Gulf States Utilities Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1941

31 N.L.R.B. 740 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC9rRIOAL WORKERS, A. F. L.
Case No. R-2453.Decided May 10, 1941
Jurisdiction : electric utility industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within
the scope of the petition. ,
Mr. Warren Woods, for the Board.
Mr. Benjamin B. Taylor and Mr. C. V. Porter, of Baton Rouge,
La., and Mr. M. T. Bell, and Mr. W. E. Orgain, of Beaumont, Tex.,
for the Company.
Mr. O. A. Walker and Mr. E. H. Williams, of Shreveport, La., for
the Brotherhood.
Mr. George A. Weller, of Beaumont, Tex., for the Association.
Mr. G. W. Hall, of New Iberia, La., for Interveners 2-c and 2-b.
Mr. Edward P. Madigan, of Baton Rouge, La., for Intervener 2-a.
Mr. C. C. Jordon, of Lake Charles, La., for Intervener 2-c.
Mr. Frederic B. Parkes, 2nd, of counsel to the ^ Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 17, and March 18, 1941, respectively, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the
Brotherhood, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Re-
gion (New Orleans, Louisiana) a petition and an amended petition
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Gulf States Utilities Company,
Beaumont, Texas, herein called the Company, and requesting an in-
vestigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On March 17, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act,
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and
31 N. L. R. B., No. 123.
740
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY _ 741
authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On March 20 and 25, 1941, respectively, the Regional Director
issued a notice of hearing and a notice of postponement of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Brother-
hood, and Gulf States Electric Service Employees' Association,
herein called the Association, a labor organization claiming. to rep-
resent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant
to notice a hearing was held on April 2 and 3, 1941, at Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, before C. Paul Barker, the Trial Examiner. duly desig-
nated by the Chief Trial Examiner. At the commencement of the
hearing, three groups of the Company's employees representing the
districts of Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Lake Charles, called herein
Intervenors 2-a, 2-b, and 2-c, respectively, filed motions to intervene.
The Trial Examiner reserved for the Board rulings on these motions
but permitted these Intervenors to 'present evidence with respect to
their claims. The motions are hereby granted. The Board, the
Company, the Brotherhood, the Association, and the Intervenors' 2-a,
2-b, and 2-c were represented by counsel or official representatives
and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. On March 28 and 29,
1941, respectively, the Company and the Association had filed with
the Regional Director motions to dismiss the petition. The Regional
Director did not rule on these motions which were renewed at the
hearing. The Trial Examiner reserved the rulings on these motions
for the Board. The motions are hereby granted for reasons set
forth below. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made various rulings on. other motions and on objections to the ad-
mission of evidence. " The Board has reviewed the rulings of, the
Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board on April 15, 1941, at Washington, D. C.
The Company and the Brotherhood were represented by counsel and
presented argument. On April 14, 1941, the Association filed a- brief
which has been considered by the Board.
Upon the entire-record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT '
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Gulf States Utilities Co., owned by Engineers Public Service Cor-
poration, is a Texas corporation and has its domicile, home office,
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and principal place of business in Beaumont, Texas. The Company
is also authorized to do business in the State of Louisiana and has
'In official domicile in that State at Lake Charles, Louisiana. The
principal business of the Company consists in the production and
distribution of electric power in Texas and Louisiana.
The Company owns and operates facilities to supply electrical
energy for industrial, commercial, and residential purposes,in -25
counties in the State of Texas and 18 parishes in the State of Louisi-
ana. It is the exclusive supplier of electrical power to 110 commu-
-nities in Texas and 134 in Louisiana. The Company generates sub-
,stantially all its own electric current through two principal power
plants at Beaumont, Texas, and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, respec-
tively, with two small stand-by plants of limited capacity, both
located in the State of Texas. The Company owns and maintains
255 miles of high-voltage transmission lines, carrying between 33,000
and 66,000 volts, and 4,342 miles of distribution lines. Two of the
high-voltage lines and one distribution line physically cross the
boundary between Louisiana and Texas, and the flow of current be-
tween the two States is continuous. Gross revenues for the year
1939 exceeded $10,000,000.
For purposes of administration, the territory served by the Com-
pany is divided into the following six districts: (1) Beaumont di-
vision and (2) Central Division, both supervised by the general
office of the Company at Beaumont, Texas; (3) Port Arthur di-
vision, supervised by a superintendent at Port Arthur, Texas; (4)
Navasota division, supervised by a superintendent at Navasota,
Texas; (5) Lake Charles division, supervised by a vice president
at Lake Charles, Louisiana; and (6) Baton Rouge division, super-
vised by a vice-president at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Company
-employs approximately 1,500 workers.
It. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Gulf States Electric Service. Employees' Association is an un-
affiliated labor organization, admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
Intervenor 2-a is a group of Association members who are em-
ployed in the power plant at Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
Intervenor 2-b is a group of Association members who are electrical
workers at Lafayette, Louisiana.
Intervenor 2-c is a group of Association members who are electrical
workers at Lake Charles, Louisiana.
I
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
743,
The Brotherhood claims that the appropriate unit should include
all regular white and colored employees of the Company engaged
in the production, transmission, and distribution of electricity in
the State of Louisiana, with the exception of temporary employees,
clerical workers, office employees, sales force, meter readers, watch-
men, janitors, supervisors, and general foremen, and those employees
working in the gas, water, and ice departments of the Company.
The Company and the Association contend that the appropriate
unit should be.system-wide in scope, including all white and.colored
employees of the Company in both Texas and Louisiana with the
exception of supervisors, foremen, and executives. The employees
in the unit are classified in two groups, one consisting of all outside
employees working in the electric, gas, water, and ice departments
of the Company and the other including all the other employees,
clerical, office, and technical workers.
Intervenors, 2-a, 2-b, and 2-c, respectively, request that in the
event the Board decides that the unit claimed by the Association is
inappropriate, the intervenors who are members of the Association,
may constitute three separate appropriate units for their respective
districtss of Baton Rouge, Lafayette, and Lake Charles, Louisiana.
As indicated above, the Company for operation purposes is di-
vided into six districts, each under the supervision of a district
superintendent or vice 'president. However, all the Company's
policies concerning labor, wages, working conditions, hours of em-
ployment, rates, billing, collection, engineering, construction, opera-
tion, and similar matters are determined at its head office in Beau-
mont, Texas, where the main offices of the engineering, chief, claim,
general , accounting, statistical, treasury, 'and general sales depart-
ments are located. These policies are applied" on a system-wide basis.
Furthermore, the Company maintains the same basic wage scale in
the production and distribution departments in both Texas and
Louisiana.
In support of its contentions, the Brotherhood claims that State
boundaries should circumscribe the appropriate unit. The Brother-
hood started to organize in November 1940, and confined its organiza-
tion to the employees of the Company in Louisiana.' Although the
Brotherhood has locals in Texas, there is testimony that it has not
sought to organize the Company's employees in that State despite
the eligibility of such employees for membership in the Brotherhood:
' The Brotherhood filed 207 authorization cards, dated between November 28, 1940,
and March 1, 1941, with the Trial Examiner, who found all the ,signatures to be genuine
and to'be the names of persons on the Company's pay roll on March 31, 1941. There are
between 298 and 322 employees in the unit alleged by the Brotherhood to ile appropriate.
744 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS HOARD
The Association and the Company, on the other hand, urge that the
petition of the Brotherhood be dismissed since self -organization,of
employees has extended over the entire system of the Company. The
Association started to organize the workers in December 1940, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company both in Louisiana
and Texas. On February 6, 1941, the Company recognized the Asso-
ciation as the representative, of its employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining and on March 7, 1941, entered into a written
agreement to negotiate the Company''s labor policies with the
Association.2
Since'it appears that the entire, system of the Conipany is func-
tionally coherent and closely integrated, and that the Association
has organized the employees of the Company on a system-wide basis,
we find that the unit contended for by the Brotherhood is inappro-
priate 3 for purposes of collective bargaining and shall, therefore,
grant the motions of the Company and the Association to dismiss
the petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed
by the Brotherhood.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as stated in Section III, we do not find that the unit alleged
in the petition filed by the Brotherhood is appropriate, we find that
no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees
of the Company in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of Gulf
States Utilities Company, Beaumont, Texas, in a unit which is appro-
e It appeared from membership lists and other data introduced in evidence that as of
February 13, 1941, the Association represented a total of 679 ( 62.6% ) employees of the
1,292 eligible to membership under its constitution . Of that number 378 (36 9%) were
members of the 664 included in the classification of outside workers ; and 301 (52.6%)
were members of the 628 in the office and clerical classification . Of the total membership
in the Association 389 Louisiana employees were eligible and 156 were members. Of the
292 Louisiana employees included in the category of outside workers, 75 were members
of the Association . Of the 297 Louisiana employees included under the office and clerical
classification , 81 were members. It was on the basis of these totals that the Company
decided to recognize the Association as representing the majority of its employees
3 See Matter of Wisconsin Power and Light Co. and United Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers of America, Local No. 1134, 6 N. L R. B. 320; Matter of Tennessee Electric Power
Co. and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 7 N. L. R. B. 24; Matter of
Portland Gas and Coke Co. and Gas & Coke Workers Union, Local No 19591, 2 N L R B.
552; Matter of E T. & WN. C. Motor Transportation Co. and Drivers and Warehousemen's
Union, 30 N. L. R B 505; Matter of Iowa Southern Utilities Co and Utility Workers
Organizing Committee, Local 109, 15 N. L R B . 580; Matter of Gulf Oil Corp. and Oil
Workers International Union, Local 381, 19 N. L. R. B: 334.
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 745
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing- findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification filed by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, be, and it hereby*is, dismissed.