Monongahela Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 5, 1972

198 N.L.R.B. 1183 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY 1183
Monongahela Power Company and Utility Workers
Union of America , AFL-CIO , Local Union No.
162, Petitioner . Case 6-UC-67
September 5, 1972
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND PENELLO
On April 24, 1972, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 6 issued a Decision and Clarification of
Bargaining Unit in the above-entitled proceeding in
which he clarified the Petitioner's existing unit of
employees at the Employer's Rivesville power station
in Fairmont, West Virginia, so as to (1) specifically
include therein store department employees Charles
Kain and David Haught and result technicians
Arlando Arcuri, Clem Ball, Donald Brown, Donald
Halpenny, and Charles Varner, and (2) specifically
exclude therefrom store department employee L. E.
Wilt as a supervisor, result technician David Mays as
a professional employee, result technician Clifford
Boyce as an office clerical employee, and all
employees of Tano Brothers, contractor.' Thereafter,
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, the
Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Acting Regional Director's Decision on the ground
that in entertaining the clarification petition he
departed from precedent and made findings of fact
which are clearly erroneous. The Petitioner filed
opposition thereto.
The National Labor Relations Board, by telegraph-
ic order dated May 30, 1972, granted the request for
review. The Employer filed a brief on review.
Pursuant to the provision 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 with respect to the issues under review,
including the parties' briefs and statements of
position, and makes the following findings:
For many years-since prior to 1946-the Petition-
er has been recognized by the Employer as represent-
ative of a unit of employees at its Rivesville power
i The clarification granted by the Acting Regional Director is consistent
with the parties ' stipulation referred to below
2 The Petitioner points to the facts , as background to the instant case,
that it filed a petition in Case 6-RC-6078 for an election at the Employer's
Fort Martin, West Virginia, power station, that the two cases were heard the
same day , and that the Employer agreed to a consent election in Case
station. In their most recent contract, executed
February 29, 1972, for a 1-year term, effective
February 1, 1972, the parties described the unit as
"all non-supervisory hourly rated permanent full
time . . . employees ...." By its petition herein,
filed March 17, 1972, the Petitioner sought to add to
the unit, by way of clarification, two categories of
salaried nonsupervisory employees, store department
employees and result technicians.2 At the hearing,
the Employer filed a motion to dismiss, contending
therein that the petition was barred by the existing
contract under the Board's holding in Wallace-
Murray Corporation, Schwitzer Division, 192 NLRB
No. 160. However, it stipulated to the terms of a
clarification in the event that its motion to dismiss
were denied.
The Acting Regional Director denied the motion to
dismiss and clarified the unit in accordance with the
parties' stipulation. The Employer contends that the
Acting Regional Director should have granted the
motion to dismiss. We agree.
Here, as in Wallace-Murray, relied on by the
Employer, the unit placement of the individuals
involved was made clear in the unit description
contained in the current agreement, and their status
has not changed since its execution. In these
circumstances, to permit one of the contracting
parties to effect a change in the definition of the unit
by means of a clarification procedure would, as we
said in Wallace-Murray, be disruptive of an estab-
lished bargaining relationship.3 Moreover, there is
another fundamental basis for denying the requested
clarification. Where, as here, the jobs of the involved
individuals have been in existence for a number of
years and no recent changes have occurred to
warrant finding the individuals to be accretions to an
existing unit, the Board has held that a request to add
them to the unit raises a question concerning
representation and may not be resolved in a unit
clarification proceeding.4
Accordingly, we shall grant the Employer's motion
to dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
6-RC-6078 in a unit which included store department employees and result
technicians employed at the sister facility
3 See also Northwest Publications, Inc, 197 NLRB No 32, Cleveland
Pneumatic Tool Company, Inc, 135 NLRB 815
4 Lufkin Foundry & Machine Co, 174 NLRB 556, and cases cited therein
198 NLRB No. 177