Southern California Water Co.

482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Southern California Water Company and Utility are approximately 500 miles apart. Over the years Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. divisions have been created, dissolved, and altered, Case 31-RC-2943 and districts have been shifted from one division to another. The instant case involves the Metropolitan September 22, 1975 Los Angeles division, which is comprised of the Southwest and Culver City districts. DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF The Petitioner's alternative unit request is for a ELECTION unit of all employees employed in the Employer's Metropolitan division which it contends is an admin- By MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND PENELLO istrative segment of the Employer's overall operation. The record establishes that the Employer's divi- On December 2, 1974, the Regional Director for sional organization was established as a means of Region 31 issued a Decision and Order in the above- fostering the administration of the Employer's opera- entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the peti- tions. Although the Employer's vice president of op- tion requesting a unit limited to all employees em- erations, Anthony, is responsible for the overall oper- ployed by the Employer in the Southwest district of ation of all divisions, the record establishes that the Metropolitan division, excluding guards, watch- division managers are responsible to direct the day- men, and supervisors as defined in the Act, or alter- to-day operations of all employees within their divi- natively a unit composed of all employees in the sions and to coordinate divisional operations with Metropolitan division. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in Anthony. The division manager's office is located at accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La- the division manager's discretion in any of the dis- bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, tricts within his division. as amended, filed a timely request for review of the The Employer does not maintain any systemwide Regional Director's decision on the grounds that, in job-posting or bidding procedure. The record estab- determining that neither of the requested units was lishes that division managers interview most appli- appropriate, he made findings of fact which are cants for employment within their respective divi- clearly erroneous and departed from officially re- sions and make recommendations to Anthony ported precedent. The Employer filed a brief in op- concerning the hiring and promotion of division em- position to the Petitioner's request for review. ployees, and that Anthony generally follows such On April 7, 1975, by telegraphic order, the request recommendations.' It further establishes that division for review was granted solely with respect to the Re- managers possess substantial autonomy over minor gional Director's rejection of the Petitioner's alterna- disciplinary matters within their divisions and are the tive unit request.' Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a first step in the Employer's grievance procedure. statement in support of its position and the Employer They also have authority to authorize overtime in filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's emergency situations. decision. The record indicates that "each division has a very Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the stable work force" and that transfers are negligible National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- and do not interfere with divisional operations. Thus, tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- in 1974 there were only four transfers of rank-and- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. file employees to nonsupervisory positions within the The Board has considered the entire record in this Metropolitan division. case, including the Petitioner's statement and the In finding the Metropolitan division not to be a Employer's brief on review, with respect to the issues major administrative subdivision, the Regional Di- under review and makes the following findings: rector, in agreement with the Employer's position The Employer is a public utility engaged in the herein, relied on the interdependence and high de- distribution of water and electric power in an area gree of centralized control exercised by the Employer encompassing southern and much of central Califor- over its operating districts, the potential for substan- nia. The Company is organized into several depart- tial temporary interchange of employees between dis- ments including engineering, personnel, accounting, tricts, the limited autonomy of field supervisors in and operations. The operations department is divid- personnel matters, and the uniformity of wages, ed into five divisions which in turn are subdivided hours, and conditions of employment throughout the into two or more districts. The most distant districts system. Conceding that the Employer's operations are, like all public utilities, integrated and interde- The Board denied review of the Regional Director's finding mappropn- pendent, and that a systemwide unit would be appro- ate the Petitioner's primary requested unit of all employees in the Southwest district of the Metropolitan division. 2 Anthony has final approval of all hirings and promotions. 220 NLRB No. 84 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WATER COMPANY priate,3 the Board has long recognized that where, on balance, the relevant factors indicate that the admin- istrative structure of a public utility company's oper- ations have created a separate community of interest for certain of the company's employees, a less than systemwide unit may be found appropriate .4 In our opinion, the record demonstrates that the employees in the Metropolitan division constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit. Thus, the rec- ord establishes that the Metropolitan division is an administratively stable and geographically distinct and identifiable administrative subdivision of the Employer. In addition, there is uncontradicted testi- mony that the Employer's operations are not so func- tionally integrated that a cessation of work in one division would cause a systemwide shutdown of op- erations. Furthermore, the record establishes that the division manager has substantial authority and au- 3 See, e.g., Colorado Interstate Gas Company, 202 NLRB 847 (1973). 4See The Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 126 NLRB 676 (1960). 483 tonomy over day-to-day divisional operations and in routine personnel matters including hiring, promo- tions, and discipline. Moreover, we note that there is no evidence of any bargaining history on a broader basis and no labor organization is seeking to repre- sent the employees in the Metropolitan division in a broader unit. In these circumstances, we find that the employees in the Metropolitan division possess a community of interest separate and apart from that of other employees of the Employer and that they constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer in the following unit herein found appropriate for the purpose of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees employed by the Employer in its Metropolitan division, excluding guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote omit- ted from publication.]