City Electric, Inc.

CITY ELECTRIC, INC 325 City Electric, Inc. and Teamsters Local 959, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , State of Alaska, Petitioner. Case 19-RC-7912 June 29, 1976 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By MEMBERS FANNING, PENELLO, AND WALTHER On April 15, 1976, the Regional Director for Re- gion 19 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he directed an election in the single-unit location sought by Peti- tioner. Thereafter, Intervenor,' seeking to represent a two-location unit, filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's decision pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended. By telegraphic order dated May 13, 1976, the Board granted the request for review.2 No briefs were filed. 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 and makes the following findings: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to rep- resent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Employer is an electrical contractor engaged in business throughout the State of Alaska since 1946. Its total work force numbers approximately 200. As i The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse- men and Helpers of America , Local 959 (herein called Teamsters ) filed a petition on March 5 , 1976, seeking to represent a unit of all equipment mechanics and helpers employed at Employer's Anchorage location There- after, Local 1547, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO (herein IBEW or Intervenor), intervened and requested a two-location unit of equipment mechanics and helpers at Employer's Anchorage and Fairbanks locations Employer's equipment mechanics and helpers in An- chorage have been represented by the International Association of Machin- ists, whose collective-bargaining agreement with Employer expired on June 1, 1976 The iAM has disclaimed any interest in continuing its representa- tion of these employees There is no collective-bargaining history at Employer's Fairbanks shop, it was opened in March 1975 2 Intervenor's request for review of the Regional Director's decision find- ing Charles Anderson to be a supervisor as defined by Sec 2(11) of the Act was denied We note that the record supports a finding that he can and does discharge employees without specific authorization part of its operations, it has three equipment repair shops which are located in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kenai.' Originally, all of Employer's equipment mechanics were based in Anchorage and dispatched from there all over the State. In March 1975, Employer opened a separate Fairbanks repair shop. The initial equip- ment mechanic for that shop was hired from Intervenor's hiring hall in Fairbanks. He was re- placed in October by a mechanic on temporary as- signment from Anchorage. That mechanic was, in turn, replaced by an individual dispatched from Intervenor's Fairbanks hiring hall. Two helpers were similarly hired in Fairbanks in February and March 1976. Employer's present complement of equipment mechanics and helpers consists of about seven em- ployees in Anchorage and three in Fairbanks. Employer's Anchorage and Fairbanks shops are geographically separated by a distance of some 300 miles. Each shop has its own supervisor who man- ages the day-to-day operations and has the authority to hire and fire. In fact, the present Fairbanks em- ployees were hired by the Fairbanks supervisor. Em- ployees in Fairbanks are paid according to a differ- ent wage scale than those in Anchorage. There has been no significant interchange of mechanics be- tween the Anchorage and Fairbanks shops; only one temporary assignment of an Anchorage mechanic to Fairbanks has occurred. In view of the foregoing, in- cluding the distance between the two locations and the autonomy exemplified by local hiring and local day-to-day direction, we find that the Anchorage em- ployees alone, as requested by Petitioner, may be an appropriate unit. The facts also demonstrate, however, that even though the Fairbanks supervisor hires employees lo- cally and has the responsibility of his shop's day-to- day operations, his production schedule is decided by Anchorage, where Employer's vice president di- rects the overall operation of the business. It also appears that the vice president travels to Employer's facilities throughout the State, although the record does not detail the nature or frequency of such trips. Employer's personnel and labor policies are formu- lated in its Anchorage office and its wages and bene- fits are paid from there. Accordingly, we find that the two-location unit requested by Intervenor may also be appropriate. We shall therefore direct separate elections4 at Employer's Anchorage and Fairbanks locations, among the following employees: All equipment mechanics and helpers, excluding office clerical employees, professional employ- No equipment mechanics are located at Kenai 4 See Martin -Marietta Corporation, 139 NLRB 925 (1962) 225 NLRB No. 62 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. If a majority of the employees at each of the two locations votes for representation by the IBEW, we find that a combined Anchorage-Fairbanks unit is appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of the Act, and direct the Regional Di- rector to issue a certification of representative to the IBEW for such a unit. If not, we find that each voting group , at Fair- banks and at Anchorage, constitutes a separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act and direct the Region- al Director to issue a certification of representative cr certification of results of election, as may be appro- priate. [Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]