INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 1536, APPELLEE
V.
215
Filed
December 9, 1983, No. 82-663
1. Labor and Labor Relations: Employer and
Employee. Individuals who are authorized to responsibly direct other employees
are supervisory employees and should be excluded from an employee bargaining
unit.
2. ______: ______. Factors to be considered
in determining whether a community of interest exists are mutuality of interest
in wages, hours, and working conditions; the duties and skills of the employees;
the extent of union organization among the employees; the desires of the
employees; the extent of employee interchange; and the policy against
fragmentation of units.
Appeal from the
Thomas C. Lansworth of Bauer, Galter & Geier, for appellee.
BOSLAUGH, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE,
SHANAHAN, and GRANT, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The
respondent, Lincoln Electric System, has appealed from the order of the
Commission of Industrial Relations determining the composition of the bargaining
unit represented by the petitioner.
The commission
found that the line clearance crew foremen, the equipment mechanic crew foremen,
the line construction and maintenance foremen, and four classifications of
employees in the power supply division should be included in the bargaining
unit. The substation construction foreman, meter department crew foreman, and
communication and test technician crew foreman were excluded from the bargaining
unit.
The respondent
contends that the crew foremen and the employees in the power supply division
should not be included in the bargaining unit. Only the respondent has appealed
from the order of the commission.
The issue with
respect to the crew foremen is whether they are supervisory personnel and should
be excluded from an employee bargaining unit. In City of Grand Island v.
American Federation of S. C. & M. Employees, 186 Neb. 711, 185 N.W.2d 860 (1971), we determined that individuals who are
authorized to responsibly direct other employees are supervisory employees and
should be excluded from an employee bargaining unit. See, also, Nebraska
Ass'n.
of Pub. Emp. v.
The evidence
in this case shows that the line of authority in the operations division is
generally from the operations manager through a supervisor, general foreman, and
crew foreman to the individual workmen. Each crew foreman who is under a general
foreman receives orders and supervision from his general foreman. However, the
crew foreman is responsible for the direction and management of the employees
assigned to his crew, including the training of apprentices, and is required to
perform employee performance appraisals of the members of his crew.
The fact that
the foremen also perform the same or some of the same duties as other members of
the crew and work alongside the other members of the crew is not determinative.
The controlling consideration is that the crew foremen are authorized and
required to responsibly direct the other members of the crew. We conclude that
the finding of the commission on the issue in regard to the crew foremen
involved in this appeal is not supported by substantial evidence and must be
reversed.
The remaining
issue is whether three generation employees in the power supply division should
be included in the bargaining unit comprised of employees in the operations
division of the respondent. The evidence is that the power supply division is a
separate division and that there is little relationship between the two
divisions. The generation employees involved are classified as boiler operator,
Operator I, and Operator II. There are five employees in these classifications,
of whom three are members of the petitioner. There are approximately 17
employees in similar power supply division classifications who are not members
of the petitioner.
We think the
evidence fails to show a community of interest between the employees of the two
divisions. Factors to be considered in determining whether a community of
interest exists are mutuality of interest in wages, hours, and working
conditions; the duties and skills of the employees; the extent of union
organization among the employees; the desires of the employees; the extent of
employee interchange; and the policy against fragmentation of units. City of
Grand Island v. American Federation of S. C. & M. Employees, supra; American
Assn. of University Professors v. Board of Regents, 198 Neb. 243, 253 N.W.2d 1 (1977);
Sheldon Station Employees Assn. v. Nebraska
P.P. Dist., 202 Neb. 391, 275 N.W.2d 816 (1979).
The commission
based its finding on this issue on the facts that the employees of both
divisions enjoy the same fringe benefits, the generation employees do not
require a significantly greater amount of education or training, and the
generation employees involved have been members of the bargaining unit for 2
years. These factors do not outweigh the facts that the divisions operate
separately, the employees of the two divisions perform entirely separate duties,
and there has been little union organization among the employees of the power
supply division. We conclude that the finding of the commission on this issue is
not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed.
The order of
the commission is affirmed in part and in part reversed and the cause remanded.
AFFIRMED IN PART, AND IN PART REVERSED AND
REMANDED.
KRIVOSHA, C.J.,
not participating.