Arizona Public Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1970

182 N.L.R.B. 505 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
Arizona Public Service Company and International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No 387,
Petitioner Case 28-RC-1944
May 18, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING,
BROWN, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Jordan Ziprin Following
the hearing and pursuant to Section 102 67 of the Nation-
al Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series
8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region 28
transferred this case to the Board for decision There-
after, the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs which
have been duly considered
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing and finds that they are free from
prejudicial error They are hereby affirmed
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein
2 The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer
3 A question affecting commerce exists 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
4 The Employer is a public utility engaged in the
generation and distribution of electric power to all
kinds of consumers in Arizona, maintaining its own
generating plants, substations , transmission lines, and
offices throughout the State for this purpose It also
distributes gas and maintains distribution lines in connec-
tion with that activity The Petitioner represents about
1,120 of the Employer's 2,650 employees in a unit com-
prised principally of production and maintenance em-
ployees working in the Employer's electrical system
The petitioner seeks a separate unit of about 18 per-
sons employed in two classifications, System Load
Supervisors (SLSs) and Assistant System Load Supervi
sors (ASLSs) Petitioner contends that individuals in
these classifications are production and maintenance
employees with a close and unique community of inter-
ests sufficient to warrant their establishment as an
appropriate separate bargaining unit The Employer con-
tends that both the SLSs and the ASLSs are "supervi-
sors" within the meaning of the Act, principally because
they assign work to and responsibly direct field employ-
ees However, in the event that the SLSs and ASLSs
are found not to meet the statutory definition of supervi-
sor, the Employer contends that individuals in the
disputed classifications should then be considered pro-
duction and maintenance employees who should be in-
cluded in the overall unit of such employees already
represented by Petitioner
505
Petitioner was first recognized in a bargaining agree-
ment as the representative of production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer in 1945, at which
time the Employer operated a small radial electric system
serving principally the Phoenix and Buckeye areas of
Arizona That agreement , and later ones up to 1949,
listed "Load Dispatcher" and "Metro Dispatcher" as
classifications within the unit represented by Petitioner
The latter classification still exists, and employees in
it perform some but not all functions of SLSs, as herein-
after described, but service only metropolitan areas and
deal with lower voltage lines In 1949 , the parties mutual-
ly agreed to delete the "Load Dispatcher" classification
from their bargaining agreement The name of the "Load
Dispatcher" classification was changed to "System Load
Supervisor" by the Employer Testifying from notes
taken at the 1949 negotiations, Vice President Woods
states that such action was taken because the Employer's
system was expanding,' and in the Employer's view
the Load Dispatchers had assumed increased responsibil-
ities which qualified them as supervisors within the
meaning of the Act Growth of the Employer's system
also led to the establishment of a new classification,
"Assistant System Load Supervisor, "in 1951, the parties
agreeing that the new classification should be outside
of the production and maintenance unit represented
by Petitioner
Eight SLSs and five ASLSs work in the Employer's
main office at Phoenix and are responsible for various
aspects of the operation of most of the Employer's
utility system, using advanced metering and switching
equipment, power control consoles, and a computerized
electrical power dispatch system known as Automatic
Digital Dispatch and Processing System (ADDAPS) One
SLS and four ASLSs are employed at Employer's Flags-
taff office where their duties pertain to operation of
the northern part of the Employer's utility in Arizona
ASLSs at Flagstaff perform the same duties as the
SLS at that location, functioning as part of a full 24-
hour three-shift operation They do not utilize ADDAPS,
the computerized dispatch system, which is located only
at Phoenix and is operated by the ASLSs there SLSs
and ASLSs are organizationally in the Employer's Sys-
tem Load Dispatch Office They work under the authority
of Mr Wade, Supervisor of Load Dispatching, and
his assistant, Senior System Load Supervisor Hannaman
Wade is in turn responsible to the Employer's manager
of system electric operations The pay range for SLSs
is from $844 to $1,113 per month, and for ASLSs
from $716 to $933 per month Beginning salaries of
SLSs and ASLSs are thus comparable to the highest
paid classifications of productidn and maintenance
employees represented by Petitioner, such as district
serviceman, $4 771 per hour ($827 per month), and opera-
tions serviceman-metropolitan, $4 861 per hour ($842 50
per month) SLSs and ASLSs are required to have
a high school education to qualify for their positions,
as well as some experience in utility operations and
' The Employer s electrical system now serves 11 of 14 counties
in Arizona and also has transmission ties with utilities in Utah and
Califnrma
182 NLRB No 72
506 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
adaptability to technical training. While 2 years of college
training is preferred for SLS and ASLS positions, the
three SLSs who testified at the hearing have had no
such training and have advanced to their positions from
less skilled ones in the production and maintenance
unit represented by Petitioner, such as groundman and
truckdriver.
Aided by advance nourly estimates of the electrical
demand of consumers made by the Employer's schedul-
ing department, the principal function of the ASLSs
at Phoenix is to monitor and maintain an adequate
supply of power in the Employer's utility system.
Because the demand factor depends on such variable
conditions as season, weather, and emergencies, the
demand for power may vary from advance estimates.
ASLSs determine the actual demand, and regulate the
power in the system by ordering generating capacity
taken on or off the line, either by use of remote control
switches or by using communications equipment to con-
tact generating plant personnel (ordinarily shift supervi-
sors). Energy in the system can also be increased or
decreased by purchasing it from, or selling it to, other
utilities by any of three different methods. However,
the cost factor in such sales is determined by computer,
and, while the ASLS has the authority to buy or sell
energy, the manner in which he does so in each case
is fairly well dictated by such immediate circumstances
as the urgency of the need for the power and its availabili-
ty. ASLSs also receive regular on-the -job training for
SLS positions, being the chief source of such personnel
for the Employer. Such training lasts about 3 years
and is given during peak periods and while SLSs are
on vacation or leave.
SLSs in both Phoenix and Flagstaff, and also ASLSs
at the latter location, have the duty of keeping the
Employer's entire electrical system functioning, from
its generating sources to its substations , where the energy
is reduced in voltage for distribution to customers. They
have at their disposal telephone and radio communication
equipment, metering dials which show the amount of
power flowing through various parts of the system,
remote control switches with which they can energize,
deenergize, or test separate circuits, and a power system
map which indicates the condition of each switch as
open, closed, or subject to special procedures such
as "clearance." SLSs monitor the system using the
aforementioned facilities to detect any threatened power
overload or insufficiency,, or any signs of trouble or
disruption caused by unanticipated peak or emergency
conditions.
In the' event of a problem, they allocate and identify
its source by testing and switching procedures which
utilize the remote control switches and communications
devices, and they initiate whatever corrective action
is necessary to energize or deenergize electrical circuits
as conditions require. Normally, SLSs (and ASLSs func-
tioning as such) dispatch crews of servicemen to trouble
spots by orders issued to station managers or foremen,
although in remote areas or in emergency situations
there may also be direct contact with crewmembers.
Where power circuits are affected by conditions arising
to increase or decrease power generation by putting
units on or off particular lines. This is ordinarily done
by contacting station managers or foremen at such plants.
SLSs also plan and schedule when power stations shall
be in or out of service where preplanned repair work
is involved, and are the final authority on the issuance
of holds and clearances which protect the lives of service-
men by deenergizing appropriate sections of the power
system. It appears that a substantial amount of the
SLS's time is devoted to watching meters, making entries
in logs, and operating remote control devices.
The Employer concedes that the SLSs and ASLSs
lack most of the ordinary indicia of a "supervisory,"
as that term is defined by Section 2(l1) of the Act,
but contends nevertheless that individuals in both classi-
fications do assign work and responsibly direct other
employees, and by virtue of such activities qualify as
supervisors under Section 2(11).
On the present record we find no merit in the Employ-
er's position. There is, of course, no question that
SLSs and ASLSs, both in Phoenix and Flagstaff, perform
important functions in terms of the responsibilities
imposed upon them and the conceivable implications
of their actions . Here , as in a number of earlier cases,
the functioning of the Employer's utility system and
the safety of its operating and maintenance employees
often depends on the good judgment, accuracy, and
skill of the SLSs and ASLS. A preponderance of the
evidence in the present case, however, discloses that
SLSs and ASLSs, in directing field functions, normally
transmit their instructions to managers of area offices
or generating stations, or to shift supervisors, construc-
tion superintendents, or crew foremen, who in turn
provide specific local supervision to field employees
performing the requisite tasks. Direct contacts with field
employees by SLSs and ASLs appear to be limited
and almost always by telephone, and even then often
occur only after the field employees have been ordered
by their immediate supervisors to communicate with
the SLSs or ASLSs in order to clarify general directions
already received from them. Furthermore, orders given
directly to field employees by SLSs or ASLSs are normal-
ly in the form of routine directives to perform certain
known mechanical functions.
The Employer's utility has undergone rapid expansion
necessitating a division of the work load formerly per-
formed by its "load dispatchers," such duties now being
performed in part by "system load supervisors" and
in part by "assistant system load supervisors." The
duties of employees in the classifications in question,
of course, determine whether they qualify as supervisors
under Section 2(11), and not the terminology applied
to them by the Employer. It appears from the record
that the duties of SLSs and ASLSs are, in their basic
content, substantially the same as those of the load
dispatchers whose status we considered in the Connecti-
cut Light and Power Company case2 (and earlier cases
cited therein), and found to be ordinary production
employees, not supervisors within the meaning of the
on their shifts, SLSs may also direct generating plants R The Connecticut Light and Power Company, 121 NLRB 768, 770
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 507
Act Thus, such orders regarding the handling of power
as are here transmitted by SLSs and ASLSs directly
to field employees relate primarily to such regular
mechanical operations as opening and closing switches
Also, as in past cases involving load dispatchers, the
field employees here who have contact with the SLSs
and ASLSs actually receive their principal direction
from immediate supervisors who implement substantive
orders issued by the SLSs and ASLSs
The question remains whether SLSs and ASLSs
should be represented in a separate unit, as Petitioner
requests, or as part of the production and maintenance
employees unit already represented by Petitioner, as
the Employer maintains Employees in both classifica-
tions have separate skills from those exercised by other
unit employees, yet their duties are integrated, through
intermediate personnel, with those of the field employees
of the Employer SLSs and ASLSs serve, albeit in
a more vital capacity, much the same purposes as any
member of the presently represented unit In the above
circumstances, we believe that the system load supervi-
sors and the assistant system load supervisors should
be represented, if at all, as a part of the existing unit
of production and maintenance employees 3 However,
as they are presently excluded from that unit, we believe
that they should not now be included without being
given an opportunity, by a self-determination election,
to express their desire to be included, or to remain
unrepresented Accordingly, we shall direct an election
in the following voting group
All system load supervisors an3 assistant system load
supervisors employed in the Employer's System Load
Dispatching Department, excluding ail other employees,
clericals, professionals, guards and supervisors as
defined in the Act
If a majority of employees in the above voting group
cast their ballots for the Petitioner , they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a part of
the existing production and maintenance unit currently
represented by the Petitioner , and the Petitioner may
bargain for such employees as part of that unit If
a majority of them vote against the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain
outside the existing unit and unrepresented, and the
Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to that effect
[Direction of Election4 omitted from publication ]
The Toledo Edison Company 63 NLRB 217
In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote all parties to the election should have access to a list of
voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with
them Excelsior Underwear Inc 156 NLRB 1236 N L R B v Wyman
Gordon Company 394 U S 759 Accordingly it is hereby directed
that an election eligibility list containing the names and addresses
of all eligible voters must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 28 within 7 days of the date of this Decision
and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list
available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file
this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary
circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds
for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed