Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1974

209 N.L.R.B. 325 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

WARREN RURAL ELECTRIC COOP.
Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Company, Inc. and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case 9-RC-10108
February 28, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND JENKINS
On July 13, 1973, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found
appropriate a systemwide unit of employees of the
Employer's electrical utility, including therein, inter
alia, on the basis of his findings that they are not
supervisors as defined in the Act, a field engineer and
a staking chief in the engineering services depart-
ment, nine line foremen, five service foremen, a
mechanic, and a warehouseman in the electric
operations department. Thereafter, the Employer, in
accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, as
amended, filed a timely request for review of the
Acting Regional Director's decision on the grounds,
inter alia, that in resolving the issues raised as to the
supervisory status of the aforementioned classifica-
tions, he made findings of fact which are clearly
erroneous and departed from officially reported
precedent.
The National Labor Relations Board, by telegraph-
ic order dated August 20, 1973, granted the request
for review insofar as it related to the Acting Regional
Director's resolution of the supervisory status of the
above-mentioned 18 individuals, denied the request
for review as to all other matters, and stayed the
election pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review, and
makes the following findings of fact:
The Employer is a Kentucky corporation whose
electric utility operations extend over a geographical
territory consisting of eight Kentucky counties in a
southwest area of the State. Its headquarters are at
Bowling Green, and it is subdivided into four service
districts: Bowling Green, Leitchfield, Morgantown,
and Franklin.
The engineering services department has offices at
Bowling Green and is under the overall supervision
of the manager, Frank Ragan. Among those report-
1 There is a wage differential of approximately 10 percent between labor
grades
325
ing to him is Thomas Shriver, the operations
engineer. Aside from other responsibilities, Shriver is
in charge of work planning for the field engineer and
a staking chief, Ken Pemberton and Cedric Hatcher,
respectively, both of whom are engaged in the
surveying and charting of rights-of-way for the
construction of new lines. The field engineer, in the
highest labor grade for hourly paid employees,
T-10,1 performs the duties of engineering, staking,
and development of plans for construction of major
electric lines . The staking chief, in labor grade T-8,
does similar but less complicated work on smaller
projects such as line extensions and relocations.
Pemberton has a crew of two to five employees,
depending on the size of the project, in the
classifications of instrument man (T-7), utility man
(T-6), and chairman (not filled at present). Hatcher
has a crew of two or three, in the classifications of
rodman (T-5) and chainman (when available). From
time to time crew members may be interchanged.
Under their job descriptions, both the field
engineer and the staking chief periodically review
and appraise the performance of personnel and
recommend changes in wages or status in accordance
with established personnel procedures and practices;
direct the activities of their crews; recommend
termination of employment of assigned personnel
when deemed necessary; inspect all work performed
under their supervision and for which they, are
accountable, for conformity to design and accepted
procedures and standards; and supervise personnel
assigned to them for adherence to established safety
practices and procedures. In practice, they complete
performance evaluations of their crew members at
least once a year, on the basis of which evaluations
they make recommendations as to merit increases.2
The recommendations must be approved by the
operations engineer and the department manager.
Although Pemberton and Hatcher consult with the
operations engineer, their recommendations are their
own and are usually followed. There was evidence
that Pemberton and Hatcher have recommended the
termination of two employees, one in 1969 and the
other in 1970. The record shows that although in
each instance the affected employee was given a
second chance, he was subsequently terminated
solely on the recommendations of Pemberton and
Hatcher because they saw no improvement in his
performance. In addition, Pemberton and Hatcher
may authorize overtime when in their judgment it
would be economical to do so, to obviate the need to
return to the site the following workday. They also
attend monthly meetings of all supervisors and over
2 Evaluations are completed after 6 months for new employees and for
those for whom no merit increase is recommended.
209 NLRB No. 55
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the years have been sent to various supervisory
workshops at schools and universities.
The electric operations department has offices in
each of the service districts. Department Manager C.
D. "Buck" Jenkins is located at Bowling Green
headquarters. Each of the other three districts has a
superintendent. Working out of these four locations
are nine line foremen, each with a crew of three or
four, and five service foremen, each with a one- or
two-man crew.3 There is some fluctuation in crew
sizes . The line foremen are responsible for construc-
tion work, i.e., clearing rights-of-way, digging holes,
and setting poles; the service foremen are responsible
for maintenance work on poles, lines, and other
equipment in place.
The job descriptions for line and service foremen,
insofar as they set forth their responsibilities in
making evaluations of performance, recommenda-
tions of wage increases , direction of crew members,
and recommendations of termination, parallel those
for the field engineer and staking chief, above
discussed. After receiving work orders from their
respective district offices the line and service foremen
decide the priority of the jobs and are in complete
charge of their crews in the field. They direct their
men, make work assignments , and are responsible
that the work is done in accord with specifications
and safety standards. Although they are in radio
contact with headquarters or the district offices, they
have the authority to take correctional action on
their own. They maintain and sign the time sheets for
their crews, decide when to take rest breaks and
whether or not to grant time off for sickness or
personal reasons, and schedule vacations. They
decide whether or not their crews shall work
overtime in accordance with the needs of the job and
may call out employees to work in special situations.
Line foremen or service foremen may, among
themselves, decide whether to interchange crew
members. Although no severe disciplinary problems
have arisen requiring termination of a line or service
crew member, one occasion arose in which a service
foreman made an effective recommendation of
permanent transfer of a crew member to a line crew.
Like the field engineer and staking chief, the line
and service foremen complete performance evalua-
tions and make recommendations as to merit
increases for their crew members, and they attend
monthly supervisory meetings . Each year they attend
a 3-day supervisory training course conducted by
personnel from the University of Kentucky. In the
absence of a district superintendent due to vacation
or illness, the service foreman in that district fills in
for him.
The automotive mechanic and his assistant work in
the automotive shop at Bowling Green. He is
responsible for the preventive and corrective mainte-
nance of all of the Employer's vehicles and reports
directly to Jenkins. He assigns work to his assistant,4
keeps his time records, evaluates his performance
periodically, and makes recommendations of merit
increases for him. He also authorizes overtime work
and schedules vacations for his assistant. He attends
supervisory meetings.
The warehouseman is responsible to Jenkins for
maintaining the Bowling Green warehouse. He has a
helper5 and has the same degree of authority to
affect his status as does the mechanic with regard to
his assistant. The warehouseman too attends month-
ly supervisory meetings.
The foregoing record facts demonstrate, in our
opinion, contrary to the Acting Regional Director,
that the 18 disputed individuals have and exercise
supervisory authority as it is defined in Section 2(11)
of the Act. We note, first of all, that despite the fact
that these individuals spend the great majority of
their time performing physical labor together with
their crew members or assistants, they are the sole
persons at the sites of their employment with
authority to act for the Employer with respect to
matters affecting employee status during virtually the
entire workday. Thus, all of them generally maintain
time and attendance records of employees assigned
to work with them, decide whether or not to grant
requests for time off, set vacation times, make
changes in work assignments, interchange or call in
additional crew members when appropriate, and
authorize overtime when it is deemed necessary.
Moreover, not only are they expected to make
periodic evaluations of the work performance of
employees regularly working with them and to make
recommendations with regard to merit wage increas-
es and terminations, but the record shows that they
in fact exercise these functions. And we conclude, on
the facts herein, that substantial reliance is placed on
their recommendations by their superiors. As support
for this conclusion, we note especially the facts that
their superiors have little or no opportunity to
observe the work of the rank-and-file employees
involved, that they are given supervisory training
courses on an annual basis, and that they attend
monthly supervisory meetings. We find, therefore,
that the 18 individuals here in dispute are supervisors
as defined in the Act, and the appropriate unit is
modified to read as follows:
All employees of the Employer employed in its
operations at Bowling Green, Leitchfield, Mor-
a The foremen are in labor grade T-l0 and the highest labor grade of 4 The mechanic is in labor grade T-8, his assistant T-6.
their crew members is T-9, a differential of roughly 53 cents per hour. , The warehouseman is in labor grade T-7, his helper T-4
WARREN RURAL ELECTRIC COOP.
gantown and Franklin , Kentucky, including all
engineering department employees, staker clerks
and groundskeepers , but excluding all office
clerical employees , meter readers , water district
department employees , members services depart-
ment employees , janitors, guards, the field engi-
neer, staking chief , line foremen , service foremen,
the mechanic , the warehousemen, and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act.
327
Accordingly , the case is remanded to the Regional
Director in order that he may conduct an election
pursuant to the Acting Regional Director 's Decision
and Direction of Election , as modified herein, except
that the payroll period for determining eligibility
shall be that immediately preceding the date of this
Decision on Review.