Dallas Power & Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 4, 1945

59 N.L.R.B. 1460 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of DALLAS POWER-& 140-HT UOMPANY a'nc 1NTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-69,
A. F. OF L.
Cases Nos. 16-R-1078 and 16-R-1079.-Decided January 4, 1945
Messrs. W. Autry Norton, W. Tilden Stell, and Floyd McGowan,
all of Dallas, Tex., for the Company.
Mr. W. A. Combs, of Dallas, Tex., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF TIIE CASE
Upon two separate amended petitions duly filed by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-69, A. F. of L., herein
called the Union, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Dallas Power & Light
Company, Dallas, Texas, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board provided for appropriate hearings upon due
notice before Elmer Davis, Trial Examiner. Said hearings were held
at Dallas, Texas, on November 15 and 16, 1944. The Company and
the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
On December 4, 1944, the Company requested oral argument before
the Board in Case No. 16-R-1078. The request is hereby denied.
The Board, on its own motion, hereby consolidates the foregoing
cases for the purposes of decision, and upon the consolidated record,
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Dallas Power & Light Company, a Texas corporation, is engaged
in the county of Dallas, Texas, in the generation and distribution of
59 N. L. R. B., No. 266.
1460
eluded air lines, railways, int for freight companies, bus companies,
telephone companies, telegraph companies, and newspapers. The rev-
enue from these operations amounted to approximately $8,500,000.
During the same year, the Company purchased supplies and parts for
use in its operations, valued in execs of $50,000, a substantial portion of
which was purchased outside the State of Texas.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-69, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to grant recognition to the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of those of its employees composing
the two units proposed by the Union,l contending that each of the
proposed units is inappropriate.
Statements of a Board Field Examiner and the Trial Examiner,
introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicate that the Union repre-
sents a substantial number of employees in each of its proposed units.2
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
'Clerical employees in the distribution department ( Case No. 16-R-1078), and garage
division employees in the distribution department ( Case No. 16-R-1079).
2 The above-mentioned statements may be summarized by the following chart :
Case No.
Number in
unit
Number of
designations
submitted by
Union and ap-
pearing upon
Company's
pay roll of
October 11,
1944
16-R-1078 ---------------------------------------------------------
i6-R-1079--------------------------------------------------------
*30
32
9
22
*The record indicates that, as of the day of the hearing , 6 of these employees were in the armed forces.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
Case No. 16-R-1078 11
The Union seeks, in this proceeding, a unit comprised of all clerical
employees of the distribution department of the Company, including
all chief clerks,3 senior clerks and stenographers, but excluding the
secretary to the department head, division heads, and all other super-
visory employees within the Board's customary definition. Although
it does not dispute the propriety of the proposed unit, the Company
contends that all chief clerks should be excluded therefrom on the
ground that they are supervisory employees, and that certain senior
clerks 4 and all stenographers should also be excluded on the ground
that they are confidential employees.
Several of the classifications in dispute are not filled at the present
time. In view of this fact, we shall not make any finding with respect
to accounting and garage chief clerks and operating office and under-
ground lines office senior clerks at this time, and the status of em-
ployees subsequently filling these classifications will be dependent
upon the terms and conditions of employment under which they will
have been engaged.
Chief clerk: These employees are the administrative assistants to
division heads.5 The Company adduced general evidence to the effect
that these employees have authority to make effective recommenda-
tions with regard to hiring and discharging employees; that they
assume full responsibility for the division in the absence of the divison
head; and that they have authority to requisition assistants and to
assist in the selection of prospective employees.
The chief clerk of the underground lines division testified that he
relays orders from the division head to the division foreman; handles
division correspondence; keeps records; uses his discretion in, pur-
chasing certain materials ; has recommended increases on, his own
initiative, which increases were subsequently granted; and assigns
work in the absence of the division head.
In view of the specific testimony of this witness, which was uncon-
troverted, we find that the overhead lines, underground lines and
3 The Union would include within this unit the chief clerk of the trouble division who
was specifically excluded fiom the unit previously found appropriate in Matter of Dallas
Power d Light foinpany, 57 N. L R B. 791 ( Case No . 16-R-951 ), although all other clerks of
that division were included thei ern This exclusion , however , was by consent of the parties
and was not based upon any Board finding of supervisory authority.
4 Clerk , senior , estimate clerk , senior , estimate checking ; clerk, senior , office, time-
keeping ; and clerk , senior , utility , general The Company raised no objection to the
inclusion of employees classified as clerk , senior, gauge , clerk , senior, office, meter , and
clerk , senior, office , distribution overhead lines within the clerical unit
6 The distribution department is divided into seven divisions , of which four have chief
clerks, two have vacancies for chief clerks , and one has the division head performing the
duties of the chief clerk
DALLAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1463
meter chief clerks are supervisory employees, and we shall exclude
them. -
Senior clerks: The Company does not contend that senior clerks
are supervisors. It does, however, maintain that the estimate, esti-
mate checking, office timekeeper and general utility senior clerks are
confidential employees and should be excluded from the clerical unit
on this ground.
The record indicates that these employees are interchangeable; that
they prepare the operating budget of the department for the following
year which sets forth "considerations for salary increases generally
affecting next year"; and that they prepare work investigations, in-
cluding overtime studies, and the pay rolls of the department, thus
acquiring knowledge of the salaries, overtime, and pay adjustments
of all employees in the distribution department. It does not appear,
however, that these employees have advance information regarding.
the formulation' of the Company's labor policies. Accordingly, we
find that the four above-mentioned classifications of senior clerks are
not confidential employees, and we shall include them within the unit.
Stenographers: The Company adduced general evidence indicating
that the four employees engaged in this classification are actually
secretaries to division heads, and have access to all matters, including
those dealing with labor relations, which pass through the hands of
the division heads. This evidence was not controverted. Under these
circumstances we shall exclude the stenographers.
We find that all clerical employees engaged in the distribution
department of the Company, including the estimate, estimate check-
ing, garage, overhead lines, meter, office timekeeper and general utility
senior clerks, but excluding the secretary to the department head,
stenographers, the chief clerks of the trouble division, the overhead
lines division, the underground lines division, and the meter' divi=
sion, division heads, and all other supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action;
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'Case No. 16-R-1079
In this proceeding, the Union seeks a unit comprised of all dis-
tribution department employees of the Company engaged in the ga-
rage division, including general shop and garage foremen and painter
foremen, but excluding clerical employees, the division head, and all
other supervisory employees within the meaning, of the Board's cus-
tomary definition. The. Company does not dispute the propriety of
the proposed unit but contends that Foreman, General Shop and
0 --l7
," S "7.'„ .LL L.'.'` "^ .lf .tv u u .. 3̂ ua. u :f-LL Al
69tTANvawo0 ENIHOVB[ aNV ARaNf1O3 xrIEssva EO2Ia1\IIIOO
0
1464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Garage, Classes A-1, A, and B, and Foreman , Painter, are supervisory
employees and therefore should be excluded.
The record indicates that the positions of Foreman , General Shop
and Garage , Classes A and B are not occupied at the present time.
Accordingly , we shall not make any findings with respect to these
classifications , and the statutes of employees occupying these positions
in the future will be dependent upon the terms and conditions of
employment under which they will have been engaged.
General shop and garage foremen: With respect to the classifica-
tion of Class A-1 general shop and garage foreman, uncontroverted
testimony in the record indicates that the two employees so classified
perform no manual labor and have authority to make effective rec-
ommendations with respect to subordinates . Under these circum-
stances, we shall exclude them.
Painter foreman: The record indicates that this employee spends
approximately 75 percent of his time performing manual labor, such
as mixing paints, painting , lettering , and making seat covers. The
job classification submitted by the Company states that he has direc-
tive supervision over one painter . However, specific testimony in-
dicates that , while he has no full -time subordinate , he is assisted by
a person classified as a painter and mechanic and by another classified
as a clerk. In addition , he also has authority to requisition help.
Upon the entire state of the record , we are of the opinion that the
relationship of the painter foreman to his assistants is, in fact, that
of a skilled employee to an apprentice , rather than that of a super-
visor to a subordinate . Accordingly , we shall . include him.
' We find that all distribution department employees of the Com-
pany engaged in the garage division , including the painter foreman,
but excluding clerical employees , general shop and garage foremen,
Class A-1, division head , and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such
action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees in the appropriate units who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction
of Elections herein. subject to the limit.a.tinna and add;+; n -4- F----4-1-
aRlvoa sNoI.LvrIa1I Hoawi rivNOISv& ao sNOISIOaa 89V I
DALLAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY 1465
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Dallas Power &
Light Company, Dallas, Texas, separate elections by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in, the armed, forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the elections, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
B-69, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN-MiLLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.