W. L. Golightly, Inc.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 19, 1968172 N.L.R.B. 2155 (N.L.R.B. 1968) Copy Citation W. L. GOLIGHTLY, INC. 2155 W. L. Golightly , Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner . Case 23-AC-18 September 19, 1968 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS BROWN , JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA On June 23, 1967, a representation election' was conducted among the employees of the Employer, hereinafter referred to as Golightly, in an ap- propriate unit .2 Thereafter, on July 3, 1967, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Union, was certified as the representative of the employees of Golightly. On February 8, 1968, the Union filed this petition to amend the certification to include the Houston Natural Gas Corporation, of Houston, Texas, hereinafter referred to as Houston, as a joint or "co-employer" of the employees com- prising the aforementioned appropriate unit. Golightly and Houston oppose the granting of the amendment, contending, inter alia, that the factors on which the Board historically relies in finding a joint-employer relationship are not currently present in this case A hearing was held on March 5 and 6 and April 9, 10, and 11, 1968, at Houston, Texas, before Hearing Officer Van. B. Jones. Subsequently, pur- suant to a motion to reopen the record filed by Houston , a supplemental hearing was held on June 10, 1968. Thereafter, the Regional Director for Re- gion 23 transferred this case to the Board for original consideration. Briefs were filed by Golightly, Houston, and the Union. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the initial and supplemental hearings and finds that they are free from prejudi- cial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: Golightly, which employs approximately 150-300 employees depending upon the amount of work available, is a contractor primarily engaged in the installation and repair of gas pipelines. It secures its construction work through the medium of "blan- ket" contracts' or by virtue of being low bidder on advertised proposed construction. Golightly received approximately 53 percent of its 1967 revenue from services performed for Houston under bid and blanket contracts. The remainder of its revenue was received from bid contracts with other gas companies operating in the Houston, Tex- as, area. Golightly normally maintains two mainline crews, averaging from 12 to 15 employees, and 2 or 3 ser- vice crews, averaging from 6 to 8 employees. The employees comprising the aforementioned crews, who are supervised by Golightly crew foremen, re- port to Golightly's Liberty Road terminal each morning before being dispatched to pipe installa- tion or repair jobs for Houston and other gas com- panies with which Golightly has contracts. Golightly also employs some 10 to 15 employees who work primarily at its Liberty Road terminal repairing Golightly-owned equipment. Additionally, Golightly employs approximately 15 employees who report to the Liberty Road terminal daily and are shuttled to Houston's Southwest Service Center. Lastly, Golightly employs some 55 em- ployees who report on a daily basis directly to Houston's Gene George Service Center. These latter two groups of employees, until recent months, worked alongside and with employees of Houston in mainline or service crews, all of which were under the supervision of Houston personnel. All the aforementioned Golightly employees, with the exception of crew foremen, appear to be covered by the certification issued in Case 23-RC-2880.4 Houston, a gas utility, is engaged in the installa- tion, maintenance, and operation of gas distribution facilities in and around Houston, Texas. In addition to its own mainline crews it has service and leak crews which work primarily out of Houston's Gene George and Southwest Service Centers.' Pursuant 'Case 23-RC-2880 The appropriate unit, as set forth in the Board's Decision, is All production and maintenance employees, including terminal, warehouse and shop employees, and truckdrisers employed by the Employer at its place of business in Houston , Harris County, Texas In essence , a cost-plus contract provdmg for the supply of men and equipment at specified rates per classification Although the record indicates that Golightly also employs a number of employees who generally work on hid contracts for gas companies other than Houston , the exact number of such employees is not set forth in the record It would appear from ai literal reading of the certification that in- asmuch as they work out of Golightly's "place of business in Houston. Har- ris County. Texas," the) would he included in the Golightly unit currently represented by the Union Honeser, since this matter was not fully litigated during the instant proceedings we make no definiti\ e determination on this point 'On December 15, 1966, the Union was certified as the collectixe-bar- gaining representative of Houston s production and maintenance em- ployees, including crew foremen, located at Houston's Gene George and Southwest Service Centers Cases 23-RC-2843, 23-RM-178, and 23-UC-17 172 NLRB No. 244 2156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to written contractual agreements, Houston also utilizes the services of Golightly and other contrac- tors for pipeline installation and service work. As noted previously, the blanket contract in effect between Golightly and Houston obligates Golightly to furnish Houston with equipment and men at specified rates per classification. With the exception of the approximately 70 em- ployees who report directly or are transported daily to the Gene George or Southwest Service Centers" pursuant to the blanket contract, Golightly generally fills Houston's work orders with mainline or service crews composed solely of Golightly em- ployees and Golightly foremen. Although the record indicates that Houston inspectors may occa- sionally have given orders directly to individual Golightly employees, such inspectors or supervisors normally limited their orders to achievement of the ultimate objective and not to the manner or means by which the actual work is to be performed. This is consistent with the blanket contract, which gives in- spectors the right to disapprove a particular job and require the work to be redone to their satisfaction. With respect to the approximately 70 Golightly employees who work out of Houston's Gene George and Southwest Service Centers, the record reveals that prior to April 1968, these employees worked alongside various Houston employees in mixed crews lead by Houston's crew foremen. However , beginning around April 1968, Houston, in accordance with its practice at several of its other installations , decided to cease using mixed crews and use crews staffed solely by its own em- ployees, or , where an independent contractor is utilized , such crews will be staffed solely by the contractor 's own employees. Houston has since im- plemented its aforementioned decision and hired a number of employees for crews working under Houston supervision . Among the new hires were 23 former Golightly employees . Houston contemplates that by September 1, 1968, at the latest, no em- ployees of Golightly or any other contractor will be working on a Houston crew under Houston supervi- sion. From the facts previously recited, it appears clear that a substantial portion of Golightly's employees, namely, the terminal employees, the crew working for employers other than Houston, and ttlil a crews fully manned by Golightly employees under Golightly supervision, are under little or no control of Houston, and Houston, therefore, cannot be deemed a joint employer as to them. It is only with respect to the Golightly crews (numbering approxi- mately 70 employees), working out of the Gene George and Southwest Service Centers in mixed crews consisting of Golightly and Houston em- ployees under Houston supervision, that any basis for a joint-employer contention existed. However, in view of the recent changes instituted by Houston whereby utilization of mixed crews and supervision has been all but eliminated, we conclude that no basis now exists for making a joint-employer find- ing.' Accordingly, we shall deny the petition to amend the certification. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition herein to amend certification filed by the Oil , Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, denied. "It is the work and supervision of these employees upon which the Union primarily relies in support of its contention that Golightly and Houston should be considered joint employers 7 See Gene,al Pran%fei, !na , 168 NLRB 30 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation