Atlantic Richfield Co.

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. Atlantic Richfield Company and International Broth- erhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547, AFL- CIO, Petitioner.' Cases 19-RC-8220, 19-RC- 8235, and 19-RC-8237 July 29, 1977 DECISION ON REVIEW By CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS PENELLO AND MURPHY On January 7, 1977, the Regional Director for Region 19 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding appropriate the Employer's and Intervenors'2 re- quested unit of all employees classified as "techni- cals" 3 at Employer's Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, opera- tion. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula- tions, Series 8, as amended, Petitioner requested review of such decision, alleging error in finding that three skilled groups of electrical technicians, instru- ment technicians, and communication technicians, respectively, or a combined unit of the 55 employees in these three groups for which Petitioner seeks recognition, do not have a separate community of interest.4 By telegraphic order dated March 7, 1977, the Board granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. Employer refiled its posthearing brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case and makes the following findings: Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the production and distribution of petroleum pro- ducts. The facility involved in this proceeding is an oil production field at Prudhoe Bay, on the North I Whereas the petition in Case 19 RC 8220 lists only the International as the Petitioner. the Regional Director found it apparent from the record that Local 1547 intended to he the Petitioner in all three cases and gave it 10 days within which to object if that determination was in error. No objections having been filed, accordingly, the term "Petitioner" is used throughout this Decision to refer to IBEW. Local 1547. 2 International Union of Operating Engineers. Local 302, AFI.-CIO, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters. (hauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 959. State of Alaska. intervened in these proceedings :' Although referred to as "technicals." the overall unit involved herein includes classifications such as operator. camp maintenance, and warehouse (see fn. 7, heloe) and is analogous to a production and maintenance unit. consisting of all of Employer's employees at the location involved. It is not comprised of technical employees as that term is used by the Board See. e.g.. The Sheffield Crporaroon, 134 NLRB 1101 (1961). i Petitioner also stated it is willing to participate in an election in a unit larger than it seeks. Employer maintains that both the separate units and the combined unit are inappropriate and seeks an election for a unit of all 231 NLRB No. 7 Slope of Alaska, the beginning point of the Trans- Alaska Pipeline. A field manager oversees the entire operation consisting of 300 technical employees (herein called "techs"). As regards the three classifications at issue herein, the Regional Director found the following: "The electrical, instrument, and communication techs comprise the electrical instrument division of the production services department. They do perform work which is traditionally performed exclusively by members of the electrical craft. Thus, the electrical techs are expected to be able to climb in emergency situations and only they work on high voltage cables. The pneumatic instrumentation work is performed only by instrument techs. Only communication techs are required to have an FCC license and only they perform the more complicated work on the commu- nications gear."5 We agree. Having made the above findings, the Regional Director then concluded an overall unit of all 300 techs was appropriate. His decision was based upon lack of a formal apprentice- ship program, cross-training of employees in skill areas other than their crafts, shared living and recreational facilities,6 the integrated nature of the operation, and the fact that the work of electrical, instrument, and communication techs is often direct- ed by supervisors outside their crafts. To contend with unique environmental and pro- duction problems inherent in operating an oil production field in this remote arctic region, Employ- er has now instituted an employment program designed exclusively for its Prudhoe Bay operation. Employer admitted, however, "What we had before was a system of. . . different, specialized crafts." In its new "tech program" there are 15 "technical" classifications. 7 A new tech may be hired within a classification as "tech start" (the lowest temporary rating) or "tech I" (the lowest permanent rating) and may progress, as openings occur, into the highest nonsupervisory grade of "tech 7." Employer testified that a higher tech level indicates a highly specialized technicians at the Prudhoe Bay facility. Both Intervenors concur with Employer and decline to participate in any election except on a "Slope- wide" basis. Intervenor Teamsters, however, did not comment on the appropriateness of Petitioner's requested units. There is no history of collective bargaining among the employees involved herein. I Employer in its bnef, although opposing the unit sought, admits that Petitioner's request "is obviously based upon craft lines." 6 Although the remote location of Employer's operation and the 7-days- on and 7-days-off work schedule fosters an unusual degree of personal contact among employees during nonworking hours. we note that the quality of the living quarters provided by Employer somewhat vanes according to one's skill level. In our view, the Prudhoe Bay conditions do not destroy a separate community of interest among those employees with electrical skills. 7 Based on Employer's brief the classifications are: tech-electrical, tech- instrument, tech-communication, tech-mechanical pump. tech-mechanical turbine/compressor, tech-equipment, tech-camp maintenance. tech-me- chanical shop. tech-machinist, tech-general. tech-welder. tech-tool 'parts, tech-operator, tech-laboratory, and tech-warehouse. 31 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD individual in that skill area, as well as an individual with some leadership capabilities and a limited amount of cross-training. Employer then testified that, within the three classifications for which Petitioner seeks recognition, 80 percent of the employees are rated tech 4 and above. This, when viewed with the fact that when the operation commenced most of these employees were hired into those levels as skilled employees, demonstrates the existence of traditional craft skills. Thus, little weight can be attached to the fact that a formal apprentice- ship program does not exist. We are similarly not persuaded by Employer's contention and the Regional Director's finding that the three groups herein do not have a sufficiently distinct community of interest apart from other technical employees because of the existence of cross-training. While Employer desires flexibility enabling employees to respond to varied work assignments and emergency situations, Employer admittedly needs Specialization for the highly sophis- ticated equipment used in its operation. Employer encouraged both specialization and flexibility by initiating a career development program called the "Progression Promotion Program," which promotes self-development among employees by encouraging and assisting employees to acquire additional skills in their present area of expertise as well as "cross-over" skills in related skill areas. Employer urges that as a result of this cross-training employees may and do transfer from one tech classification to another, albeit a transfer may necessitate an employee accepting a lower grade than previously held until he acquires sufficient specialization in the new tech classification to equal his former grade level of skill and responsibility. We note that just 20 of the 300 employees have transferred to different tech areas in the first 8-1/2 months of the program, and that only 3 of the transfers were into I of the 3 groups for which Petitioner seeks recognition. There were no transfers out of the three groups. As regards the cross-training, Employer admitted that training of this sort occurs largely in lower levels and is motivated by safety factors at all levels. For example, in explaining a requirement that any tech working in a remote drilling location first acquire knowledge of radio repair, Employer stated, "[W]e would hate to have somebody frozen just because he didn't know how to replace a fuse or something like that." Employer also asserts that the highly integrated nature of the operation is sufficient reason to create a unit broader than that requested by Petitioner. Employer explains it has a round-the-clock operation N E. 1. Dupont de Nemours and Company, 162 NLRB 413 (1966); Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 170 N LRB 46 (1968). " The "communication supervisor" indicated on the organizational chart necessitating a work schedule for all employees of 7 days on and 7 days off. The day of the shift change, however, is dictated by the tech classification, with the supervisor and all employees of the same group changing on the same day. Moreover, we have found that where, as here, there is no history of bargaining on a more comprehensive basis, neither the integrat- ed nature of a production process nor the fact that skilled employees must coordinate their operations with other employees in achieving maintenance goals is, in itself, sufficient to preclude the formation of a craft unit.8 Directing our attention to the Regional Director's reliance on supervision exercised apart from craft distinctions, we note Employer's testimony indicates that all techs report to a maintenance shop complex to receive daily assignments from a firstline supervi- sor in their tech classification. These firstline supervi- sors are primarily responsible for evaluating and disciplining their employees. Although a firstline supervisor may direct a tech to report to another supervisor for the duration of a specific task, such as a project that is part of the preventive maintenance schedule, he maintains primary supervisory responsi- bility. Explaining this situation, Employer empha- sized, "[I ]t wouldn't be a transfer . . . it's not even a loan." Additional information about craft supervi- sion of electricians in Employer's operation is gleaned from its Exhibit 3, a chart outlining "Prudhoe Bay Operations." The chart indicates that electrical techs, instrument techs, and communica- tion techs each have a firstline supervisor designated a "specialist," who answers directly to a "supervisor" in the respective groups.9 The supervisor of each group answers directly to an "electrical instrument supervisor." No other classifications are supervised or directed by the electrical instrument supervisor. Applying the Board's approach of a case-by-case examination of all relevant factors before determin- ing the appropriateness of separate groups and interests,io we find that the following employees of Employer may constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: (A) All employees classified as electrical techs, instrument techs, and communication techs, comprising the electrical instrument division of the production services department, employed by Employer at its Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, operation, excluding all other "technical" employees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. had not been hired at the time of hearing. However, four employees at that time were employed as "communication specialists." 'o See E I. DuPont de Nenours and Company, supra at 417-418. 32 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. (B) All employees classified as "technical" em- ployees employed by Employer at its Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, operation excluding electrical techs, instrument techs, and communication techs, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. However, in accordance with precedent we shall require the IBEW to elect between appearing on the ballot for the craft unit described in voting group A or for an overall "technical" unit comprised of groups A and B." If the IBEW elects to proceed in an overall "technical" unit, we find in those circumstances the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: (C) All employees classified as "technical" em- ployees employed by Employer at its Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, operation, excluding office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. If the IBEW elects to proceed on a craft unit basis, employees in voting group A shall vote whether they desire to be represented by the IBEW, the Teamsters, the IUOE, or no union, and the employees in voting group B shall vote whether they desire to be represented by the Teamsters, the IUOE, or no union. If the IBEW elects to proceed in the overall unit described in group C, above, the employees shall I Union Carbide Corporation Chemicals Division, 156 NLRB 634. 642 (1966). Chairman Fanning would not require an election between units. See his dissenting position in Union Carbide, supra at 642. fn. II, and F N. Burt Compano., Inc. 130NLRB 1115(1961). 2 The vote shall be pooled as follows: votes for the IBEW shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the other choices. All other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the Teamsters, the IUOE, or for no union. If in the pooled group there is no majority vote for any of the three choices and the ballots which voting group A cast for separate representa- tion by the IBEW are insufficient in number to change the relative position vote whether they desire to be represented by the IBEW, the Teamsters, the IUOE, or no union. If a majority of the employees in voting group A select the IBEW, they shall be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of representative for such group. If a majority in voting group A do not vote for separate representation, that group shall appropriately be included in the overall unit and the appropriate certification shall issue after their votes are pooled with those in voting group B.' 2 If, in the event of separate craft representation, a majority of the employees in voting group B elect to be represented by either the Teamsters or IUOE, then a certification of representative will issue for an appropriate unit of "technical" employees excluding the electrical craft unit. If the IBEW elects to proceed in the overall unit C rather than the craft unit, then an election shall be held only in unit C, and the appropriate certification shall issue. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Regional Director for Region 19 for the purpose of holding an election or elections pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that ending immediately before the date of issuance of this Decision on Review, and the provision for an Excelsior list of voters shall be similarly updated. of the three choices on the ballot no matter how they are distrinbuted, the Regional Director shall conduct a runoff election between the two highest choices in accordance with Sec. 9(c)(3) of the Act. If in the pooled group there is no majojty vote for any of the three choices and the votes which voting group A cast for the IBEW are sufficient in number to affect the relative positions of the ballot choices, the Regional Director shall declare the first election a nullity and shall conduct another election in the appropnate unit C. providing for a selection among the Teamsters, the IUOE, or no union, to afford all employees an opportunity to register their preference on the representation question submitted to them. 33