Elizabethtown Consolidated Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 9, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1270 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sented in the same unit with production and maintenance employees,3
such employees do not meet the Board's requirements for severance
from an existing plant-wide unit. Moreover, in view of the similarity
of working conditions, interests,. and skills between the Employer's
inspectors and its production and maintenance employees, we find
no reason to separate the inspectors from the production and main-
tenance employees with whom they have been bargaining for more
than 7 years. Under these circumstances, we find that the unit sought
by the Petitioner is not appropriate,4 and we shall, accordingly, dis-
miss the petition.5
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
s Boeing Airplane Company, 92 NLRB No. 263; Bell Aircraft Corporation, 61 NLRB
1352; Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., supra.
4 General Mills, Inc ., Sperry Division, 91 NLRB 984 ; Pacific Trailways, 91 NLRB
559. See Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 702.
6 Under these circumstances , we find it unnecessary to consider the other issues raised
by the parties in this proceeding.
ELIZABETHTOWN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION , LOCAL 118, A. F. L., PETITIONER and
GAS EMPLOYEES PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INTERVENOR . Case No.
4-RC-1057. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Julius Topol,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
'The Intervenor , Gas Employees Protective Association , was properly allowed to
intervene on the basis of a contractual relationship between it and the Employer . Neither
the Intervenor nor the Employer urges a contractual bar to this proceeding.
2 In accordance with the stipulation between the Petitioner and the Employer , entered
into after the Intervenor 's representative withdrew from the hearing , we' have considered
as part of the record herein the transcript and exhibits in an earlier case (Case No.
4-RC-785) involving the parties to this proceeding.
93 NLRB No. 222.
-ELIZABETHTOWN CONSOLIDATED GAS COMPANY 1271
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 '(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
;reasons:
The Petitioner seeks, in effect, a unit of all employees attached to the
field shop of the Employer in its Perth Amboy area. The Employer
opposes the unit on the ground that only a system-wide unit of its
employees is appropriate. The Intervenor indicated its position was
neutral.
The Employer's Operations
The Employer operates a gas utility system in the State of New
Jersey. Until June 1, 1950, it served consumers in Elizabeth, Rahway,
Westfield, and Metuchen, New Jersey, and surrounding communities.
On that date, Perth Amboy Gas Light Company, herein called Perth
Amboy, a gas utility whose operating territory in the area of Perth
Amboy, New Jersey, was contiguous to that of the Employer, was
merged with the Employer. After the merger, the area served by
Perth Amboy became part of the Employer's operating territory.
It is among former employees of Perth Amboy, now attached to the
Employer's field shop in the Perth Amboy area, that the Petitioner here
seeks an election.
The Employer's business is carried on as a highly integrated and
interdependent system of operation. Its home office is located at
Elizabeth, New Jersey. Under the over-all management of the presi-
dent of the Company, there is a vice president who directs the Em-
ployer's operations. This executive has under his direction the vice
president in charge of commercial offices, the treasurer, and the super-
intendents in charge of customer service, distribution, and the Eliza-
beth manufacturing plant, respectively. Under the supervision of
these officials are the Employer's field offices and field shops located in
Elizabeth, Perth Amboy, Westfield, and Rahway, and the Employer's
field office in Metuchen. A territorial manager is situated at each of
those locations.
The territorial managers are empowered to fill vacancies, and may
discipline or discharge employees after consulting with the president
or vice president. They cannot enlarge their staffs, pay higher than
generally prevailing wages, work employees overtime or on holidays,
or make promotions without the prior approval of the-home office. All
major policies, including those dealing with labor relations, are formu-
lated by the, president and vice president, and all negotiations with
unions are conducted by the Employer at that level.
Consumers throughout the Employer's territory are billed at the
main office from records furnished by the local offices; their bills are
payable at any local office; and the rates they pay are determined at
1272 DECISIONS, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the main office. • All general accounting, major purchasing, fiscal
activities, and appliance warehousing are handled at Elizabeth. Sep-
arate payrolls for each of the territorial offices are prepared at the
]tome office from data provided by the local offices. Work in the terri-
tories by outside contractors is arranged' for, and supervised, by the
home office. Decisions on all major repair jobs and all engineering
work relating to the design and layout of mains are also home office
responsibilities.
Since about December 1950, the Employer has been engaged in con-
verting its facilities to provide natural gas service.3 A network of
mains has been laid for this purpose without regard to territorial
boundary lines. The flow of natural gas throughout the Employer's
entire territory is controlled at the Employer's dispatching, station in
Elizabeth. If, because of a break in the transcontinental natural gas
pipeline or because the Employer exhausts the daily supply of natural
gas to which it is entitled, a shortage of gas develops anywhere in the
Employer's territory, the Employer's storage facilities or manufac-
turing plant in Elizabeth will be called upon to provide additional gas.
Job classifications are essentially the same throughout the Em-
ployer's system. All employees work the same number of hours and
enjoy the same benefits, and those similarly classified receive the same
rate of pay. Since June 1, employees attached to field shops outside
the Perth Amboy area have worked together with those in the re-
quested unit on a number of jobs in the Perth Amboy area. Since
that time, Perth Amboy field shop employees have also worked with
employees not claimed by the Petitioner outside the Perth Amboy
area. The Employer's plans for the future call for more extensive
utilization of its field shop employees without regard to territorial
limitations.
Bargaining History
Following a consent election conducted by the Board in 1941, the
Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representative of all the
Employer's employees engaged in production and maintenance work.
Since that time, successive contracts covering those employees have
been executed by the Employer and the Intervenor. The most recent
contract between the parties, which is currently in effect, was executed
on November 21, 1950, after Perth Amboy's merger with the Employer.
However, the contract has not in fact been applied to the former
employees of Perth Amboy.'
8 At the time of the hearing, natural gas service was being provided consumers in 12
of the 19 districts into which the Employer's territory was divided for conversion purposes.
* The Petitioner filed unfair labor practice charges against the Employer as well as
the instant petition. In a resulting settlement agreement , approved by the Regional Direc-
tor on January 19, 1951 , the Employer agreed to withdraw and withhold recognition from
the Intervenor as the representative of any of its Perth Amboy employees until the
representation proceeding initiated by the Petitioner was decided by the Board.
H. MUEHLSTEIN AND CO. 1273
Beginning in .1942, Perth Amboy executed a series of- collective
bargaining contracts with the Petitioner's predecessor - and .the ,Peti-
tioner, the most recent of which was dated October 14, 1948, and ex-
pired on April 9, 1949. The 1942 and 1943 contracts covered all
employees of,Perth Amboy, including the office clericals; those exe-
cuted subsequently excluded office clericals and embraced a unit sub-
stantially similar to that sought by the Petitioner in this proceeding.
The Petitioner contends that, in view of the past bargaining history
in a separate unit of the Employer's Perth Amboy employees, such
t unit is currently appropriate. However, the bargaining in the
Perth Amboy-unit occurred when that operation was under separate
ownership, and is by no means conclusive as to the feasibility of such
unit under the present circumstances. Furthermore, as we have fre-
quently stated, system-wide units ale normally the most appropriate
bargaining units for employees of public utilities.5 This is particu-
larly true where, as here, the Employer's operations are highly inte-
grated and interdependent in character and a labor organization is
prepared to represent the employees on a system-wide basis. In these
circumstances, we are of the opinion that the factors in support of a
system-wide unit for the Employer's employees outweigh the bar-
gaining history on a less comprehensive basis relied upon by the Peti-
tioner. Accordingly, as no reason exists in this case for departing
from our established policy in the public utility industry, we find that
the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, and shall dismiss the petition .6
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein'be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
5 Pubho Service Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey , 81 NLRB 1191 ; Niagara
Hudson Power Corporation , 79 NLRB 1115 , The Laclede Gas Light Company, 77 NLRB
354; Duquesne Light Company, 57 NLRB 770.
Cf. Kentucky Utsltittes Company, 81 NLRB 1006.
H. MUEHLSTEIN AND Co. and UAW-AFL, AMALGAMATED LOCAL 286,
PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-1740. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert B. Mintz, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 221.