Boston Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 13, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 628 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boston Gas Company , Employer-Petitioner and Utili-
ty Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local
446-G 1 and United Steelworkers of America,
Local Union No. 12007 of United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO-CLC. 2 Cases 1-RM-939 and
1-UC-164
November 13, 1975
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTIONS
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Benjamin
Smith of the National Labor Relations Board.
Following the hearing, and pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series
8, as amended, by direction of the Regional Director
for Region 1, this proceeding was transferred to the
Board for decision. Thereafter, the Employer, Utility
Workers, and the Steelworkers filed briefs.
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 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 proceeding, 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 Unions are labor organizations within the
meaning of the Act and claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. This proceeding results from the acquisition by
Boston Gas Company of the operating facilities of
the Mystic Valley Gas Company (herein called
Mystic Valley) and the Lynn Gas Company (herein
called Lynn). This acquisition was completed about
December 1973. The Employer continued to recog-
nize the collective-bargaining agreements then out-
standing covering the employees of each of the two
companies . Mystic Valley employees were represent-
ed by Local 12007 of the Steelworkers under an
agreement expiring March 31, 1975, and Lynn
employees were represented by Local 446-G of the
Utility Workers under an agreement expiring June
19, 1975.
Prior to the acquisition, Mystic Valley and Lynn
maintained separate customer inquiry facilities to
handle billing, credit, collection, and service inquiries
from their respective customers. Mystic Valley's
customer inquiry center was located in Malden,
Massachusetts, while the Lynn inquiry center was
located at 90 Exchange Street in Lynn, Massachu-
setts. Following the acquisition, the Employer inte-
grated the Mystic Valley and Lynn customer inquiry
facilities into a single location at Lynn3 and,, on
March 4, 1974, transferred the Malden customer
inquiry center facility and 31 Mystic Valley employ-
ees to 90 Exchange Street. A number of other Mystic
Valley employees at various locations were not
physically transferred but were administratively
attached to the Lynn inquiry center. Following the
transfer, all customer inquiries from former Mystic
Valley and Lynn customers were routed to the Lynn
center.
On January 24, 1975, the Employer filed the RM
and UC petitions now before the Board for consider-
ation. The Employer contends that a question
concerning representation exists which can best be
resolved through the Board election processes, that
employees in the customer inquiry center at the 90
Exchange Street facility constitutes an appropriate
bargaining unit, and that the collective-bargaining
agreements in existence at the time of the merger do
not constitute bars to an election. The Utility
Workers and Steelworkers both contend that there is
no question concerning representation in that no
demand has been made by either Union to represent
all of the inquiry center employees in a single unit.
The Utility Workers also urges its contract is a bar to
an, election and, in the event the Board rules
otherwise and finds that the inquiry center consti-
tutes an appropriate unit, that the Board should find
that the employees transferred into the inquiry center
constitute an accretion to the unit represented by the
Utility Workers. The Steelworkers claims that the
merged unit is actually an accretion to its former
Mystic Valley unit, or, in the alternative, that the
inquiry center constitutes a new appropriate unit for
-an election.
The Employer's merged customer inquiry center
functions have 'been and are being performed by the
employees of Mystic Valley and Lynn on a totally
commingled and fully integrated basis. Although the
center employees have slightly different job classifi-
cations as a result of their different bargaining
histories, their duties are identical. Thus, we have a
I Herein called Utility Workers acquired ownership of the building at 90 Exchange Street The Employer
2 Herein called Steelworkers . did not acquire ownership of the building in Malden where the Mystic
3 As part of the acquisition of the Lynn Gas Company, the Employer Valley customer inquiry center had been located.
221 NLRB No. 78
BOSTON GAS COMPANY
situation in which employees historically represented
by different labor organizations have been merged
into a single work force in which they work side by
side in similar job classifications performing like
functions under common supervision. Although
performing functions similar to those performed in
the past, the employees are now performing these
functions for a different employer on a combined
basis with respect, to the formerly separate Mystic
Valley and Lynn territories. Also, employees at the
merged center are applying the new Employer's
customer relations policies and procedures as distin-
guished from the separate policies and procedures of
the former two companies where both gas and
electric service inquiries were handled., For these
reasons, we conclude that the Employer's customer
inquiry center at 90 Exchange Street is a "new
operation" designed to carry out the Employer's
customer relations in these newly acquired areas, and
that, accordingly, the Utility Workers contract is not
a bar to an election.4
We also find no merit in the Unions' contentions
that there is no question concerning representation in
that there has been no demand for representation by
one Union in an overall unit. Both Unions claim to
represent employees in the merged center. Since
there is no basis on which the employees who are
members of the separate Unions could be deemed to
be appropriate separate units, all the customer
inquiry employees in the center appropriately belong
in the same unit. There are, therefore, competing
claims for representation in the unit which we are
hereby finding appropriate. Moreover, the Employer
was faced with the alternative claim that the
Steelworkers should be recognized as the representa-
tive of the overall inquiry center unit on the basis
that the majority of the employees in the unit are
members of the Steelworkers as well as the fact that
the Steelworkers represents the overwhelming major-
ity of the Employer's employees on a systemwide
basis. In addition, both Unions make 'an alternative
claim that those employees heretofore represented by
the other Union have accreted to their respective
units. However, neither group of affected employees
is sufficiently predominant to remove any real
question as to the overall choice of a representative.5
Accordingly, we find and conclude that the merger
of the Employer's customer inquiry center employees
into a single location created a new situation in
which 'there is present a question concerning repre-
4 General Electric Company, 170 NLRB 1272 (1968); Panda Terminals,
Inc, 161 NLRB 1215, 1223 (1966) In any event, inasmuch as a hearing has
been directed and held herein and our decision will issue after the 90th day
preceding the expiration of the contract we would ;find the Utility Workers
contract is not a bar to an election at this time See Westclox Division of
General Time Corporation 195 NLRB 1107 (1972)
5 Without regard to the meter readers or the satellite customer service
629
sentation as to all of the inquiry center employees
within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1)(B) and 2(6)
and (7) of the Acts -
In view of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the
petition in Case 1-UC-164.
4. The Employer petitions for an election in a
unit composed of all employees of the Employer
located at the 90 Exchange Street facility in the sales
department, customer inquiry department, credit
collection department, and cashier's department
together with all cashiers, adjusters, . telephone
operators, office messengers, and field collectors now
located at the Employer's , facilities in Revere,
Malden, and Arlington, Massachusetts, excluding
guards, executives , secretaries to executives, superin-
tendents, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
During the course of the hearing and in its brief the
Employer raised the issue as to the inclusion in the
unit of the meter readers who report to the 90
Exchange Street building at the start of each working
day.7 The Utility Workers contends that, in the,event
an election is directed, the unit should include the
meter readers and exclude the so-called, satellite
employees working in Revere, Malden, and Arling-
ton, as well as the messenger . The Steelworkers
contends that the unit should include the satellite
employees and exclude the meter readers and certain
sales employees covered by a separate collective-
bargaining agreement between the Employer and the
Utility' Workers. As to the basic unit inclusions at the
customer inquiry center, the parties are in general
agreement.
As to the meter readers, the record shows that these
employees report each day to the 90 Exchange Street
building to pick up their route books for that day.
They are under the direct supervision of J. A. Doyle,
supervisor of meter readers whose office is at the 90
Exchange Street facility and who is directly responsi-
ble to R. J. Cavicchi; superintendent of the customer
inquiry center. In addition, the record ' shows -that
most of the present meter readers have either
previously held or progressed into the meter reading
jobs from jobs in the inquiry center. On the other
hand, the record shows that the former Mystic Valley
meter readers continue to operate out of the
Employer's production facilities in that area. The
Employer has indicated that if the meter readers' are
not included in the inquiry center unit these
employees would be relocated at the "Lynnway, the
Lynn operations and production 'facility located
employees discussed infra, the record shows that there are approximately 34
employees represented by Utility Workers and 38 employees represented by
Steelworkers
6 National Carloading Corp, 167 NLRB ,801 (1967). See also Panda
Terminals, Inc, supra at 1216
7 The Employer takes no position on the unit placement of the meter
readers , but suggests that they be allowed to vote a Globe-type ballot
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
about a mile away. Moreover, there is some evidence
that several of the meter readers have bid into jobs in
the production and service department at the
"Lynnway" facility. From the above facts, it appears
that the meter readers could appropriately be
included in the inquiry center unit, or alternatively,
could just as appropriately be left out. In these
circumstances , we shall permit the meter readers to
vote a Globe ballot to decide (1) whether they want to
be included in the inquiry center unit, and, (2) if they
choose to be included in the inquiry center unit, what
their desires are with respect to representation.
As to the so-called satellite employees, the Employ-
er and the Steelworkers would include in the unit one
adjuster , two collectors, four cashiers, and one
telephone operator. The Employer would also in-
clude the former Mystic Valley interoffice messenger.
The Utility Workers would exclude these employees
on the ground that they are not located in the inquiry
center and are engaged in functions basically related
to the Malden area, whereas certain other employees
in similar classifications in the North Shore division
are not sought to be included in the unit. The record
shows that the Malden adjuster works out of, the
Malden sales store. The Employer's witness testified
that this employee was left in the Malden store for
purposes of convenience for the former Mystic
Valley customers who wanted to, have personal
contact with a representative of the Employer with
regard to billings and related matters. He reports to
and is supervised by supervisory personnel at the
inquiry center and is in one of the inquiry center's
lines of progression. The record also shows that the
two field collectors report in the morning and
evening to 90 Exchange Street and then go out in the
field for collection work. The record also shows that
there are three cashiers assigned to various sales
stores in the former Mystic Valley area for purposes
of receiving bill payments from customers. While
they do not physically report to 90 Exchange Street
and they are in an unclassified job, their work is
closely related to the total functions of the customer
inquiry center, their ultimate supervision is in the
inquiry center, and, in the event of their absences,
their backups or replacements come from the inquiry
center. In the above circumstances, we conclude that
the adjuster, the two collectors, and the four cashiers
have a close functional relationship with the opera-
tions of the customer inquiry center and should be
included in the unit found appropriate herein. As to
the messenger , the record shows that this employee
picks up his car at Malden, comes to the center at
Lynn for deliveries, and then proceeds to do
messenger service throughout the Mystic Valley and
Lynn territories. In addition, the collective-bargain-
ing agreements show that the classification of
messenger was generally included among the cus-
tomer inquiry group. In these circumstances, we shall
include him in the unit. As to the telephone operator
at Malden, the record shows that this employee
operates a joint PBX board that serves the Employ-
er's Malden facilities including the Employer's
general offices in Malden, as well as the Malden
facilities of the New England' Electric System. We
therefore conclude that the telephone operator at
Malden does not have any real functional relation-
ship with the customer inquiry center or its employ-
ees and should be excluded from the unit.
Accordingly, in view of all the facts and circum-
stances heretofore recited, including our conclusion
that the meter readers may either be included in the
inquiring center unit or remain outside the unit, and
that their desires on this issue are critical, we shall
not make a final unit determination at this time, but
shall direct that an election be conducted in the
following voting groups at the Employer's 90
Exchange Street facility:
Voting Group (a):, All meter readers employed
and reporting to the Employer's 90 Exchange
Street facility in Lynn, Massachusetts, excluding
all other employees, guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Voting Group (b): All employees of the
Employer located at the 90 Exchange Street,
Lynn, Massachusetts, facility in the sales depart-
ment, customer inquiry department, credit collec-
tion department, and cashier's department, to-
gether with all cashiers, adjusters, office messen-
gers, and field collectors now located at the
Employer's facilities in Revere, Malden, and
Arlington, Massachusetts, but excluding the
meter readers in voting group (a), and all guards,
executives, secretaries to executives, superinten-
dents, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The employees in voting group (a) will be asked to
answer the following questions on their ballots:
(1) Do- you desire to be included with the
employees in voting group (b) for purposes of
collective bargaining? (2) If the tally of ballots as
to question (1) shows that a majority of the
employees in group (a) desires to be represented
in the overall unit, do you wish to be represented
for purposes of collective bargaining by the
Utility Workers, the Steelworkers, or by neither?
If a majority of the employees in group (a) vote
"Yes" to question (1), the tally of the ballots as to
question (2) shall be merged with the ballots of the
employees in voting group (b) and a combined tally
of ballots shall be issued and served on the parties. If
BOSTON GAS COMPANY 631
a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote
"No" to question (1), their ballots shall be disregard-
ed and a tally of ballots as to the employees voting in
voting group (b) shall issue and be served on the
parties. In addition, if a majority of the employees in
voting group (a) vote "No" as to question (1), this
vote shall be interpreted as a determination on the
part of the employees in voting group (a) to remain
in the overall service and operations unit heretofore
represented by the Utility Workers Union.
[Direction of Elections and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
7