Philadelphia Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 71 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 71
3. At all times since May 19, 1949, the Union has been and now is the exclusive
representative of all the employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By failing and refusing at all times since May 19, 1949, to bargain collec-
tively with Retail Clerks International Association, Local Union 368, AFL, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the aforesaid unit, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended order omitted from publication in this volume.]
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC 'COMPANY, PETITIONER and LOCAL No. 1184,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 4-RM--84. July 10, 1951
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 Ramey Donovan, 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 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, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Union have had contractual relations for 8
years. The last contract between the parties, which expired on April
2, 1951, contained an authorized union-security clause. When the
Union, on January 26, 1951, requested that the Employer negotiate
a new contract, the Employer refused and filed the petition herein.
The Union contends that as all employees of the Employer had to
be members of the Union under the union-security contract when the
petition was filed, the Board does not have reasonable grounds to
believe that a question concerning representation exists as required
by Section 9 (c) of the Act, and, therefore, the petition should be dis-
95 NLRB N b. 25.
72 DECISIONS OF ,NATIONAL 'L'ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
missed.: .We- do not' agree.' As we have previously field; the' Union's
request on January 26, 1951, fora new contract, was equivalent to a
new demand for recognition which, when denied by ' the Employer;
raised a question concerning representation, which the Employer is
entitled to have resolved by an election The. good faith of the Em-
ployer in refusing to grant continued recognition, or the legality of his
refusal under the terms of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, are not prop-
erly before the Board in a representation proceeding. Accordingly,
we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employer operates an electric power system with seven generat-
ing stations in Pennsylvania. The Union claims to represent the
employees at the station located in Chester, Pennsylvania,2 and the
Employer's petition sets forth the Chester station as the appropriate
unit. At the hearing, the Employer contended that only a system-
wide unit is appropriate but indicated a willingness to proceed on the
basis of a one-station unit should the Board find the latter appropriate..
The Union urges the Board to dismiss on the ground that the Em-
ployer, in effect, amended its petition at the hearing to change the
unit for which an election was requested from a station unit to a
system-wide unit, and the Union had made no claim for recognition
in the system-wide unit. We find, however, that the Employer has
presented alternate unit contentions, which it is entitled to have con-
sidered. The Union's motion to dismiss is therefore 'denied.
The Employer has recognized the Union as the `repr'esentative of its
employees at the Chester station since the Union' in 1943 won an
election conducted by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. In
1948 the Employer consented to, and the'Union won, a union-authori-
zation election conducted by this Board in a unit limited to the Chester
station.
While the Chester station is an integral part of the Employer's
generating system, and personnel matters are centralized in the main
office in Philadelphia, all matters pertaining to the Chester station
are channelized through the Chester station superintendent. The
Board has previously held that while a system-wide unit is the most
desirable unit in the public utility field, a smaller unit may be war-
ranted under certain circumstances. Here the employees whom the
Union seeks to represent in a unit limited to the Chester plant have
I Whitney's, 81 NLRB 75 ; Continental Southern Corporation, 83 NLRB 668; J. P. O'Neil
Lumber Co ., 94 NLRB 1299. Although Board Member Murdock dissented in the latter
case, he considers himself bound by the majority 's decision in that case.
2 The Union has requested recognition as the representative of the employees at the
Employer ' s Richmond station, which was refused . No petition has been filed concerning
these employees.
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 73
been bargained for in that unit for 8 years. No union is seeking to
represent the employees of the Employer in a system-wide unit:
Under all the circumstances, the Board finds the scope of the unit may
appropriately be limited to the, employees at the Chester station.' a
The Employer seeks to exclude from the unit as supervisors the
chief boiler operator, the chief assistant running engineer, the chief
electrical mechanic, the head janitor, the chief hoisting engineer, the
steamfitter subforeman, and the storekeeper B. All these individuals
had, with the consent of the Employer, been included in the voting
unit set up by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board in 1943 and
in the one set up by this Board in 1948, and they had been covered
by the bargaining contracts. The Union claims that these individuals
are not supervisors, and wants to continue to include them in the
unit.
The chief boiler operator, the chief assistant running engineer, the
chief electrical mechanic, and the chief hoisting engineer: The. Em-
ployer's claim that these individuals are supervisors is based on the
fact that they take the place of their respective immediate supervisors,
the assistant boiler engineer B, the running engineer A, the chief elec-
trician, and the yardmaster ,4 at least 1 day a week, and, in the case -of
the chief hoisting engineer, at least 2 days a week.' It is not clear
from the record whether or not, while substituting for their immediate
supervisors, the chief boiler operator, the chief assistant running engi=
neer, the chief electrical mechanic, and the chief hoisting engineer have
the power effectively to recommend discharge, discipline, transfer,
or promotions nor is it clear whether or not they responsibly direct
the work of employees. Because of this state of the record, we shall
not now make a determination as to the supervisory status of these
individuals but shall permit them to vote subject to challenge. We
shall pass upon the challenges as to their right to vote if it develops
that the results of the election would be affected thereby.
The - steamzfitter sub f oreman.-This individual works under the
supervision of the maintenance foreman. He does not have the power
to hire or discharge employees, or effectively to recommend such
action. He may recommend discipline, but never has done so and,
according to his testimony, never has been told that he could. He
does not assign overtime. He is an hourly rated employee receiving
11 cents an hour more than the next highest paid employee in his
group. The maintenance foreman receives a salary, which is $96
8 Southwestern Electric Service Company , 89 NLRB 114.
I The last named four categories were excluded from the collective bargaining contracts
between the Union and the Employer . The Union would not state whether it considered
them to be supervisors, but stated that it would be satisfied with the contractual unit.
° As the Employer at present employs an extra chief electrician , the present chief
electrical nrechanic has acted as chief electrician only 23 times during the past year.
° Admittedly none of these individuals can hire, discharge , discipline , promote, or
transfeit employees or effectively recommend their hire.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
more than the monthly pay received by the steamfitter subforeman.
Under these circumstances, we find that the steamfitter subforeman is
not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we
shall include him in the unit.
The storekeeper B.-The storekeeper B operates the storerooms
at the Chester station. In this operation he is assisted by three stock-
men. He does not have the power to hire, discharge, or transfer these
men or effectively to recommend such action. He is consulted be-
fore promotions are made, but it is not shown that his opinion has
decisive weight. He assigns the stockmen their duties, but it appears
that such assignments are of a routine nature. All the storeroom
employees are salaried, with the storekeeper B's salary exceeding
that of the next highest paid individual by about $39 a month. Under
all the circumstances, we find that the storekeeper B is not a super-
visor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall include
him in the unit.
The head janitor.-This individual is an hourly rated employee
receiving 12 cents an hour more than the two assistant janitors. He
µhas no power to hire, discharge, discipline, transfer, or promote -em-
ployees, or effectively to recommend such actions. Orders to the
janitors are issued by the shift superintendent or by the station super-
intendent.-- Under these circumstances, we find that the head janitor
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we
shall include him in the unit.
The gateman.-The Employer contends that these employees are
guards within the meaning of the Act, and urges that they be ex-
cluded from the unit. The Union denies that they are guards and
wishes to include them. These gatemen are stationed at the gates
'to the Chester station. They have to clear the admission of non-
employees and, in doubtful cases, consult the shift superintendent.
They admit employees not on duty only on company business. An
employee removing tools and equipment from the plant must exhibit
a pass signed by his supervisor to a gateman before the latter per-
mits such removal. The gatemen are uniformed, but at present are
unarmed.7 Under these circumstances, we find that the gatemen are
guards within the meaning of the Act, and shall exclude them from
the unit.8
The stenographer to the station superintendent.-The Employer
wishes to exclude • this employee from the unit as a confidential em-
ployee. The Union denies her confidential status and wishes to
include her. This employee takes minutes on grievance meetings be-
tween the station superintendent and representatives of the Union,
4 During world war II the gatemen were armed , and their arming during the present
emergency is being contemplated.
8 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, 91 NLRB 607.
DEL E. WEBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 75
takes dictation for correspondence between the station superintendent
and his superiors dealing with the disposition of grievances, and has
access-to all files involving the station superintendent's relations with
the Union. As it appears from these facts that this employee acts
in a confidential capacity to the station superintendent in the exer-
cise of his managerial functions in connection with labor relations,
we shall exclude.her from the unit.°
The timekeeper.-The Employer employs one timekeeper at its
Chester station. She works in the office, and under the supervision
of the station superintendent, keeping records of the time worked
by other employees, the wages paid them, and similar information.
The Employer wishes to exclude her from the unit on the ground
that she has no community of interests with the production and main-
tenance employees. She has in the past been included in the unit,
and the Union wishes to continue to include her. Upon the entire
record, we find that the timekeeper may appropriately be included,
in the unit 10
Accordingly, we find that all the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Chester, Pennsylvania, station, including
the chief boiler operator, the chief assistant running engineer, the
chief electrical mechanic, the chief hoisting engineer,"' the store-
keeper B, the head janitor, and the timekeeper, but excluding the
gatemen, the stenographer to the station superintendent, professional
employees,12 and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the mean=
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 Minneapolis -Moline Company, 85 NLRB 597.
10 Aluminum Company of America (Harvard Plant, Cleveland ), 80 NLRB 1342.
"For the reasons set forth above , the.inclusion of the individuals in the last four
categories is not to be taken as a final determination of their status as supervisors, but is
solely for the purpose of permitting them to vote subject to challenge.
" The parties do not contest , and the record establishes that the investigators of plant
tests and the plant chemist are professional employees within the meaning of the Act.
DEL E. WEBB CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and JOHN WORDS
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS'
UNION OF AMERICA, CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS UNION
No. 264, A. F. OF L. and JOHN WORDS. Cases Nos. 17-CA249 and
17-CB-19. July 11, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 26, 1950, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
95 NLRB No. 11.