I. 1,

Item #ll

LOCAL GO\"E?~,~•IE~ff EMPLOYEE-~!AJ\lAGEHENT RELATIONS BOARD

li ! •

j· l;,

::

2 ,, ( :1 ..

:s:; · PLU~13ERS AXD PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 525, 7 35 =-:o. LAMB BLVD., . LAS VEGAS XEVADA; ex rel, I_TS ME~·l:3ERS AND ITS BARGAIXI~G UNIT; RI CHARD WELLER A:~D JOHX n·oEs 1 THROUGn 2 4 S ;

Complainant~

vs.

I.,AS. VEGAS L.!.LLEY ;•;ATER · DISTRICT,

Respondent

) !I )

-'(: ) [; )

5 ~ )

8~ ) N )

11; . ) )

, ) a·:: )) 1

9~ ) =~

101 )) ;: ------------------------"-

11 :: . It

II

12;i DECISION Thirty-one of- fifty-one field employee~ of the L~s Vegas · Valley

l'iater District· voted against representat~on · by the ·-oper~ting __ ._ -

E;1gineers, Local 501, in an election coni:lucted under the supervisi-on

of District Judge John ~Iendoza in· 1970; all ·of the field employees, - --

including twe~ty ...-ho voted for the union, _.were parties to . a_ pre- _- ·

election 2gree::e::1t to abide by-· th·e •results of that election. -

In February 1972, Water District field employees asked the

employer for recog~ition of a . craft- ·unit for the nineteen persons ··

.,,·ho primarily 1,.-orked 'lot"ith pipe installation, repai·r maintenance?- to be represented by the Plurabers and Pipefitters·, Local 52S. ·

· fa•idence sho.;ed all the field employees --to : have · a broad_

comaunity of interest which did not seem t~be in -question·when ~he

ore-election agree~ent was drawn in - the fall of: 1970. Al though the • r.u::tber of field employees had substantially · increase~ . in-: the interun,

'

~he sa~e ele~en~s of that broad coramuniiy -of interest prevail at· this

• ti.me. This is not to s2)'" the nineteen persons --seeking· to be a- new

unit ~ere not sho~n to have so~e recognizable-area : of · common interest

however, cvide:1ce shc•,:ed the nineteen to - have more · community of. --

interest--rneasured against valid criteria--with the bro~der category

[! 13 ·:

l-<r;;

15 ;~ I'

1 6 i,

17•. i;

1s~l ,, ;:

19 '.! ,, i:

20 ,: 2, ti

-:: i;

22~

23 '1-1

2 _~_;;

2 -~ ., ., It

2 ~ ~l ~ ·1

27 lj :1

2-~ o .. ,. ,,

r 29 :i

i: 30 ~

•l ~n !; i:

32 ~:r Ii I! ';J · 1 , - ,

- -· . . .

ITEM ill f: ll !l i: •' l~ of co-~orkers enco~passing all field employees . .

The complainant argued that the proposed new unit represented

l" a special, separate _craft. Her.ibers of the proposed unit were not·

clearl}· showa to have been _apprenticed and trained to industry

s-:andards in the usually accepted sense of one of the types of° crafts

re?resented by Local 525 in the private sector; neither were they·

shc;,11 to be working on the job with their apprentices or helpers, . .

cnaract_eristic of skilled journemen craftsmen in an expanding

. . 0Tgan1.zat1on .

.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. . Pursuant to NRS 2-88 . .170 (1) the Las Vegas Valley Water . .

District consulted. with the P.lumbers and Pipefitters Local: 5_ 25 prior

to :taking its de~emination as · to the app-;ropriat.e bargaining unit; ·

2. The Las V~gas Valley Water District's operation is a highly integra.-ted one, -..� i-:h . cor,,..11on -supervision and -·extensi v_e - intEfrdepen·dence

. • & • l . , a~cng_its ~ie a ecpkoyees; , :

3. There is considerable similarity a·s to the wages·; ho~rs~

and working conii tions of all _field employees;

4. There . is also considerable overlap in -the: training :.and

c.ut:ies of the field employees;

s. The distribution s.ervi-cernen ;· senior distribution servicemen

,rid. i.;orking foremen -are not a- distinct, -homogeneous group of jour_ney-

nen cr.a ... • tsraen_ t •. i. at would not b.e adequatel-y ·-rep1·esente d , i~ -t h e

negotiation unit . det:ernined by = t-he eJ)lployer.

CONCLUSIONS OF VA\'/

1. The La.s Ve.gas, Valley Water District- has ·conformed· to the require::1ea·ts of NRS 2as in determining an appropriate bargaining unit

for its field e!i!ployees;

2. The distribution servicemen, senior distribution servicemen

z~d working foremen employed by the District do not shar~ a sufficie~

z ;i !!

sh 1i! "ij

~1i a':

111 h

_ 8~

,, 9jj ..

10:; i! 11

ll ii u:t

12li.. It

1:5 '.i 1:

14 ,: ;! ji

15:!

l8l! ;Iii 17~

1sl! . I! l9lj

I, II

:::?O;I ,. 2lr

,I

.!22!

I

2:S ;ji.

-~-- !1 11 :1 ~5li II 28,j

ii 27il

II 2a:l

h29ii u

tj :so:1

'I

z1l1·I I,

321it h

' 11eN ill . ! . , !I

t1 d i 5t i :;. c : 11 co r. i:! u :1 i t y o f i n t c r e s t II t o w a r r an t t h e i r des i g n at i on a s a

scnar~~e, exclusi\·e negotiating unit;

,-

.) . The co~plaint of Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 525 is disz:d.ssed. .

Las Veias » Nevada Dec·ember 18 , 1972.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS BOARD·

-1:,,:1... ,.J"'i!-'Itf'S'l

11

ie!

71! ~

8'.: i

91 1()1! . 11!:

Ii 12j! lJj! 1~J

'I 15!1 · Ii .-

1s 1: - -

11!1 -·1sll

-1: 19

20 !

: 211 ..

-z.aI . ,

,, .. !, -.J II -

24,I 23

23

~1, 28i 291i 30'

3~1 •

32! . It I:

airman