Columbia Gas Transmission Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1974

213 N.L.R.B. 111 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

COLUMBIA GAS TRANSMISSION CORP. 111
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation and Oil,
Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union
and its Locals 3-372 and 3-628
Columbia Gas of West Virginia , Inc., Columbia Gas of
Kentucky, Inc. and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers International Union and its Locals 3-372 and
3-628 . Cases 9-UC-91 and 9-UC-92
August 30, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On September 25, 1973, the Employers' filed peti-
tions to clarify a single bargaining unit currently rec-
ognized by them by creating two separate bargaining
units. A hearing was held on January 9, 10, and 11,
1974, before Hearing Officer Joseph T. Perry. All par-
ties appeared and participated at the hearing. On Jan-
uary 11, 1974, the Acting Regional Director for
Region 9 issued an order transferring the cases to the
Board. Briefs have been filed by the Employers and
the Unions.
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 au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding the Board
finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the pur-
poses of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Unions involved herein are labor organiza-
tions within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. No questions affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of the
Employers within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
Each of the Employers is a wholly owned subsid-
iary of Columbia Gas Systems, Inc., a public utility
holding company. Columbia Gas Transmission Cor-
poration, the Petitioner in Case 9-UC-91, is a Dela-
ware corporation with its principal offices in
Charleston, West Virginia. It produces and purchases
natural gas and operates a transmission pipeline in
seven States with sales to over 100 public utilities and
municipalities, including Columbia Gas of West Vir-
ginia , Inc., and Columbia Gas of Kentucky, Inc.
These latter two companies, the Petitioners in Case
9-UC-92, are engaged in the distribution of natural
gas to points in the States of West Virginia and Ken-
tucky, respectively. They have their headquarters in
Columbus, Ohio.
A reorganization of the companies of the Columbia
Gas System, which includes these Employers, under-
lies the filing of the petitions to clarify the unit herein.
The express purpose of the reorganization was to
avoid the dual regulation by both State and Federal
authorities of the various Columbia Gas System com-
panies that engaged in both interstate transmission
and local distribution operations. As a result of the
reorganization the interstate transmission operation is
now handled exclusively by Columbia Gas Transmis-
sion Corporation, subject only to the jurisdiction of
the Federal Power Commission; and the local distri-
bution operations is now handled by eight separate
public utilities, including Columbia Gas of West Vir-
ginia, and Columbia Gas of Kentucky, each of which
is subject only to the state agencies in the State in
which it operates. This functional realignment was
completed in 1971.
The realignment of the management structure to
correspond with the functional structure was not
completed until later, in April 1973. Prior to the rea-
lignment of the management structure the companies
of the Columbia Gas System were managed on a
"Group" basis, with a single management supervising
both transmission and distribution operations in each
group. The three principal groups, identified by geo-
graphic regions, were the Columbus Group, the Pitts-
burgh Group, and the Charleston Group. The
Employers involved herein were all part of the
Charleston Group? Since April 1973, a chairman and
other officers of the Columbia Gas Transmission Cor-
poration have assumed the management of all inter-
state transmission operations and employees.
Similarly, a chairman and other officers of the consol-
idated distribution companies, including Columbia
Gas of West Virginia and Columbia Gas of Kentucky,
have assumed the management of all distribution op-
erations and employees. The transmission corpora-
tion and the distribution companies each have their
own labor relations departments.
The unit proposed in Case 9-UC-91 would consist
of approximately 730 employees engaged in the oper-
ation of the interstate transmission system under the
direction of the Columbia Gas Transmission Corpo-
ration. The unit proposed in Case 9-UC-92 would
'The term "Employers" is used to collectively identify Columbia Gas
Transmission Corporation, the Petitioner in Case 9-UC-91, and Columbia 2 The Charleston Group also included Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc.
Gas of West Virginia , Inc., and Columbia Gas of Kentucky , Inc., the Peti- Employees of Columbia Gas of Virginia were not part of the bargaining unit,
tioners in Case 9-UC-92. nor are they now, involved in the instant proceeding.
213 NLRB No. 10
112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
consist of approximately 450 employees engaged in
distribution operations in two States under the direc-
tion of Columbia Gas of West Virginia and Columbia
Gas of Kentucky, respectively. A majority of the em-
ployees in each of the proposed units perform essen-
tially different work, but a substantial number of
employees in both units perform work requiring simi-
lar skills or involve unskilled or entry level jobs. The
transmission employees work at 64, and the distribu-
tion employees at 30, locations in West Virginia and
Kentucky, including 7 common locations where the
facilities are physically and organizationally separate.
The record further shows that the transmission and
distribution employees are separately supervised and
that temporary transfers between operations have not
occurred since the reorganization . The hours of work
for transmission employees are much more varied
than most of the distribution employees who work
from 8 a .m. to 4 :45 p.m. The transmission and distri-
bution employees have separate communication sys-
tems , training programs , and grievance systems.
A long-established bargaining relationship exists
between the parties , dating to 1944. In the ensuing
years the identification of the parties and the scope of
the unit have been affected by various consolidations,
mergers , and internal reorganizations involving both
the Employers and the Unions. On December 29,
1966, the Employers and the Unions signed an agree-
ment covering the existing recognized unit in the in-
stant case . The parties have signed succeeding
agreements in 1970, 1972, and the latest , on December
1, 1973. The 1973 agreement included a provision that
it "shall be effective for its term in such unit or units
thereinafter determined to appropriate in NLRB
cases 9-UC-91 and 9-UC-92 or related cases."
The Employers assert that the present single unit no
longer accords with the Employers' administrative
structure or organization and that the transmission
corporation and the two distribution companies are
functionally autonomous separate systems . The Em-
ployers further assert that as a consequence the single
bargaining unit should be separated along functional
lines to correspond with the reorganization of the Em-
ployers. Specifically, the Employers propose one unit
consisting of employees engaged in interstate trans-
mission operations (Case 9-UC-9 1) and a second unit
consisting of employees engaged in local distribution
operations (Case 9-UC-92). The Unions contend,
however, that the employees engaged in transmission
and distribution operations should continue to be rep-
resented in one bargaining unit.
We find no merit in the request by the Employers
to separate the existing recognized bargaining unit
into two bargaining units. The record shows that the
employees represented by the Unions have continued
to perform the same functions in the same locations
after the reorganization that they performed prior to
the reorganization . These employees have the same
immediate supervision as they had prior to the reorga-
nization and the reorganization has had little if any
direct affect on day-to-day operations. Although
there now exists separate labor relations departments,
this change has no practical effect on the handling
and processing of grievances until the grievance
reaches the top step.
The Employers seek to raise this issue as a matter
of unit clarification . We note, however, that there is
no ambiguity and no dispute concerning the fact that
the employees who are the subject of the instant peti-
tions came within the coverage of a series of collec-
tive-bargaining agreements , including the most recent
one effective December 1, 1973, and that they have
been included in the long-established unit represented
by the Unions. We further note that no party seeks at
this time an election among employees in the estab-
lished unit nor questions the status of the Unions as
the bargaining representative of that unit . National
Education Association, 206 NLRB 893 (1973).
On the basis of the circumstances set forth in the
record, we find the Employer 's reorganization has had
no meaningful or substantial impace or effect on the
status or appropriateness of the long-existing bargain-
ing unit . Accordingly , we shall dismiss the petitions.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases 9-
UC-91 and 9-UC-92 be, and they hereby are, dis-
missed.
CHAIRMAN MILLER , concurring separately:
I concur in the result , although I agree with little of
the rationale of the opinion signed by my colleagues.
If the two units proposed by the Petitioner were
shown to be appropriate units by our usual standards,
and if the existing single unit had been rendered inap-
propriate by reason of organizational changes, I
would grant the petition.
The difficulty here is that the proposed two units
are, in my view , not appropriate on the basis of our
usual tests. The existing unit would , ab initio, also
have been of dubious appropriateness but has been
rendered appropriate by bargaining history. But the
two proposed units have little to commend them, ex-
cept for the fact that they are coextensive geographi-
cally with a two-state area, which factor is
insufficient , in my view, to render them appropriate.
For this reason I concur in the dismissal.