stated by the majority, the record shows that the operation and maintenance of the Employer's multi- state pipeline system is the responsibility of the Operations Department. That department is headed by a general superintendent who is directly responsi- ble to the vice president in charge of transmission and engineering. The Operations Department is divided into nine geographic districts, each headed by a superintendent. Districts 1-4 are grouped together as the Southern Division, and Districts 5-9 as the Northern Division. The general superintend- ent of operations and the two division superintend- ents have their offices at the Employer's Colorado Springs headquarters. 16 District superintendents, on the other hand, have their offices within their respective geographic districts. The offices of District I and District 4 are located in Amarillo, Texas, and Lakin, Kansas, respectively. The Employer's vice president for transmission and engineering, R. Frank Williams, testified that the district superintendents are responsible for the day- to-day supervision of the various operations and maintenance functions in their districts. District 1 is subdivided for administrative purposes into three geographic areas-the Bivins area, with the Bivins gasoline plant, the Bivins Compressor station, the Alibates gathering field, the Alibates sweetening plant, and the Alibates field compressor; the Fritch area, with the Sanford sweetening plant, the Sanford Compressor station, the Panhandle gathering field, and the Panhandle field compressor; and, the Fourway area, with the Fourway gasoline plant and the Fourway compressor station. Each area also includes related pipelines. Each area is supervised by an area superintendent who reports directly to the district superintendent. Supervision below the district level is thus carried out by the area superintendents, station superintendents, chief operators of the vari- ous facilities in each area, and foremen of various work gangs. The actual operations within each district are basically similar. The Employer produces and the Employer's contention that the only appropriate unit for the employees involved is systemwide in scope 15 Western Light & Telephone Company, Inc, 129 NLRB 719, 721, and cases cited therein, Michigan Bell Telephone Company, 192 NLRB No 178, Monogahela Power Company, 176 NLRB 915, 917, see also Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Company, 173 NLRB 1441, 1442, and cases cited therein 16 The Employer denies that the divisions are "administrative subdivi- sions" of its interstate system, asserting that the only reason for creating the two divisions was to divide the supervisory load 850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD processes gas gathered from its own sources and it purchases gas from others at gathering fields in many locations throughout its system. The gas is transport- ed from the wells by pipeline to central areas where it is treated either by dehydration, desulfurization, or removal of liquid hydrocarbons. The gas is then compressed and transmitted through larger pipelines to the Employer's customers. Compressor stations, located along the pipeline, regulate the flow of the gas. Pressure and flow within the entire system are monitored on a 24-hour basis at the Employer's headquarters in Colorado Springs. Loss of pressure or flow in one area may be compensated for by increasing the flow from other areas in order to meet the customers' demands throughout the system. In finding that the districtwide units here are too narrow in scope to constitute "major administrative subdivisions of the type which would justify frag- mentation of the Employer's pipeline system," 17 the majority especially relies upon the (1) interdepend- ence and high degree of centralized control exer- cised by the Employer over its operating districts; (2) evidence of substantial temporary interchange of employees between districts; (3) systemwide proce- dures applied in posting and bidding for higher paying jobs; (4) lack of substantial autonomy in district superintendents with respect to day-to-day personnel matters; and (5) uniformity of hours, wages, and conditions of employment throughout the Employer's system. Conceding that the Employer operations are, like all public utilities, highly intergrated and interdepend- ent, and that the above factors could, in part, suggest that a systemwide unit can also be appropri- ate here, the Board has long recognized that the optimum unit is not at all times and in all circumstances the only appropriate unit in a public utility.18 Thus, the factors relied on by the majority have been held inadequate grounds for denying public utility employees their paramount rights under the Act to organize for collective-bargaining pur- poses in smaller than systemwide units.19 This is particularly so where, as here, there is no bargaining history and no labor organization seeks to represent the employees in a broader unit; the smaller than systemwide units sought constitute geographically 17 By failing to define what would constitute a "mayor" administrative subdivision here, the majority appears to find that only a systemwide unit is appropriate notwithstanding its purported disclaimer in this regard at fn 11, supra There is nothing here to indicate that a Northern Division unit or a Southern Division unit would be any more appropriate than a district unit This leaves only a systemwide unit 11 See cases cited at fn 15, supra 19 Monongahela Power Company, 176 NLRB 915, 917, and cases cited therein 20 Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Company, 194 NLRB No 76, on which distinct and identifiable administrative subdivisions, and the Employer's operations are not so functional- ly intergrated that a cessation of work in one district would cause a systemwide shutdown of operations. In fact, no compelling reason for the systemwide unit is urged. The record, in our opinion, amply demonstrates that the geographic districts here involved have the characteristics of separate administrative units. Each district is headed by a superintendent who is responsible for the day-to-day operation and mainte- nance of the multiple facilities within its geographic boundaries. The district superintendent has two levels of supervision below him in the administrative hierarchy of the district. Although all final decisions regarding hiring and firing are subject to approval by headquarters, the district superintendent retains substantial control over these matters. Thus, he interviews and screens all applicants for employment in his district and makes his recommendations to headquarters. The fact that hiring is closely coordi- nated with headquarters, as the majority finds is not inconsistent with effective recommendation by dis- trict superintendents. Vice President Williams testi- fied that he could not recall any instance in which the district superintendent's recommendations were not followed. And, while there is some temporary interchange of employees between districts, we are not persuaded that it is "substantial," as the majority finds, or that such interchange has eroded the district lines of authority. Thus, it appears that when employees of one district are temporarily assigned to perform work in another district, they work under the general supervision and control of the district to which they are assigned. In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in this proceeding, we perceive no basis for the majority's conclusion that the Employer's admin- istrative districts, with their resident superintendents, are too narrow in scope to be appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. To the contrary, the evidence as a whole persuades us that these districts are the Employer's major, if, indeed, they are not its only, administrative subdivisions through which its multistate pipeline system functions.20 the majority relies , is, in our opinion , clearly distinguishable There, the employer's pipeline system was operated through six major subdivisions, called "Areas" Each of these "areas" were further subdivided into "Districts " The Board found a single district was not a sufficiently major subdivision to constitute an appropriate bargaining unit Here , on the other hand, the Employer' s major administrative subdivisions are the districts, each of which is composed of several areas Here nomenclature is reversed The Petitioner here seeks to represent the employees of two of these districts, not its constituent areas