Florida Telephone Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1429 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL and JUNIOR :I NAuE-
MENT BOARD
Case No. 10-CA-662.Decided March 27, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On December 8, 1949, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter.,
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the, Respondent and
the Union, respectively, filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report,
together with supporting briefs. The Respondent's request-for oral
argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs, in our opinion,
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and supporting briefs, and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the following addi-
tions and modifications :
1. The Trial Examiner found that the Respondent has dominated
and interfered with the formation and administration of the Junior
Management Board, herein called the Junior Board, and has con-
tributed financial and other support to it, in violation of Section 8'
(a) (2) of the Act "from July 1941, and at all times thereafter, par-
ticularly from September 28, 1948." The latter date does not precede
by more than 6 months the date the charge in this proceeding was,
served upon' the Respondent, in accordance with'the requirements of'
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated Its:
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston Reynolds,
and Murdock].
88 NLRB No. 251.
1429
1430 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 10 (b) of the Act .2 Although the record discloses that the
Junior Board was dominated and supported by the Respondent since
July 1941, the evidence antedating September 28, 1948, was introduced
by the General Counsel, and properly admitted by the Trial Examiner,
expressly for purposes of background and to show a continuing policy
on the part of the Respondent.' It was made clear in the record,
however, that the General Counsel was not relying upon such evidence
to establish any violation of the Act prior to September 28, 1948.
Under these circumstances, we do not adopt the Trial Examiner's con-
-elusion insofar as he finds that the Respondent violated Section 8 (a)
^2) of the Act during the period from July 1941 to September 28,
1948.
2. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent violated
Section 8 (a) (2) 4 on and after September 28,1948. The Respondent
admits, and the record shows, that it'has, since that date, dominated
and supported, financially and otherwise, the administration of the
Junior Board. The Respondent disputes, however, the finding that
the Junior Board is a "labor organization" within the meaning of the
Act.
Section 2 (5) provides:
The term "labor organization" means any organization of any
kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan
in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose,
in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning griev-
ances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
conditions of work. [Emphasis added.]
Clearly, the employees "participate" in the functions of Junior
Board, inter alia, by electing its membership, which is representative
of the various districts and exchanges of the Respondent. In its actual
operations, and as prescribed in its constitution and bylaws,5 the Junior
Board discusses and screens for presentation to the Joint Management
Board, a body indisputably controlled by management, such appro-
priate subjects of collective bargaining as grievances, wages, and con-
ditions of employment. In addition, as described in the Intermediate
2 Section 10 (b) provides , in part:
That no complaint shall issue based upon any unfair labor practice occurring more
than six months prior to the filing of the charge with the Board and the service of a
copy thereof unless the person aggrieved thereby was prevented from filing such
charge by reason of service in the armed forces , in which event the six-month period
shall be computed from the day of his discharge.
2 Axe1son Manufacturing Co., 88 NLRB 761.
4 Derivatively, this is also in violation of Section 8 (a) (1), as alleged in the complaint.
5 Contrary to the Respondent's contention , we find, like the Trial Examiner , that the
Junior Board, having its own constitution and bylaws , has existed and functioned as a
distinct entity.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1431
Report, the Junior Board has been held out to the employees as a con-
duit for employee concerted action in labor relations matters and as a
'substitute for a bona fide collective bargaining representative 6 In
such circumstances, it appears quite obvious that the Junior Board
exists for the purpose, at least in part, "of dealing with" the Respond-
ent, within the meaning of Section 2 (5), and that the Trial Examiner
therefore properly found it to be a "labor organization." T
3. The Trial Examiner made no findings with respect to certain
allegations in the complaint involving incidents and conversations be-
tween "service assistants" and their superiors, on the ground that serv-
ice assistants were shown in the record to be supervisors. The Union
excepted to this ruling of the Trial Examiner, contending that there is
no justification for finding that all service assistants are supervisors.
The issue was fully litigated at the hearing. The Union offered no
evidence to refute testimony which conclusively establishes the super-
visory authority under the Act of service assistants as a class. Thus,
it follows that the particular service assistants in question, on the
record made in this case, were supervisors and, as such, outside the
protection of the Act.
The Remedy
We have found that the Respondent has unlawfully dominated and
supported the Junior Board as a labor organization, in violation of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) of the.Act, and that, in addition, it has
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees independently in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. We shall order the Re-
spondent to cease and desist from engaging in such conduct, and under
the circumstances here present, deem it necessary to order the Respond-
ent to disestablish the Junior Board.8 The Respondent's unlawful
conduct, in our opinion, discloses a fixed purpose to defeat self-organ=
zation and its objectives. We are convinced that the unfair labor
practices found are persuasively related to the other unfair labor
practices proscribed by the Act and that a danger of their commission
in the future is to be anticipated from the course of the Respondent's
conduct in the past. In order, therefore, to make effective the inter-
d Although the Trial Examiner at one point stated that the Junior Board "masqueraded"
as a labor organization ever since its formation , it is clear , as he found , that it actually is
a "labor organization."
7 See, in addition to cases cited in the Intermediate Report, footnote 8, e. g., N. L. R. B. v.
Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 305 U. S. 261; Raybestos -Manhattan, Inc., 80 NLRB 1208;
Wrought Iron Range Company, 77 NLRB 487; The Tappan Stove Company, 66 NLRB 759.
The Respondent argues that its management scheme is patterned after "the multiple
management plan" ( as expounded by Charles T. McCormick in his book entitled "Multiple
Management") and that numerous companies in the United States and Canada have adopted
this plan . Whether or not such is the case, under the facts herein, we find it unnecessary,
and do not undertake , to pass upon the legality of the McCormick plan, as such.
9 The Carpenter Steel Company, 76 NLRB 670.
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dependent guarantees of Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair
labor practices, and to minimize strife which burdens and obstructs
commerce, and thus to effectuate the policies of the Act, we will order
that the Respondent cease and desist from infringing in any manner
upon the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Florida Telephone Cor-
poration, Ocala, Florida, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or con-
tributing financial or other support to, the Junior Management Board,
or dominating or interfering with the formation or administration of,
or contributing financial or other support to, any other labor organiza-
tion of its employees;
(b) Recognizing, or in any other manner dealing with, the Junior
Management Board, or any successor thereto, as the collective bargain-
ing representative of any of its employees;
(c) Interrogating its employees in any manner concerning their
union affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or threatening them with
reprisal because of their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to
join or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or pro-
tection, and to refrain from all such activities, except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment, as author-
ized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from, and completely disestablish,
the Junior Management Board, or any successor thereto, as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of
employment ;
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1433
(b) Post at its exchange plants in Florida, copies of the notices
.attached hereto marked Appendix A.9 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the Respondent's representative, be posted by
the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained by
it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places,
including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure that said.
-notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other Inaterial;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing
within ten (10) days from the receipt of this Order what steps the
- Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
-Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE i-EREBY DISESTABLISH THE JUNIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD as
the representative of any of our employees for the purpose of
dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employ-
ment, and we will not recognize it, or any successor thereto, for
any of the above purposes.
WE, WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or ad-
ministration of any labor organization or contribute financial or
other support to it.
WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees in any manner con-
cerning their union affiliation, activities, or sympathies, or
threaten them with reprisal because of their union affiliation,
:activities, or sympathies.
VVE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce
our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization,
Ito form labor organizations, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, or any other labor
-organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing and to engage in any other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities, except
9In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Court of Appeals , there shall be
inserted in the notice , before the words "DECISION AND ORDER," the words "DECREI7
OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING."
0
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement
requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, or any other
labor organization.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION,
Employer.
By -------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated---------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker , for the General Counsel.
Mr. Willard Ayres, of Ocala, Fla., for the Respondent.
Mr. L. L . Dick and Mrs. Ethel B. White, of Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel of the
National Labor Relations Board , respectively called herein the General Counsel
and the Board , by the Regional Director of the Tenth Region ( Atlanta, Georgia)
issued a complaint dated July 22, 1949, against Florida Telephone Corporation,
herein called the Respondent , alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
and (2 ) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, 61 Stat. 136, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint , amended
charge and notice of hearing were duly served upon the Respondent, the
Union and Junior Management Board, herein called the Junior Board.
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleges in substance
that the Respondent ( 1) by certain specified acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section
7 of the Act; and ( 2) from about July 1941, and at all times thereafter, par-
ticularly from September 28, 1948, dominated and interfered with the formation
and administration of the Junior Board , and contributed financial and other
support to it.
The Respondent filed an answer in which it admitted the jurisdictional
allegations of the complaint , but denied the commission of any unfair labor
practices.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held at Ocala, Florida, from August 16 to
24, 1949, inclusive, before the undersigned Trial Examiner . The General Counsel
and the Respondent were represented by counsel , and the Union by its repre-
sentatives . The Junior Board, as a separate organization , did not enter an
appearance or otherwise participate in the hearing . Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties . At the start of the hearing, the
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1435
General Counsel moved to amend the complaint by alleging as an act of inter-
ference that the Respondent prohibited discussion of the Union on its property.
The motion was granted without objection. At the close of the General Counsel's
case, the Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of proof this allegation of the
complaint. Ruling was reserved on the motion. The motion is hereby denied.
The General Counsel and the Respondent argued orally before the under-
signed at the close of the hearing. All parties were afforded an opportunity to
file briefs or proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or both. The
Respondent has filed a brief with the Trial Examiner.
Both from the entire record in the case and from his observation of the wit-
nesses, the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a Florida corporation with its principal office and place of
business located at Ocala, Florida. It operates 28 local exchanges in North
Central Florida, with approximately 15,000 telephone stations.
In the course and conduct of its business operations and at all times material
herein, the Respondent handles long distance telephone calls which are trans-
mitted over the lines of American Telephone and Telegraph Company and
affiliated companies. During the calendar year of 1948, the Respondent com-
pleted 1,289,087 long distance calls, of which approximately 30 percent was in
interstate commerce. During the same period, the Respondent purchased ma-
terial, supplies, and equipment valued in excess of $100,000, of which value
approximately 80 percent originated from points outside the State of Florida.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, is a labor organiza-
tion which admits to membership employees of the Respondent.
As will be hereinafter more fully discussed and found, Junior Management
Board is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Junior Board
In July 1941, the Respondent's Board of Directors adopted and put into effect
a "plan of multiple management." The plan consisted of a Senior Management
Board, herein called the Senior Board, and the Junior Board. At the inception
of the plan, the Board of Directors appointed six officers and operating officials
of the Respondent to the Senior Board and eight employees to the Junior Board.'
The two Boards meet separately for the purpose of deciding what matters should
be brought before the Joint Management Board, herein called the Joint Board.
The Joint Board, a merger of the Junior and Senior Boards, meets monthly, and
by a majority vote of the members determines all management policies of the
Respondent. However, any action of the Joint Board is subject to the approval
of the Board of Directors.'
1 As of the time of the hearing, there were only four members .on the Senior Board
and the Junior Board had been increased to nine.
2 The undisputed evidence shows that from the inception of the plan to the date of
the hearing, the Board of Directors has never exercised its veto power. The chairman
of the Board of Directors attends meetings of the Joint Board, but does not vote.
1436 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Members of the Junior Board represent departments of the Respondent.
The Junior Board meets annually for the purpose of selecting five members wha
will retain office for the ensuing year . The five remaining members then select
or nominate two candidates for each vacancy. An election is conducted among
the employees in the department for which a vacancy exists. The Respondent
pays all costs of such elections , including the printing and mailing of ballots.
At all times mentioned herein, better than a majority of the members of the
Junior Board were supervisory employees . Members of the Junior Board and
employee visitors are paid their regular wages or salaries and receive free
meals when they attend meetings ? The Respondent also pays for their trans-
portation to and from the meetings. The visitors are invited to the meetings
by the Junior Board.
At its meetings , the Junior Board considers complaints of employees, and
decides whether or not they should be brought to the attention of the Joint
Board. Under the Respondent ' s grievance procedure , if employees are unable to,
obtain satisfactory settlement of their complaints through their supervisors, they
are entitled to present them to the member of the Junior Board representing
their department. It is then the duty of the Junior Board member to whom such
a complaint has been made to bring it before a meeting of the Junior Board.
Employee visitors also are permitted to present grievances when they attend
meetings . The evidence in the case discloses that grievances concerning seniority
in service , promotions , holiday pay and other terms and conditions of employ-
ment have been processed by the Junior Board in the above manner. This
grievance procedure was repeatedly stressed by the Respondent in announcements
to employees or in its publications. For example, in the February 15, 1949, issue
of the Florida Telephone News, a paper printed and published by the Respondent,
while discussing the advantages of "employer -employee management ," the fol-
lowing appears :4
In this form of management if any employee has a complaint about wages,
working conditions or even a personal problem that has not been satisfied
through regular channels , it can be brought to the attention of some member
of the employee board and it will be brought before the employee board
and in turn before the Joint Board where it will be discussed and action
taken.
The Union commenced organization of the Respondent 's employees .in October
1948. In December , Fletcher Sturdevant , commercial manager of the Ocala
District , gave a speech to the Ocala operators . During his speech, he told them,
in substance , that he had heard rumors that the Union was organizing the em-
ployees, and that the Junior Board could accomplish as much for the employees
3 Members of the Junior Board were paid $5 per day for attending meetings , in addition
to their regular wages, but this practice was discontinued at some undisclosed time
before the date of the hearing herein.
With some few possible exceptions , the evidence concerning the Junior Board is undis-
puted . Numerous publications of the Respondent and other documents were received in
evidence . These exhibits show the activities and accomplishments of the Junior Board
and the Respondent 's policy concerning it. It appears that all of the Respondent's
publications were either distributed or made available to employees . The Florida Telephone
News published the minutes of the Junior Board . Because I believe this evidence to be
cumulative , and for reasons of brevity , it will not be discussed herein at length. However,
all of such evidence has been considered in resolving the issues.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1437
as the Union! During March and April 1949, Otto Wettstein III, president of the
Respondent, also made speeches to employees at Ocala, Leesburg, and Winter Gar-
den. Among other matters, not material to this issue, he discussed the Union and
the reasons why he was opposed to it. He stated, in substance, that Respondent's
wage levels were higher than those of other comparable companies, and that the
employees did not. need the Union as they had the Junior, Board to which they
could take their grievances e
Conclusions
The Respondent contends that the Junior Board is not a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act. On the contrary , the Respondent contends that
the Junior Board, being merely a plan or method for selecting a portion of the
membership of the Joint Board, is an integral part of management , and as such is
an employer within the meaning of the Act.
The Respondent 's contentions are rejected . The evidence conclusively shows
not only that throughout its entire existence the Junior Board functioned as a
labor organization , particularly with respect to employee grievances , but also that
the Respondent held it out to the employees as their bargaining representative.
The constitution and bylaws of the Junior Board specify that it is the duty
of members " to report any employee complaints or grievances ." From the incep-
tion of the plan, the Respondent has continually advised and urged its employees
that they should take their grievances concerning wages and other conditions
of employment to the Junior Board or its members . The minutes of the Junior
Board disclose that its deliberations were devoted almost exclusively to grievances
of employees or to betterment of their working conditions . It appears that
managerial problems and policies , apart from matters pertaining to labor rela-
tions, were rarely discussed at its meetings . For example , the minutes of the
meeting held on September 30, 1948, read as follows :
Present: R . Al. Rogers, Christine McClelland , Jonnie Thompson, Floyd
Arnold, George Templin, Coy Pilgrim, Reba Craig, and Pop Smith.
Absent: Flora Walden.
Visitors : Marvin Rickerson from Leesburg and Olive Street of Ocala.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman R. M. Rogers . Minutes
were read , confirmed, and signed of the last meeting held August 26, 1948.
George Templin stated that the chairs .in the Williston office have not been
repaired and Coy Pilgrim suggested they be replaced by chairs that are in
Leesburg warehouse . Christine McClelland said she had a chair in the Lees-
burg office that is too low for her board.
Julia Bolick testified credibly to the above remarks of Sturdevant . Sturdevant did
not deny the statements attributed to him by Bolick. He testified that during the speech
he outlined the grievance procedure through the Junior Board.
"A number of witnesses for the General Counsel testified credibly to the effect that
Wettstein made the above or a similar statement concerning the Junior Board . Wettstein
did not deny the statements attributed to him, and his testimony in this connection is not
substantially different from that of witnesses for the General Counsel . He testified that
he explained the Junior and Joint Boards during his Ocala speech and that he may have
made the same statements at Leesburg and Winter Garden. Taken as a whole, his
speech, as testified to by him, was in the nature of an argument to the effect that the
employees did not need the Union since they had prospered better than employees of com-
panies which had union contracts and inferentially that this had been accomplished by
"their" Junior Board.
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Marvin Rickerson said for him too, it still took too long to get material
orders filled. He thought a limited supply of small items should be carried,
such as sleeves and tape.
Olive Street complained that operators who come from the Bell Company
are given as much credit as our operators with experience, even if they
have just P. B. X. training. Yet our operators have to train them to work our
board because the work is different. These operators from Bell are trained
to follow through one call at a time while our operators handle several. It
was decided to bring this to the attention of the Senior Board.
R. M. Rogers said that it looked to him as if there were no chances for
advancement in this company. It seems that when someone quits a new
person is hired instead of advancing someone that is already with the
Company.
Floyd Arnold wondered about the first aid kits that are supposed to have
been ordered. It has been three months since it was decided to have them
but they still haven't come so this was to be brought before the Joint Board.
He wanted to know also why a person that had been laid off but now
wanted a job again wasn't rehired. That is if this person's work had been
satisfactory before his termination, rather than hiring a new person.
The secretary asked what to say to the employees that are invited to visit
the meetings but just do not want to come and have no other reason for not
attending. It was decided that attending was another days work and if
that was what the company wanted an employee to do, he would have to
attend.
There being no further business, the motion was made and seconded to
adjourn.
In its publications the Respondent on a number of occasions stated that em-
ployees had "representation on" the Junior Board ; that its members outnumbered
those on the Senior Board ; and that the Joint Board decided all business
policies, "including wages, and working conditions." Although such statements
were worded carefully so as to cloak the Junior Board under the guise of man-
agement, nevertheless the implication that is served as or was a substitute for
a bargaining agency of employees was clear. In this manner the Respondent
also gave credit to the Junior Board for all benefits that the employees received.
The speeches of Sturdevant and Wettstein, however, were more pointed in this
respect, with the Junior Board named as a competitor of the Union. By pub-
lishing the minutes of the Junior Board the Respondent, in effect, further adver-
tised it as the employees' representative. As stated above, the meetings of the
Junior Board were devoted almost exclusively to betterment of working condi-
tions and employee grievances. The employees could not help but conclude
that the Junior Board was their representative, especially when favorable
action was taken by the Joint Board on such grievances.'
The Respondent also contends that the Junior Board is not a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act for the reason that collective bargaining by its
members would be impossible since they are part of management and "they
would be bargaining with themselves." In this connection, the Respondent
argues that the Board of Directors delegated all managerial powers to the
Joint Board, and that the Joint Board has exercised such powers continuously
ever since its establishment. This contention is also found to be without merit.
7 Minutes of the Senior and Joint Boards were not published in the Florida Telephone
News.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1439
As stated above, the Board of Directors retained veto power over actions taken
by the Joint Board . Moreover , the Junior Board is the subject of the complaint
herein , not the Joint Board.
From all the evidence , it conclusively appears that the Junior Board is a
device or plan of the Respondent which serves as a substitute for a labor organi-
zation and which tends to discourage self-organization of employees for the
purposes of collective bargaining and other mutual aid and protection , and that
it has masqueraded as a labor organization ever since its formation. Such a
plan or organization is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, and
I so find.'
It is undisputed that the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of the Junior Board, and contributed financial and
other support to it. The Respondent 's sole contention was that the Junior
Board was not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The evidence
of domination and of financial and other support has been set forth above. Ac-
cordingly , I find that in violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, the Respondent
from July 1941, and at all times thereafter , particularly from September 28,
1948, has dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of
the Junior Board , and has contributed financial and other support to it.
B. Interference, restraint , and coercion9
As related above, the Union commenced organizing the Respondent 's employees
in October 1948, and Sturdevant gave a speech to the Ocala operators in December
1948. During his speech Sturdevant stated that if the Union organized the
employees , they would not have as many privileges and working conditions would
not be as good . 10 Since Sturdevant 's statement contains a threat of reprisal, it
is found to constitute interference , restraint , and coercion
In November or December 1948, J. T. Kerley, Respondent 's district manager
for Leesburg , gave a speech to the Eustis employees . During his speech , he stated
that he had heard about the Union's attempt at organization and that if the
Union did organize the Respondent 's employees , they would not have the "com-
pany picnics or company insurance" which they then had.11 The undersigned finds
$ International Harvester Co., 2 NLRB 310 , 353 ; Jas . H. Matthews & Co., 63 NLRB 273,
156 F . 2d 706.
° No findings are made herein with respect to alleged incidents and conversations between
"service assistants " and their superiors , for the reason that I believe and find that
they are supervisory employees . Chief operators supervise the local exchanges and service
assistants are next in authority under them . The number of operators in the Respondent's
exchange varies. There are approximately 45 operators at the Ocala exchange and approxi-
mately 30 at winter Garden . The service assistants were formerly known as junior
supervisors , but their duties and responsibilities have never changed. The evidence dis-
closes that service assistants have authority to direct , control , and discipline the operators
under them . It is their duty to report misconduct or disobedience on the part of operators
to the chief operators . In the absence of chief operators , service assistants have authority
to send home operators guilty of such conduct , and operators so disciplined cannot return
to work until they are cleared by the chief operators . It also appears that service assistants
have charge over the operators when chief operators are absent.
10 Julia Bolick , Jacqueline Muniz, and Agnes Fuller testified credibly that Sturdevant
made the above statement . Sturdevant did not deny the remarks attributed to him. He
testified concerning his speech , and his version does not include any statements similar
to the above.
11 Catherine Davis testified credibly that Kerley made the above statement . Kerley
denied that lie made any remark about company picnics or insurance . His denial is not
credited . He testified , in substance , that he told the employees that they should make
up their own minds concerning the Union ; that the Respondent would not take any
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that Kerley's statement contains a threat of reprisal and therefore constitutes
interference.
W. T. McDaniel was the Respondent's plant manager at Eustis. During Jan-
uary or February, McDaniel questioned employee Emil Williams as to whether
or not he had joined the Union. Williams replied that he had not joined as he was
against it. During March, while Williams was in the plant office and while
McDaniel was present, Williams received a letter from the Union advising him of
a meeting in Ocala. McDaniels asked him if he was going to attend the meeting.
When Williams replied that he would not go as the notice had come too late,
McDaniel stated that Williams had "no- business" going to a union meeting, and
that he would "kick" his "tail" if he caught him going.12 The undersigned does
not find that McDaniel's remark about kicking amounts to a threat.of reprisal,
but does find that McDaniel's interrogation of Williams concerning his union
membership and activities constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion.
During January 1949, employee M. E. Seagraves had a conversation concerning
the Union with Plant Manager Gilbert Lewis. Seagraves asked him if any of the
male employees under him had become members. Lewis replied that they had not.
When Seagraves stated that he believed otherwise, Lewis said, "If I do have, I
won't have them long, because I will run them off." 13 Lewis' remark clearly
contains a threat of reprisal and accordingly is found to constitute interference.
Employee Agnes Fuller visited at Lewis' home during January, having been
invited for dinner by his daughter. During a discussion of the Union, Lewis asked
her if she was, a member'. Lewis' interrogation of Fuller is found to be inter-
ference.
About March 1949, Sturdevant met Fuller on the street. He asked her if she
had been attending union meetings. She replied that she had not because of her
work. He then asked her if she belonged to the Union.'b It is found that such in-
terrogation by Sturdevant constitutes interference.
Reuben Padgett, Jr., worked for the Respondent as a lineman at Leesburg. On
March 1 he was not notified that he would be laid off effective March 1.5. On about
March 2 he had a conversation with Shelby Singleton, Respondent's purchasing
agent and office manager in Ocala. Employee M. L. Rickerson was present at the
time. Padgett remarked that lie would like to see the Union organize the Respon-
action against them no matter what they decided to do ; and that by reason of his union
activities while working for another company he failed to obtain a promotion.
12 Williams testified credibly to the above conversations with McDaniel. McDaniel
testified that he also had received literature from the Union, that at times he had discussed
a the Union with Williams, and that Williams had isked his advice as to whether or not
he should join the Union. He denied asking Williams if lie had joined the Union, but
testified that lie (lid not "remember" asking him if he was going to attend the meeting
and that he did not "think" lie made the other remarks attributed to him by Williams.
The undersigned believes Williams to be the more reliable witness.
is Seagraves testified credibly to the above conversation. Lewis testified that he had
a number of conversations with Seagraves concerning the Union, but denied making any
statement such as the above. Lewis did not impress the undersigned as a reliable witness,
and his denial is therefore not credited.
14 Lewis admitted having a conversation with Fuller concerning the Union, but denied
questioning her as to her membership. His denial is not credited.
11 Fuller testified credibly to the above conversation with Sturdevant. Sturdevant testi-
fied that he had a conversation with Fuller during which he stated that he had heard
that there had been a lot of union meetings. He further testified that he did not recall
the exact conversation, but denied questioning any employees concerning their union
affiliations. The undersigned believes that Fuller is the more reliable witness in this
connection.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1441
'dent's employees before his layoff. Singleton replied, in sustance , that it had
been his experience with unions in Chicago that the officials got most of the
benefits, such as large cars for which the members paid." The undersigned does
not'-find that Singleton's remarks constitute interference.
Franklin Skinner was employed in the Respondent's warehouse at Leesburg
under the supervision of Singleton. During about February 1949, he and Ricker-
son had some few conversations concerning the Union with Coy B. Pilgrim, Re-
spondent's plant manager at Leesburg." Early in February, Pilgrim told Skinner
.and Rickerson that he had heard that they had joined the Union. He stated
that Mrs. McClelland (chief operator at Leesburg) had said that Mrs..White
(organizer and representative of the Union) had said that "all the boys at the
warehouse signed tip" ; and that Skinner and Rickerson "automatically" were
the employees mentioned, since they alone were employed in the warehouse.'"
About 2 weeks later, Pilgrim came to Rickerson and handed him a'letter from
White, stating, "Here you are, union boy." Skinner was present at the time.
When Rickerson remarked that it was some literature soliciting employees to
join the Union, Pilgrim asked them if they had "signed up." 1" About the end
of February, Skinner went to the Respondent's office and met Pilgrim. Pilgrim
:asked him if lie was going to the union meeting in Ocala `" The above inter-
irogation by Pilgrim of Skinner and Rickerson concerning their membership in
and activities on behalf of the Union constitutes interference, restraint, and
coercion.
Eva Perry was an operator at the Ocala exchange under Chief Operator Dorothy
.Shoat. During February 1949, and some few days after Perry had joined the
Union, Sheaf called her at her home. Shoaf told her, in substance, that she
had been told by several of Respondent's officers that Perry had joined the
Union, and that she would not believe it until she heard Perry admit it. When
Perry replied that she had joined the Union a few days previously, Shoaf asked
. 16 Rickerson and Singleton testified credibly to the above. Their testimony concerning
the conversation is substantially the same. Padgett testified that Singleton also said that
if the Union organized the employees, "lots of fellows in the Company would have to take
a cut in salary." Singleton testified that he did not make any threatening statement
and his testimony in this connection is supported by that of Rickerson. The undersigned
believes that they are more reliable as witnesses than Padgett.
11 Pilgrim did not have supervision over Skinner and Rickerson , the latter was an
instrument repairman. He testified that he worked in the warehouse and that Skinner was
his immediate supervisor . The Respondent does not contend that Skinner was a supervisory
employee and Rickerson's testimony in this respect is inconclusive.
18 Skinner testified credibly and without contradiction that Pilgrim made the above state-
ment. Neither Pilgrim nor Rickerson was questioned concerning this conversation. How-
ever, Pilgrim testified that he learned from an employee under him that white had told
:McClelland that the warehouse employees had joined the Union.
19 Skinner testified credibly to the above conversation. Although Pilgrim did not specifi-
cally deny the remarks attributed to him, his testimony as a whole is in the nature of a
denial. He admitted , however, that on several occasions he brought mail to the warehouse.
The undersigned believes that Skinner is the more reliable and credible witness.
20 Pilgrim denied questioning Skinner in this connection . His denial is not credited.
Skinner and Rickerson also testified to another conversation with Pilgrim which occurred
at about the same time . Skinner testified that during this conversation Pilgrim stated
that an employee would "probably " have to take a reduction in wages if he joined the
Union. However , it is clear from the testimony of both Rickerson and Pilgrim concerning
this conversation that no threat of reprisal was made, and I so find. Their testimony
shows that Pilgrim made a statement to the effect that if the Union organized the employees,
possible demotions might result because of seniority requirements of the Union for
apprentices and journeymen.
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
her if any of the other employees had joined. Perry then told her that almost
all of the employees in Ocala had joined 21 It is found that Shoaf's interroga-
tion of Perry constitutes interference.
Beverly Corbett, an operator at Tavares, testified that at some time during
March, Plant Manager McDaniel came to the Tavares exchange ; that about three
operators were present ; that she believed, but was not sure, that employee
Jacqueline Grant was present at the time ; that McDaniel asked them if they were
going to join the Union ; and that the operators did not commit themselves one
way or another. McDaniel testified that he frequently visited the Tavares ex-
change, that he did not "remember of any such occasion" as testified to by Cor-
bett, and that he did not "recall" asking any of the operators if they intended to
join the Union. Grant testified that she never did hear McDaniel question the
operators concerning their union affiliation. The undersigned believes that Cor-
bett testified credibly in this connection. Grant's testimony is not conclusive
since she may not have been present during the time in question. Further, as has
been heretofore related and found, McDaniel questioned another employee con-
cerning the Union. Accordingly, it is found that the above interrogation by Mc-
Daniel constitutes interference.
Frances Sanders was employed as an operator at the Respondent's Winter
Garden exchange under Chief Operator Imadell Sheppard. At some time during
February 1949, and while Sanders was not on duty, sbe was in the lounge pro-
vided for employees, reading a union pamphlet: Sheppard asked her what she
was reading. Sanders showed her the pamphlet and Sheppard "snatched" it
from Sanders' hand. She then told Sanders that she wished she knew who left
the pamphlet in the lounge ; that she did not want to hear the Union mentioned
in the lounge or any other part of the telephone office ; and that if the employees
wanted to discuss the Union, they could go out on the street. Sheppard did not
return the pamphlet to Sanders.' The undersigned finds that the above action
and statements of Sheppard constitutes interference, restraint, and coercion.
On or about February 25 or 26, 1949, White, the Union's representative, mailed
copies of a letter to all of Respondent's employees, including chief operators.
About 2 days later White mailed another copy of the same letter to Maxine
Keller,29 an operator at Winter Garden. The envelope contained White's return
address. At some time in the early part of March and at least several days after
the Winter Garden employees had received their copies of the letter, Sheppard
went to Keller's place of work and handed her White's letter. In the presence of
the other operators Sheppard said to Keller, "I have a letter for you. I want you
to open it where I can read it." While Keller.glanced at White's letter Sheppard
stood over her shoulder. Keller then gave the letter to Sheppard who took it to
21 Perry testified credibly concerning the above conversation. Shoaf admitted that she
called Perry and asked her if she had joined the Union . Shoaf testified that she had been
friendly with Perry ; that before she called Perry , they had discussed the Union "on a
friendly basis" ; that during such discussion Perry stated that she could not make up her
mind whether or not she wanted to join the Union ; and that she called Perry to ask her
"why she changed her mind."
22 Sanders testified credibly to the above conversation with Sheppard. Sheppard denied
that the incident occurred or that she ever had discussed the Union with Sanders. Her
denial is not credited.
22 The contents of the letter are not material to the issues herein. The letter was from
White to Chief Operator Shoaf and was dated February 23, 1949.
24 White testified credibly that she mailed Keller a copy several days after the first mail-
ing for the reason that she believed that she had omitted to send one to Keller or had
addressed her improperly.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1443
her desk?° It is found that Sheppard's action in this connection is tantamount
to surveillance, and as such is found to constitute interference, restraint, and
coercion.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent as set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of Respondent described in Section I, above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease and desist.
therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate, the policies
of the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent has dominated and interfered with the
formation and administration of, and contributed support to, the Junior Board.
It will be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist from dominating,
interfering with, or recognizing the Junior Board, and that the Respondent
completely disestablish the Junior Board.
It has also been found that the Respondent has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees. It will be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, and Junior Manage-
ment Board are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of
Junior Management Board, and by contributing support to it, the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
R6 Keller, Sanders, and employee Catherine Quigley testified credibly concerning the.
above. Sheppard denied that the incident occurred. The undersigned believes that Shep-
pard is an unreliable witness and her denial is not credited. The Respondent attempted to
discredit the testimony of the three witnesses for the General Counsel by showing the.
positions at the Board occupied by the operators during the last week of February, the
approximate time when the employees first received copies of White's letter. In this con-
nection, the General Counsel's witnesses testified that they occupied adjoining positions at
the time of the above incident. I do not believe any purpose would be served by discussing-
this testimony, as the preponderance of the credible evidence shows and I find that the
incident occurred in March and after the other employees had received their copies of-
White's letter,
882191-51-92
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the Respondent, Florida Telephone Corporation,
its agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Dominating or interfering with the administration of, or contributing
financial or other support to, Junior Management Board, or dominating or inter-
fering with the formation or administration of, or contributing financial or other
support to, any other labor organization of its employees ;
(b) Recognizing or in any other manner dealing with Junior Management
Board or any successor thereto, as the collective bargaining representative of
any of its employees ;
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its em-
ployees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, or
any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of col-
lective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and to refrain from all
of such activities, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of
employment, as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
• 2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Withhold all recognition from Junior Management Board as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent
concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other terms and conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said
organization, or any successor thereto, as such representative ;
(b) Post at its exchanges and plants in Florida copies of the notice attached
hereto and marked Appendix A. Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon
receipt thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter
in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to insure
that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Tenth Region in writing, within twenty
(20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
. It is further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take
the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, any party may, within twenty (20) days from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section
203.45 of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Washington 25, D. C.,
an original and six copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions
to the Intermediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding
(including rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together
with the original and six copies of a brief in support thereof ; and any party
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION 1445
may, within the same period, file an original and six copies of a brief in support
of the Intermediate Report. Immediately upon the filing of such statement of
exceptions and/or briefs, the party filing the same shall serve a copy thereof
upon each of the other parties. Statements of exceptions and briefs.shall. desig-
nate by precise citation the portions of the record relied upon and shall be
legibly printed or mimeographed, and if mimeographed shall be double spaced.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Sec-
tion 203.46, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board,
request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days from
the date of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, recommendations, and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations, be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions,
and order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 8th day of December 1949.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMPLOYEES
JOHN H. EADIE,
Trial Examiner.
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to -effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE HEREBY DISESTABLISH JUNIOR MANAGEMENT BOARD as the representative
of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and we will not recognize it or any suc-
cessor thereto for any of the above purposes.
WE WILL NOT dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of
any labor organization or contribute financial or other support to it.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees
in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organiza-
tions, to join or assist INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERS, AFL, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing and to engage in other concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection, and to refrain from any or all such activities except to the
extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring member-
ship in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in
Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, or any other labor organization.
We will not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure of employment because of
membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor organization.
FLORIDA TELEPHONE CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated --------------------
By -----------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.