The Insco Systems Corp.

THE INSCO SYSTEMS CORPORATION The Insco Systems Corporation a andLocal 68, Interna- tional Union of Operating Engineers; AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 22-RC-6158 March 20, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO On October 11, 1974, the Acting Regional Director for Region 22 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec- tion in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found appropriate the Petitioner's requested unit lim- ited to six heating and air-conditioning operators (hereinafter AC operators) employed at the Employer's Neptune, New Jersey, facility, rejecting the Employer's contention that the appropriate unit must encompass all employees in the Employer's building operations department at that location. 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 Acting Regional Director's decision on the grounds, inter alia, that in making his unit determination he departed from precedent and made findings of fact which are clearly erroneous. The Board, by telegraphic order dated December 12, 1974, granted the request for review with respect to the Acting Regional Director's unit finding and stayed the election pending decision on review. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs on 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 proceeding, including the briefs on review filed by both parties, with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the business of providing data processing and systems services at its Neptune, New Jersey, facility. The building operations depart- ment, which is under the supervision of Facilities Su- perintendent Viscido,' consists of approximately 32 employees, including the 6 AC operators, 1 trainee, approximately 16 custodians, 7 or 8 security employees,2 1 maintenance mechanic, and 1 electri- cian. There is no history of collective bargaining. The Acting Regional Director, relying largely on the nature 1 The Board in its ruling on the Employer's request for review affirmed the Acting Regional Director's finding that one of the AC operators, D'O- nofrio, is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act However, the record reveals D'Onofrio's supervisory authority is not limited to the AC operators. 2In its brief on review the Employer concedes that the security employees are guards within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded from the unit found appropriate. 1 of the AC operator's duties, i.e., performing air-condi- tioning and boiler functions, and their required special- ized training, found that they constitute a separate, functionally homogeneous group and thus form an ap- propriate unit. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree. The record discloses that the requested AC operators, are primarily responsible for the operation and mainte- nance of the Employer's heating and air-conditioning equipment, which includes two automatic low pressure boilers, two chillers, and eight- water pumps all of which are located in the boiler room; fans and blowers, located in the air-conditioning room; return fans located in a separate room; exhaust fans located on the roof; duct work in the ceilings throughout the Em- ployer's building; and a cooling tower located 10-20 yards from the Employer's building. AC operators make minor repairs to the above equipment but major repairs are performed by outside contractors. They also check thermostats throughout the Employer's building and make hourly inspections of a motor generator, located in a separate room, which insures a steady supply of electricity for the Employer's computer equipment. About 60 percent of the AC operators' time is spent in the rooms housing the heating and air-condi- tioning equipment and the motor generator. In addi- tion to the above-described duties, AC operators, like custodians, also perform custodial functions; however, such tasks are largely limited to the rooms housing the heating and air-conditioning equipment.' It also appears that there is regular contact between the AC operators and other operations department em- ployees, and that both groups perform certain related duties. Thus, AC operators and other building opera- tions employees use the same maintenance shop, which is entered from the boiler room, and have access to the storage room for custodial supplies. In addition, all building operations employees may perform work in the air-conditioning room. The record also shows that AC operators and the electrician check the cooling tower and the motor generator and work on certain equipment at the same time and the electrician, in per- forming his duties, on occasion works in the boiler room. The AC operators may also receive assistance from the maintenance mechanic or custodial em- ployees. The record also discloses that all building operations department employees share many similar working conditions and terms of employment. Although AC operators and security employees are the only ones employed in a three/shift 24-hour basis, all building 3 While the record evidence is conflicting with respect to the extent of general custodial duties performed by AC operators outside of the rooms which house their equipment, it appears that some AC operators sweep the maintenance shop "more often than not," and in an emergency situation an AC man could be asked for assistance with custodial duties 217 NLRB No. 4 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD operations department employees are hourly paid, are subject to the same wage review and wage adjustment policy, and enjoy the same fringe benefits including a pension plan, hospitalization insurance, accident insur- ance, holidays, and vacations, among others . There is a separate locker room for employees of the building operations department, and, with the exception of the security employees, all other employees in the depart- ment wear the same uniform. The job description for the AC operators requires them to be high school graduates with specialized field training and 2 years of experience. However, the Em- ployer does not require its AC operators to be licensed to operate boiler and refrigeraton equipment, and has in the past- hired employees without such licenses.4 While the Employer currently employs one individual as an AC operator-trainee, who works with an AC operator, the record does not disclose that the Em- ployer maintains any formal training or apprenticeship program for AC operators. In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole, particularly the facts that AC operators lack separate immediate supervision, perform duties throughout the Employer's facility and have contact with other build- ing operations department employees , share similar fringe benefits and conditions of employment with such employees, are not required to be licensed , and perform tasks in addition to those involving heating and air- conditioning equipment, we find that a unit limited to the AC operators is too narrow in scope and does not constitute an appropriate unit.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.' ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER FANNING, dissenting: I disagree with the view that, a unit of heating and air-conditioning equipment operators is inappropriate in this case. My colleagues cite as a primary basis for their deci- sion what they refer to-,as the appearance that the equipment operators perform related duties and have regular contact with other building operations depart- ment employees. - Yet, upon a careful review of the record the majority would discover persuasive evidence to the contrary. The equipment operators solely perform their assigned duties, for which the Employer requires specialized 4 The record discloses that five of the six AC operators working as of the hearing date are licensed boiler operators and one has a refrigeration license. 5 See Marriott Hotels; Incorporated, 187 NLRB 399 (1970). 6 In veiw of the disposition herein, Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied. training and experience unlike that of any other em- ployee and for -which five of the six -operators are lic- ensed, as required by the State: Their-specialized duties require that most of their time is spent in the heating and cooling machinery rooms. The remaining time is spent making emergency repairs and periodically checking all related equipment both inside and outside the building leaving little time, as the record shows, for performing work outside their specialized field. Of necessity, the equipment operators' work brings them to every part of the building and at times they may perform their work in close proximity to other operations department employees. Occasionally, they may even perform maintenance on the same equipment that another operations department employee is work- ing on, but when this occurs the record clearly indicates that each such employee performs his assigned duties independently of the other and neither performs the work of the other. If time allows, they may perform limited custodial duties in their own work areas, a re- sponsibility the Employer places on all its employees. This evidence does not, in my view, justify the finding that work functions are so related or that the intermit- tent contact between these employees and others is of such a pattern that deprives the operators of their func- tional identity . The additional fact that the operators work three shifts covering 24 hours a day, working at times when no other operations department employees are scheduled, further belies my colleagues' wisdom in resting their decision upon the appearance of regular contact or related duties. Unpersuasive, indeed, is the . evidence of similar working conditions, limited as it is. The record clearly indicates the wage review policy and fringe benefits are also shared by all other employees in this data process- ing company and whether an hourly wage is similarly applied is not shown. In my view, the fact that these operators are the only employees allowed to perform their specialized work, for which they are specifically trained; experienced, and licensed, clothes them with an identity apart from other employees,, unaffected by the presence of.companywide working conditions. Additionally, the majority relies on its bare conclu- sion that the heating and air-conditio ning equipment operators lack separate immediate supervision. That finding, unsupported as it is by the record, ignores the import of the Acting Regional Director's finding that Equipment Operator D'Onofrio is a supervisor, a find- ing my colleagues and I have adopted and which the record supports. D'Onofrio's supervisory responsibility over other operations department employees, which in my view is caused by the temporary lack of familiarity with the department by a newly hired departmental supervisor, should not result in a finding that ignores THE INSCO SYSTEMS CORPORATION his primary duty as supervisor of the equipment opera- tors. Finally, the majority relies upon Marriott Hotels, Incorporated, 187 NLRB 399 (1970), which is clearly inapposite. Here, unlike in Marriott, even my col- leagues have noted that more than half of the operators' worktime is spent in the rooms housing the machinery for which they are responsible . That, coupled with the time spent monitoring and repairing equipment both 3 inside and outside the building, underscores some of the significant factual differences of this case. Based upon their specialized training, experience, and work which supports finding that these operators are a functionally distinct group and the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would adopt the Acting Regional Director's findings and direct an election in the unit petitioned for.