NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks Company
| Decision Date | 17 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 27277 Summary Calendar.,27277 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 417 F.2d 1065 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. The BATON ROUGE WATERWORKS COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., John F. LeBus, Director, N.L.R.B., New Orleans, La., Arnold Ordman, Gen. Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elliott Moore, Nan C. Bases, Attys., N.L.R.B., for petitioner.
William A. Norfolk, Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, La., for respondent.
Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and THORNBERRY and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
The case is before this Court on the application of the National Labor Relations Board for enforcement of its order to bargain issued against the Baton Rouge Waterworks Company. The issue is simple: whether the Board properly held that the employees of the Parish Water Company, a newly organized, wholly owned subsidiary of Baton Rouge Waterworks, constituted an accretion to the unit of Baton Rouge's employees for which the Union was the certified bargaining representative. We hold the Board's action sustainable and enforce.1
In 1966 Baton Rouge Waterworks bought up several small rural water companies through the newly incorporated subsidiary, Parish Water Company. When the Union and Baton Rouge met to negotiate after the formation of Parish, the Union claimed to be the bargaining representative of Parish employees as well as of Baton Rouge employees. Following the Company's refusal to bargain with respect to the Parish employees, the Union filed a unit-clarification petition with the Board. The unit was clarified in favor of the Union, the Company again refused to bargain, the Board found § 8(a) (5) and (1) violations and ordered the Company to bargain, and now the Board seeks enforcement of that order.
In determining whether a new employee group is an accretion to an existing unit or rather should constitute a different unit, weight may be given to a variety of factors. In the instant case the two companies were engaged in identical operations in geographically contiguous areas.2 Parish employees possess the same skills and perform the same functions under the same job classifications as do their counterparts with Baton Rouge. They receive the same wages and fringe benefits, including hospitalization, vacations, and paid holidays. The President of Parish handles the labor relations of Baton Rouge as its Vice-President and Secretary. His Executive Assistant, whose services and salary are shared equally by Baton Rouge and Parish, does the hiring for Parish. Three of Parish's directors are also on the Board of Directors of Baton Rouge. When Parish initially began its operations, it hired eight employees below the supervisory level, five of these eight (two clerical employees and three laborers) were transferred from Baton Rouge. At the time of their transfer they were told that they were welcome to return to their old jobs with Baton Rouge if they were dissatisfied with Parish.
The NLRB points to these factors and states that
This is not the whole story, of course. The Company points to other factors, or the lack of them, to argue that the Parish employees should not be included in the same unit as the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific Southwest Airlines v. N.L.R.B.
...supervision and placement within the organization does bolster the Regional Director's view of the facts. See NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks Co., 417 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1969). This factor, however, is significant primarily as an indication of how closely the employees work. See, e. g., Kea......
-
Air Exp. Intern. Corp. v. N.L.R.B.
...1074-75 (5th Cir. 1981); NLRB v. Foodway, 496 F.2d 117, 119 (5th Cir. 1974) (arbitrary and capricious standard); NLRB v. Baton Rouge Water Works, 417 F.2d 1065 (5th Cir. 1969) With these principles in mind, we examine the facts to determine whether the College Park unit is a continuation of......
-
N.L.R.B. v. R.L. Sweet Lumber Co., 74-1065
...set aside unless a reviewing court is convinced that the Board has acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks Co., 417 F.2d 1065, 1067 (5th Cir.); International Union, UAW v. NLRB, 231 F.2d 237, 243 (7th The factors weighed by the Board include functional in......
-
N.L.R.B. v. DMR Corp.
...Co., 515 F.2d 785, 794 (10th Cir.), cert. den., 423 U.S. 986, 96 S.Ct. 393, 46 L.Ed.2d 302 (1975); accord NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks Co., 417 F.2d 1065, 1067 (5th Cir.1969). Clinic v. NLRB, 474 F.2d 206, 209 (5th This heightened concern for the interests of the employees to be accreted ......