Roanoke Gas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1431 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FLORENCE STOVE COMPANY 1431
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORK-
ERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 5-RLC-797. June 2i2i,
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 John K. Pickens, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a public utility corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with its
main office at Roanoke, Virginia. Its business operations are limited
by its charter to the counties of Roanoke and Botetourt? The Em-
ployer is engaged in the distribution and sale at retail of natural gas
and gas-burning appliances.
During the year 1950, the Employer received as revenue from its
sale and distribution of gas 3 approximately $1,033,909, of which 83
percent was derived from residential consumers, and the balance
from industrial and commercial consumers 4 During the same period,
its revenue from the sale of appliances, all of which were made, locally,
amounted to approximately $250,000.
. Purchases of gas appliances during 1950 amounted-to approximately
$100,000. The secretary-treasurer of the Employer, testifying at
1 The hearing officer permitted the International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers
Union, AFL , to intervene . The afore -mentioned International represented the employees
at the Employer ' s gas manufacturing plant prior to the conversion of the Employer's
operations to natural gas. Since the conversion the operations of the gas manufacturing
plant have been for the most eliminated or absorbed by the natural gas operations. See
Continental Can Company, Inc., 93 NLRB 184.
2 The Employer is actively engaged in business in Roanoke County only.
8 The Employer converted its operations to natural gas in October 1950. Prior to that
time it manufactured all the gas it sold and distributed.
* The Employer has classified all nonresidential consumers as commercial and industrial
consumers . Some of the Employer's industrial consumers are the following concerns :
American Viscose Company, Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Wilson & Company,
'Swift & Company , Armour & Company , Veterans Hospital , Greyhound Bus Garage, Wool-
worth Corporation and Times -World Corporation ( Newspaper).
94 NLRB No. 226.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing, stated that according to his knowledge the majority of
the gas-burning appliances originated from out of State, although
the Employer made all purchases locally. The same officer further
testified that it was the Employer's understanding that most of the
natural gas purchased and to be purchased by the Employer, has
and will originate from out of State, although the purchases are
made from a local Virginia corporation .5
Upon these facts and the record as a whole, we find, contrary to
the contentions of the Employer,6 that its operations affect commerce
within the meaning of the Act and, further, that it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction over this
Employer?
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all service and main-
tenance employees employed by the Employer at its Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, operations, including the meter readers and janitors, but
excluding all office clerical employees, dispatchers, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
The Employer agrees generally to the composition of the unit
sought, but is in disagreement with the Petitioner as to the inclusion
or exclusion of the following categories of employees :
Meter readers: The meter readers follow assigned routes and visit
consumers' premises, read the meters, and subtract previous from
current readings in order to determine volume of consumption. At
the end of the day they relay this information to the commercial
office of the Employer where it is used as the basis for billing the
consumers. The meter readers work out of the commercial office
and are under the immediate supervision of the head meter reader
who, in turn, is directly responsible to the chief clerk.
Upon these facts, we find that the meter readers are office clerical
employees and we will exclude them as such from the unit herein
found to be appropriate."
5In view of the recent conversion of the Employer's operations to natural gas it was
not possible, according to the Employer, to make any accurate prediction of the volume
of purchases of natural gas for the year 1951.
6 We find upon this record that the Employer's contention that its operations fall within
the de minimis rule is without merit.
' See W. C. King, d/b/a Local Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623; Citizens Gas Company,
Suseev Gas Company and The Dover Light Company, 92 NLRB 1743.
8 See The Connecticut Power Company, 88 NLRB 653; Appalachian Electric Power
Company, 91 NLRB 1376; cf. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 87 NLRB 257, 264, 265.
ROANOKE GAS COMPANY 1433
, Meter men: The meter men in the employ of the Employer are
primarily engaged in routine repair of meters.. These functions are
closely allied and directly related to the work performed by the
service and maintenance employees included in the unit found
appropriate herein. We will, therefore, include the meter men in this
unit.
Janitors: The janitors perform the normal duties of dusting, sweep-
ing, cleaning, and servicing the main offices of the Employer which
are apart from the building occupied by the service and maintenance
employees. We believe that regardless of the place of their employ-
ment the janitors should be included in the same unit with the service
and maintenance employees, because the character of their work and
the nature of their employment is closely allied to that of the service
and maintenance employees.9
Purchasing and storekeeping department employees: The record
indicates that the employees of this department handle materials and
engaged in routine purchasing and storekeeping duties. The super-
intendent of this department and his clerk handle the clearing of
purchase orders and passing of invoices. The remaining employees
handle materials. We are persuaded that the employees of this de-
partment, excluding the supervisor, perform in essence the duties per-
formed by stock clerks and plant clericals.1°
We therefore shall include all employees of this department, exclud-
ing the superintendent, in the unit found appropriate herein.
We find that the following employees employed at the Employer's
operations in Roanoke, Virginia, constitute an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act : All service and maintenance employees, including
the meter men, purchasing and storekeeping employees, and janitors,
but excluding meter readers, dispatchers, office clerical employees,
the employees employed at the gas manufacturing plant represented
by the International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers Union, AFL,11
guards, superintendents, foremen, and all other supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 See Inland Steel Company, 73 NLRB 19.
10 The Employer contends that the supervisor of this department and his clerk also deal
with confidential information in regard to purchases of the Employer and should be
excluded on this ground . This is not the type of confidential information the possession
of which we have considered in the past to be sufficient to justify the exclusion of employees
from the unit . See, The Ohio Steel Foundry Company, 92 NLRB 683.
11 Since the conversion to natural gas of the operations of the Employer , it has main-
tained the gas manufacturing plant on a standby basis with a skeleton crew, represented
by the International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers Union , AFL. The Petitioner is not
seeking to represent those employees.