Pacific Power & Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 638 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instalrt -petition be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 843, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
19-RC-698. May 17,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hubert J. Merrick, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
'2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
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 to represent a unit composed, of all steam
firemen and heating department maintenance men employed in the
Employer's central heating plant located at the Chinook Hotel,
Yakima, Washington, excluding professional employees, guards, all
other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Inter-
venor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No.
125, AFL, and the Employer assert that the requested unit is inappro-
priate, contending that the only appropriate unit is the system-wide
unit currently represented by the Intervenor.
The Employer, an operating public utility, is principally engaged
in the purchase, generation, transmission, sale, and distribution of
electric energy, and the distribution and sale of steam heat and water
in the States of Washington and Oregon. Included among its oper-
ations are 13 hydroelectric generating plants, 1 Diesel-electric gener-
ating plant, 3 steam-generating plants, and 1 central steam heat plant
located at Yakima, Washington, which is the only plant involved
in this proceeding. The Yakima steam heating, or Chinook, plant,
1 After the close of the hearing, the Employer moved to correct the transcript of the
record made at the hearing and served on all parties a copy of the motion. In the absence
of any objection, the motion is granted. The transcript made at the hearing is deemed
corrected with respect to the matters set forth in the motion
. 94 NLRB No. 98.
PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 639
was constructed during the summer of 1950 and began operations on
November, fi; 1950. It•, supplies steam heat to private customers in
downtown -Yakim4.
The Chinook plant, together with all the Employer's electric gen-
erating plants, is placed for administrative purposes in the power
department, a subdivision of the Employer's physical operations de-
partment. The headquarters for this department is at Portland,
Oregon, where the Employer's main office is located and where all
its policies are determined. The skills and duties of the steam firemen
and maintenance servicemen are substantially the same as those of
similar categories at the Employer's steam generating plant at
Astoria, Oregon, which is part of the system-wide unit now repre-
ijented by .the-jiltervenor., „ The Employer's operations, like those of
most public utilities, are hibhly integrated and interdependent.
There exists a similarity of tasks, employment,conditions, and ben-
efits throughout its system and there is centralized control of its per-
sonnel policies.
Since 1937 the Employer and the Intervenor have executed master
agreements covering all the "physical" employees in the Employer's
system, with the exception of the employees in the two steam-gener-
ating plants in Portland, Oregon, and the building service employees
in the Employer's office building in that City .2 Sometime after August
30, 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a memorandum
providing for the inclusion of the steam firemen classifications at the
Chinook plain within sthe coverage of their system-wide contract. A
supplemental agreement specifically covering these same employees
was executed on December 23, 1950. The maintenance servicemen
classifications had been included in the system-wide contract before
the Chinook plant began operations.
The Board has considered the appropriateness of single plant units
in several cases involving multiplant public utility systems such as
that of the Employer.' Although we have indicated that powerhouse
employees comparable to the central steam heat plant employees in-
Volved herein may form an appropriate unit, we believe that units
limited to a single plant are normally inappropriate because of the
extensive integration of operations usually found in this industry,
2 The two steam -generating plants at Portland, Oregon, also produce steam which the
Employer distributes and sells for heating purposes . The Portland plants were acquired
in May 1948 when the Employer purchased the properties of the Northwestern Electric
Company in that area . Shortly thereafter , the Employer executed extensions of existing
agreements between the Petitioner 's affiliate , Local 87, International Union of Operating
Engineers , AFL, and the Northwestern Electric Company , covering the employees in
those plants. The Employer and the Petitioner ' s affiliate have continued their con-
tractural relationship until this time. Since 1941, the building service employees in the
Employer ' s office building at.Portland have been represented by Building Service Employees
Union, Local No. 49 , AFL' c
8 See Pacific CaB"
,
and Ei^ptr'ic Company, 87 NLRB 257; Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company, 86 NLRB 437.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and also because of the practice in the industry of bargaining on a
system-wide basis. We perceive no cogent reason in this case for
departing from established policy.4 Accordingly, we find that the
unit composed of the employees in the Yakima central steam heat
plant requested herein. is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss
the petition.'
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
See West Texas Utilities Company, Inc., 88 NLRB 192, and cases cited therein.
In view of our finding , we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the contract -bar issue.
LINDE AIR PRODUCTS DIVISION, UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORA-
TION and UNITED GAS, COKE, AND CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 35-RC-476. May 17,1951
Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election,
executed February 5, 1951, an election by secret ballot was conducted
on February 15, 1951, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Ninth Region, among certain employees of
the Employer. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately
711 eligible voters, 329 voted for the Petitioner, 315 against, and 4 void
ballots were cast. On February 21,'1951, the Employer filed timely
objections to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election.
On March 16, the Regional Director, after an investigation, made
a report and recommendation on the Employer's objections, to which
the Employer filed exceptions March 28, 1951.
The objections and exceptions all relate to a single incident which
the Employer alleges constitutes electioneering. The Regional Di-
rector's report finds the facts with regard to this incident to be as
follows : The first voting period had been set for 7-7: 30 a. in. for the
convenience of the employees on the third or night shift. Shortly
before the polls opened, representatives of the Petitioner began dis-
tributing campaign handbills to employees entering the north gate,
which is approximately 250 feet from the entrance to the polling place
in the plant cafeteria. No specific "no electioneering area" had been
94 NLRB No. 91.