West Texas Utilities Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

184 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Petitioner whether he had seen any persons distributing union
leaflets in the plant. The Regional Director recommended that this
general objection be overruled, on the ground that the sole instance of
improper conduct was too remote in time to have had any appreciable
effect on the result of the election.
In its exceptions under this objection, the Petitioner repeats its
charge that the May 11 layoffs were illegal, and also apparently claims
that the hiring of new employees after the election was part of a pat-
tern of illegal conduct. We have already decided that there is no evi-
dence indicating illegality in the May 11 layoffs. To the extent that
this exception now charges illegal conduct after the election, we reject
it because later conduct could not have affected the election. We also
note that, although the Petitioner filed five charges against the Em-
ployer after the election, nowhere did it charge that the May 11 layoffs,
or the later hirings, were illegal.6
The sole incident shown under this objection, therefore, is the
improper interrogation of an employee by a supervisor long before
the election. We agree with the Regional Director's recommendation
that this single incident does not raise a substantial issue respecting
the results of the election. Accordingly, we hereby overrule the final
objection.
As we have overruled the Petitioner's objections, and as the tally
of ballots shows that no collective bargaining representative has been
chosen, we shall dismiss the petition.
As set forth above, the Regional Director recommended that the
Employer's objections also be overruled. Dismissal of the petition
because of the Petitioner's failure to win a majority renders the
Employer's objections moot; we shall therefore not pass upon them.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
'Case No. 13-CA-857, charges filed June 25, June 29, August 23, September 17, and
September 26, 1951.
WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY i and INTERNATIONAL, BROTIIERIIOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNIONS Nos. 898, 920, AND 1044,
AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-81H. November 29, 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 Willis C. Darby, Jr., hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
97 NLRB No. 28.
WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY 185
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 Reynolds 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
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.3
4. The appropriate unit :
In 1946 the Petitioner, following a consent election, was designated
as the representative of a unit of all employees in the Employer's
transmission, distribution, and service departments in Districts A,
B, C, E, F, G, H, J, and K including linemen, substation main-
tenance men, servicemen, appliance servicemen, refrigeration service-
men, apprentices, helpers, groundmen, truck drivers, and laborers
attached permanently to the crews in the above departments, but
excluding casual and temporary employees, all other laborers, sub-
station operators, combination local managers, office, clerical and tech-
nical employees, metermen, patrolmen, and supervisors.
In 1950 the Board, in an earlier case involving this Employer'5
described its operations as follows:
The Employer is engaged in the production, sale, and distri-
bution of electric energy, water, and ice over a large area in the
western portion of the State of Texas. Its operations include
four steam and eight Diesel plants,e which generate electricity
that is distributed over an extensive transmission system. .. .
The Employer's main office is located in Abilene, Texas, in
the approximate center of its system. Considerable control over
a The Employer , a Texas corporation , is a public utility with its principal office at Abilene,
Texas The Board has frequently asserted jurisdiction over its operations. and there is
nothing in the present record to show that its operations are in any way changed. West
Texas Utilities Company, Inc , 94 NLRB 1638 ; 88 NLRB 192 . and 85 NLRB 1396 . Accord-
ingly, we shall deny the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is
not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
8 The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not the real party in interest and moves
to dismiss on that ground , relying on the evidence adduced in support of a similar conten-
tion in 94 NLRB 1638 There charges were filed by Locals 898 and 920 against the present
Employer The Employer then contended that the requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and
(h) had not been met because the necessary affidavits had not been filed by the Rio Pecos
branch of Local 898 and the Abilene Power Plant branch of Local 920 The Board rejected
that contention on the ground , inter aha, that the branches of the local unions were not
required to comply with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act For the same reason, we
deny the present motion to dismiss
4 Case No. 16-R-1797 ( unpublished)
B 88 NLRB 192
0 It appears that the Employer now operates about 25 Diesel plants
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
all the Employer's powerhouse operations emanates from that
office. The production department controls the operations of
all the power plants. It assigns periods-of overhaul and nego-
tiates fuel contracts and makes other purchases for each plant.
The dispatcher in the distribution department determines the
load each powerhouse shall carry. In emergencies, when equip-
ment in one of the plants is shut down, the dispatcher compensates
for the loss of power by ordering an increase in the load of the
other plants. While the chief engineer at each power plant has
considerable authority over personnel under his supervision, the
overall personnel policy is established at the main office. Like-
wise, the central pay office is in Abilene, Texas. Thus, the Em-
ployer's power plant operations appear to be operationally inte-
grated.
In that case, the Board, while stating that "powerhouse employees
might be an appropriate unit," denied the Petitioner's request for a
unit confined to the employees in only one of the Employer's power
plants.
The Petitioner now seeks to represent a system-wide unit of all
power plant employees in the Employer's production department,
excluding office clerical employees, shift engineers, guards, watchmen,
professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. There
is no history of bargaining for these employees. The Employer
contends that the appropriate unit should be a system-wide unit of all
its physical employees. In the alternative, the Employer contends
that the appropriate unit should consist of all the power plant em-
ployees, plus approximately 75 employees in the categories of meter-
men, relaymen, substation operators, patrolmen, radiomen, tankmen,
and shop workers. These categories of employees work generally
in the transmission, distribution, and service departments, and are
excluded from the unit which the Petitioner now represents.
The power-plant employees sought by the Petitioner include the
following classifications : Firemen, oilers, switchboard operators, auxil-
iary operators, power-plant machinists, power-plant painters, power-
plant water treaters, welders, and other mechanical employees neces-
sary to maintain and operate the power-generating plants.7 The
employees in the proposed unit work under the supervision of the
superintendent of the production department, perform functions re-
lated to the operation and maintenance of the power-generating plants,
and have similar working conditions. As it appears from the record
7It appears from the record that Diesel engine operators have for a number of years
performed line service work, and also worked as station operators. However, there is no
eNidence as to the frequency of this interchange.
WEST TEXAS UTILITIES COMPANY 187
that the proposed unit includes all the Employer's "inside" production
employees, we find such employees constitute an appropriate bargain-
ing unit."
The Employer contends, however, that the following categories
of employees should be included in the unit. Meternen work under
the supervision of the superintendent of the transmission department,
and in addition to their regular duties in connection with the distri-
bution of current through the transmission lines, perform work in
connection with the establishing of relays and in the power plants.
Relaymen, also in the transmission department, are concerned with
the establishment of the proper relaying of the current through the
lines. Substation operators, also in the transmission department,
attend to the switching of current in the lines. In emergencies, when
the lines become overloaded due to a drop in voltage, substation oper-
ators work in the power plants as plant operators, and operate the
Diesel engines to correct the overload. While engaged in this work
of an emergency nature, they work under the supervision of the super-
intendent of the production department. The duties of the patrolmen,
who are in the transmission department, are to inspect the overhead
power lines, and make certain repairs to them. In some instances,
the patrolmen are expected to do the switching at an unattended
substation. Radiomen, also in the transmission department, perform
the necessary maintenance work on the Employer's two-way radio
systems. The record does not disclose the specific duties of the tank-
men ; however, it appears that their regular employment is concerned
with the ice-plant operations of the Employer. Shop employees are in
the engineering department, and handle the purchases and mainte-
nance of heavy pieces of equipment. In view of the foregoing circum-
stances, we find that these employees do not have sufficient community
of interest with the production employees to warrant their inclusion in
the same unit with the latter group and we shall therefore exclude
them.
We find, therefore, that all power house employees in the Employer's
production department, excluding office clerical employees, shift engi-
neers, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors,
constitute a unit appropriate for 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.]
8 See Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, 86 NLRB 437 ; West Texas Utilities Company,
88 NLRB 192; cf. Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, 92 NLRB 990.