Opposition — Arizona Public Service Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

83 - 743 rv eER Eee

Case No.

ALEXAN ODE ts STEVAS,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1983

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE

COMPANY, Petitioner

Vv.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

and

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL

WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 387

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC?RICAL

WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 387

IN OPPOSITION

A. D. Ward

WARD & KEENAN, LTD.

141 East Palm Lane, Suite 200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

(602) 252-5606

Attorneys for Local 387

Case No.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1983

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE

COMPANY, Petitioner

Vv.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

and

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL

WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 387

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL

WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 387

IN OPPOSITION

A. D. Ward

WARD & KEENAN, LTD.

141 East Palm Lane, Suite 200

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

(602) 252-5606

Attorneys for Local 387

QUESTION PRESENTED

Did the National Labor Relations Board

abuse its discretion in finding the produc-

tion and maintenance employees at the

Arizona Public Service's newly constructed

Palo Verde Power Plant to constitute an

accretion to the existing system-wide

Bargaining unit of production and mainten-

ance employees represented by International

Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,

Local 387?

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . ... +c. > ii

i 12°» & ee 6 ©« e ue © © 14. @:%4 1

is MMGR@TOUNRG . e se ewe ee 1

2. The representation

proceegdang - + +++ ee es 3

3. The unfair labor practice

proceeding . « « « «ee * 4

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....++ «+ « « 6

(tat > ~~ 6 606 @.6 « »« © © ¢ 6 6

1. Standard of review ... =. 6

2. Applicable principles... 7

3. The Board properly

exercised its discretion

in finding the Palo Verde

employees to be an

SEGEOCIONR is 2 0 0 6 8 6% 16

th: a ie tet, ie &; 00 0 @ © «oe. m 26

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ....+« « » 27

-i-

we

“an

aoe

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES: . Page

Armour & Co., 172 NLRB 1649

NE a Ree ge ng Saat 8

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.,

206 NLRB 199, 201 (1973)... p Oe

Colorado Interstate Gas Co.,

NLRB 847, 848 ( ) wo Lp .e

Comax Telcom Corp., 219

NLRB 668 CLS 75) Ne Chl ta Oe ae ae 14

Duke University Hospital,

22/7 NLRB a, S97} Be gg hg 14

Goodyear Tire & Rubber company:

i3¢ NLRB 707 (1972)... > 8

Gould National Batteries, Inc.,

15? NURB 679, 661 (19660)... 13

Indiana Telephone Co., Inc.,

229 NLRB ces EL yg 9 Sepa 12

Lammert Industries v. NLRB,

. 223, 1225 (7th 6, 7

to cere a eats: 9 6 we 0 8 26

Massey Ferguson, Inc., 202

NLRB 193 CST 5} il See. ey 8

Melbet Jewelry Co., 180 NLRB

107 (1969) 10, 12

CASES (Cont'd):

Michigan Wisconsin Pipe

Line Co., 194 NLRB 469

(ANTE) «| -«

Mt. Sinai Hospital, 233 NLRB

a

NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks

Co., 417 F.2d 1065 (

Cir., 1969) .

NLRB v. Food Employers Council,

Inc., 399 F.2d 501, 502

(Sth Cir., 1968)

NLRB v. Retail Clerks Local

’ F.2d 984,

Cir., 1978)

NLRB v. Security-Columbian Bank

987 (9th

Note Co., 541 F.2d 135,

(3d Cir., 1976)

NLRB v. Sunset House, 415 F.2d

“348 (9th Cir.,

tye eters

NLRB v. R. L. Sweet Lumber Co.,

F. ,

Gias., 1975) .

Parkview a Inc., 138 NLRB

, . . . 7 . . .

145 NLRB

eae Inc.,

Oe ee Inc., 203 NLRB 818

il

14

10

25-26

14

13

ee

CASES (Cont'd): Page

| Remington Rand Division, 190

| Mee LAPteS & *% ¢ © «© 8 © e 14

Sheraton-Kauai Corp. v. NLRB,

429 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th

eae re) «6 ie. 0 « ¢ © #0, 0 ty OO

The Bendix Corporation, 168

a

Mime Sik, 3/4 (1967) « © «@ © » 13

The Great A & P Tea Co., 140

NLRB 1011 (1963) i Ae oe De ae 8

Universal Security Instruments,

Inc. v. NLRB, 649 F.2d

247 (4th Cir., 1981) [cert. Pee

See See ues 965) «st te ee 26

Westinghouse Electric Corp.

v. NLRB, 440 F.2d 7, ll

ys ARS > & ) a eee ee 10

BRIEF FOR THE

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL

WORKERS, AFL-C10, LOCAL 387

IN OPPOSITION

STATEMENT

1. Background.

Arizona Public Service (hereinafter

"APS") is a public utility which supplies

electric power throughout Arizona. (R. 7.)

Its headquarters are located in Phoenix.

(R. G5.) APS operates six fossil fuel and

one small hydro-electrical generating

plants at separate locations in Arizona and

New Mexico. (R. 68, 352.) The power

generated by each of these plants feeds

into one distribution system and is

dispatched to customers by dispatchers

located in Phoenix. (R. 351.)

Since as early as 1947, APS has recog-

nized the International Brotherhood of

Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387

b |

a

a]

*

ate ?

(hereafter "the Union"), as the collective

bargaining representative of the production

and maintenance employees employed by APS

throughout its system. (R. 442.) Since

the initial recognition, production and

maintenance employees at newly acquired or

constructed facilities have uniformly been

incorporated into the existing system-wide

1/

bargaining unit. (R. 447-448. Contrary

to APS (Brief 5), none of such employees

were added to the bargaining unit through

Board certifications. (R. 457-459.)

i/ As the Board noted (Pet. App. 43), the parties

disagreed about the circumstances surrounding

the extending of recognition to the Union as

representative of employees at facilities as

they were added to the utility system over the

years. Thus, while APS asserts that it extended

recognition only upon some showing of the Union's

majority status at each new facility, the Union's

evidence showed that the Union had not demon-

strated its mejority status and that the Union

had simply bargained about new plants prior to

their opening. (R. 448, 467-469.) The Union's

evidence (R. 457-459) further showed that it

Beene ior shections only when it sought to

represent previously existing but unrepresented

job classifications et existing plants.

2

In 1972, APS began construction of a

nuclear power plant at Palo Verde, Arizona,

55 miles from Phoenix. (R. 27-29.) At the

time of the hearing in this matter, the

plant had not been put into operation but

there had been employed approximately 62

employees in production and maintenance

Classifications. Twelve to 13 of these

employees had been previously employed at

one of the other APS power plants. (R. 38,

62.)

2. The representation proceeding.

In December, 1980, after having failed

to agree that the production and maintenance

employees at the Palo Verde Plant should be

deemed accreted into the single system-wide

bargaining unit, both APS and the Union

filed Petitions with the NLRB on December 15,

1980. APS filed an RM Petition seeking an

election. The Unicn filed a UC Petition

= 3«

seeking an order clarifying the collective

bargaining unit as including the production

and maintenance employees at the Palo Verde

Plant. (R. 496; Pet. App. 89, 94.)

Following the hearing and a transfer

of the case to the Board, the Board, on

June 5, 1981, issued its decision finding

that the 62 Palo Verde production and main-

tenance employees constituted an accretion

to the 1,200 employee system-wide production

and maintenance unit represented by the

Union. (Pet. App. 29.)

After the Board's decision, a number

of the Palo Verde employees filed an

obviously untimely petition. It was

dismissed. (Pet. App. 90-93.)

3. The unfair labor practice proceed-

ing.

Beginning in June, 1981, the Union

requested that APS deal with it as the

exclusive representative of the Palo Verde

ay va

employees. APS refused; the Union filed an

unfair labor practice charge; and on Septem-

ber 1, 1981, a complaint issued charging

the Company with a refusal to bargain. APS

answered, admitting its refusal, but

defended on the grounds that the Board had

erred in determining that the Palo Verde

employees constituted an accretion to the

existing bargaining unit. The Board on

December 3, 1981, issued its Decision and

Order granting the Board's General Counsel's

Motion for Summary Judgment, finding APS to

have refused to bargain in violation of the

Act. (Pet. App. 47-67.)

Upon review by the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, that Court reviewed the several

factual conclusions upon which the Board's

Decision was based and concluded that the

Board's legal conclusion that the accretion

determination was proper. (Pet. App. 2l-

27.)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

To the NLRB and to the circuit courts,

the concept of accretion has long been

accepted as a viable doctrine available to

the NLRB in resolving bargaining unit

issues. Its application in this case was

neither novel nor precedent-setting; nor

was it without factual support.

ARGUMENT

l. Standard of review.

The Board's function in determining

whether there has been an accretion in a

given situation "is similar to its function

of determining the appropriateness of

particular units for bargaining pur-

poses. .. . The determination is one

involving the Board's discretion and should

not be set aside unless a reviewing court

is convinced that the Board has acted in an

arbitrary and capricious manner." Lammert

»

Industries v. NLRB, 578 F.2d 1223, 1225

(7th Cir., 1978), quoting NLRB v. R. L.

Sweet Lumber Co., 515 F.2d 785, 794 (10th

Cir., 1975). See also Sheraton-Kauai Corp.

v. NLRB, 429 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.,

1970); NLRB v. Sunset House, 415 F.2d 545,

547-548 (9th Cir., 1969); Universal Security

Instruments, Inc. v. NLRB, 649 F.2d 247

(4th Cir., 1981) [cert. den. 454 U.S. 965);

and NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks Co., 417

F.2d 1065 (5th Cir., 1969).

2. Applicable principles.

An accretion is simply the addition of

employees to an already existing unit where

there exists such a community of interest

that the accreted employees are properly

governed by the larger group's choice of

bargaining representative. NLRB v. Food

Employers Council, Inc., 399 F.2d 501, 502

(9th Cir., 1968); Lammert Industries v.

NLRB, supra. The accretion issue typically

a Fa

arises in the context of the opening of a

new facility [Goodyear Tire & Rubber Com-

pany, 195 NLRB 767 (1972), enf. 474 F.2d

1336 (2d Cir., 1973); Armour & Co., 172 NLRB

1649 (1968) ], the subdivision of a facility

[Parkview Drugs, Inc., 138 NLRB 194, 195

(1962)], or some other operational change

that creates a new group of employees

[Massey Ferguson, Inc., 202 NLRB 193 (1973);

The Great A & P Tea Co., 140 NLRB 1011

(1963)].

The Board, in determining whether a new

group of employees is accreted into an

existing bargaining unit, must balance the

right of employees to select a bargaining

agent against the concomitant statutory

policy of maintaining stability of estab-

lished bargaining relationships. The Great

A & P Tea Co., supra. In striking this

balance, the Board examines a variety of

factors including integration of operations;

-8-

centralization of managerial and administra-

tive control; similarity of working condi-

tions, functions, job classifications, and

skills; centralization of control over labor

relations; bargaining history; interchange-

ability of employees; and geographic

proximity. Universal Security Instruments,

Inc.»v. NLRB, supra; NLRB v. Sunset House,

supra; NLRB v. Baton Rouge Waterworks Co.,

supra. It is not necessary that all of the

listed factors be present. Rather, it is

for the Board to determine "the factors

relevant to the accretion issue in the case

under consideration . .. [and] then decide

the relative weight to be attributed to each

factor." Universal Security Instruments,

Inc. v. NLRB, supra. Where the relevant

factors demonstrate that the new employees

have a community of interest sufficiently

distinct from the existing unit to consti-

tute a separate appropriate unit, the Board

= 9=

will not find an accretion. Melbet Jewelry

Co., 180 NLRB 107 (1969), cited with approval

Sheraton-Kauai Corp. v. NLRB, supra. How-

ever, where the new employees have no

separate unit identity and inclusion would

result in a more efficient collective bar-

gaining relationship, the Board appropri-

ately determines that the new employees do

constitute an accretion to an existing unit.

See Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. NLRB, 440

F.2d 7, 11 (2d Cir., 1971); NLRB v. Retail

Clerks Local 588, 587 F.2d 984, 987 (9th

Cir., 1978).

In making unit determinations in the

utility industry, the Board has placed

particular emphasis on the factors of

operational integration and centralized

administration. Recognizing that the

utility industry is characterized by a high

degree of operational integration, the

Board generally is reluctant to find

=10-

appropriate units that are less than systen-

wide in scope. See Baltimore Gas &

Electric Co., 206 NLRB 199, 201 (1973)

(unit limited to employees at employer's

eight fossil fuel plants inappropriate);

Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 202 NLRB 847,

848 (1973); Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line

Co., 194 NLRB 469 (1971) (one district not

appropriate; employer was highly integrated

and regulated flow of gas from headquarters).

The Board's reluctance to fragmentize

a utility's operations is based upon "the

economic reality that the public utility

industry is characterized by a high degree

of interdependence of its various segments

and that the public has an immediate and

direct interest in the uninterrupted main-

tenance of the essential services that this

industry alone can adequately provide.”

Baltimore Gas & Electric Co., supra.

Indeed, the Board finds less than stystem-

-li-

wide units to be appropriate only where

employees work in separate administrative

subdivisions or service distinct geographic

areas, have separate communities of inter-

est, and have no system-wide bargaining

history. See Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.,

supra; Colorado Interstate Gas Co.,

supra. See also indiana Telephone Co.,

Inc., 229 NLRB 187 (1977).

To round off this statement of appli-

cable principles, it is pertinent to note

specifically the two lines of cases where

the accretion doctrine will not apply.

First, there are those cases, as noted

above, involving the addition of new

employees who have a community of interest

sufficiently distinct from the existing unit

to constitute in itself a separate bargain-

| ing unit. Melbet Jewelry Co., supra.

The second type situation exists (1)

when a group sought to be accreted has

-12-

existed since the bargaining unit's forma-

tion but has been excluded from the unit by

the parties, (2) when a group has come into

existence after a union's recognition but

has been knowingly excluded from the unit

for a substantial period of time, or (3)

when there is some other evidence that the

parties intended to exclude the particular

group of employees. In such circumstances,

the bargaining history demonstrates that the

exclusion has not resulted in an unstable

bargaining relationship and that the

parties themselves have recognized that

exclusion does not interfere with the

bargaining relationship. Thus there is no

countervailing policy to warrant limiting

employee free choice. See The Bendix

Corporation, 168 NLRB 371, 372 (1967);

Gould National Batteries, Inc., 157 NLRB

679, 681 (1966); and Plough, Inc., 203 NLRB

81& (1973).

=

Phototype, Inc., 145 NLRB 1268 (1964)

and Remington Rand Division, 190 NLRB 844

(1971), upon which APS relies (Brief 12),

are both cases in which there was a bargain-

ing history demonstrating the exclusion of,

Or intent to exclude, the employees sought

to be accreted. In Phototype, the Board

emphasized the fact that the unrepresented

employees had been working for the employer

for seven years and that the employees had

been excluded from the bargaininc unit for

that period of time. Similarly, in Reming-

ton Rand Division, the decisive factor in

the Board's refusal to find an accretion

was the bargaining history of long-term

exclusion of certain job classifications

from the existing unit.

Duke University Hospital, 227 NLRB

1627 (1977); Mt. Sinai Hospital, 233 NLRB

507 (1977); and Comax Telcom Corp., 219

NLRB 688 (1975), all relied upon by the

-14-

Petitioner APS, involved factual situations

involving the type situation where the

unrepresented employees had worked outside

the established bargaining unit for a

number of years before the issue of their

representational status was presented.

Hence the doctrine of accretion was not

sep libeble. For the same reason, the

Petitions filed by the Union relative to

meter readers at APS, warehousemen at APS,

fuel specialists at APS, cathodic protec-

tion testers at APS, auto parts clerks at

APS, and credit department employees at

APS (Pet. Brief 5-6; Pet. App. 81-88)

specifically sought elections rather than

unit clarifications as in the instant

case. All of such Petitions involved

employee groups who had long been know-

ingly excluded from the productioi. and

maintenance unit. They were not new

employees being added to existing

-15-

Classifications covered by the agreement.

"They were long-time employees" who had

not been covered by the collective bar-

gaining agreement. (R. 495, 11. 6-9; R.

493-496.)

3. The Board properly exercised its

discretion in finding the Palo Verde

employees to be an accretion.

A number of factors--the Company's

centralized and integrated operation, its

centralized control of labor relations,

the similarity of employee terms and

conditions of employment and job func-

tions, employee transfers and the system-

wide bargaining history--weigh heavily

in favor of the Board's accretion finding.

Of equal importance, the record shows--

and the Company admits--that the Palo

Verde employees do not constitute a

separate appropriate unit for purposes

of collective bargaining.

-16-

As the Board found (Pet. App. 32),

the Palo Verde Plant neither constitutes

@ separate administrative subdivision nor

serves a distinct geographic area, but

rather is part of a highly integrated and

centralized operation. Thus, as shown in

the Statement, all electricity produced--

regardless of the generating process--

feeds into one system and is provided to

Customers by dispatchers located in a

central office in Phoenix. The integra-

tion of operations is reflected, as the

Board observed (Pet. App. 32), in the

Company's centralized administration of

the operation of the power plants. The

generation, transmission and distribution

of electric power is controlled and

monitored by the corporate vice president

of electrical operations and his support-

ing staff. This corporate official, to

, whom all the plant managers ultimately

Sy

report, is responsible for overseeing all

of the Company's generating facilities.

(R. 45, 574-575.)

The record also demonstrates that

Significant aspects of the Company's labor

policies are centrally determined and

that the Company does not treat the Palo

Verde Plant differently from its other

facilities for labor relations purposes.

The benefits granted to Palo Verde employ-

ees are determined at the Company's head-

quarters, and all of the Company's

unrepresented employees, wherever

located, receive the same benefits.

(R. 274.) Job openings at any facility

are posted at all Company offices. Plant

policies applicable to Palo Verde employ-

ees with respect to salary administration,

grievances, and job bidding have been

established at the corporate level and

-18-

apply to all of the Company's unrepre-

sented employees. (R. 131-132, 144-145,

54.) These policies, along with addi-

tional Company rules and policies, are

contained in an employee handbook which

is distributed to all employees. (R.

440-441, 491.) The record also shows

that headquarters officials are involved

in the implementation of labor relations

policies in the individual plants. For

example, while grievances may be resolved

at the plant level, the Company provides

for an appeal to the corporate level for

final decision. In addition, with

respect to job vacancies, only a desig-

nated corporate official can approve a

decision not to post a job.

As the Board also found (Pet. App.

34-35), the Palo Verde employees and the

bargaining unit employees share similar

-19-

terms and conditions of employment. The

Palo Verde employees have the same vaca-

tion, holiday, pension, dental, and

medical benefits as those contained in

the collective bargaining agreement. (R.

114-115.) 2/ Furthermore the salaries of

2/ The record shows some differences'in benefits

Such as sick leave, overtime, and participa-

tion in short term disability and savings plans

between bargaining unit employees and all unrep-

resented employees. These different benefits

are not, however, unique to Palo Verde employees

and thus do not demonstrate that the Palo Verde

facility has a separate identity from other

Company facilities.

APS (Pet. Brief 15) points to two benefits

assertedly unique to Palo Verde employees.

These are the Company's provision of tools

for work at Palo Verde and the Company's

transportation of Palo Verde employees to

work. With respect to providing tools, the

record shows that the Company provides many

tools to employees at the fossil fuel plants.

(R. 340, 434, 490.) The additional benefit

of transportation--provided because Palo Verde

is located in the desert and a substantial

distance from residential communities (R. 120-

121)--plainly does not undermine the strong

shared interests r@Sulting from the common-

ality of most major benefits.

ae

-20-

ww

Palo Verde employees are identical or

comparable to the salaries earned by

bargaining unit employees in the same or

analogous classifications. (E. Ex. 17,

R. 164, 171; Jt. Ex. la, R. 11, 14.)

Further supporting the Palo Verde

accretion is the fact that, as the Board

found (Pet. App. 36), the Palo Verde

employees and bargaining unit employees

perform similar functions under the same

Or comparable job classifications. fThus,

virtually all of the production and main-

tenance classifications at Palo Verde

are included in the collective bargaining

agreement. (R. 474, 484-489; Jt. Ex. la,

pp. 48-57, R. 11, 14; E. Ex. 5, R. 30,

32.) Palo Verde employees classified as

janitors, storekeepers and warehousemen

perform the same duties as similarly

Classified bargaining unit employees.

(R. 85, 98.) The duties of the Palo

=21=

Verde electricians are the same as the

Company's other electricians. (R. 86.)

Palo Verde employees classified as instru-

ment and control (I & C) repairmen and

technicians perform the same functions of

calibrating, repairing and installing

instruments that I & C repairmen perform

at the Company's other plants. (R. 851,

419-420.)

At both Palo Verde and the fossil

fuel plants, the operator functions are

divided between operators who sit in the

control room at control panels and those

who travel throughout the plant checking

equipment. (R. 356-358, 481-482.) The

stationary operators--classified as

control operators in the fossil fuel

plants and nuclear operators level III

at Palo Verde--are responsible for moni-

toring the condition of the plant and

adjusting switches and knobs on the

-22@

control panels in response to information

about the condition of the plant con-

veyed by the instruments in the control

room. (R. 358-359, 371, 479.) The

mobile operators--classified as auxiliary

or assistant operators at the fossil

fuel facilities and as nuclear operators

level II at Palo Verde--inspect the

equipment throughout the plant. (R.

481, 356-357.) Nuclear operator level I

is an operator trainee position and thus

is similar to the operator trainee

Classification at the fossil fuel

plants. (R. 356, Jt. Ex. la, p. 53,

R. ll, 14.)

' The basic similarity of Palo Verde

and bargaining unit job functions is

demonstrated by the fact that 20 percent

of the 62 production and maintenance

employees at Palo Verde at the time of

the hearing transferred from the

-23-

Company's other facilities using the

“Company's job bidding procedure (R.

62-63), and these transferees are, as a

company witness stated (R. 342), well

trained. The transferees include one

employee who transferred from an operator

position at the Company's Four Corners

Plant to a nuclear operator level III

position at Palo Verde, as well as

employees who transferred to electrician

and I & C positions. (R. 380-381, 415-

416, 432, 572, E. Ex. 17, R. 164.)

Finally, the Board reasonably found

the bargaining history here to militate

in favor of accretion. Thus, the record

shows that, since the Company's initial

recognition of the Union around 1947,

bargaining has always been on a system

wide basis. Furthermore, production and

maintenance employees at newly acquired

-24-

Or constructed facilities have uniformly

been incorporated into the unit. (R.

447.)

In sum, measured against established

accretion standards and the bargaining

unit policies applicable to the utility

industry, the record evidence of inte-

grated and centralized operations,

centralized labor policies, similar

working conditions and job functions,

employee transfers, and system-wide

bargaining history amply demonstrate

both that the Palo Verde employees do

not constitute an appropriate unit for

collective bargaining and that "such a

community of interest exists among the

entire group that the additional

employees have no separate unit iden-

tity" and "thus... are properly

governed by the larger group's choice

of bargaining representative.” NLRB v.

-25-

<

*

‘.

Security-Columbian Bank Note Co., 541

F.2d 135, 140 (3d Cir., 1976). Accord:

Lammert Industries v. NLRB, supra;

Universal Security Instruments, Inc. v.

NLRB, supra; NLRB v. Baton Rouge Water-

works Co., supra.

Accordingly, the Board acted well

within its discretion by accreting the

Palo Verde employees into the existing

system-wide unit.

CONCLUSION

This Court should not grant the

instant Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Respectfully submitted this llth day

of November, 1983.

Phoenix, AZ. 85004

Attorneys for

Local 387

-26- a

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, A. D. Ward, counsel of record

for International Brotherhood of Elecri-

cal Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387, and a

member of the Bar of the Supreme Court

of the United States, hereby certify that

(A

on the Mth day of November, 1983, I

served one copy of the Brief for the

International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 387 in Opposition

by depositing in a mailbox, with first-

class postage prepaid, and properly

addressed to the following:

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

John C. Truesdale, Esq.

Executive Secretary

National Labor Relations Board

1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20570

Frederick K. Steiner, Jr., Esq.

SNELL & WILMER

3100 Valley Bank Center

Phoenix, Arizona 85073

Attorneys for Petitioner

~2?Jo

-2§-

Ken

aiy