Southern Wyoming Utilities Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1333 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

SOUTHERN WYOMING UTILITIES COMPANY, ETC. 1333
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b)
of the Act.
4. At all times since August 17, 1960, the above-named labor organization, by
virtue of Section 9(a) of the Act, has been and is now the exclusive representative
of all employees in the said unit for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
5. On August 17, 1960, and at all times since then, the Respondent refused and
continues to refuse to bargain collectively with the said labor organization within
the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)( I) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Southern Wyoming Utilities Company and Pacific Power &
Light Company' and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 27-RC-1982. June 27,
1961
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 Allison E. Nutt, hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error , and are hereby affirmed .2
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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner and Intervenor are labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act, claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The instant petition was filed on December 22, 1960, requesting a
unit of employees in the electric and water departments of Southern
Wyoming Utility Company, herein called Southern Wyoming, in Rock
Springs, Wyoming. The Intervenor and Pacific Power contend that
a contract between them is a bar to this petition.
1 The names of the Employers appear as corrected on the record.
For reasons given below, the motions to dismiss made by Pacific Power & Light
Company, herein called Pacific Power, and Utility Workers Union of America, Local 127,
AFL-CIO, the Intervenor, are hereby denied.
131 NLRB No. 164.
1334 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
When the petition was filed, Pacific Power was in the process of
acquiring the physical properties of Southern Wyoming, and plans
called for including these facilities in Pacific Power's Wyoming Di-
vision. At the time, the Intervenor and Pacific Power were parties to
a contract covering certain employees in Pacific Power's Wyoming
Division.' The sale of Southern Wyoming's facilities to Pacific Power
was not consummated until March 10, 1961, and, as of that date, South-
ern Wyoming's employees became employees of Pacific Power.' It is
clear from these facts that this petition was filed before Southern
Wyoming's employees ever became employees of Pacific Power. Ac-
cordingly, no contract between Intervenor and Pacific Power can bar
the petition.
4. The Intervenor and Pacific Power contend that the unit proposed
by Petitioner is inappropriate and that a unit of all employees in the
Wyoming Division of Pacific Power is alone appropriate. As em-
ployees of Southern Wyoming, the requested employees were
unrepresented.
Pacific Power's intentions at the time of the hearing was to establish
the requested employees as a Rock Springs District within its Wyo-
ming Division represented by the Intervenor. The Wyoming Division
has its own manager. It is composed of certain operating districts.
Each district performs its own maintenance work on the transmission
lines which fall within its territory. Except in emergency situations,
the employees assigned to a district work solely within their districts.
A roving maintenance crew works on line maintenance throughout the
State and will service any newly established Rock Springs District.
Upon the entire record, we find that the existing unit of the Inter-
venor augmented by the former Southern Wyoming employees would
be an appropriate one for bargaining purposes. However, in the cir-
cumstances related above, we find that a separate unit of the hereto-
fore unrepresented, readily identifiable employees requested by the
Petitioner would also be appropriate.5 Accordingly, we shall make
no determination with respect to those employees at this time, but
shall first ascertain their desire as expressed in the election which we
direct herein.
In conformity with our findings above, we shall direct an election
among the employees of Pacific Power who were formerly employed
by Southern Wyoming, excluding office clerical employees, confi-
dential employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
3 The Intervenor represents a statewide unit, excluding certain employees represented
by another labor organization not involved in this proceeding.
4 These facts are disclosed by a stipulation of the parties received subsequent to the
hearing.
5Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., 110 NLRB 1056; Brooklyn Union Gas Company, 123
NLRB 441.
GRIMES MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1335
If a majority of the employees in the voting group cast their ballot
for the Petitioner , they will be taken to have indicated that they de-
sire to constitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, for such unit, which
the Board , under the circumstances , finds appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining . If a majority of the employees in the
above voting group cast their ballots for the Intervenor , they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing
unit, in which event the regional Director will certify the results of
the election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Grimes Manufacturing Company and International Union,
United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America , AFL-CIO. Case No. 8-CA-2217. June
28, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 23, 1961, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in
the complaint, and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Charging
Party filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with sup-
porting briefs. The Respondent filed a brief in support of the Inter-
mediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudical error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.
[The Board dismissed the complaint.]
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Charges having been filed and served, a complaint and notice of hearing thereon
having been issued and served by the General Counsel of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and an answer having been filed by the above-named Respondent, a
hearing involving allegations of unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1)
and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, was held in Urbana, Ohio,
on January 24 and 25, 1961, before the duly designated Trial Examiner.
131 NLRB No. 168.