Burns & Roe Services Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 24, 1994

313 N.L.R.B. 1307 (N.L.R.B. 1994)

1307
313 NLRB No. 236
BURNS & ROE SERVICES CORP.
1 See the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules and Regulations,
Sec. 102.67(d) (the Board may, in its discretion, examine the record
in evaluating the request for review).
2 The parties stipulated that these coordinators are statutory super-
visors.
3 The mechanical group includes stationary engineers, surveillance
operators, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning) mechan-
ics, and plumbers.
4 The structural coordination group includes carpenters, laborers,
and painters.
5 The supply group includes shipping and receiving employees and
warehouse employees.
Burns and Roe Services Corporation and Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local
99-99A-99C, AFL–CIO, Petitioner and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union No. 26, Petitioner. Cases 5–RC–
13958 and 5–RC–13952
May 26, 1994
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN GOULD AND MEMBERS STEPHENS
AND COHEN
On December 10, 1993, the Regional Director for
Region 5 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding, in which he found in-
appropriate both the unit of electrical department em-
ployees (including electricians, electronic mechanics,
and general maintenance workers) sought in Case 5–
RC–13958, and the unit of stationary engineers, sur-
veillance operators, heating, refrigeration, and air-con-
ditioning mechanics, plumbers/painters, plumbers, car-
penters, laborers, shipping and receiving clerks, and
warehouse employees sought in Case 5–RC–13952.
The Regional Director instead directed an election in
an overall unit consisting of all of the above-mentioned
employees. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board’s Rules
and Regulations, Petitioner International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 26 (Local 26)
filed a timely request for review of the Regional Direc-
tor’s Decision.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegated
its authority in this proceeding to a three-member
panel.
Having carefully considered the entire record,1 we
have decided to grant Local 26’s request for review
and reverse the Regional Director’s Decision. For the
reasons set forth below, we conclude, contrary to the
Regional Director, that the petitioned-for unit of elec-
trical department employees constitutes an appropriate
craft unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
The Employer is a contractor providing facility
maintenance services at various locations across the
United States. The facility involved here, the National
Archives building located in College Park, Maryland,
houses documents for the National Archives. Because
of the nature of the documents housed at this facility,
strict environmental controls must be maintained. The
Employer is responsible for maintaining the environ-
mental and ventilation systems, as well as for operat-
ing the building’s mechanical systems. As indicated
above, Local 26 seeks to represent a unit composed of
the Employer’s electrical employees, while Local 99
seeks to represent a unit composed of the remaining
mechanical and maintenance employees. The Employer
argues that only a unit composed of all its electrical,
mechanical, and maintenance employees is appropriate.
The employees are organized into four separate
groups, each supervised by a separate coordinator:2 the
electrical group; the mechanical group;3 the structural
coordination group;4 and the supply group.5 The coor-
dinators assign work, handle the employees’ timecards,
conduct weekly meetings among employees in their
group, and evaluate and discipline employees. All em-
ployees receive the same fringe benefits and holidays,
and are subject to the same personnel policies. With
respect to wages, electricians, engineers, and mechan-
ics receive $16.45 per hour; painters and carpenters re-
ceive $15.64 per hour; shipping and receiving employ-
ees receive $10.94 per hour; general maintenance em-
ployees receive $9.96 per hour; and surveillance opera-
tors receive $6.23 per hour.
The mechanical and structural employees repair and
maintain the building’s mechanical systems. Electrical
employees are responsible for maintaining and repair-
ing the electrical systems, lighting, and elevators. The
electrical group consists of four electricians, two elec-
tronic mechanics, and three general maintenance work-
ers. All four electricians have undergone formalized
apprenticeship programs and are licensed journeymen
electricians; the electronic mechanics have experience
in electrical systems but are not licensed; and the gen-
eral maintenance workers are likened to apprentices
and usually work with the electricians. Electrical em-
ployees do not share the same break and lunch time
as the other employees. There have been no transfers,
either temporary or permanent, into or out of the elec-
trical group.
Maintenance employees (except the general mainte-
nance workers in the electrical department) are hired
because of their varied skills, and perform a variety of
tasks. All employees receive training from the manu-
facturers in using various pieces of equipment such as
a new ‘‘lift.’’ The Employer also provides training in
subjects such as ‘‘confined spaces,’’ which is man-
dated by OSHA. There is no evidence that the Em-
ployer conducts training classes on specific craft skills,
that electrical employees receive substantive training
regarding the performance of nonelectrical tasks, or
that nonelectrical department employees receive sub-
stantive training concerning electrical tasks.
1308 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6 Phoenician, 308 NLRB 826 (1992).
7 NLRB v. Metal Container Corp., 660 F.2d 1309 (8th Cir. 1981);
Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., 251 NLRB 492 (1980); and
American Potash & Chemical Corp., 107 NLRB 1418 (1954).
8 NLRB v. Metal Container Corp., supra at 1314 fn. 9. There, the
electricians had extensive training, experience, and other skills in ad-
dition to their electrical knowledge. The court noted that the lack of
a formal apprenticeship or training program did not bar a craft deter-
mination where extensive experience was required and no other class
of employees was required to have electrical knowledge. See also
Lianco Container Corp., 177 NLRB 907 (1969).
9 Compare Longcrier Co., 277 NLRB 570 (1985), in which the
Board, in finding the petitioned-for employees constituted neither a
craft unit nor a functionally distinct group of employees, emphasized
that the employees were assigned to particular jobs according to
need rather than by job classification or along craft lines.
Employees generally work with employees in their
assigned groups. Even when the Employer assembles
a team of employees for a particular task, electrical
employees generally perform the electrical work while
mechanical/structural employees perform the structural
and mechanical work. Electrical employees do not per-
form nonelectrical work. With respect to other cross-
over work, the Employer claims that nonelectrical em-
ployees regularly perform electrical work. The record
establishes that in performing preventive maintenance
and alteration of office stations, nonelectrical mainte-
nance engineers do some electrical work, as well as
mechanical work, as these tasks incorporate both elec-
trical and mechanical work. For example, mechanical
employees perform preventative maintenance on the
airhandler equipment, which requires them to repair
and monitor the electrical system, and the HVAC me-
chanic does both electrical and mechanical work on the
HVAC system. However, if the HVAC mechanic en-
counters an electrical problem that requires more than
a short time to do the work, the HVAC mechanic
writes a service order and an electrical department em-
ployee will perform that work. Brad Kennedy, the Em-
ployer’s project manager, testified that he could not re-
member any instance when someone other than an
electrician got involved in anything like wiring or in-
stalling electrical fixtures, and that he had no knowl-
edge of any mechanical equipment needing electrical
repairs that was repaired by a nonelectrical department
employee.
On two occasions, a stationary engineer performed
what appeared to be more complex electrical work.
Both instances involved emergency situations occur-
ring in the middle of the night when the stationary en-
gineer was responsible for the facility. In the first in-
stance, a storm knocked out all of power at the facility.
The stationary engineer ‘‘threw the switches on’’ to
draw power from another substation, and then the
oncall electrician was called in to ‘‘assess the situa-
tion.’’ In the second instance, an air compressor motor
failed at the facility. According to the Employer, the
stationary engineer was able to ‘‘jury rig’’ the equip-
ment to keep it running. The oncall electrician was not
called in; the stationary engineer merely waited 3
hours for the electricians to begin their shift.
Finally, there is no bargaining history at this facility,
although at the Employer’s Department of Agriculture
jobsite, Local 26 represents a unit of electrical employ-
ees and Local 99 represents all other maintenance em-
ployees. In the 4 years that the Employer has had con-
tracts with the Unions covering maintenance employ-
ees at that jobsite, there have been no jurisdictional
disputes or contractual grievances involving work as-
signments.
A craft unit is one consisting of a distinct and ho-
mogeneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen,
who, together with helpers or apprentices, are pri-
marily engaged in the performance of tasks which are
not performed by other employees and which require
the use of substantial craft skills and specialized tools
and equipment.6 In determining whether a petitioned-
for group of employees constitutes a separate craft
unit, the Board looks at whether the petitioned-for em-
ployees participate in a formal training or apprentice-
ship program; whether the work is functionally inte-
grated with the work of the excluded employees;
whether the duties of the petitioned-for employees
overlap with the duties of the excluded employees;
whether the employer assigns work according to need
rather than on craft or jurisdictional lines; and whether
the petitioned-for employees share common interests
with other employees, including wages, benefits, and
cross-training.7
We find, contrary to the Regional Director, that the
electrical employees employed by the Employer at the
National Archives’ College Park facility constitute a
distinct and homogeneous craft unit. The electrical em-
ployees organizationally are in a separate department,
are separately supervised, are highly skilled and/or li-
censed journeymen craftsmen (or apprentices), and per-
form work typically performed by members of their
craft, i.e., they have primary responsibility for the
maintenance and repair of the electrical systems, ele-
vators, and lighting. Contrary to the Regional Direc-
tor’s, the fact that the Employer does not have a for-
mal apprenticeship program or conduct extensive on-
the-job training does not necessarily negate separate
craft status, as the Employer requires that the electrical
employees at the very least have extensive experience
and no other class of employees is required to have the
same level of electrical knowledge.8
Further, the Employer does not disregard craft dis-
tinctions in making work assignments and does not as-
sign employees solely according to need.9 On occa-
sion, when a particular job requires a mix of skills, the
Employer may assemble a team of employees; how-
ever, even in those situations, electricians principally
work on the electrical systems while nonelectrical em-
1309BURNS & ROE SERVICES CORP.
10 We are mindful that the significance of the lack of transfers is
diminished because the facility opened only recently, in October
1993.
11 In E. I. Du Pont & Co., 162 NLRB 413 (1966), the Board
found appropriate a craft unit of electricians based on their appren-
ticeship training and their exercise of traditional craft skills, although
some of their functions requiring lesser expertise were performed
from time to time by other less skilled employees. See also Dick
Kelchner Excavating Co., 236 NLRB 1414 (1978).
12 See NLRB v. Metal Container Corp., supra. There, electricians
were the only plant employees who could make major electrical re-
pairs, had primary responsibility for electrical maintenance, were
separately supervised, and were required to have extensive training
or experience. In finding the petitioned-for unit of electricians appro-
priate, the court noted that the high degree of functional integration
had not so fused the employees’ functions, skills, and working con-
ditions as to preclude a separate unit. See also Atlantic Richfield Co.,
231 NLRB 31 (1977), in which the Board found appropriate a sepa-
rate unit of electrical instrument division employees.
13 Compare Brown & Root, Inc., 258 NLRB 1002 (1981), in which
the Board noted, inter alia, that the employer did not follow strict
craft lines, assigned and utilized its employees according to need,
and the evidence was insufficient to establish that the work of the
requested employees was different from that performed by excluded
employees. In Proctor & Gamble Paper Products Co., supra, the pe-
titioner sought to represent electrical support technicians. The Board,
although noting that these employees were highly skilled, performed
electrical work almost exclusively, were separately supervised, and
spent considerable time in the shop, found that they did not con-
stitute a separate craft unit because electrical work was performed
by other technicians, the technicians functioned as a team, work
done by the petitioned-for employees was performed in production
areas, none of the technicians was licensed, there was no apprentice-
Continued
ployees work on the mechanical systems. Moreover,
the Employer neither trains nonelectrical employees to
perform electrical work nor trains electrical employees
to perform nonelectrical work.
In addition, there is only limited contact between the
petitioned-for electrical employees and the non-elec-
trical employees, because all employees normally work
with their assigned groups and do not typically inter-
change with other employees, and because there have
been no transfers into or out of the electrical group.10
Although different classifications of employees may
have some contact when teams are assembled to work
on a particular project, there was no evidence that this
occurs on a frequent or regular basis.
We further find, contrary to the Regional Director,
that the evidence regarding crossover work is not suffi-
cient to negate the separate identity of the petitioned-
for electrical department employees. Any electrical
work performed by nonelectrical employees during
preventative maintenance is limited primarily to lesser
skilled tasks. If the preventative maintenance job re-
quires more expertise, or is complicated, the non-elec-
trical employees do not perform the work. Thus, de-
spite some overlap of job functions, it appears that the
majority of the nonelectrical employees do not have
the expertise to perform the more complicated elec-
trical work, and do not on a regular or routine basis
perform work comparable to that performed by the
electrical employees. The Board has found that some
overlap of lesser skilled duties does not preclude find-
ing the petitioned-for unit appropriate.11
Further, the fact that a stationary engineer was able
to restore electrical power at the facility during an
emergency situation does not compel a finding that the
petitioned-for unit is inappropriate. The Board has
found that a strict separation between crafts is not re-
quired in order to find a separate craft unit appropriate.
Integration of operations requiring some crossover be-
tween craft and noncraft employees, or between em-
ployees of different crafts, is permissible. See E. I. Du
Pont & Co., supra. Further, although a stationary engi-
neer may, during emergencies, perform some of the
functions normally performed by electrical employees,
the Employer has not established that this occurs on a
routine or regular basis; indeed, that a stationary engi-
neer only performs such functions in emergency situa-
tions suggests that such occasions are rare and spo-
radic. Finally, stationary engineers appear to be the
only nonelectrical employees qualified to perform tasks
beyond the least skilled electrical tasks. Thus, the evi-
dence does not establish that nonelectrical employees
routinely perform functions which are comparable to
those performed by electrical employees, such as
would tend to negate the separate identity of the peti-
tioned-for electrical department employees.
Accordingly, in view of the high degree of skill and
knowledge required of the majority of electrical depart-
ment employees, including journeymen status; the sep-
arate supervision; the lack of contact with other em-
ployees; the lack of substantive cross-training; and the
lack of evidence establishing that nonelectrical em-
ployees regularly or routinely perform similar work to
that performed by electrical department employees, we
find that the petitioned-for electrical department em-
ployees are a distinct and homogeneous group of
skilled journeymen craftsmen along with their appren-
tices and helpers. In addition, as there is no labor orga-
nization seeking to represent the petitioned-for employ-
ees on a broader basis (indeed, Local 99 is seeking to
represent a separate unit of the remaining maintenance
employees, specifically excluding electrical department
employees), we conclude that the petitioned-for unit is
an appropriate craft unit for purposes of collective bar-
gaining.12
We are not unmindful that there are some factors fa-
voring finding only a combined unit appropriate, e.g.,
some contact and overlap of job functions, and that all
employees are subject to common personnel policies
and receive similar wages and benefits. However, a pe-
titioned-for unit need only be an appropriate unit. Fur-
ther, the Employer has not shown that the lines of sep-
arate craft identity have been so blurred as to preclude
a separate electrical unit.13
1310 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ship program, and all technicians shared substantially the same bene-
fits and working conditions.
14 We note that although the request for review did not directly ad-
dress the appropriateness of the unit of mechanical maintenance em-
ployees sought by Local 99, as no party claims that there are any
other employees who should be included in either unit, and as there
is no union seeking to represent the petitioned-for employees on a
broader basis, we see no reason not to find this unit also appropriate
for collective-bargaining purposes, and we do so find.
Accordingly, we conclude that separate units of
electrical department employees and of other mainte-
nance employees are appropriate units for purposes of
collective bargaining.14 Consequently, we reverse the
Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion, and remand this case to the Regional Director for
further action consistent with this Decision.
ORDER
The Regional Director’s Decision and Direction of
Election finding the petitioned-for units inappropriate
is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Regional
Director for further action consistent with this decision.