Pacific Gas and Electric Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1939

13 N.L.R.B. 268 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED
ELECTRICAL AND RADIO1 WORKERS OF AMERICA
In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY and UNITED
ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS or AMERICA
Cases Nos. B-074 and C 1003, respectively .-Decided June 14, 1939
Gas and Electric Utility Industry-Interference , Restraint , and Coercion: re-
marks and conduct by supervisory employees expressing opposition to one labor
organization and preference for another ; assistance in organizational activity of
preferred labor organization ; threats that respondent would contract out certain
of its work if opposed labor organization won pending election ; use of meetings
held under respondent 's auspices to criticize opposed labor organization-Prior
Election: held null and void ; interference and intimidation by supervisory em-
ployees ; supervisory employees held not entitled to participate in campaign
preceding election to determine bargaining representative - although some of
them were entitled to vote in election-New Election Ordered: election to be
conducted at such time as the Board shall in the future direct.
Mr. Bernard L. Alpert, for the Board.
Mr. J. Paul St. Sure, Mr. John C. Wood, Mr. Stephen R. Duhring,
and Mr. Thomas J. Straub, of San Francisco , Calif., for the respond-
ent.
Gladstein, Grossman c6 Margolis, by Mr. Aubrey Grossman, of San
Francisco , Calif., for the U. E. R. W.
Henry d Bedeau, by Mr. Jay L. Henry, of Sacramento, Calif., for
the California Union.
Mr. William B. Barton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 16, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Elections 2 and
'The name of this labor organization had been changed to United Electrical , Radio and
Machine Woikers of America by the time Case C-1003 was instituted The name so ap-
pears in that case. Since that case was instituted Utility Workers Organizing Committee
has become the successor organization.
3 3 N L. R B. 835.
13 N. L. R. B., No. 32.
268
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 269
on November 20, 1937, an Amendment to Decision and Direction of
Elections ; in Case No. R-274. The Direction of Elections, as
amended, provided that an election by secret ballot be conducted
within sixty (60) days from the date of the original Decision among
those employees of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, herein called
the respondent, on the pay roll for the week which included May 19,
1937, who were engaged in the outside or physical forces, including
outside field employees, workers employed in generating stations, in
substations, in the gas plants, in the steam plants, and in other shops
and plants, and meter readers, combination meter readers and col-
lectors, salesmen, collectors, and estimators, up to and including the
rank of job foreman, but excluding employees above that position, to
determine whether they desired to be represented by United Electrical
and Radio Workers of America, or by California Gas and Electric
Employees Union for the purposes of, collective bargaining, or by
neither 4
Pursuant to the Direction, as amended, an election by secret ballot
was conducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region ( San Francisco , California) dur-
ing the period from December ,6 to December 14, 1937. On December
21, 1937, the Regional Director, acting pursuant to Article III, Sec-
tion 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended , issued her Intermediate Report on the ballot.
As to the balloting and its results, the Regional Direction reported
as follows :
Number of ballots counted-------------------------------- 5,930
Number of votes for United Electrical and Radio Workers
of America , C. I. 0------------------------------------ 2,251
Number of votes for California Gas & Electric Employees
Union-------------------------------------------------- 3,550
Number of votes for neither of the above organizations-___ 126
Number of blank ballots---------------------------------- 0
Number of void ballots---------------------------------- 10
Number of challenged votes------------------------------- 982
On December 27, 1937, United Electrical and Radio Workers of
America ,5 hereinafter called the U. E. R. W., filed objections to the
Regional Director's Intermediate Report on the election between it
and California Gas and Electric Employees Union, hereinafter called
84N L. R. B. 180
4 The Direction also provided for an election among certain employees of the company's
streetcar and motorbus system . That election has not been questioned and is not in
issue in this case Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach
Employees, Local Division No. 256, was certified as the representative of the above
employees for purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to that election. 5 N. L. R. B.
310
5 By this date this labor organization had changed its name to United Electrical. Radio
and Machine Workers of America See Section II, "The organizations involved," infra.
270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the California Union, and a petition for a hearing on the objections.
Supplemental objections were filed by the U. E. R. W. on January 3,
1938. The objections, as supplemented, alleged in substance as fol-
lows: That prior to the election the respondent engaged in a whisper-
ing campaign that it would job out its construction work if the
U. E. R. W.e won the election; that during the same period the
respondent allowed the use of its automobiles to electioneer and
organize for the California Union; that the respondent warned
certain employees that the U. E. R. W. was communistic and an
advocate of violence and that the employees should vote for the Cali-
fornia Union, by an active campaign telling certain workers never
to have any contact with U. E. R. W. men; that one meeting of
employees was held under the auspices of the California Union and
certain of the respondent's employees were required by the super-
visory employees over them to attend; that the California Union held
certain meetings on the respondent's property at a nominal rental,
while the U. E. R. W. had to go 6 miles away to hold meetings; that
certain mail sent by the U. E. R. W. to the respondent's employees at
a company address was not distributed to them, but mail sent by
the California Union was at the same time freely distributed; that
the respondent encouraged, permitted, and aided the distribution of
certain literature promoting the cause of the California Union; that
in one instance it allowed the posting of such literature on a company
bulletin board; that the respondent urged certain employees who
were ineligible to vote to go to the polls and vote for the California
Union; that certain employees were allowed to use company time and
facilities to campaign for the California Union; that prior to the
election the respondent discharged large numbers of employees favor-
able to the U. E. R. W.; and that the respondent caused the circula-
tion of a rumor that it would deal with the California Union if it won
the election, but that it would not deal with the U. E. R. W., if it
won the election.
On December 20, 1937, the U. E. R. W. filed charges against the
respondent alleging that it had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2), and
(3) of the Act. On January 12, 1938, the U. E. R. W. filed amended
charges, on February 16, 1938, a second amended charge, and on
August 11, 1938, it filed a third amended charge eliminating the alle-
gations as to violations of Section 8 (2) and (3) of the Act, but
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the
Act. On August 12, 1938, the Board, acting pursuant to National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended,
6 Referred to in the objections as the C I. O.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 271
ordered that the representation case and the case initiated by the
filing of charges be consolidated for the purposes of hearing. Upon
the charge filed by the U. E. R. W., as finally amended, the Board,
by Alice Al. Rosseter, the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region,
issued its complaint, dated August 13, 1938, against the respondent,
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Regarding the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged, in
substance, that the respondent from April 1937 to the date of the
complaint had interfered with the self-organization of its employees
and their freedom of choice of representatives for collective bargain-
ing by various and sundry acts, which included : making known to its
employees the respondent's opposition to the U. E. R. W. and its
disapproval of membership therein by its employees; making known
to its employees the respondent's approval of the California Union
as a representative of the employees for purposes of collective bar-
gaining; lending advice and assistance in the formation of California
Union locals; engaging in or acquiescing in solicitation of members
for the California Union on company time or property or with the
use of company equipment and facilities; sponsoring, assisting, or
instigating meetings of its employees to obtain members and assist-
ance for the California Union and to discourage membership and
assistance for the U. E. R. W.; warning and persuading its em-
ployees at numerous times in April, May, and June, 1937, and there-
after to refrain from membership in the U. E. R. W. and to remain
or become members of the California Union; and engaging since
April 1937 in various and sundry acts of intimidation, coercion,
and interference.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the respondent and the California Union on August
13, 1938. On the same day notice of hearing on the objections to the
Regional Director's Intermediate Report on the ballot and notice of
the consolidation of the representation case and the complaint case
for purposes of the hearing were served upon the respondent, the
California Union, and the U. E. R. W. On August 26, 1938, the re-
spondent filed an answer in which it denied the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint and set forth as affirmative defenses that the
Board lacked jurisdiction in the matter and that if the allegations in
the complaint came within the purview of the Act, it abridges freedom
of speech and is in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution
of the United States.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing upon the consolidated cases was held
on August 29 and 31, and on September 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14,
272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1938, at San Francisco, California, before John T. Lindsay, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. At the hearing the Cali-
fornia Union filed a petition to intervene. The Trial Examiner
granted its request to intervene. This ruling is hereby affirmed. The
Board, the respondent, the California Union, and the U. E. R. W.
were represented by counsel 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.
Prior to the hearing the respondent filed with the Regional Director
a motion for a bill of particulars regarding the allegations of the
complaint. The motion was renewed at the hearing. At the hearing
the respondent also made and filed a motion to make the complaint
more definite and certain. The Trial Examiner denied the foregoing
motions. A consideration of the conduct of the hearing shows that
these rulings by the Trial Examiner were not prejudicial to the re-
spondent. On Thursday, September 8, 1938, at 10: 40 a. in., near the
conclusion of the Board's case, the Trial Examiner granted a motion
by the respondent for an adjournment until the following Monday
morning at 9: 30 a. in. in order to prepare its defense. This time was
still further extended by an adjournment from 4:25 p. m. Monday
until Tuesday at 1: 15 p. m., during which counsel for the parties pre-
pared and agreed upon certain information regarding individuals
concerning whom the respondent wanted such information as part of
its defense.7 The added time thus given the respondent for the prepa-
ration of its defense after disclosure to it of the Board's evidence gave
it complete opportunity to meet the issues. Further, the original
charge together with the first, second, and third amended charges, set
forth in detail most of the acts alleged to have been done by the re-
spondent. They were served upon the respondent with the complaint
and fulfilled the function of a bill of particulars and constituted
notice to the respondent of acts not alleged with the same particularity
in the complaint. Also, counsel for the Board agreed that because of
the general nature of the allegations in paragraph X of the com-
plaint, the entire paragraph might be stricken from the complaint.
The allegations in the remainder of the complaint were sufficiently
specific to apprise the respondent of the charges against it. Since
the rulings of the Trial Examiner in denying the respective motions
of the respondent for a bill of particulars and to make the complaint
more definite and certain were not prejudicial, they are hereby affirmed.
The respondent also moved at the beginning of the hearing to dis-
miss the complaint, to overrule the objections and supplemental
4 This information concerned inter alia the status of employees referred to in the testi-
mony of the Board's witnesses, such as their eligibility to vote in the election, whether
they voted, and whether their votes were challenged.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 273
objections to the Regional Director 's Intermediate Report on the
ballot, and to strike portions of the complaint . The Trial Examiner
denied the motions. In view of our findings below, these rulings are
hereby affirmed.
The California Union moved at the beginning of the hearing that
the objections and supplemental objections to the Regional Director's
Intermediate Report on the ballot be made fuller and more particu-
lar, specific, and concise . It also moved , in event of denial of the
motion, that the objections and supplemental objections to the Re-
gional Director 's Intermediate Report be dismissed and quashed.
The Trial Examiner denied both motions . Since the California
Union joined with the respondent in the motion granted by the Trial
Examiner for an adjournment from Thursday until Monday in
which to prepare a defense to the Board's case , the ruling of the
Trial Examiner denying the California Union 's motion to make the
objections and supplemental objections fuller and more particular,
specific, and concise was not prejudicial . It is hereby affirmed for the
saane reasons that his ruling denying the respondent 's motion for a
bill of particulars as to the allegations in the complaint is affirmed
above. Moreover , we find that the allegations in the objections and
supplemental objections were sufficiently definite to inform the Cal-
ifornia Union of the nature of the contentions made by the U. E. R.
W about the election . Regarding the motion to dismiss and to
quash, the California Union stated as grounds in support thereof
that the objections and supplemental objections were not filed within
the time required by Article III, Section 9, of the Board's Rules
and Regulations and that they did not state facts sufficient to consti-
tute cause of objection . It further stated substantially the same rea-
sons in support thereof as were stated in support of its motion to
make fuller and more particular , specific, and concise. The record
shows that the original objections were in fact filed within .the time
provided by the above rule." No prejudice could arise from the filing
of the supplemental objections 7 days after the original objections.
For reasons stated above , the overruling of the other grounds urged
in support of the motion to dismiss and quash was not prejudicial.
The Trial Examiner's ruling is hereby affirmed.
During the hearing the respondent applied for a subpena requir-
ing the attendance of Alice M. Rosseter , Regional Director of the
Twentieth Region, or such other official or employee of the Board as
had custody of certain specified records and that said Regional
'The Intermediate Report was issued on December 21, 1937. The objections were filed
on December 27, 1937, but the preceding day was a Sunday . The rule that objections may
be filed within 5 days was complied with , since the fifth day fell on a Sunday which was
a dies non See Rule 6 (a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Director or other official or employee produce said records at the
hearings. The application detailed certain records in Case No.
R-274 which the respondent desired to have produced at the hear-
ing, to wit, the Intermediate Report on the ballot, the list of em-
ployees within the appropriate unit and eligible to vote, the record
of the employees who voted and whose votes were not challenged,
the record of employees who voted and whose votes were challenged
"together with the record of the reasons specified as basis for chal-
lenge," and all affidavits subscribed by Board or union representa-
tives "who acted as judges, observers or in other official capacity, in
connection with or respecting the conduct of the said election and
the conduct of the ballot." ° The respondent's application proceeded
to state in substance that the records and documents would aid in
proving that the supervisory employees of the respondent referred
to in the testimony were among those free to organize and that the
respondent was not responsible for their acts ; that they would fur-
ther show the election to have been regular and legal and to have
reflected the free and independent choice of those eligible to vote ;
and that such records were properly a part of the record in Case
No. R-274.10 The Trial Examiner denied the application for the
subpena. The ruling was not prejudicial under the circumstances.
As a result of a stipulation 11 entered into between counsel for the
Board and counsel for the respondent the respondent obtained the
desired information regarding all employees who had been referred
to by the Board's witnesses in their testimony.12 The only remain-
ing evidence called for by the application for subpena consisted of
the Regional Director's Intermediate Report on the ballot and affi-
davits of the respective Board and union representatives "who acted
as judges, observers or in other official capacity, in connection with
or respecting the conduct of the said election and the conduct of the
ballot." To have issued a subpena for these documents could have
served no useful purpose because they were already a part of the
record in Case No. R-274, with which Case No. C-1003 was consol-
9 The respondent was obviously attempting to describe the certificates of the fair conduct
of election which are part of the record in the case
to Respondent Exhibit No 15 is the complete application for the subpena daces tecum.
u The stipulation was characterized by the respondent's counsel as designed "to save
several days of hearing time "
^" See footnote 7 supra . Pursuant to the information obtained by the respondent as a
result of this stipulation it was stated in the record whether various employees mentioned
in the testimony of the Board ' s witnesses voted in the election and whether their votes
were challenged The respondent ' s personnel director , Eugene G McCann, testified as to
the job classifications most of these various employees held with the respondent The
respondent made no contention that it was refused the requested information as to em-
ployees mentioned by the Boards witnesses Thus the only employees regaiding whom
the information requested by the application for subpena was not furnished to the re-
spondent were those whose conduct had in no way been mentioned at the hearing or
otherwise made an issue.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 275
idated 13 Furthermore, the affidavits regarding the conduct of the
election and the balloting, which are a part of the record, were im-
material because no claim was ever made of irregularity at the polls
with which subject alone the affidavits deal. For the above reasons
the ruling of the Trial Examiner denying the application for this
subpena is hereby affirmed.
At the close of hearing, counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss
the complaint and counsel for the California Union moved to dismiss
the objections of the U. E. R. W. and its petition for a hearing. The
Trial Examiner denied in his Intermediate Report the motion to dis-
miss the complaint. The ruling is hereby affirmed. He did not rule
upon the above motion of the California Union to dismiss. The mo-
tion is hereby denied. At the close of the hearing counsel for the
Board moved that the complaint be amended to conform to the proof
in regard to names, dates, and similar matters. The Trial Examiner
granted the motion. No objection was made by the respondent. The
ruling is hereby affirmed.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made other
rulings on motions, on requests for the issuance of subpenas, and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
these rulings and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
On October 25, 1938, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties, finding
that the respondent had engaged in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and
recommending that the respondent cease and desist from such prac-
tices and post notices that it would so cease and desist. Thereafter
both the respondent and the California Union filed exceptions 14 to the
Trial Examiner's Intermediate Report and also filed briefs. Oral
argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on January
12, 1939, pursuant to notice duly served upon all parties. Only the
respondent appeared and presented its argument. At the oral argu-
ment the respondent moved to amend paragraph XII of its excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report. The motion was granted and a copy
of the order allowing the amendment was duly served on all parties,
who were allowed 10 days in which to make reply thereto.
The Board has considered the exceptions to the Trial Examiner's
Intermediate Report filed by the respondent and the California Union,
33 It was stipulated in writing on August 25, 1938, between counsel for the Board and
counsel for the respondent that the record of the proceedings in Case No . R-274 , including
all pleadings , motions , stipulations , and exhibits be considered as constituting part of the
record in Case No C-1003
14 The full title of the exceptions filed by the respondent is "Exceptions to the juris-
diction of National Labor Relations Board and Exceptions to Intermediate Report of Trial
Examiner "
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respectively , and also the briefs filed by them. Except in so far as
the exceptions are consistent with the findings of facts, conclusions
of law, and order set forth below, we find them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Pacific Gas and Electric Company is a public utility corporation
organized tinder the laws of California , and has its principal office
and place of business in San Francisco, California . It is engaged
principally in the business (a) of generating , buying, transmitting,
selling, and distributing electric energy, (b) of buying, transporting,
selling, and distributing natural gas, and (c) of manufacturing,
transporting , selling, and distributing manufactured gas, all for
light, heat, and power purposes in the central and northern portion
of California . As an incident to its gas and electric business , it sells
gas and electric appliances at retail . It distributes and sells water in
certain small cities and towns in certain rural areas for domestic
and irrigation purposes ; it produces and sells steam to 855 customers
in San Francisco and Oakland , California ; and it operates a street-
car and bus system in Sacramento , California.
The respondent is the third largest electric power company in the
United States. It is the sole commercial source of electric energy
and the only practical commercial source of natural and manufac-
tured gas in the central and northern portion of California , an area
larger than the whole of New England. The San Francisco -Oakland
area, which is entirely dependent on the respondent for electric en-
ergy and gas, is one of the foremost industrial and commercial centers
in the United States. San Francisco is the distribution center of
the West Coast , and as a port ranks second in the United States in
the value of water-borne commerce.
The respondent owns and operates 39 hydroelectric generating
plants and eight steam electric generating plants, all of which are
situated in California . In 1936 its total electrical load, consisting of
all electric energy generated, purchased , and received on consign-
ment, was 4,136 ,698,502 kilowatt-hours, of which amount approx-
imately 6 per cent or 261 ,258,800 kilowatt -hours, was purchased from
California -Oregon Power Company, which maintains generating
plants in both Oregon and California , and delivered to the respondent
at Delta, California, approximately 70 miles south of the California-
Oregon State line. During 1936, California-Oregon Power Company
generated 236,140,112 kilowatt -hours at its generating plants in
California-an amount less than that purchased from the California-
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 277
Oregon Power Company by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
The entire electrical load of the respondent is sold and delivered in
California. In 1936 it sold 13,810,700 kilowatt-hours, chiefly for use
in Nevada , to Sierra -Pacific Company , which generates and dis-
tributes electric energy in both Nevada and California . The energy
was delivered in the respondent 's transmission lines to Summit,
California , 20 miles west of the Nevada -California State line. There
the respondent 's transmission lines connect with the transmission
lines of Sierra-Pacific Company, which carry the energy into Nevada.
In 1936, Sierra-Pacific Company distributed only 5,673,279 kilowatt-
hours in California.
The respondent owns and operates a large gas compressor station
in California , from which extend two transmission pipe lines for the
transportation of natural gas in central and northern California. It
owns and operates 14 gas manufacturing plants, all of which are
situated in California . Seven are stand-by plants reserved against
the interruption of natural gas service . All the plants , except the
Marysville plant, are operated by fuel oil produced and purchased
in California . The Marysville plant, which in 1936 manufactured
330,240,000 cubic feet of gas-slightly more than half of the re-
spondent 's total output of manufactured gas-is operated by coal pro-
duced in Utah and purchased by the respondent from a dealer in
California . The respondent 's total output of manufactured gas in
1936 was 643 ,869,700 cubic feet. In 1936 the respondent purchased
59,893,041,000 cubic feet of natural gas from producers operating in
the gas fields in California.
During 1936 the respondent purchased almost $2,000,000 worth of
the following materials , all manufactured or originating outside Cali-
fornia : Steel pipe, transformers , cables, switches , incandescent lamps,
cable and tree wire , gas appliances , electric appliances , poles, insu-
lators, meters, valves, insulator pins and clamps , fittings, bolts , screws,
nails, and similar materials.
In 1936 its gross revenue amounted to $80,943,519 .93, of which $55,-
056,179.31 represented the revenue from its electric business and $24,-
6656,954.45 the revenue from its gas business . The remainder repre-
sented the revenues from its street railway, water , and steam business.
Exclusive of executive and management officers, heads of departments,
and division managers, the Company had in its employ 10,232 em-
ployees, as of May 31, 1937 . Its total annual pay roll for all of its
employees in 1936 amounted to $16,526 ,954.98.
A. Effect on commerce
The evidence specifically discloses the following effects on the opera-
tion of instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce and coin-
187930--39-vol. 13-1 9
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
munication in the event of the cessation or curtailment of the flow
of power from the respondent, such as would tend to accompany
industrial strife between the respondent and its employees :
1. Navigation.-All the United States lighthouses and aids to navi-
gation situated in San Francisco Bay and along the coast of central
and northern California are operated by electricity furnished by the
respondent. "Aids to navigation" are lights and fog signals. A ces-
sation of the flow of power would seriously handicap and imperil navi-
gation in and out of San Francisco Bay and along the coast of central
and northern California, as the stand-by lights which would be utilized
in such an event are not sufficiently powerful for the efficient and safe
guidance of navigation.
2. Navigation: operations on piers and vessels in port.-The respond-
ent furnishes electric power to the State of California for use on the
piers and docks in San Francisco Bay and other ports along the coast
of central and northern California, all of which are under the super-
vision of the California State Board of Harbor Commissioners. The
power is used for lighting the piers and docks, and for the operation
of conveyors, freight-moving trucks, and for the operation of loading
and unloading machines, which are manipulated to enter the holds of
vessels to load or unload cargo. The Board of Harbor Commissioners
operates eight sirens, eight bells, and eight signal lights, all of which
are essential for safe navigation in San Francisco harbor. They are
all electrically powered and are supplied with electricity by the re-
spondent. The Harbor Commissioners also use the power furnished
by the respondent to supply light to ships docked at the piers. The
testimony of an expert in the employ of the California State Board of
Harbor Commissioners clearly shows that a cessation of the flow of
power from the respondent would be disastrous to navigation in San
Francisco harbor and would completely shut down all operations on
the piers and docks.
3. Railroads.-All the railroads operating in the area served by the
respondent are dependent on the respondent for electrical energy for
the operation of their signalling systems. Train movements are de-
pendent on the proper and precise operation of the signalling systems.
A cessation of the flow of power from the respondent would seriously
curtail the operation of the signalling systems and, therefore, the
train movements. A cessation of the flow of power would immediately
handicap the operation of signalling systems, and in the case of a ces-
sation for 2 weeks, would exhaust the reserve power stored in the bat-
teries and thereafter there would be a complete shut-down of all
train movements in the area served by the respondent. Three inter-
state railroads operate in the area served by the respondent, namely,
Southern Pacific Railroad, Western Pacific Railroad, and Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 279
4. Telegraph.-All the motors and electric applicances used by the
telegraph companies and their branches situated in central and north-
ern California are operated by electric, power furnished by the re-
spondent. Electric energy is necessary for the transmission of tele-
graphic messages. Cessation of the flow of power from the respond-
ent for any length of time would seriously disrupt and perhaps com-
pletely stop the transmission of interstate messages, as the stand-by
power plants of the telegraph companies are inadequate and designed
for use only in short-lived emergencies.
5. Telephone.-Only one large telephone company, Pacific Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company, operates in the area served by the
respondent. The operation of its business is dependent upon the
electric power furnished by the respondent. A cessation of the flow
of power from the respondent would result in the cessation of all
telephone communication, including interstate communication.
6. Radio.-All the radio broadcasting stations in the area served
by the respondent are dependent upon it for the electric power which
is indispensable to their operations. Upon the cessation of the flow
of power from the respondent, all radio broadcasting in California,
and from California into other States, would cease within 18 hours.
Three nationally known radio broadcasting companies maintain
broadcasting stations served by the respondent, namely, National
Broadcasting Company, Radio Corporation of America, and Mackay
Radio and Tel. Co.
It thus clearly appears from the above findings that a labor dispute
between the respondent and its employees which resulted in the
serious curtailment or complete cessation of the flow of power from
the respondent, would thereby paralyze the operations of the above-
mentioned instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce and
communication in the vast and highly industrialized area served ex-
clusively by the respondent. The paralysis of the instrumentalities
of commerce and communication would stop not only the transporta-
tion of commodities in commerce, but also the operation of all busi-
nesses dependent upon the movement of commodities in interstate and
foreign commerce.
It also appears from the evidence that a large number of indus-
tries, such as manufacturing, situated in the area served by the
respondent and engaged in shipping and receiving commodities in
interstate or foreign commerce, are wholly dependent on the re-
spondent for gas and electric power which are essential to the opera-
tion of their plants.
7. Oil refining industry.-Two oil refining companies, Shell Oil
Company and Associated Oil Company, shown by the evidence to be
engaged in foreign commerce, are dependent on the respondent for
280 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
electric power. Electricity is indispensable for the chief oil refining
process, known as the Edleanau process. Electrical power is also
necessary for the operation of pumps which pump oil from tank farms
to tank ships, which as instrumentalities of commerce transport the oil
in foreign commerce. Cessation of the flow of power from the respond-
,cut would result in a complete shut-down of the oil refining companies
situated in the area exclusively served by the respondent. On two
previous occasions when the flow of power from the respondent was
temporarily severed the operations of Shell Oil Company were vir-
tually at a standstill.
8. Shipbuilding and repair.-There are three shipbuilding and ship
repair concerns in the area served by the respondent. All their
floating drydocks, pumps, and other machinery are operated by elec-
tricity furnished by the respondent. Cessation of the flow of power
from the respondent would result in the complete stoppage of the
operations of the three companies, which means that no vessel could
be repaired or drydocked in San Francisco Bay, except for such
repairs as could be made by the use of graving or land docks which
are or could be operated by steam, but of these there are only a
negligible number in that area.
In the written general stipulation concerning the respondent and
its business there are listed 84 of the respondent's largest customers
for electric energy and 17 of its largest purchasers of natural gas.
Many of the companies listed are nationally known concerns. They
are grouped under various captions, such as, for example, 5 companies
under "Oil," 10 under "Metals," 15 under "Mining and Dredging,"
10 under "Food Products," including Shredded Wheat Company,
Swift and Company, and Albers Milling Company, 7 under "Chemi-
cals," including Hercules Powder Company, 4 under "Cement Com-
panies," including Pacific Portland Cement Company and Santa Cruz
Portland Cement Company, and 10 under "Lumber and Other Build-
ing Materials," including Diamond Match Company. The list indi-
cates that all the companies listed purchase large quantities of elec-
tricity for power purposes.
The written stipulation further shows that the United States Gov-
ernment purchases large quantities of electricity and gas from the
respondent, for the purpose, among others, of operating its numerous
post offices situated in the area served by the respondent. The re-
spondent also supplies power to all the newspapers located in the
area which it serves, to the Associated Press, to the San Francisco
and Oakland airports, to the Dow-Jones and Company ticker service,
and to 10 steamship lines.
In summary, it appears from the evidence adduced at the hearing
and from the oral and written stipulations, (1) that a vast and
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 281
highly industrialized and commercialized territory, larger than the,
whole of New England and including within its limits the cities of
Sacramento, Oakland, and San Francisco, the latter the second
largest shipping center in the United States on the basis of value
of water-borne cargo, is entirely dependent on the respondent for
electric power and almost entirely dependent on the respondent for
gas; (2) that a cessation of the flow of power from the respondent
to its customers, such as would tend to accompany a labor dispute
between the respondent and its employees, (a) would in a short time
paralyze the operations of important instrumentalities of interstate
and foreign commerce and communication in the area served by the
respondent, and thereby also paralyze the operations of all the in-
dustries situated in that area which are engaged in interstate or
foreign commerce, and (b) would directly cause the cessation of the
operations of the businesses in the area served by the respondent
which are dependent on the respondent for power and which are
engaged in shipping and receiving commodities in interstate or for-
eign commerce; and (3) that a labor dispute between the company
and its employees might seriously curtail (a) the flow of a large
quantity of electricity, which the respondent purchases from the
California-Oregon Power Company, across the California-Oregon
State line, (b) the flow of electricity, sold by the respondent to the
Sierra-Pacific Company, across the California-Nevada State line,
and (c) the movement in interstate commerce of the various materials,
appliances, and coal originating in States other than California and
purchased by the respondent amounting in value to almost $2,000,000
annually.
Expressed concisely, the effect on interstate and foreign commerce
of a labor dispute between the respondent and its employees which
resulted in a cessation of operations would be substantially equivalent
to that caused by simultaneous labor disputes among the businesses
operating the instrumentalities of interstate and foreign commerce
and communication and the myriad businesses situated in central
and northern California which are engaged in shipping and receiving
commodities in interstate or foreign commerce?'
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, herein
called the U. E. R. W., is a labor organization, affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization, herein called the C. I. O.
Until September 1937 the U. E. R. W. was known as United Elec-
trical and Radio Workers of America when its name was changed
15 Consolidated Edison Company v. National Labor Relations Board, 59 S Ct. 206
282 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. Until
September 1937 District 14 of the U. E. R. W., covering the States
of California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona, had
within its jurisdiction certain locals which enrolled as members em-
ployees of the respondent, but during that month jurisdiction over
the above locals was transferred to District 10 of the organization.
The locals in District 10 admitted to membership all classes of
workers employed by the respondent in its outside or physical forces
up to and including the rank of job foremen. In July 1938, however,
"a national set-up was made for all the utility locals known as the
Utility Workers Organizing Committee, and the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America agreed to release all the
locals from the utility groups so that they would be able to form this
new set-up under the Committee for Industrial Organization." All
employees of the respondent in the above classifications who now have
affiliation with the Committee for Industrial Organization are mem-
bers of the Utility Workers Organizing Committee and come under
the jurisdiction of its San Francisco Joint Council.1,
California Gas and Electric Employees Union, herein called the
California Union, is an unaffiliated labor organization incorporated
under the laws of California. Its membership is restricted to em-
ployees of the respondent and it admits to membership all employees
of the respondent except officials, executive officers, shop foremen,
and supervisory employees of higher rank. The board of directors
of the California Union has power to authorize the organization of
locals throughout the territory served by the respondent. There is
evidence that 15 such locals have been organized, one for each of the
divisions under which the respondent carries on its operations.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Events prior to incorporation of the California Union in May 1937
The U. E. R. W. became affiliated with the Committee for In-
dustrial Organization on April 1, 1937. At about that time certain
of the respondent's supervisory employees began a campaign to dis-
courage membership in the U. E. R. W. Shortly after the U. E.
R. W.'s affiliation with the C. I. 0., A. E. Englebright, division
superintendent of the gas department of the respondent's North
Bay division, addressed a group of the respondent's employees in
its machine shop at San Rafael during working hours. One Harvey
16 The U. E . R. W. is the labor organization referred to in this decision because the
evidence dealt with events which took place before the establishment of the Utility Work-
ers Organizing Committee as the successor organization . The witnesses at the hearing
frequently referred to the organization as the C. I. O . Accordingly it is referred to as
such at a number of places in this decision.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 283
Hendricks, a general foreman in the gas department of the North
Bay division, attended the meeting. Earl Sawyer, an appliance
supervisor, appears to have actively cooperated in the holding of
this meeting by informing certain of the employees that the meeting
was to he held .1.7 At this meeting which, according to an estimate
of an eyewitness,"' was attended by 100 to 125 employees, Engle-
bright, " . . . as much as said that due to the fact that we had held
the first meeting in San Rafael after we had joined the C. I. 0.,
which was in the Odd Fellows' Hall, it was a sort of demonstration
meeting, and due to the fact that he had helped us considerably
and he had been quite friendly with us and there had been a lot
of work that could have been eliminated, such as if he cared to
he could have shut down the meter shop and laid a few of the men
off, he felt our cooperation wasn't what he had expected." He
further told those at the meeting that he felt they "couldn't hope
to gather much from belonging to the C. I. 0." Englebright also
addressed a group of 25 to 30 employees one morning in April 1937
at the corner of Wheeler and Henry Streets in San Rafael. Carl
B. Samuelson, general foreman in the gas department of the North
Bay division, was present at this meeting. Englebright told the
group that he was sorry to hear of their C. I. O. affiliation. He
warned them that there was to be a battle on the coast between the
A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. and that he wished the men would quit
organizing until the question was decided in the larger divisions
of the respondent. The men were called away from their work to
attend this meeting and were paid for the time so spent. The
respondent did not deny the foregoing activities.
On several occasions during April and May 1937, or about that
time, one Burkhead,19 a general line foreman in San Jose, told
Chester J. Adams, an employee under his supervision, that he, Burk-
head, believed the employees of the San Jose division did the wrong
thing by affiliating with the C. I. O. Burkhead further stated to
Adams that he thought the respondent never would recognize the
C. I. O. because it had a radical trend. Neither Burkhead nor any
other witness was called by the respondent to deny that he had made
these statements to Adams. We find that Burkhead made these
statements. Although Burkhead had no power to hire and discharge
employees under him, he had authority to recommend discharges
and transfers. Also, general foremen such as Burkhead at times
"Joseph A. Plamondon , an employee in the gas department at San Rafael , testified :
"I think our supervisor, Sawyer, told us we were going to meet over at the machine shop."
11 Plamondon is the eyewitness here referred to.
1e Eugene G McCann, the company ' s personnel director , referred to Burkhead as a gen-
,eral line foreman in San Jose. Neither McCann nor any other witness stated Burkhead's
first name or initials.
284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
directly discipline the men under their supervision. We find that
Burkhead is a supervisor who exercises substantial control over the
men under him. As we find below, and for the reasons there set
forth, the respondent is responsible for the activities of the super-
visory employees mentioned above.
We find that the respondent, by the above activities, has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.20
B. Events during May, June, and July, 1.937
On May 1, 1937, five employees of the respondent filed with the
California Secretary of State articles of incorporation and bylaws for
the California Union. On May 22, 1937, amended articles of incor-
poration and on June 9, 1937, amended bylaws were filed for this
union. During May, R. P. Mace,21 an employee of the respondent in
Sacramento and one of the incorporators of the California Union,
traveled to various places served by the respondent and urged the
employees at those places to organize locals as part of the California
Union. There is evidence that Mace made speeches to employees at
Auburn, Marysville, Stockton, and San Jose, urging them to form
locals.
Supervisory employees of the respondent took an active part in the
organizational activity which ensued on behalf of the California
Union. In Auburn, the employees assembled one evening for a
P. S. E. A.22 meeting in a hall over the city firehouse, which was com-
pany property. A Westinghouse representative spoke during the
early part of the meeting and was followed by Mace, who spoke on
the National Labor Relations Act. Mace stated that employees were
starting a union in Sacramento and that an unaffiliated union would
have a better chance than a national union of obtaining bargaining
rights with the respondent. E. T. Erskine, superintendent of collec-
tions, George Tobey, division line foreman , and L. G. Roberts, division
20 In regard to the intunidatory effect of statements and activities of supervisory eni-
ployees , see Virginia Ferry Corporation v National Labor Relations Board, 101 F (2d)
103 (C C A 4th , 1939 ) Matter of Picker X-Ray Corporation Waite Manuf'ic ' urina Divi-
sion, Inc and Inteinational Association of Machinists, 12 N L R B 1384 And in
Matter of Wheelvng Steel Corporation and The Amalgamated Association of lion , Steel,
and Tan Workers of North America, N It. A Lodge No 155, Goodwill Lodge No 171, fled
& Ware Lodge No 158, Golden Rule Lodge No 161 , Service Lodge No 163, 1 N L R B 699,
at 709 , we said' "The power of an employer over the economic life of an employe is felt
intensely and directly . . The employee Is sensitive to each subtle expression of hostility
upon the part of one whose good will is so vital to him, whose power is so unlimited, whose
action is so beyond appeal "
21 In some of the testimony 11ace is referred to as Macy
22 The full name of the organization is Pacific Service Employees Associatio ' Its exist-
ence began prior to 1918 and at the t'me of the hearing its functions er bra'- -1 social
activities , death benefits for members , educational work, and a plan for extend'rg ' cans to
members
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 285
superintendent of the electrical department , were present at this meet-
ing. Charles C. Lee, an electrical maintenance subforeman at Au-
burn, was also present and conferred with Mace after the latter's
speech. Shortly thereafter Lee went to Sacramento to obtain more
information about the California Union. Lee testified that he took
the information back to H. T. Brooks , a meterman , "and he called a
meeting and we started to organize a local up there." Organization
of the California Union in and around Auburn continued and had the
support of certain of the respondent 's supervisory employees. Her-
man Veale, a foreman in the line gang , collected dues and signed up
members for the California Union. At least some of his campaigning
for members took place in the presence of Roberts and Tobey and the
respondent introduced no evidence that they ever signified any kind
of disapproval of this activity.
Another meeting of the employees of the division was held in July
at the Auburn Country Club. James M. Mitzel, a lineman at Auburn
in 1937, testified that Lee notified him by mail about this meeting.
Lee presided at the meeting , which was attended by 75 to 100 em-
ployees. Lee, who had been elected president of the Auburn local
compared the C. I. O. unfavorably with the California Union. In
addition to Lee, Herman Veale, line foreman , "Red" Phillips, heavy
gang foreman , and "Bill" Cadodi, line foreman,23 were also present
at the meeting at the Auburn Country Club.
Lee was called as a witness by the U. E. R. W. He did not deny
that the early history of the Auburn local was as detailed above. He
admitted the activity of supervisory employees in starting the Auburn
local and that in addition to himself , Herman Veale, Jack Champion,
William Meyers , and P . R. Phelps,24 whose names appear as charter
members of this local , held supervisory positions with the respondent.25
During the foregoing period from May to July 1937, certain of the
respondent 's supervisory employees assisted the organizational activ-
ity of the California Union being conducted at other places served
by the respondent . Kenneth W. Van Gundy , district sales supervisor,
C. S. Manwell and S. B. Mitchell , agents at Burlingame and San
Mateo, respectively , and William L. Greer, sales supervisor, were
among the 14 charter members of the local organized among employees
in the San Jose division .211 Before the charter was issued to this local
23 Phillips and Cadodi were referred to in the testimony by their nicknames
24 Counsel for the respondent referred to this some employee apparently as P. A.
Phelps
25 See Board Exhibit No. 5 Lee testified that Veale was a line foreman , Champion a
garace lineman , Meyers a gas maintenance foreman , and Phelps a line foreman.
21 The local in the San Jose division was referred to by the California Union as its local
No. 11.
286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Van Gundy and Manwell discussed their preference for an unaffiliated
union to the C. I. O. On this point Van Gundy testified as follows :
Q. (By Mr. Alpert.) Did your discussion refer to the exist-
ence of that union in any way?
A. It did.
Q. In what way?
A. In the matter that it was thought by we men who were in-
terested that it was better that the employees of the Company
organize and effect its own union rather than to tie up with an
organization such as was then in force, the C. I. O.
Van Gundy, Manwell, Mitchell, and C. C. McRae, a salesman, had
a luncheon meeting in San Mateo shortly prior to the issuance of-
the charter to the San Jose local and discussed the formation of an
unaffiliated union. Within approximately a month after this lunch-
eon, Van Gundy addressed a group of about 13 salesmen under him.
one evening in a plaza in the rear of the San Mateo County Court
House and, according to his own testimony, explained to them his
views on the pending organization of the California Union and his,
reasons for taking an active part in it.
Concurrently with the foregoing activities of Van Gundy, Manwell,
and Mitchell in behalf of the San Jose local, activities in its behalf
were also in progress in the city of San Jose itself. About 3 weeks
before the San Jose local received its charter, William L. Greer,.
district sales supervisor '21' called a meeting of employees at the St.
Clair Hotel in San Jose to consider what they should do under the,
National Labor Relations Act. Twenty-five to thirty employees at-
tended. Greer knew at the time that similar meetings were being
held in other divisions of the company. Mitchell and Manwell, above
mentioned, F. W. Torrey, a line foreman, and G. M. Bartley 28 a job
foreman in the gas department, attended this meeting.29 H. E. Brill-
hart of Sacramento, a company salesman who did a great deal of
organizational work for the California Union,30 spoke in favor of
that organization at this meeting. About 3 weeks after the meeting
at the hotel a second meeting attended only by E. J. Camozzi, one of
the respondent's servicemen, one Jones'31 Greer, and Brillhart, who
27 Referred to by Eugene G. McCann, the personnel director of the company , as a sales
crew captain.
28 This name appears in the transcript both as Barkley and Barcley.
29 Greer was called as a witness by the Board and was asked whether Kenneth Chamber-
lain, assistant superintendent of the gas department in the Redwood district , was piesent.
Greer answered • "I believe he was "
30 The respondent in the fall of 1937 gave Brillhart a leave of absence in order to carry
on activities for the California Union. It gave Robert E Shippey, an employee , a similar
leave of absence in order to campaign for the U. E R W.
31 None of the testimony identified Jones. Greer in testifying about the meeting at his,
house merely mentioned "Mr. Jones" as one of those present.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 287
came from Sacramento to attend, was held at Greer's house. Ways
and means of organizing a local of the California Union were dis-
cussed at this meeting and thereafter Greer and Camozzi circulated
an application for a charter among the employees for their signature.
After certain signatures were obtained and dues collected from those
signing, Greer sent the application to Sacramento and the charter
was issued.
In addition to the foregoing activity by Greer in May or June 1937,
he attended a meeting of the C. I. 0.32 in San Jose at which employees
of the respondent were present. Chester J. Adams, a lineman in
attendance at the meeting, testified that after the meeting Greer
"got in an argument with some of the boys." Adams related his
recollection of Greer's remarks on this occasion as follows:
I specifically heard the statement that Greer made to the
effect that the boys was all wrong, that they should belong to an
independent outfit "like ours", and that the organizers in the C. I.
0. had taken a radical trend, and he also stated that he didn't
believe that the P. G. and E. would ever have anything to do with
the C. I. 0., or words to that effect. And he stated that an inde-
pendent outfit "like ours" would have more chance to get an
agreement with the P. G. and E.
The above testimony of Adams was corroborated by Harry D. Coy,
another lineman, and Greer did not deny their testimony.33 In fact,
Greer himself testified in explanation of his activity, "Naturally, I
wanted to keep the control of our problems in our own hands."
There was other organizational activity in the San Jose division on
behalf of the California Union during the summer of 1937. One
morning in July a meeting of employees was called outside the re-
spondent's warehouse at Mayfield. Jack A. Whitehead, a lineman at
the time of that meeting, testified that about 7:30 a. m., Kirsch, the
foreman'34 "required all of the men to leave the trucks and assemble
in the yard." One Scofield, a general foreman, attended the meeting.',,
According to Whitehead the meeting, attended by approximately 60
men, including foremen, lasted until after 9: 00 o'clock, even though
the men were supposed to be at work at 8: 00 o'clock. Whitehead was
corroborated by Alex Sockolowski, another employee, as to the occur-
12 At that time this C I. O. affiliate Was known as United Electrical and Radio worker s
of America.
83 The respondent did not call Greer as a witness All the testimony he gave was as a
witness for the Board.
s; McCann in his testimony referred to Al. A. Kirsch as a line foreman In describing
such a foreman ' s supervisory authority McCann said, "The line clew consists generally of
five or six men , sometimes up to eight men, and they have a truck with equipment on it ;
go out and do maintenance and construction work In connection with electrical distribution
circuits."
$5 McCann testified that Scofield "is in the same position as a general foreman, exactly."
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rence of this meeting and both witnesses testified that Brillhart spoke.
According to Whitehead's testimony, Brillhart stated that the em-
ployees who were members of the U. E. R. W. "would be fired off the
jobs immediately when the recognition was given to the California Gas
and Electric Employees Association," and that men loyal to the
respondent would be taken care of. Brillhart denied that lie ever
made the foregoing speech at Mayfield. It is possible that Whitehead
and Sockolowski were mistaken in their identity of Brillhart, but
it is also possible that Brillhart himself was confused about the numer-
ous speeches he made during the summer of 1937 and for that reason
forgot the Mayfield speech. Neither Kirsch nor any of the other
supervisory employees who were present at the meeting were called
by the respondent to testify.
In the East Bay division a meeting of employees was held one eve-
ning in May 1937 311 in a company building at 17th and Clay Streets
in Oakland. The employees discussed forming an unaffiliated organ-
ization and voted to proceed therewith. Although the California
Union was not mentioned by name at this meeting, a local of the Cali-
fornia Union was thereafter organized. The attitude of certain of
the respondent's supervisory employees in this division 37 toward the
U. E. R. W. is illustrated in the case of Calder Hogeboom, a service-
man in Oakland, who had a grievance against the respondent in the
summer of 1937 and asked his union, the U. E. R. W.,38 to take up the
matter with the respondent. Thereafter Hogeboom was called to the
office of V. E. Britton, division superintendent of the gas department.
Hogeboom testified that lie was told by Britton in the presence of
W. G. B. Euler 38 and W. H. Cohick, superintendent of the gas distribu-
tion department of the East Bay division, that "there was no need of
belonging to an organization to get justice from the Pacific Gas and
Electric Company." This testimony was not refuted and the respond-
ent did not call Britton or any of the others who were present at the
meeting to testify.
The respondent's friendliness and assistance to the California Union
during the period from May to July 1937 is plainly shown in the help
it gave the California Union in connection with two bank loans which
the California Union obtained in June and July, respectively. In
June 1937 Capitol National Bank in Sacramento loaned $500 to the
California Union. G. E. Zoller, the bank's cashier, testified con-
cerning the loan. The loan originally was payable in 90 days and it
$6 Some testimony placed this meeting in April 1937
Other instances of such activity by supervisory employees in the East Bav division
are stated in Section III C hereinaftei The East Bay division serves the city of Oakland
and several smaller cities in that region.
31 Referred to in IIogeboom 's testimony as the C I 0
39 DlcCamn referred to Euler as "general superintendent of all our physical properties in
East Bay and San Francisco Divisions."
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 289
has been renewed from time to time. In connection with these trans-
actions 40 Zoller telephoned John P. Coghlan, vice president of the
respondent, and inquired about the financial responsibility of the Cali-
fornia Union. Coghlan informed Zoller that he thought the Cali-
fornia Union "would be responsible." In July 1937 the California
Union secured another loan, this time for $750 from the American
Trust Company of Sacramento. It was originally payable in 60 days
and has been renewed from time to time. Ransom Cook, vice president
of this bank, testified that about 2 weeks after this loan was granted
he received, without inquiry, a telephone call from R. E. Fisher, vice
president of the respondent, to the effect that the California Union
was a going concern.
As neither Coghlan nor Fisher was called by the respondent to
testify, the testimony of Zoller and Cook regarding these loans was
uncontradicted. The action of these officials of the respondent could
not help but be of assistance to the California Union in securing re-
newals of the loans, which were used to pay the general expenses of
the California Union. One of the expenses for which the California
Union used part of the loan money was to mail each month be-
tween 9,000 and 10,500 of the respondent's employees free copies of
"Common Sense," a publication of the California Union."
We find that E. T. Erskine, George Tobey, L. G. Roberts, Charles
C. Lee, Herman Veale, Jack Champion, William Meyers, P. R.
Phelps, Kenneth W. Van Gundy, C. S. Manwell, S. B. Mitchell,
William L. Greer, F. W. Torrey, G. M. Barcley, M. A. Kirsch, and
Scofield above mentioned are supervisory employees of the re-
spondent and that they engaged in the activities on behalf of the
California Union above attributed to them. We find that at the
Mayfield meeting above described some speaker was permitted by
Kirsch and Scofield to address the employees who attended substan-
tially as testified to by Whitehead. We find that V. E. Britton,
division superintendent of the gas department in the respondent's
East Bay division, made the remark attributed to him above by
Calder Hogeboom and that W. G. B. Euler, general superintendent
of the respondent's physical properties in the East Bay and San
4 Zoller testified that he did not recall whether lie checked with Coghlau at the time of
one of the renewals o: before the loan was granted.
91 Part of Brillhart 's testimony regarding "Common Sense" was as follows :
Q. (By Mr Alpert.) Now that publication was sent out to employees of the P G.
and E Company?
A It was.
Q All employees?
A That we could get the names of.
Q. And no fee was charged any of the employees for that publication, was there?
A Not until after January 1.
Q. I am speaking of 1937.
A None
290 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Francisco divisions, and W. H. Cohick, superintendent of the gas dis-
tribution department of the respondent's East Bay division, were
present at the time of Britton's remark. We further find that John
P. Coghlan and R. E. Fisher, vice presidents of the respondent, took
the action above testified to concerning the bank loans obtained by
the California Union.
The respondent contends that it should not be held accountable
for the events of the spring and early summer of 1937, arguing that
the early activity of the supervisory employees was occasioned by a
mistake of the California Union in providing during the early weeks
of its existence "that all employees shall be eligible to membership
in this association. 742 There might be some force in the respondent's
contention if its activities in opposition to the U. E. R. W. had not
continued beyond the summer. The events discussed hereinafter,
however, show that the respondent's interference with the U. E. R. W.
extended into the fall of 1937 and up to the time of the election.43
This consistent campaign of the respondent thus extending over a
period of many months deprives the respondent's contention of any
merit it might have had if this campaign had ceased during the
summer of 1937.
We find that the respondent, by the activities set forth above, inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act.
C. Intimidation and coercion during the late sumimer and fall of 1931
until the election
The respondent's support of the California Union continued even
after the hearing held by the Board from July 22 to 28, 1937, on
the petition of the U. E. R. W. for an investigation and certification
of representatives in the Case No. R-274. Walter M. Turner, who
was employed by the U. E. R. W. during August 1937,44 was told by
certain employees of the respondent one evening of that month
about a meeting to be held the next morning in a vacant lot near
the Civic Auditorium in Oakland. According to Turner, the meeting,
which was attended by 50 to 60 employees, lasted until 8:40 or 8:45
that morning, notwithstanding the fact that the regular time to begin
work was 8 o'clock. The foreman in charge of the employees who
attended this meeting was there part of the time and "two or three
42The bylaws of the California Union were amended June 9, 1937, in order to exclude
foremen.
qB Indeed some evidence indicates that the campaign of interference continued even after
the election of December 1937.
a Turner at the time of his testimony was no longer employed by the U. E. R w., but
by a dry- cleaning establishment in Oakland . In his testimony Turner referred to himself
as having been employed by the C. I. O.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 291
. . . lead men or subforemen . . . were there all during the speech."
The speaker, one Russ Bluett from the general construction depart-
ment in Sacramento, stated that the C. I. O. "were a radical bunch
.and the men could never expect to gain anything by joining an or-
ganization of that kind." He also criticized the A. F. of L. The
speaker described the respondent as favorable to the California
Union and "felt sure that they would be recognized." The respond-
ent offered no testimony to refute the facts regarding the foregoing
,meeting as detailed above.
The testimony of various employees in the East Bay division shows
that during the weeks preceding the election directed by the Board
-certain supervisory employees threatened that some of the respond-
ent's employees would lose their positions if the U. E. R. W. won the
election.45 Calder Hogeboom and George H. Russell, employees in
Oakland, testified that a few days prior to the election 40 Charles
Thiele, a service inspector 47 in charge of certain employees in the
gas department stated in the presence of 50 to 75 employees on the
respondent's property "that if the C. I. O. won they would be about
:20 men out of a job in that department." L. A. Lindquist, an em-
ployee doing construction work for the respondent testified that the
,day he was going to vote in the election Tom Egan, a control fore-
man, told him "that he (Egan) understood that if the vote went the
wrong way, the Company was going to contract all their work out."
Lindquist testified that being a construction worker himself he
understood Egan to refer to construction work. Albert D. Higdon,
another employee in the construction department at Oakland, testi-
1ed that Egan made a similar statement to him in November 1937.
The respondent did not call Thiele or Egan to testify and did not
deny by any other witnesses that the events above described took
place.
At approximately the same time employees in the San Francisco
-division across the bay from Oakland were also told that the respond-
ent's construction work would be contracted out if the U. E. R. W.
won the election. H. R. Woodward, general foreman in the under-
ground department in San Francisco with about 40 men under his
supervision, in August 1937 told William I. O'Neill, an employee in
the gas department that if the company had any trouble with the
'C. I. O. "They would contract their work out."
Lee Robert Burns, a former salesman in the San Francisco division
testified that in September 1937 he had a conversation with Francis
45 See 3 N . L. R. B. 835, 851 , and 4 N. L. R. B. 180 for the Board 's Direction of
Elections
48 The election directed in Case No. R-274 was held December 6 to 15, 1937
41 McCann testified that Thiele meets a group of servicemen three times a day and
distributes their orders to them. He may work with them, or, if rushed, do the job him-
self and "tell them exactly what the trouble was and how he fixed it."
292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Naylor, division sponsor of sales work, and that Naylor referred to
the California Union as a "company union." Burns testified that
there were more conversations between himself and Naylor and in
some of them Naylor again referred to the organization as the "com-
pany union." Burns also testified that he had some conversations in
September or October 1937 with George Martin, sales crew captain,
in which Martin referred to the C. I. O. as "Reds" and Communists
and that anybody who belonged to it "should be kicked out of the
P. G. and E. system." Burns received through the mail the issues
of "Common Sense," a publication circulated by the California
Union. The issues of this publication, according to Burns, came
to him addressed as "Lee R. Burns." The respondent's place of
business was the only place where his name appeared in that form.
He further stated that in the telephone directory his name appeared
as "L. Robert Burns" and that normally he signed it as "L. R.
Burns"; that in the latter part of 1937 lie moved from one address
to another in San Francisco; that within a week the copies of
"Common Sense" came to his new address under the name of "Lee R.
Burns"; that the only one to whom Burns had at that time given
his change of address was Dan Gustaffson, chief clerk in the respond-
ent's sales department; and that he had not at the time notified even
the post office of the change. Although neither the respondent nor
the California Union called any witnesses to refute this testimony of
Burns, there is an inference implicit in the questions asked Burns by
counsel for the respondent on cross-examination that Burns may
have testified as he did because he was disgruntled at being dismissed
by the respondent in 1938. Burns stated, however, that he had no
feeling of unfriendliness toward the respondent. Furthermore, since
the other persons named by Burns in his testimony were employees
in San Francisco, the place of the hearing, the respondent could have
easily called them as defense witnesses. The failure to do so confirms
the truthfulness of Burns' testimony.
At Willows in the De Sabla division one morning in October or
November 1937 a meeting of about 9 or 10 employees was held during
working hours on the respondent's property adjacent to the respond-
ent's warehouse. Paul Shepherd, storekeeper at Chico, spoke to the
group and was reported by an eyewitness as having said, "I'm in a
hell of a tight spot, he says, `If the C. I. O. wins out,' he says, `I
want you men to stay with me."' Frank Potter, a line foreman,
attended and took part in the meeting. His line crew was also
present. W. E. Parks, an employee in the gas plant at Willows, testi-
fied that Potter stated at the meeting that ". . . he thought this was a
mighty fine set-up, the California Gas and Electric Employees. He
says, `If I belonged to the C. I. O. or the A. F. L.' he says, `we would
go out on strike for 24 hours or anything like that.' He says, `I would
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 293
lose all my pension.' He says, 'When I get 65 it's going to look damn
good to me."' Joseph W. Eaton, a lineman, attended the above meet-
ing and corroborated Parks' testimony regarding it. Eaton testified
that the meeting took place between 10 and 12 o'clock in the morning
and lasted about an hour. He further testified that he received pay
for the time spent there. No testimony was offered to refute the fact
that the foregoing meeting actually did take place as described above.
The testimony of McCann, however, and implications in the questions
asked the Board's witnesses on cross-examination were to the effect
that Potter was not in fact a supervisory employee. Parks, however,
referred to Potter as "a line foreman" and further referred to "Pot-
ter's line crew." He testified that among those present at the meeting
was the crew under Potter. Eaton testified : "Mr. Potter is foreman
of the line gang, electric department." We find that Potter was a
line foreman and that he exercises substantial control over the men
under him.
Another incident in the San Joaquin division in the fall of 1937
indicates the attitude the respondent was taking toward the labor
organizations involved in the then pending election. Roscoe Cain,
who had been an employee of the respondent for about 10 years, left
his employment with it to enter business for himself on June 1, 1937.
Shortly after the following October 1, Cain sought reemployment
with the respondent and in so doing went to Stockton to see O. R.
Evans, division manager.48 According to Cain, Evans in the presence
of E. T. Woodruff, another supervisory employee in charge of the
engineering department of the San Joaquin division, reminded him
of his activity for the C. I. O. while an employee of the company.
Evans then stated, "Cain, the P. G. and E. don't want men that have
the radical tendencies that the organization that you sponsored have."
Neither Evans nor Woodruff was called as a witness by the respondent
to deny Cain's testimony.
On or about October 13, 1937, a meeting was held at approxi-
mately 8: 00 a. in. in Santa Rosa on property of the respondent,
80 to 90 employees attending the meeting. E. C. Hersam, general
foreman of the electric department in the Santa Rosa district of the
North Bay division," introduced at this meeting one Mickey Jordan.
Jordan was known by the other employees as an employee connected
with the respondent's general offices. Herbert J. Mitchell, an em-
ployee in the North Bay division who attended the meeting, testi-
fied, "Mr. Jordan is, I think, as I understand, safety engineer or
safety inspector, and each month there is usually a speech either by
AS Referred to by Cain in his testimony as division superintendent
^ McCann referred to Hersam as "general foreman in the electiical department, Santa
Rosa "
187910-30-vo] 1 ;--10
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the safety engineer himself or Mr. Jordan, and this meeting was
called as a safety meeting." Jordan proceeded to make some re-
marks at this meeting about safety and the attitude the employees
should take toward their work. "And then he spoke of union trouble
and he stated that he had been in organized labor for a good many
years, and at one time held an office in a labor union; that he had
never had anything but trouble from it and he couldn't understand
why we couldn't get into a good independent organization of our
'own like the telephone company had." This meeting lasted ap-
proximately 1 hour and the employees who attended were paid for
their time.50 The respondent offered no evidence to refute the above
testimony.
In addition to the foregoing activities, there was, from May 1937
until after the election in December, activity on the part of super-
visory employees of the respondent in the solicitation of members
for the California Union. George H. Russell, a serviceman in the
gas department in Oakland, testified that about a month before the
election John Young, his supervisor, who had charge of 50 to 75
employees, solicited his membership in the California Union. Rus-
sell testified that he also knew of Young soliciting membership from
Wesley Rudee,51 another employee. Neither Young nor any other
witness was called by the respondent to deny Russell's testimony.
Calder Hogeboom testified and was corroborated by Russell that
Charles Thiele, a supervisory employee referred to above, stated
only a week or 10 days prior to the election that he had signed up
85 members in the California Union. Thiele was not called as a
witness to deny having made this statement or that he had signed
up 85 members in the California Union.
We find that the employees mentioned in the above description of
events held positions with the respondent as testified to and that
Frank Potter as a line foreman was a supervisory employee of the
respondent .52 We find that the meetings and the events in connection
therewith took place at Oakland, Willows, and Santa Rosa as de-
scribed above. We find that Charles Thiele, Tom Egan, H. R.
Woodward, and O. R. Evans made the remarks attributed to them in
the foregoing testimony. We further find that John Young and
Charles Thiele solicited employees of the respondent to become
members of the California Union as testified to above.
The respondent contends that it should not be bound by most of
the activities described above because the supervisory employees in-
60 Employees normally began work at 8: 00 a. m.
51 Counsel for the respondent referred to this employee as Wesley Rudy.
62 The respondent did not undertake to disprove that the other employees mentioned in
the testimony held supervisory positions
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 295
volved were not authorized to bind the company. The respondent's
-contention is based on two grounds, namely, that very few of the
supervisory employees whose activities are set forth above have power
to hire and discharge, and that most of these supervisory employees
were in the unit found appropriate by the Board and were eligible
to vote in the election. However, the important consideration is
that the various supervisory employees whose actions are in question
did in fact hold positions with the respondent which gave them
certain powers of direction over other employees, who identify them
with the management.58 Nor does the fact that some of the em-
ployees whose acts are complained of were within the unit found
appropriate by the Board alter the situation. Such an employee's
conduct in opposition to or in favor of a labor organization is bind-
ing on the respondent for the reasons set forth below in Section VI.
Also many of the activities set forth above, were engaged in by
supervisory employees who were clearly above the rank of job fore-
men and who were not eligible to vote.
We find that the respondent from April through December 1937
by the numerous statements and warnings of its supervisory em-
ployees in favor of the California Union and against the U. E. R. W.,
by its assistance to the California Union's campaign of organizing
locals, by allowing meetings favorable to the California Union and
opposing the U. E. R. W. to be held on company time and property,
by solicitation of members for the California Union, by active assist-
ance to the California Union in the bank loan transactions above-
mentioned, and by the other acts set forth above, has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining and other mutual aid and protection as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
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 the respondent de-
scribed in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the
free flow of commerce.
58 See Matter of Electric Auto-Lite Company, Bail Manufacturing Division and Interna-
tional Union. United Automobile Workers of America, Local No 526, 7 N. L. R. B. 1179,
1185.
296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the company has engaged in certain unfair
labor practices, we will order it to cease and desist from engaging in
such practices. In order more effectively to effectuate the policies of
the Act, we will order the respondent immediately to post notices in
conspicuous places in its offices, buildings, plants, and other places of
employment stating that the respondent will cease and desist in the
manner aforesaid.
VI. THE EFFECT OF THE INTIMIDATION AND COERCION ON THE ELECTION
The facts set forth above in Sectioii III, which sustain the allega-
tions that the respondent interfered with the election, show that the
respondent's unlawful conduct began early in the summer of 1937 and
continued through the election in December 1937. On occasions this
conduct took the form of pronouncements by supervisory employees
in opposition to the U. E. R. W. and in favor of the California Union.
Again it involved the solicitation of members for the California Union
by supervisory employees. Still other times the conduct consisted of
ratification by supervisory employees of what was said and done favor-
able to the California Union and against the U. E. R. W. by permitting
such action to take place in their presence on company time, on com-
pany property, or at company meetings. Such activities, especially
those taking place in the late summer and fall of 1937 up to and in-
cluding the time of the election, interfered with and coerced the em-
ployees in their right to support and vote for representatives of their
own choosing.
The respondent contends that it should not be held accountable for
acts of those foremen who were in fact eligible to vote ill the election.
The fact that certain supervisory employees are eligible to vote does
not relieve the employer from responsibility for the acts of such super-
visory employees. In the interest of a free choice of representatives,
supervisory employees must be "required to abstain from active
participation in a contest between labor organizations." 54 Moreover,
the employees' free choice of representatives was interfered with
and restrained by activity on the part of supervisory employees who
were above the rank of job foreman and hence not eligible to vote.
The activity of E. C. Hersanl, a general foreman with 30 to 40 men
under him, in introducing Mickey Jordan at the meeting of October
13, 19379 in Santa Rosa at which time Jordan criticized the U. E. R. W.,
64 See Matter of Tennessee Copper Company and A. F. of L. Federal Uneon No. 21164,
8 N L R B 575 See also Matter of Carrollton Metal Products Company and Amalga-
mated Association of Iron, Steel, and Ten Workers of North America, Local No . 1i71, 6
N. L. R. B. 569.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 297
was an instance of such activity. The activity of John Young,"
supervisory foreman of the gas department in the East Bay division,
in soliciting memberships for the California Union just before the
election, is another instance of activity by a supervisory employee who
was not eligible to vote. Young had 50 to 75 employees under him 56
and his rank was obviously superior to that of the job foremen who
were allowed to vote in the election. The participation of John P.
Coghlan and R. E. Fisher, vice presidents of the respondent, in the
bank loan transactions of the California Union was a direct act of
interference by high officials of the respondent in the rivalry between
the two labor organizations. The assistance thus rendered in connec-
tion with these loans directly concerned the election inasmuch as the
California Union obtained from these loans part of the money which
enabled it to distribute through the period of the election free copies
of its publication, "Common Sense," to the respondent's employees.
The supervisory employees involved were not called as witnesses by
the respondent to deny the acts set forth above. These activities by
employees above the rank of job foremen are, moreover, a strong indi-
cation that the respondent approved and supported similar activities
of its supervisory employees of lower rank in their efforts on behalf
of the California Union and in opposition to the U. E. R. W.57 Votes
cast by employees in such all atmosphere of intimidation could not
reflect their free and independent choice. We find that the employees
were not afforded an opportunity to choose representatives, free from
intimidation, coercion, and interference on the part of the respondent,
and that, therefore, the election of December 6 through 14, 1937, is
null , void, and of no effect, and we shall direct that a new election
be held.
VII. CONDUCT OF ELECTION
Regarding the conduct of the election held in December 1937, we
directed that because the employees of the respondent were scattered
over the territory of central and northern California the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region should "determine in her discre-
55 Referred to in some of the testimony as Jack Young.
&° McCann testified that Young had 80 or 90 employees under him.
^' The following supervisory employees mentioned in this decision were above the rank
of job foreman and were therefore ineligible to vote in the election : V. E. Britton, Burk-
head ( initials do not appear in the record ), John P Coghlan , W H. Cohick, A. E Engle-
bright, W. C B Euler, 0 R Evans, R. E Fisher, Harvey Hendricks, B C Hersam, C S
Manwell , S B Mitchell , Francis Naylor , L. G Roberts , Carl B Samuelson , Scofield ( initials
do not appear in the record), George Tobey, E. T. Woodruff, II. R. Woodward, John
Young
The following supervisory employees voted and their votes were challenged : William L.
Greer, George Martin, Kenneth W. Van Gandy
The following supervisory employees were eligible to vote Some voted while others
appear not to have voted : G M. Barcley , "Bill" Cadodi, Jack Champion , E. T. Erskine,
M. A. Kirsch , William Meyers, P. R Phelps, " Red" Phillips , Frank Potter, Charles Thiele,
F W. Torrey, Heiman Veale.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion the exact times, places, and the procedure for giving notice of the
elections and for balloting," and authorized "the use of the United
States mail for such purposes and the use of agents, if feasible, to
journey through the company's various territorial divisions to conduct,
elections at appropriate places, collecting the votes in sealed envelopes,
for delivery to the Regional Director." The Regional Director shall
have the same authority in conducting the election which we are now
directing. We shall not, however, at this time fix a date for holding
the election, but will delay it until such time as we are satisfied that
the effects of the respondent's unfair labor practices have been dissi-
pated sufficiently to permit a free choice of representatives. At the
time we fix the date of the election we will determine the pay-roll date'
to be used in ascertaining the eligibility of the employees in the appro-
priate unit to vote.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in both cases, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. California Gas and Electric Employees Union and Utility
Workers Organizing Committee, formerly known as United Electrical
and Radio Workers of America and as United Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers of America, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the
respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices,
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. The election of December 6 to 14, 1937, is null, void, and of no,
effect.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from in any manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right
to self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 299
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Post immediately notices to its employees in conspicuous places
throughout its offices, buildings, plants, and other places of em-
ployment, and maintain such notices for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of the posting, stating that
the respondent will cease and desist as provided in paragraph 1
of this Order;
(b) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in
writing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Pacific Gas and Electric Company, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted at such time as the Board shall in the future
direct, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Twentieth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section
9, of said Rules and Regulations among the following classes of
employees employed by the respondent during a period or at a
time to be determined by the Board in the future : Those engaged in
the outside or physical forces, including outside field employees,
workers employed in generating stations, 'in substations, in the gas
plants, in the steam plants, and in other shops and plants, and
meter readers, combination meter readers and collectors, salesmen,
collectors, and estimators, up to and including the rank of job fore-
man, but excluding employees above that position, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Utility Workers Organizing
Committee, formerly known as United Electrical and Radio Workers
of America, or by California Gas and Electric Employees Union
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision, Order and Second Direction of Election.