The Hartford Electric Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 13, 1959

122 N.L.R.B. 1421 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

THE HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY 1421 The Hartford Electric Light Company and Local 1419, In- ternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner The Hartford Electric Light Company and Local 383, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Cases Nos. 1-RC-5240 and 1-RC-5243. February 13, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ernest Modern, 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 these cases, 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 employees of the Employer. 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioners have historically represented separate units of Employees of the Connecticut Power Company, herein called Con- necticut, which merged on January 1, 1958, into the Hartford Elec- tric Light Company, herein sometimes called Helco, the Employer herein. At the time of the merger, Helco assumed administration of the outstanding bargaining agreements, but upon their expiration in May 1958, withdrew recognition from the Petitioners on the ground that the contract units had been rendered inappropriate by the merger and the resulting reorganization and integration of op- erations. In this proceeding, Local 1419 seeks to represent the employees in its historic unit, while Local 383 seeks to represent a unit which includes both its historic unit and certain previously unrepresented employees. The Employer contends that the units sought are inappropriate. Prior to the merger, Helco was engaged in electric utility op- erations in and around the city of Hartford, Connecticut; its em- ployees were not represented by any labor organization. During this premerger period, Connecticut was engaged in electric and gas utility operations in other areas of the State of Connecticut, its operations having been divided into four different parts-the Central District, the Northwest District, the Stanford Division, and the New London Division. The Central District was further divided into the Middletown and the Manchester Divisions, while the North- 122 NLRB No. 169. 1422 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD west District was composed of the Farmington, Torrington, and Housatonic Divisions. There was no district organization over the New London and Stanford Divisions, which are not involved in these cases and the employees of which have historically been and now are separately represented by local unions not parties to this proceeding. Local 383, which for over 6 years has been the bargaining repre- sentative of the electrical and gas operations employees of the Farmington and Torrington Divisions of Connecticut's Northwest District, seeks in this proceeding a unit including both the previ- ously represented employees of the Northwest District and the previ- ously unrepresented employees of the Housatonic Division or, as an alternative, separate units of the electrical operations employees, and gas operations employees included in its first requested unit. Local 1419 has for over 6 years represented all electrical operations employees in the former Central District of Connecticut and seeks here a unit of such employees. Under Connecticut, the Central District electric operations were under the supervision of a district superintendent with offices at Middletown. Directly under the superintendent, there was at Middle- town a general line foreman and below him in the supervisory hierarchy, line foremen. At Manchester there was a division super- intendent reporting to the district superintendent and under the former a general line foreman and then line foremen. Crews of operating employees were permanently assigned to the Manchester and Middletown Divisions. In Connecticut's Northwest District, there was a district superin- tendent, Mosher, over electrical operations, and under him an as- sistant. For the Farmington Division there was a general line foreman, an assistant line foreman, and line foremen. The Tor- rington Division was headed by a superintendent with a line foreman under him, while the Housatonic Division organization was the same as that in the Farmington Division. Electrical operations em- ployees were permanently assigned to each of the Divisions. The Northwest District gas operations, which are limited to the Tor- rington area, had a separate supervisory organization headed by a superintendent of gas, with an assistant and foreman, gas distribu- tion, under him. Following the merger, Helco established an organizational setup closely following that of Connecticut Power, intended from its in- ception, however, to be merely temporary. In May of 1958, it then established what was intended to be, at least in broad outline, its permanent organization. The New London and Stamford divisions were unaffected, but the Northwest and Central Districts of Con- necticut were combined with Helco's original operations in and about THE HARTFORD ELECTRIC LIGHT COMPANY 1423 the` city' of Hartford to comprise a single North-Central District of the merged companies. This district, which is composed, with the exception of small breaks, of one large contiguous territory, is re- ferred to as the Company's interconnected system, for the reason that all areas are now or shortly will be interconnected by a network of transmission and other lines, creating, the Employer contends, a single operational unit. The organization of the interconnected system has varied from that covering Connecticut's former districts, with an attempt being made to centralize control on a straight line managerial basis in order to secure the most efficient operation of the interconnected system. Changes in organization have been evi- denced by new methods in customers' billing and servicing centers, by the introduction of uniformity in certain working conditions throughout the interconnected area, and by other newly introduced practices. However, despite the various changes effected since the merger, there have been no substantial modifications made affecting the employees in the requested units. They perform the same type of work in the same areas as formerly and do not, except in emergency situations, interchange with employees assigned to other areas. More- over, though Helco has dropped the old district and division nomen- clature of Connecticut, it has, with the exception of insignificant modifications, left unaltered the administrative organization re- flected by such nomenclature. The district superintendents have become area operating superintendents. But they are the same in- dividuals as before, with offices still at the former district head- quarters, and heading up the same supervisory hierarchy. Similarly, there has been no change in the organization and operation of the Torrington gas operations. Thus, it is clear, and we find, that the merger and. subsequent administrative and operational reorganiza- tion has not to any substantial extent destroyed, or otherwise af- fected materially, the former district and divisional organization of Connecticut upon which the requested units rest. The Employer contends, nevertheless, that in view of the integra- tion of its North-Central District the only appropriate unit is one covering the whole district. In support of its position it relies upon cases in which the Board has followed its well-established policy of favoring in the public utility field the larger over the smaller unit., Those cases do not, however, stand for the proposition that the larger optimum unit is the only appropriate unit. Rather, in cir- cumstances such as here where no union is seeking the broader unit, the Board has held that a unit more limited in scope, such as one coextensive with a smaller administrative subdivision of the Em- 1 New England Power Company , 120 NLRB 666 ; Pioneer Natural Gas Company, 111 NLRB 502, 503-504. 1424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer's operations 2 or based upon an established bargaining his- tory,3 may also be appropriate. Clearly, then, in view of the foregoing, the unit sought by Local 1419 is appropriate, for it is coextensive with the Employer's Area Operating Division covering the Middletown and Manchester area and is, also, the historic bargaining unit represented by the Local. However, as argued by the Employer, the primary unit requested by Local 383 does not meet either of the standards; it not only includes the gas operation employees at Torrington, who, as noted above, are under supervision separate from that of electrical operation em- ployees, but it also includes the previously unrepresented electrical operation employees of the former Housatonic Division, in addition to those employees in the Local's historic unit. We find, therefore, that such a unit is inappropriate.4 Nor can we find appropriate here the separate alternative units requested by Local 383. Clearly these units are not based upon an established bargaining history. Although they conform to administrative lines, no election can be held in the requested electric operations unit at this time because the previously unrepresented Housatonic employees are entitled to a self -determina- tion election before being merged with the Farmington-Torrington group,5 but Local 383 has not made the showing of interest required for such a self-determination election. Thus, in accord with well- established Board policies, we are foreclosed from directing an elec- tion among the electric operation employees in the units as requested by Local 383. Although we could direct an election only among the gas operations employees, this would deny the previously repre- sented electric operations employees any opportunity to choose rep- resentation at this time, and would, therefore, result in upsetting an established bargaining relationship, this is a result which, in accord with established Board policy, we are reluctant to reach unless re- quired to do so by some overriding policy consideration or some provision of the Acts As neither of such factors is present here, we shall, in the circumstances of this case, direct an election among the electric operation and gas operation employees in Local 383's his- toric unit covering the Torrington and Farmington areas, which unit is, we find, appropriate on the basis of its bargaining history. How- ever, as Local 383 has not specifically requested such a unit, we shall permit it, upon timely application to the Regional Director, to with- draw its petition without prejudice if it does not desire to represent the employees in such unit. 2 New England Power Company, supra ; Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 115 NLRB 1396, 1398 ; The Housatonic Public Service Company , 111 NLRB 877, 878. 3 Cf. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056, 1057. s See , Carolina Power and Light Company , 119 NLRB 742. 6 See, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., supra; Zia Company , 108 NLRB 1134. 9 The Murray Co. of Texas, 107 NLRB 1571, 1573; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8, 10. DUVAL JEWELRY COMPANY 1425 Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act 7 1. All employees of the Employer's Area Operation Division for- merly known as the Central District of the Connecticut Power Com- pany engaged in electrical operations, including all linemen , ground- men, electricians, substation maintenance men, cable splicers , meter- men and servicemen-electric, stockmen, janitors, building mainte- nance men, and automobile mechanics, but excluding employees in the electrical production department at the Middletown generating sta- tion, executives, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All employees in that part of the Employer's Area Operating Division formerly known as the Farmington and Torrington Divi- sions of the Northwest District of the Connecticut Power Company engaged in electrical operations, including linemen, groundmen, electricians, substation maintenance men, meter and servicemen-elec- tric, stockmen, janitors, building maintenance men, automobile me- chanics, and station operators-hydro, and all employees engaged in gas production and distribution at the Employer's Torrington, Con- necticut, gas operations, but excluding all electric operation employees in the former Housatonic Division, all electric production employees at the Falls Village generating station, transmission crews, executives, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. % [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 7 The Employer contends that certain employees at generating stations should be In- cluded in the units requested by the Petitioners . There are two such stations involved here-one at Middletown in the area covered by Local 1419 's requested unit , and one at Falls Village in the area covered by Local 883 's unit. The generating station employees are concerned primarily with the production of electricity and not , as are the electrical operation employees with its distribution , and thus, they perform to a considerable extent different ' kinds of work . Furthermore , the generating station employees are under a supervisory organization wholly separate from that of the electric operations employees. Accordingly , we find that the generating station employees may not properly be included in the requested. units, and we shall exclude them. Duval Jewelry Company and/or Duval Jewelry Company of Miami, Inc. and Retail Clerks International Association, Local No. 1625, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-EC-1 (formerly 10-RC-3333). February 13, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. C. Thompson, 122 NLRB No. 171. 505395-59-vo1. 122-91