St. Louis County Water Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 16, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1311 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of ST. Louis COUNTY WATER COMPANY and TRI-STATE
UTILITY WORKERS UNION, AFFILIATED WITH U. W. O. C., C. I. O.
Case No. 14-R-1164.-Decided July 16, 1945
Mr. James E. Garstang, of St. Louis, Mo., for the Company.
Messrs. Robert A. Roessel and Edward T. Shedlock, of St. Louis, Mo.,
for Tri-State.
Messrs. William Poster and George W. Davies, of Brentwood, Mo., for
Local 110.
Miss Aida Casanas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Tri-State Utility Workers Union, affili-
ated with U. W. O. C., C. I. O.,r herein called Tri-State, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of St. Louis County Water Company, St. Louis, Missouri, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for -an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Helen F. Humphrey, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on May 10, 1945
The Company, Tri-State, and St. Louis County Labor Local No. 110.
International Hod Carriers, and Common Laborers Union of America,
A. F. of L., herein called Local 110, appeared and participated. All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exam-
iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
'The petition was filed in the name of Tri-State Utility Workers Union, affiliated with United
Utilities Union of America At the hearing, Tri-State moved to amend the petition, to show its
change of affiliation , and introduced evidence indicating that said change had been duly effected by
referendum of the membership , all officers and members of the local organization remaining as
before . Local 110 objected to the motion on the ground that the organization which filed the petition
had ceased to exist The Trial Examiner reserved ruling for the Board . The motion to amend the
petition is hereby granted
62 N L R B ., No • 179
1311
1312 DECISIONS OI' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board snakes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
St. Louis Water Company is a Missouri corporation engaged in fur-
nishing water service and fire hydrant service to the residents of St. Louis
County, Missouri. During the past year, of its $35,045 worth of plant mate-
rials, such as sulphates, carbon, cholorine and coal, 31 percent was.pur-
chased outside the State, of its $64,782 worth of construction materials
such as pipe valves, leaclite, boxes, brass goods, and meters, 86.7 percent
was purchased outside the State. With minor exceptions, the Company is
the sole distributor of water in St. Louis County, selling a total volume of
about 7,000,000,000 gallons in the past year to nearly 60,000 customers.
Fifteen percent of this amount is sold to 21 industrial plants engaged in
interstate commerce, including Curtiss Wright Corporation, Emerson Elec-
tric Company, Wagner Electric Corporation, St. Louis County Gas Coin-
pany, Universal Match Corporation, Larkin Packer Company, American
Manganese Steel Division of the American Brake Shoe and Foundry Com-
pany, McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, and others. The value of the
Company's revenues in the past year was in excess of $1,000.000.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within,
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Tri-State Utility Workers Union, affiliated with Utility Workers Organ-
izing Committee, in turn affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Orgaini-
zations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
St. Louis County Labor Local 110, International Hod Carriers, and
Common Laborers Union of America, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employ-
ees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to Tri-State as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of the Company',, employees until Tri-
State has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
Since July 1937, the Company has been under contract with Local 110.
This contract was renewed from time to time. The last contract was for a
terns from July 1, 1942 to July 1, 1943, renewable for annual periods
"unless changed by the parties." The contract provided that either party
ST. LOUIS COUNTY WATER COMPANY 1313
desiring changes in the terms thereof should give 30 clays' notice to the
other, either prior to the 1943 anniversary or at any time thereafter. On
April 27, 1943, Local 110 asked the Company to negotiate a new agree-
ment, but none was ever executed. Local 110 asserts that its old contract
has remained in effect since that elate ; it does not, however, urge the
agreement as a bar to this proceeding. Whether or not Local 110's contract
is still in effect, it is plainly no bar to a determination of representatives, for
Tri-State's petition was timely filed,- and the contract is now terminable
on notice at any time.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing,
indicates that Tri-State represents a substantial number of employees in
the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) ,of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties are in substantial agreement that all employees of the Com-
pany, excluding office and supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate
unit. They disagree, however, in respect to certain fringe groups which
will be discussed herein.
Laboratory eniplovees- Tri-State would Include and Local 110 would
exclude three laboratory employees. The Company took no position with
reference to them. They work in a laboratory under the supervision of the
chemical and sanitary engineer. One of these employees handles chemical
analyses to develop methods to treatment of water. Although he is not a
college graduate he has had some advanced studies and his job requires
1 year's training for a college graduate, and proportionately longer training
for a person with less education. He is paid on an hourly basis but at a
higher rate of pay than other employees, and works different hours from
theirs. A second laboratory employee is a woman who is a graduate chem-
ist but does routine testing. The third laboratory employee does bacteri-
ological work and some chemical analyses and serves as supervisor of
operations at the Chemical House. Since the background, interest, and
functions of the laboratory employees are of a professional and technical
nature, and since they have not been included in Local 110's contract unit
2 Tri-State's petition was filed on Februai y 8, 1945
3 The Field Examiner reported that Tri-State submitted 78 desip