The Gas Service Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 8, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 932 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

932 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Gas Service Company and Local Union No. 1613, and Local Union No. 53, each affiliated with Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, Joint Petitioners . Case 17-AC-17 October 8, 1974 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On June 19 , 1973, the Regional Director for Region 17 on behalf of the Board issued a certification I to Local Union No. 1613, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,' as the collective-bargaining representative in the following unit of employees: All Division 04 office clercial employees and col- lectors of the Gas Service Company, Kansas City, Missouri , working at or out of the Searritt Building, 824 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Mis- souri, including cashiering , customer service, credit , billing service , merchandise, collection, adjusting , accounting , mail, operating, switch- board , meter reading, and payroll employees, but excluding dispatchers , meter readers, marketing department employees , porters , professional em- ployees , guards and supervisors as defined in the Act and excluding all other employees. Local 1613 has, since its certification, and does now represent a majority of the employees in the bargain- ing unit.' On April 1, 1974, Local 1613 and Local Union No. 53, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, AFL-CIO,4 as Joint Petitioners, filed a petition for amendment of the certification issued in Case 17-RC-7130 to Local 1613. The petition asks that the certification be amended by substituting Local 53 as the exclusive representa- tive of the employees in the certified bargaining unit in place of Local 1613. The petition stated that the proposed amendment had the approval of the execu- tive boards of the Joint Petitioners. The petition also stated that the proposed amendment was approved by a substantial majority of the employees in the certified bargaining unit following a secret-ballot election 1 In Case 17-RC-7130. 2 Herein called Local 1613. ' On or about November 20, 1973, the Employer and Local 1613 entered into a collective-bargaining contract which by its terms is to expire on Octo- ber 31, 1974. 4 Herein called Local 53. which provided adequate notice to the unit employ- ees. A hearing on the petition was held on April 26 and 29, 1974, at Kansas City, Kansas, before Hearing Of- ficer Frederick C. Herzog. All parties appeared at the hearing and were given full opportunity to participate therein. On May 30, 1974, the Regional Director for Region 17 pursuant to Section 102.67(h) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, issued an order transferring the case to the Board. The Employer and the Joint Peti- tioners thereafter filed briefs with the Board. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur- poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. Local 1613 intervened in and prevailed in the election held in June 1973 prior to obtaining the afore- mentioned certification. The other union participat- ing in the election was the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO. At that time Local 1613 already represented about 535 cleri- cal employees of the Kansas City Power and Light Company and a few credit union employees at the same company. On November 20, 1973, Local 1613 and the Employer executed a collective-bargaining agreement due to expire on October 31, 1974. Local 1613's business manager, Keith Hurley, con- ducted the union affairs of the Employer's clerical employees and those of Kansas City Power and Light Company employees separately, and both groups of employees complained that the arrangement was un- satisfactory because Hurley was unable to devote suf- ficient time to their problems. These complaints came to the attention of International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers International Representative Ray Ed- wards. Local 53, a sister IBEW local, had an assistant business agent, William James, with 18 years' experi- ence in representing clerical employees. Charles Jones, Local 53's business manager, and Edwards both spoke with James and asked James if he could help Hurley out of his difficulty. James assured them that he and Local 53 would be willing to do so. He also met with clercial employees of the Employer and told them that Local 53 would assume all assets and liabilities of Local 1613, including its current contract with the Employer. Local 1613 would revert to the task of representing only the clerical and credit union 213 NLRB No. 123 THE GAS SERVICE COMPANY 933 employees of Kansas City Power and Light Company as before. On March 26, 1974, Local 1613 conducted an election among the employees as to their prefer- ence for Local 1613 or Local 53. According to Local 1613, the vote was in favor of Local 53. Local 53 and Local 1613 then filed the present joint petition with the Board seeking to substitute Local 53 for Local 1613 as representative of the office clerical employees of the Employer and utilize Assistant Busi- ness Agent James' experience in representing such employees. Local 53's officials, with the exception of James, have generally represented only outside elec- trical field and line employees in a wide variety of units in Missouri and Kansas. They are generally un- familiar with Local 1613's contract with the Employer and the ordinary problems faced by Employer's cleri- cals in their daily routine. Local 1613, on the other hand, has been administering the contract and is fa- miliar with the problems and conditions. The Employer contends that the joint petition seeks to substitute one union for another as representative of its clerical employees, thereby raising a question concerning representation of such employees which can only be determined in a Board election. The Em- ployer further contends that to grant the change re- quested would adversely affect the representation of the gas unit employees, since Local 53 has only repre- sented outside field employees, and that real continui- ty of representation would be disrupted by the proposed change. The Joint Petitioners contend that all they proposed is an administrative change which will merely continue and better facilitate the represen- tation of the Employer's clerical employees. In our view, the present case is indistinguishable from Gulf Oil Corporation, 135 NLRB 184 (1962). In Gulf Oil, due to the introduction of more modern methods in the oil industry, the number of employees in a bargaining unit represented by the certified union had steadily declined to a point where maintenance of the separate local was not feasible. A sister local of the same International union, with members in similar work, agreed to represent the employees remaining in the unit. The arrangement was agreeable to employ- ees in both local unions and approved by the Interna- tional union. The certified union accordingly filed a motion requesting that its certification be amended by substituting the name of its sister local for its own. The employer in that case opposed the aforesaid mo- tion. The Board found the motion to amend the certi- fication to be without merit, concluding that the changes contemplated by Local 715 were not simply administrative or structural changes. The proposed tinuity of representation. The Board found that the change would result in the complete loss of the identi- ty of the certified union and in the substitution of a new and different union as representative of the em- ployees in the certified unit. From this, the Board found that the motion to amend the certification con- stituted an attempt to raise a question concerning representation and then have the Board resolve that question by amending the certification. The Board denied the motion holding that a question concerning representation should be determined through a peti- tion and a secret-ballot election. Further, in the recent case of Independent Drug Store Owners of Santa Clara County, 211 NLRB No. 85 (1974), the Board found that a situation where a union resolution had sought to provide for the disso- lution of one representative (Pharmaceutical Clerks Association) and the substitution of another represen- tative for the first was not distinguishable from the Gulf Oil case.' The Board found that the resolution in question was not designed to insure employees the continuity of their bargaining representative, and that instead it sought to achieve a complete change of the representative by substituting a new labor organiza- tion for the existing one. The instant case is a fortiori to Gulf Oil and Indepen- dent Drug Store since in this case the proposed substi- tution of bargaining representatives would leave Local 1613 existing as a viable labor organization. In these circumstances, we find that the Joint Petitioners contemplate more than an administrative or structu- ral change. The petition does not assure the employ- ees of the continuity of their certified bargaining representative, but rather seeks to substitute a new and different labor organization with its own officers and a complete change in the representative. Such a proposed change would raise a question concerning representation. Such a question may not properly be raised by a petition to amend the certification. Gulf Oil Corporation and Independent Drug Store Owners of Santa Clara County, supra. Rather, that question may only be considered upon the timely filing of a repre- sentation petition and a secret ballot of the employees concerned. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition to amend the certification. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the joint petition filed herein be , and it hereby is, dismissed. change was not designed to assure the employees con- S Member Jenkins does not rely on the decision in Independent Drug Store Owners of Santa Clara County, supra, which in his view is distinguishable from Gulf Oil and the instant case U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976 0-587-400