Cascade Natural Gas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 947 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION 947
additional $200 from preaching in the 6 -month periods in 1951 and 1952 , - respect
tively. The cross-examination by company counsel seemed to be predicated upon
the theory that Fuicher during the entire back-pay period, received $800 more than
he would have earned had he not been discharged. The record fails to support
this contention . Since Fulcher conceded his income from preaching was greater
after his discharge because he could devote more time to this calling , the Trial
Examiner will therefore allow $200 to be deducted from his gross back pay for
the fourth quarter of 1951 and 1952, respectively. There is no credible evidence
establishing his expenses during these periods, so no allowance will be made for
any such items. As the bulk of Fulcher's earning from this source came in the fall,
no allowance will be made for such income in 1953, for the reason that the back-pay
period ends in August of that year.
The Trial Examiner finds no evidence in the record to support the conclusion that
Fuicher willfully incurred any losses during the back-pay period.
Fulcher, like Wynne, would have received Christmas bonuses in 1951 and 1952,
plus $32 vacation pay, as well as vacation pay in the sum of $33.28 for 1953, had
he not been unlawfully discharged. These sums will be added to his net back pay.
The Board directed that Fulcher be made whole for any loss of pay he may
have suffered by reason of discriminatory work assignments from November 28, 1950,
to May 21, 1951. The General Counsel in his gross back-pay computation claims
the sum of $12 and $23.29 for the fourth quarter of 1950 and the first quarter in
1951, respectively. The Company has not questioned these amounts. However,
there is no evidence in the record to support the contention that Fulcher actually
suffered losses in the above amounts , hence the Trial Examiner rejects the same
in the computation of gross back pay.
On the basis of the foregoing findings the Trial Examiner computes Fulcher's
back pay as follows:
Year Quarter Gross Interim Expenses Net backback pay earnings pay
Second________________ $263 36 None ---------- $263 36
1951
Third---------------- 329 68 $142 69 -------- 186 99
Fourth________________ 397 28 245 01 _ 7
Fust__________________ 377 52 35 00 _
1952___________________________________ S 404 71 None __________ 404 71
Third_________________ 392.49 40 00 _ 49
Fourth________________ 413 39 479. 99 $12 00 None
1953____ ___ _ _ _
FIrst__________________ 381 75 457 70 18 00 None
__ __ _ __ __________________
S 375 01 94.98 6 00 286 03
Third_________________ 197 86 48 00 _ 86
3, 533 05 1,543 . 37 36.00 2,138.23
Christmas bonus 1951 and 1952-------- ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- 50.00
Vacation pay 1951 and 1952____________ ________________________ __________ __________ __________ 32 00
Vacation pay 1953-- ------------------- ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- 33.28
Total -------------------------- ------------------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- 2,253 51
[Conclusions and recommendations omitted from publication.]
CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION and LOCAL 481, UNITED ASSOCIA-
TION OF JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE-
FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE U. S. AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 36-RC-1040. November 19, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the parties to this proceeding entered into a stipulation
110 NLRB No. 154.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
whereby they waived notice of hearing and submitted the case to the
Board upon an agreed statement of facts in lieu of a formal hearing.
The stipulation of the parties is hereby approved and made part of
the record in this proceeding.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The facts as set forth in the stipulation of the parties show that
the Employer, a Washington corporation with its principal office in
Seattle, Washington, is a public utility engaged in the production and
distribution of gas. For this purpose, it maintains plants in the cities
of Clarkston, Bremerton, Walla Walla, and Yakima in the State of
Washington; the cities of Pendleton and Eugene in the State of
Oregon; and the city of Lewiston in the State of Idaho. At each of
these cities the Employer holds a municipal franchise for the dis-
tribution of gas. The Petitioner is here seeking to represent a unit
of employees only at the Eugene, Oregon, plant.
During its last fiscal year, the Employer purchased materials out-
side the States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho of the total value
of approximately $400,000, all of which were shipped directly to sev-
eral plants in the respective States. During the same year, total sales
of the Employer's products amounted to approximately $695,000 of
which amount $135,000 represented sales at the Eugene, Oregon, plant.
Although there is some indication that general policy affecting all
employees of the Employer and general supervision over each plant
manager emanates from the Employer's main office in Seattle, there
are no facts before us to show that the several plants of the Employer
are integrated from an operational standpoint. On the contrary, it
is apparent that each plant is a self-contained and independent opera-
tional unit, each serving a separate local area or community. In view
of these facts, we find that the operations of the Eugene, Oregon, plant
are essentially local in character.
In Greenwich Gas,' the Board stated that it would not effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over an essentially local
public utility whose gross volume of business does not amount to
$3,000,000, or more per annum. In the circumstances, as the Em-
ployer's gross annual business at its Eugene, Oregon, plant does not
amount to $3,000,000, we find that it will not effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this proceeding. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
'The Greenwich Gas Company and Fuels, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 564 . Although
Member Peterson dissented in this case, he deems himself bound by the decision therein.