Pennsylvania Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 30, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1078 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1078 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the engineers are; now, except for some electrical' maintenance 'work, exclusively engaged in performing typical powerhouse duties. Thus, unlike the situation at that time, their function and duties clearly distinguish them from the other maintenance employees. As the licensed steam engineers are the only employees in the Den- ver operatipxi qualified to operate,,and maintain the high pressure boilerroom equipment, and. because-that is their principal function; we believe that they constitute a functionally distinct group of power- house or boilerroom employees of the type the Board has consistently found may be separately represented .6 Moreover, as the union seek- ing to represent them has historically and traditionally represented such units, we would direct a severance election among the engineers. 9 See, for example , Natvar Corporation , 109 NLRB 1278; Pioneer Division, The Flint- kote Company, 109 NLRB 1273; Consolidated Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Pomona Division, 108 NLRB 159. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 6-RC-145., November 30, 1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-, bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harvard G. Borchardt, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and 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. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons : The Petitioner seeks to represent a systemwide unit of production and maintenance employees, including certain engineering depart- ment employees, but excluding clerical employees. The Employer agrees that this unit is substantially appropriate, but would define the systemwide unit in terms of its operating departments and thug would include all employees in its production, transmission, and dis- tribution departments, but would exclude all employees in its general offices, and those employees in the commercial and engineering de- partments, whom the Petitioner would include. The Intervenor, Utility Workers of America, and its Local Union No. 180, C. I. 0., 110 NLRB No. 180. PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 1079 contends that employees of the Employer's eastern division, whom the Intervenor currently represents, should constitute a separate unit. In the alternative, the Intervenor is willing to represent an employer- wide unit, including physical and clerical employees. The Employer is engaged in generating, transmitting, and distrib- uting electric power within the States of Pennsylvania and Maryland. It has its headquarters in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The Employer's operations are divided into 4 geographic divisions-the northwest, northern, southern, and eastern divisions, which, in turn, are sub- divided into approximately 25 districts. For functional purposes, its operations are further divided into departments, all of which cross divisional lines, and are headed by officials at Johnstown. Since 1946, all facilities throughout the four divisions have been operated as a single integrated system. All generating stations, irre- spective of location, are connected with the major transmission lines. The control of power flow throughout the system is maintained at Johntown by the main .load dispatcher, who may change the flow of electrical energy to and from the several divisions. Uniform safety rules are followed throughout the system. Customer billing and all claim adjustments are handled at Johnstown where a single book- keeping system is maintained for all divisions. Except for clerical employees, no differences in pay rates exist between employees in the several divisions performing comparable work. Transfers of physical employees occur among the divisions, but practically none occur among clerical employees. In the event of emergencies, such as "outages" resulting from storms, repair crews may be assigned to the trouble site from other divisions. Although each division has its own personnel manager, all major personnel matters and collec- tive bargaining are handled by the system personnel director at Johnstown, who, approves all appointments,, job classifications, and rates of pay. Since 1944, the Employer has bargained with a group of local unions of the Petitioner for a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees in the production department throughout the system and for production and maintenance employees in the north- west, northern, and southern divisions. In 1946, the Employer pur- chased the property of the Pennsylvania Edison Company which, from 1941, had bargained collectively with the Intervenor for a unit of all that company's clerical and physical employees except for power plant employees.' After the purchase, the Pennsylvania Edison properties were integrated into the Employer's system and were established as the eastern division of the Employer. In 1946, the Employer and the Petitioner extended the coverage of their collective- 1 That unit was established pursuant to Board determination. Pennsylvania Edison Company, 36 NLRB 432. 1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bargaining agreement to the employees of the power plants formerly operated by Pennsylvania Edison. However, the employees of the merged company represented by the Intervenor have continued to be represented by that organization as a separate unit, although now employees of the Employer. As the result of negotiations between the Employer and the Intervenor, wage rates and other employee benefits have been "equalized" for physical employees in the two separate units. In view of the highly integrated interdependent character of the Employer's public utility system, we are convinced that a systemwide unit is the optimum unit appropriate for collective bargaining.2 How- ever, the long history of separate bargaining for the employees in the eastern division precludes the inclusion of these employees in the optimum appropriate unit without a self-determination election.' As, however, the Petitioner has not made a showing of interest among the employees in the eastern division, and the Intervenor does not seek an election among them, we shall not direct an election in a voting group limited to such employees 4 Further, as the Petitioner does not desire certification in a unit consisting of the employees it now represents, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2 Boston Consolidated Gas Company, 107 NLRB 1565 ; Elizabethtown Consolidated Gas Company, 93 NLRB 1270. s Montana -Dakota Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056 . Member Murdock , who dissented in that case and in Upper Peninsula Power Company, 110 NLRB 1082, now considers himself bound on this point by the majority opinion in the latter case. 4 Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., supra. TUBE REDUCING CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-6954. November 30, 1954 Decision and Order On August 26, 1954, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent selection, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region among the employees in the appropriate unit described below. Upon conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was issued and served upon the parties. The tally shows that, of approximately 24 eligible voters, 13 cast valid ballots for, and 11 against, the'Peti- tioner. There were no void or challenged ballots. On September 2, 1954, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the election. The Regional Director investigated the objections and, on September 20, 1954, issued his report on objec- 110 NLRB No. 175.