| COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA, | | | CASE NO. 131 |
| AFL-CIO, | | | |
| | | ||
| Petitioner, | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | FINDINGS |
| | | ||
| THE CITY OF HASTINGS, NEBRASKA, | | | |
| a Municipal Corporation, and THE CITY | | | |
| OF HASTINGS, BOARD OF PUBLIC | | | |
| WORKS, | | | |
| | | ||
| Defendants. | | |
For Petitioner: John P. Fahey
For Defendants: William A. Harding
Before: Judges DeBacker, Kratz and Rudolph
DEBACKER, J.:
The Petitioner seeks to be certified as collective bargaining representatives of employees of the defendants in the gas department, electric department, water and sewer department, power plant department and power plant office.
The Clerk has determined that the Petitioner made a sufficient showing of interest to entitle it to the election. This determination has not been challenged, except as hereafter indicated.
By its Amended Answers, defendant City of Hastings, claims a defect of parties defendant in that the Petitioner did not join the Hastings Board of Public Works, a claimed joint employer. At the time of trial, however, the pleadings were amended to show the Board as co-defendant and its voluntary appearance was entered, thus resolving that issue.
The defendant, City of Hastings, likewise alleges that there has been no sufficient service herein. Service was accomplished by mailing copies of the Petition to Albert P. Madgett, City Attorney, and to Mr. William A. Harding, who has represented the City in previous cases before this Court and who appeared as trial counsel. It is admitted that Mr. Madgett was at all relevant times City Attorney of the City of Hastings. Section 38-813 R.S. Supp. 1974 requires the service of a copy of the Petition upon "a principal officer at the usual place of activity of the employer." We have no hesitancy in holding in the context of this case that the City Attorney meets the statutory requirement of a principal officer and that the City received adequate notice. There is no suggestion that the City has been prejudiced in any regard.
Defendant City further contests the validity of signatures on the authorization forms because of alleged activity on the part of supervisory employees. The record demonstrates that certain supervisory employees did, in fact, sign authorization cards. The record further demonstrates, however, that no supervisory employee in any way attempted to influence, coerce or intimidate any non-supervisory employee in one direction or the other with respect to this matter. We find this defense without merit.
On the basis of the entire record, we find generally in favor of the petitioner and against the defendants. In determining supervisory status of certain employees, reference is made to Exhibit 14, an organizational chart of the various components of the unit.
Of those shown on Page 1 of such exhibit, we find all except M. Sido, Draftsman I, are supervisory or confidential employees and should be excluded. Of those employees shown on Page 2 of such exhibit, whose names do not appear on Page 1, those holding the positions of Store's Supervisor, Customer Accounts Supervisor, Accountant I and Meter Reader Supervisor, are determined to be supervisory and excluded from the unit and all others named on such Page 2, not otherwise excluded, are included. On Page 3 those employees designated Meter Repair Supervisor and Line Crew Chief are found to be supervisory and are excluded and all others named thereon are included. On Page 4 of the exhibit, the Water and Sewer Superintendent, Foreman I and Wastewater Plant Operator I (Schlagel) are found to be supervisors and are excluded from the unit and all others named thereon are included.
Page 5 of the exhibit deals with the gas department. While the exhibit indicates that W. Howsden has the title Foreman II, the evidence is that such employee is actually designated Foreman I. We find that each of the foremen named on such Page 5 and the Gas Serviceman are in reality working crew chiefs and do not exercise meaningful authority. Accordingly, of the positions shown on such Page 5, the position of Gas Supervisor is excluded and all others are included in the unit.
Page 6 of the exhibit refers to the power plant employees. Upon the evidence we find those positions designated Production Superintendent, Maintenance Mechanic III and Unit Operator III are supervisory and should be excluded from the unit and all others appearing on such Page 6 should be included.
Under an interim Order, an election has been held within the unit above found to be appropriate. Based upon the results of said election, an Order of Certification is issuing this date.
Entered August 4, 1976.
_______________________________