Potomac Edison Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 164 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter, of POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UTILITY
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5 R-X4. Decided August 20, 1946
Mr. William C. Walsh,, of Cumberland, Md., and Mr. John Waga-
,man, of Hagerstown, Md., for the Employer.
Mr. Oliver J. Harper, of New York City, Mr. Reginald Brown, of
Pittsburgh, Pa., and'Mr. James Dean, of Cumberland; •Md., for the
Petitioner.
.Mr. Herbert J. Nester, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cumber-
,laud, Maryland, on Jur-e 25, 1946, before Harold Al. Weston, Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with-the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Potomac Edison Company-, a Maryland corporation with offices
located at Hagerstown, Maryland, furnishes electrical power and
light in the State of Maryland, and through its subsidiaries in the
Commonwealths of Pennsylvania and Virginia and the State of West
Virginia. During the calendar year of 1945, in excess of 25 percent
of the raw materials purchased by the Employer, consisting of coal,
wire, and wooden, poles, originated from points outside the State of
Maryland. During the same period, its gross income was in' excess
,of $100,000,_ which represented the sale of over 400,000,000 kilo-
watt hours of electricity, 200,000,000 of which were transmitted by
the Employer's facilities to points outside the State of Maryland.
70 N L. R B, No 17.
164
POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY 165.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to ,represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate. unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner urges as appropriate a unit of employees in the
Employer's Cumberland district," consisting of all line foremen,
linemen, linemen helpers, groundmen, laborers, substation mainte-
nance men, the utility man, and the janitor of the line department's
,quarters, but excluding all clerical and service department employees,
and supervisory employees with authority to hire and discharge.2
The Employer does not contest the general composition of the pro-
posed unit, but would exclude the line foremen, the substation mainte-
nance employees, and the janitor.
Live foremen: The two employees in this classification are each in
charge of a line crew consisting of eight men. These crews are
engaged in the construction and repair of all the power lines in the
Cumberland district, and receive their work assignments from the
line superintendent. The line foreman directs the operations of each
member of the crew and'is responsible for the over-all supervision of
the entire crew while in the field. He is authorized to maintain dis-
cipline; enforce safety regulations, regulate hours of employment,
and settle minor grievances. Although the foreman generally does
not have the authority to hire 3 and discharge, his recommendations
regarding transfers, lay-offs and discharges are accorded consider-
able weight by higher management. In view of the foregoing it is
1 The Employer 's organizational structure is composed of four separate districts , namel.1
the Cumberland, Maryland district , the Frostburg, Maryland district , the Ke, ser, west.
Virginia district , and the Romney , West Virginia district. -
2 There are approximately 30 employees in the proposed unit.
3In an emergency , there have been occasions whep •,temporary workers have been hired
by the foremen.
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
our opinion that the line foremen are within the Board's definition
of supervisory employees, and we shall, therefore, exclude them from
the unit.4
Substation Maintenance Men: There are two substation mainte-
anance employees whose duties consist chiefly of the maintenance of
the substatioiis in all-four districts of the Employer's organization.
They operate independently of the Cumberland district, as such, and
are supervised by the maintenance engineer for'the Western area.
Their duties differ substantially from those of the linemen, and the
only relation between the two groups of employees is that both use
common storage space for their trucks and equipment. We find no
such community of interest between the linemen and the maintenance
men as would justify their inclusion in the same unit. Accordingly,
we shall exclude the substation maintenance men from the bargaining
unit.
Janitor: The record discloses that this employee was formerly a
truck driver in the line department and was transferred to the job
of janitor because of ill health. He performs the usual custodial
duties in the building used as the linemen's quarters and is carried on
the same pay roll as the other employees in the line department.
We are of the opinion that his duties and interests are sufficiently
related to those of the other employees of the line department to war-
rant his inclusion in the unit. We find that all-linemen, linemen
helpers, groundmen, laborers, the utility man, and the janitor of the
line department quarters, who are employed in the Employer's Cum-
berland district, but excluding clerical and service department em-
ployees, substation maintenance men, line foremen, and, all or any
other supervisory employees with authority -to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act. -
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with, Potomac Edison Company,
Cumberland, Maryland, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
4 See Matter of Gibson County Electric Membership Corporation; 65 N. L R . B. 760;
Matter of Virginia Electric and Power Company , 68 N. L . R. B. 504.
POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY 167
Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction,
including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and
including employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
ployees who have "since quit or been discharged for cause and have
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented.by Utility
Workers Union of America, CIO, for the purposes' of collective
bargaining.