Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 31, 1942

46 N.L.R.B. 541 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of 'PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. AND VALLEY ELECTRICAL
SUPPLY Co. • anti INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL'
WORKERS
Case No. C-2186.Decided December 31 ,19112
Jurisdiction : gas and electric utility industry.
Unfair Labor Practices: ,
Interference, Restraint, and Coeioion: statements by supervisory employees
- disparaging affiliated unions.
Conip n2y-I)o,lnrnated Union: participation and leadership by supervisory em-
ployees in formation and affairs of organization-support: de facto recog-
nition by protracted bargaining with, and grant of substantial concessions to,
organization as;,agentjor all.euiployees.in advance-of proof of majority repre-
sentation; use'af'clubhonse on,company-owned property permitted at nominal
rental.
Remedial Orders : dominated organization, disestablished ; contracts therewith,
abrogated.
Mr. Robert L. Condon and Mr. Le Roy Marceau, for the board.
Mr. T. J. Straub, Mr. Paul St. Sure, and Miss Anne McDonald, of
San Francisco, Calif., for the respondents.
Mr. Charles J. Janigian, of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. L. F. Daly,
of Washington, D. C., for the I. B. E. W.
Gladstein, Grossman, Margolis cC Sawyer, by Mr. Harold M. Sawyer,
of San Francisco, Calif., and Mr. Paul Heide and Mr. Lynn Haines, of
Oakland, Calif., for the U. W. O. C.
Mr. Artluar C. Shepard, of Fresno, Calif., for the Western.
Mr. Richard Seeley, of Sacramento, Calif., for the Ciilifornia Union.
Mr. William F. Scharnikow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
`ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
-Upon.an.amended charge duly filed on-October.10, 1941,,.by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the I. B. E. W., the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by its Regional Director for
46 N. L. R. B., No. 66.
541
542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California), issued its com-
plaint dated October 21, 1941, against Pacific Gas & Electric Co.,, San
Francisco, California, and Valley Electrical Supply Co.,' Fresno, Cali-
fornia, herein called the respondents ,2 alleging that the respondents
had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the National Labor. Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act. Copies of the complaint and of notice of hearing
thereon were duly served upon the respondents, .the I. B. E._ W., Cali-
fornia Gas and Electric Employees Union, herein called the California
Union, Western Utility Employees' Union, herein called the Western,'
and Utility Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the U. W. O. C.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance : (1) that the respondent, P. G. & E., dominated and inter-
fered with the administration. of a labor organization known as the
Employees' Welfare Coimittee and contributed financial and other
support to it; (2) that, during April and May 1937, the respondent,
P. G. & E., initiated the formation of the California Union and there-
after dominated and interfered with its administration and contrib-
uted financial and other support to it; (3) that, during May and June
1937, the respondents initiated the formation of the Western and
thereafter dominated and interfered with its administration and con-
tributed financial and other support to it; and (4) that the respondent,
P. G. & E., since April 1937,.has interfered with, restrained, and co-
erced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act: (a) by the foregoing conduct; (b) by discrimination, and'
threats of discrimination against employees if they joined or refused
to withdraw from United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers. of
America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the United, its suc-
cessor, the U. W. O. C., and the I. B. E. W.; (c) by attempting, to per-
suade the I. B. E. W. to issue propaganda against, and otherwise
oppose, the U. W. O. C.; and '(d) by making derogatory statements
concerning, and otherwise evidencing hostility towards, the United,
the U. W. O. C., and the I. B. E. W. -
On November 3, 1941, the California Union, and on November 13,
1941, the Western, filed answers in which each denied the allegations
of the complaint with respect to it. In its answer, Western also alleged
that it is a,bona fide labor organization and that it was so recognized
by the I. B. E. W. until the filing of the charges in the present proceed-
ing: , ,On November,17, 1941, the respondents filed a,joint answer in
' This respondent is referred to in certain pleadings as "Valley Electric Supply Co." Dur-
ing the course of the healing, this designation was corrected by amendment of the pleadings
2 Pacific Gas & Electric Co. Is hereinafter referred to as P. G. & E., and Valley Electrical
Supply Co. as Valley. -
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Co. . 543,
which they denied that they had engaged in the unfair labor practices
alleged in the complaint, and asserted that the allegations in the com-
plaint concerning the California Union were barred by decisions of
the Board and the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in
a previous case involving the respondent, P. G. & E.3 1'
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at San Francisco, California,
on-November 4, 13, 17-19, 21, and 24, 1941, and at Fresno; California,
on November 27-29, and December 1, 2, 4-6, 9, and 10, 1941, before
Robert M. Gates, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief
Trial Examiner. Petitions to intervene filed early in the hearing by
the California Union, the Western, and the U. W. O. C. were granted,
the intervention of each intervenor being limited to matters affecting
its interests. The Board, the respondents, the I. B. E. W., the
U. W. O. C., the California Union, and the Western were represented
by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues, was afforded all parties. • At the beginning
of the hearing, counsel for the Western filed motions."to sevei causes,"
to strike certain paragraphs from the complaint, for a bill of partic-
ulars, and to hold hearings at Fresno, Merced, Bakersfield, and San
Luis Obispo, California. The Trial Examiner deferred ruling upon
the last-mentioned motion and denied the others. Thereafter'. by
agreement of the parties, a substantial portion of the hearing was held
at Fresno, California, and, at the conclusion of the hearing, counsel
for the, Western withdrew the pending motion, stating that he did
"not in any way feel aggrieved by the lack -of • full ,compliance."
During the hearing,'counsel for the respondents moved to dismiss the
complaint. With particular reference to the allegations of the com-
plaint concerning the California Union, counsel for the respondents
argued that, as set forth in their answer, the issues had been adjudi-
cated in the earlier proceeding involving P. G. & E. The motion
was, denied., During the, course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
made rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby 'affirmed. ,
On December 4, 1941, during.-the course of the hearing, a stipula-
tion in settlement of certain issues was entered into, subject to the
approval of the Board, by and between counsel for the, Board, the
N L. R H v Pacific Gas h Electric Co, 118 F. (2d) 780 (C. C. A' 9), enf'g as mod
Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers of America, 13 N. L R. B 1 268 The complaint in this prior proceeding did not
allege that P G. & E instigated the formation of the California Union or, dominated and
interfered with its administration Consequently, these was no determination-of -this
question or of the status of the California Union.
'544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondents, the I. B. E. W., the ,U. W. O. C., and the California
Union 4 The stipulation provides as follows :
WHEREAS, charges as amended were duly filed by- International
Brotherhood -of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., and the,National
Labor Relations Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, by
the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, issued its, Coln-
phiint dated October 21, 1941; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to due notice a.hearing was commenced on
November 4, 1941, before a Trial Examiner, duly designated by
the Board, which hearing is still in progress; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to dispense with certain of
the issues raised by the Complaint of October 21, 1941, and the
Answer of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Valley
• Electrical- Supply Company, herein sometimes called the Re-
spondent, and the Answer of the California Gas and Electric Em-
ployees' Union, herein called the California Union; -
Now THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated and agreed by and be-
tween the Pacific Gas, and Electric Company, Valley Electrical
Supply Company, California Gas and Electric Employees' Union,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Utility Work-
ers Organizing Committee and Robert L. Condon, Attorney for-
the National Labor Relations Board,' that : ,
I
Upon the basis of the record herein and this Stipulation, if
approved by the Board, the Board may enter an order providing
as follows :
The Respondent, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its officers,
.agents, successors and assigns, shall:
(1) Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the admin-
istration of the California Union or the Employees' Welfare Com-
mittee, or contributing support-to said California Union or said
Employees' Welfare Committee.
(b) Giving effect 'to any agreement, oral or otherwise, which
may have been entered into with California Union or Employees'
Welfare Committee, or to any extension, renewal, modification, or
supplement thereto, or to any agreement which might supersede
any such agreement.
(2) The Respondent, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the following
affirmative action to effectuate the-policies of the Act.
0
40n December 23, 1941, counsel for the Board and the Employees' Welfare Committee
entered into a stipulation in effect making the Employees ' welfare Committee a, party to
the stipulation of December 4, 1941.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Co. ,545
(a) Withdraw all recognition from the California Union and
the Employees' Welfare Committee as representatives of any of
its, employees for the purpose of dealing with the Respondent,
,concerning grievances, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
and'any other terms or conditions of employment, and completely
disestablish said California Union and Employees' Welfare Com-
mittee as such representative. .
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places throughout its
plant and maintain for a period of sixty (60) consecuti^,e days
Notices that the Respondent will cease'and desist from the con-
duct prohibited in Paragraphs 1 (a)' and (b) of this Order and
will take the affirmative action ordered in Paragraph 2 (a) of this
Order.
II
The parties hereto agree that all the matters alleged in the
,Complaint of October 21, 1941, contained in Paragraphs X and
XI thereof, and all matters contained in Paragraphs XIV, XV,
XVII and XVIII relating to said California Union and said
Employees' Welfare Committee, shall be deemed to have been
disposed of by virtue of the Order of the Board above described,
,and the Decree of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals,
hereafter described.
III
The parties hereto expressly waive the right to the making of
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by The Board with
relation to Paragraphs X and XI and such portions of Para-
graphs XIV, XV, XVII and XVIII relating to said California
Union and said Employees' Welfare Committee, of the Complaint
of October 21, 1941.
IV
After, the entry of the Order by the Board, as provided in this
Stipulation, any Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States,
may upon application by the Board, and without notice to the Re-
spondent or the California-Union, enter a decree embodying sub-
'stantially the terms of the Order of the Board, as herein indicated,
enforcing in full the said Order, and the Respondent and the
California Union hereby consent to the entry of such decree and
hereby waive any and all requirements of notice of filing of such
application by the Board.
504086-43-vol 46-35
546 DEOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V
It is expressly understood and agreed that anything herein con-
tained shall not dispose of any of the allegations of the Complaint
of October 21, 1941, except Paragraphs X and XI, and such por-
tions of Paragraphs,XIV, XV, XVII and XVIII as relate to The
California Union and The Employees ' Welfare Committee, and
that the parties hereto shall not be deemed to have waived their
right to a hearing , and Intermediate Report.or Proposed Findings
of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, the right to file exceptions,
briefs and/or request for oral argument ,' or their right to the
making of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of ,Law and Order by
the Board with respect to any of the other issues raised by the
Complaint of October 21, 1941. It is also expressly understood
that The Board and/or the Trial Examiner may consider the
entire record herein in its or his determination of the undisposed
of issues.
VI
This Stipulation is subject to the approval of the Board and if
approved by the Board may be entered in evidence in the record
herein.
VII
It is understood and agreed that the entire agreement by and
between the parties hereto is contained within this Stipulation
and there is no verbal agreement of any kind which varies , alters,
or adds to this Stipulation.
VIII
The Respondent further agrees that upon the approval of this
Stipulation by the Board, it will immediately take the action
described in Paragraph I, hereof.
The stipulations were approved by the Board on January 5, 1942.
At the conclusion of the hearing opportunity was afforded alt parties
• to argue orally before, and to file briefs with, the Trial Examiner. No
arguments were made . Thereaftei , the respondents , the I . B. E. W.,
and the Western filed briefs with the Trial ' Examiner.
On May 5, 1942, the Trial' Examiner filed his Intei-mediitite Report,
copies of which'were dully served on all the parties . He found that
'the respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor
'practices affecting commerce, within 1 he meaning of Section 8 (1) and
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 547'.
(2) and Section 2 (6) and (7)' of the Act. He recommended that the
respondents cease and desist from their unfair labor practices and that
they disestablish and withdraw all recognition from the Western.
On•June 15, 1942, the respondents and the Western filed exceptions
to the Intermediate R3port. On the same day, the Western filed a
brief in support of its exceptions. Pursuant to notice and at the
request of the Western, a hearing was held before the Board at Wash-
ington, D. C., on September 22, 1942, for the purpose of oral argu-
ment. The Western and the I. B. E. W. were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing.
The Board has considered the exceptions and the brief and, insofar
as the exceptions are inconsistent with the findings, conclusions, and
order set forth below, finds 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 RESPONDENTS,
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. is a public utility corporation organized
under the laws of the State of California, with its principal office
and place of business in San Francisco, California. The parties have.
stipulated that the findings as to the business of P. G. & E. made by
the Board in a previous Decision 5 substantially describe the present
activities and operations of P. G. & E., except that they have increased
in size and volume and that, since January 1, 1939, the physical prop-
erties of San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation e and Midland
Counties Public Service Corporation have also been operated by
P. G. & E. as part of its system. We accordingly, incorporate, herein
by reference all the findings made by us in our prior Decision in the
section entitled "The business of the respondent." 7
From 1930 to 1939, P. G. & E. was the owner of the controlling
stock of San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation and Midland Coun-
ties Public Service Corporation, which were engaged in substantially
the same business as P. G. & E. in a smaller area north of Lis Angeles,
California. Midland Counties Public Service Corporation operated
in the western part of this territory and San Joaquin Light and Power
Corporation 'in the eastern part. The lines and equipment of
P. G. & E. and these 2 subsidiaries were physically interconnected,
and all 3 companies had interlocking directors and officers. During
1937, for example, 9 of the 15 directors of P. G. & E. were also mem-
smatter of Pacific Gas and Elretric Company and United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Work •rs of Ainer,c i, 13 N L. It B. 268
6 Incorrectly refers ed to in the stipulation as "San Joaquin Light and Power Company "
713 N. L It. B 268, 276-281.
548 DE ISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
hers of the Board of 11 directors of San Joaquin Light & Power
Corporation. There was no substantial change in 1938. Eight offs''
cers of ,San Joaquin Light ,& Power Corporation were also officers
of P. G. & E. The directors and officers of Midland Counties Public
Service Corporation were substantially the same as' those of San
Joaquin Light & Power Corporation.
On January 1, 1939, P. G. & E. absorbed San Joaquin Light & Power
Corporation and Midland Counties Public Service Corporation, is-
sumed their contracts and liabilities, and designated the territory
previously served by them as the Saii Joaquin Power Division of
P. G. & E. As a result, the territory now served by P. G. & E., in-
-cluding the San Joaquin Power Division, is an area of more than
100,000 square miles in the northern and central portion of the State
of California. P. G. & E. is one of the largest public utility corpora-
tions in the United States, and in September 1941 employed almost
14,000 persons.
Since January 1, 1939, P. G. & E. has also owned the controlling
stock of the respondent, Valley Electrical Supply Co. Prior to 1939,
Valley was a subsidiary of San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation,
for which it distributed electrical and gas appliances at wholesale and'
maintained dealer relationships. Since January 1, 1939, Valley has
continued its separate corporate existence and has performed the same
functions for the San Joaquin Power Division as it previously had
performed for the San Joaquin Light & Power Corporation. Two of
the three directors of Valley were also, prior to 1939, directors and
officers of P. G. & E. and of San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation.
Five of the present officers of Valley (including A. Emory Wishon and
P. M. Downing, who are also directors) are officers of P. G. & E. and
were officers of San Joaquin Light'& Power Corporation.,,
In 1940, Valley purchased supplies and insurance from sources out-
side the State of California at a cost of $357,161.08. This represented
.a major part of the volume of its purchases.
• II. THE ORG<\NIZATTONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,, admitting to
membership employees of the respondents.
Utility Workers Organizing Committee, successor to United Elec-
trical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the respondents.
J
8Valley; San Joaquin Light & Powei Corporation ,-,, and Midland Counties Public Service
,Corporation will be jointly referred to herein as the San Joaquin companies
PACIFIC GAS ' &- ELECTRIC CO. 549
Western Utility Employees' Union is an unaffiliated labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the respondent, Valley
Electrical Supply Co., .acid employees in the San Joaquin Power
Division of the Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Employees' Welfare Committee and California Gas & Electric Frm-
ployees Union are uunaffiliated labor organizations admitting to mem-'
bership employees of the respondent, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., other
than those employed in the San Joaquin Power Division.
ITI. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference evith, and domination and support of the Western;
interference, restraint, and coercion
1. Background
Considerable testimony concerning the formation of the California
Union and its relationship to the Employees' Welfare Committee was
taken in the present proceeding before the respondents stipulated
to the entry of an order for the disestabllslmnent of these organizations.
It'appears from this testimony that the California Union'was formed
in the spring of 1937, with substantial membership among line fore-
men and other supervisory employees, to counteract the organizational.
activities of the C. I. 0.,() which had then begun in the system operated!
by P. G. & E. and which it seemed likely would be extended to the.
system then operated by the San Joaquin companies. On April 16,.
1937, it was decided to form the organization which later became the.
California Union ; on May 1, 1937, the- California Union was incor-
porated under the laws of the State of California; on May 13, 1937, it
requested recognition by P. G. & E.; and on May 14, 1937, it was
informed in a letter from P. M. Downing, first vice president and
general manager of P. Q. & E., that it had been granted recognition
as the sole collective bargaining agent of its members.
The principal actors in the organizational activities of the Cali-
fornia Union were 2 P. G. & E. employees,.H. E. Brillhart aiid James
J. Wogan. Wogan was an employee-member of the Employees' Wel-
fare Committee, which P. G. & E. had created and which consisted
of 11 members chosen by the Company and 9 members elected by the
employees. As a member of this Coinniittee, Wogan spent approxi-
mately 60 percent of the time for which he was paid by P. G. & E. in
receiving and adjusting grievances of employees in the field. For
this activity, P. G. & E. furnished him with the use of an automobile,
provided the necessary gasoline, and reimbursed him for his expenses.
Brillhart, a power salesman, was appointed director of activities of
'The employees and the parties referred to the United and also to its successor, the
U. W. 0. C , as the - C. I. o.
2
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the California Union in charge of its organizational campaign, as a
result of a conference between him, a group of the California Union's
leaders, and William A. Bahr, Wogan's superior and superintendent
of the gas department in P. G. & E.'s Sacramento Division. At this
conference, Bahr told Brillhart, over whom he normally had no super-
vision, that his absence from duty 'on union matters could be arranged
and that Wogan would furnish him with transportation and take
care of his expenses "within certain limits." The testimony of Wogan
and Brillhart is that, together and separately, they made a series of
trips throughout the entire system of P. G. & E. to address local meet-
ings 'and to see numerous employees about enrolling members for the
California Union; that both received their salaries during this period;
that, as a Welfare Committeeman, Wogan charged his and part of
Brillhart's expenses to P. G. & E., used the Company's automobile and
gasoline, and on most occasions furnished transportation for Brill
hart; that Bahr suggested these trips and the persons whom they
.should see, including A. E. Englebright, superintendent of the gas
department in' P. G. & E.'s North Bay Division, other departmental
superintendents, Welfare Committeemen, and foremen; that Engle-
bright, in addition to making a general offer of help, proffered the
assistance of two other employees in arranging organizational meet-
ings and, later, in marshalling the vote for the California Union at
a Board election in which the C. I. 0. also, appeared on the ballot;
that Wogan and Brillhart made periodic reports of the progress of
the California Union and the C. I. 0. among the employees both to
Superintendent Bahr and to E. G. McCann, personnel director of
P. G. & E.; that, when Wogan and Brillhart were taken by Bahr
to see Downing, first vice president and general manager, to ask for
P. G. & E's financial assistance, Downing refused their request, be-,
cause, he said, such a contribution would have to appear in the Com-
pany's books; and that, after the California Union had defeated the
C. I. 0. in the Board election,10 McCann instructed Brillhart to cut
down his activities and not be so "militant," because the California
Union had served its purpose.
From these facts, it is clear, and we find, that P. G. & E., by the
activities of its personnel director, -its managerial staff, and its super-
visors, as well as by permitting the use of facilities and funds provided
for the Employee's Welfare Committee, dominated and interfered
with the formation and administration of the California Union and
contributed support to it.
i° Later, on June 10, 1939, the Board found that P G & E had interfered with its em-
ployees' free choice of representatives in this election, and set the election side Matter of
Pact &c Gas and Electric Company and United Electrical and Radio We? kern of America,
13 N. L. R. B. 268, 296-297.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Co. 551
The respondents contend that the San Joaquin companies, among
whose employees the Western was formed within a few weeks after
the incorporation of the California Union, were operated independ-
ently of P. G. & E. "from the point of view of management policies,"
and, in effect , that there is, therefore , no reason to infer that the policy
of the San Joaquin companies with respect to the Western was merely
an extension by P. G. & E., the parent corporation, of its "admitted
interference in the affairs of the California Union." 11 It has been
noted, however, that since 1931, P. G. & E. and the San Joaquin com-
panies have functioned under interlocking directorates. A. Emory
Wishon, who was president and a director of San Joaquin Light and
Power Corporation and a Midland Counties Public Service Corpora-
tion, vice president and director of Valley, and vice president, assistant
general manager, and a director of P. G. & E., maintained his office
in San Francisco at the main offices of P. G. & E. ' Wishon testified
that, since P. G. & E. acquired the stock of the San Joaquin companies
in 1931, there has been "steady progress" in an effort to "coordinate
the operations [of P. G. & E. and its subsidiaries] and, as far as
practical, bring about uniformity in practices, wage scales, operating
standards, and construction standards." Personnel Director E. G.
McCann of P. G. & E. met with, and made suggestions to, Personnel
Director R. J. Tilson of the San Joaquin companies to effect uniform
personnel policies. Moreover, the organizations which P. G. & E. and
the San Joaquin companies had established and maintained for their
respective employees indicated similar basic policies with reference
to labor relations. Thus, P. G. & E. had established the Public Serv-
ice Employees Association to provide social, educational, and recrea-
tional facilities for its employees . The San Joaquin companies had
formed the San Joaquin Power Club to perform essentially the same
functions. In both these organizations, company officials, being eligi-
ble, became members and , in some instances , officers. To provide for
employee representation in the consideration of grievances and other
matters affecting terms and conditions of employment, P. G. & E. had "
established and maintained the Employees' Welfare Committee, which
has already been mentioned . Similarly , in 1933 and 1934, the bylaws
of the Employees Mutual Benefit Association , which had been formed
by the San Joaquin companies, were amended to establish an Adjust-
ment Committee for the consideration of wages, hours, and conditions
of employment . In most respects , the functions of the Adjustment
Committee with respect to. the employees of the San Joaquin com-
panies were similar to those of the Employees' Welfare Committee
with respect to the employees of P. G. & E., although the Adjustment
11 See the respondents ' brief submitted to the Trial Examiner, p 2
552 DDOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Committee actually ' handled only a few grievances . , Both the Em-
ployees' Welfare Committee and the Adjustment Committee were
composed of representatives chosen by • management and representa-
tives elected by the employees.
We turn now to the development of the Western in the system of the
San Joaquin companies.
2. Events from May 19 to May 23, 1937
On May 19 or 20, 1937 , a small group of employees of the San
Joaquin companies met at Merced, California . One of them tele-
phoned to E. R. Banks, superintendent of distribution for the north-
ern portion of the territory served by the San Joaquin companies.
Early Friday morning, May 21, Banks telephoned the substance of
this telephone conversation to D. D . Smalley, general superintendent
of the San Joaquin companies, who was then in Pasadena, California,
attending a business convention with WTishon . Banks told Smalley
that some employees wished to speak with him in connection with the
formation of an "independent" labor organization . Smalley replied
that he would meet the men in his office , the main office of the San
Joaquin companies at Fresno , California , on Saturday morning,
May 22.
Smalley immediately reported his conversation with Banks to
Wishon and, although the convention had not concluded, they both left
Pasadena that' morning and drove to Fresno,''where they arrived the-
same evening . During their trip from Pasadena to Fresno , Wishon
and Smalley discussed the Act. In this connection , Wishon testified'
Q. (By counsel ,for the I. B. E. W.) When you discussed the
Act,, didn 't you discuss the effect as to unionization of employees
and labor organizations involved?
A. Yes; it was obvious we had to have a bargaining agency
This was the basis of discussion: we had got along without
any setup, or any experience with dealing with employees through
a bargaining agency. Under the National Labor, Relations Act
those employees have a right to determine what bargaining agency
they shall have represent them. We've got to deal with them
according to.this Act. Our relations have been , good in the past
and we have got to keep faith in the-future , and we have got to set
this -thing up and start a new, field in a way ,that we can continue
those relations with the employees . That was the basis of our
discussion . I can say that much.
Q. You realized then, that you had no setup , as you called it for,
employee representation at that time?
A. That is right.
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, Co. 553
Q. And did you feel it would be advantageous to have such an
employee representation setup?
A. We would have to have such an employee'representation'z
set up, such a company setup under the Act as we saw it.
In the evening of May 21, a second meeting of employees was held in
Merced at the home of M. , A. Blackman, a line foreman for the San
Joaquin companies. Among those present were A. F. Ivers, a line
subforeman," and W. Lyman Harris, a live-line-tool inspector.' The
group discussed'the possibility of organizing an independent associa-
tion of employees in opposition to the threatened organization of the
employees of the San Joaquin companies by the C. I. 0. It was agreed
that Harris and Ivers should investigate the possibilities of forming
such an association. During the same evening, Banks was informed,
and he in turn notified Smalley by telephone, that Harris and Ivers
would be at Wlshon's office the following morning, May 22.
Pursuant to the appointment, Harris and Ivers met-with Wishon
in his office the next morning. Smalley. and Banks were also present,
but Harris and Wishon did most of the talking. According to their
testimony and that of Smalley, Harris said that some of the em-
ployees of the San Joaquin companies proposed to organize an
independent union because th`e C. I. 0. was organizing in the Merced
district and had announced that it intended to organize the employees
of the San Joaquin companies. When Harris asked him for his
opinion of the proposal, Wishon handed Harris a pamphlet on the
Act published by the National Association of Manufacturers, and
suggested that Harris read it. Upon H'arris' reply that he had done
so, Wishon said that he could give no advice or opinion on the
proposals. To this extent, the witnesses were in agreement as to
what took place at this conference.' However, Harris testified that,
either at this meeting or at a subsequent one later in the day, he
asked either Banks, Wishon, or Smalley for the name of the, person
who represented the California Union. He was told that H. E. Brill-
hart was "the man to contact," and he was given Brillhart's address
and telephone number. Brillhart had been elected president of Local
1 of the California Union a few days previously. .Wishon testified
that he did not supply the information concerning Brillhart. Smalley
was not asked about the incident'-during his testimony, which pre-
is Emphasis supplied
11Ivers was also referred to in the testimony as a line foreman , and as alteinaling be-
tween the jobs of line foreman and hot-tap foreman ( a classification replaced by the desig-
nation "line subforeman" in accordance with P G & E classification teiminology).
i4 Harris' job required hint to travel' out of Fresno over the entire system of the San
Joaquin companies At this time, [Tanis bad been employed by the San Joaquin companies
approximately 18 years
554 DEiOISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ceded Harris' testimony, nor was he thereafter recalled to the stand,
although he was present in the hearing room. Ivers and Brinks were
not called as witnesses. While it is not clear which of the three
officials, Wishon, Smalley, or, Banks, gave Harris the information as toi
Brillhart's leadership of the California Union and his address and
telephone number, we find, as did the Trial Examiner, that one,of
them did so.
Later during the same day, May 22, Harris and Ivers telephoned
to Brillhart at Sacramento and then drove there, where they met
Bril]hart that night. Explaining that they were interested in form-
ing an independent association among the employees of the San
Joaquin companies and that they had been referred to Brillhart as
one who might give them the benefit of his experience, they asked
Brillhart if he would help them. Brillhart gave them a copy of the
constitution and bylaws of, the California Union and showed them a
copy of its articles of incorporation. Harris and Ivers, remaining in
Sacramento that night, had another conference with Brillhart the
next day, May 23. They then returned to Fresno by way of Madera,
where they stopped to arrange a meeting of a small group of em-
ployees to be held there the following night.
Upon their return to Fresno, Harris and Ivers told Smalley that
they intended to' visit the various districts of the San Joaquin com-
panies for the purpose of organizing the new union.
3. Events from May 24 to June 5, 1937
The activities of Harris and Ivers were considerably intensified
during the period from May 24 to June - 5, 1937. On May 24, each
took a leave of absence from his work. Harris returned to his job
on June 1 and Ivers on June 2. During their leaves, they visited
the districts of the San Joaquin companies' system, from one end of
the territory to the other, in a day-and-night effort to promote inter-
est in- the establishment of the proposed organization. The pattern
followed by them in the various trips did not N vary substantially.
They generally selected one or more employees from each district to
help them in the establishment of a local; told them that it was
necessary to form an unaffiliated organization in order to combat the
threatened C. I. O. drive'15 anti arranged for, meetings of small
15 The record clearly shows that the primary purpose of the establishment and activities
of both the California Union and the Western was to keep out the C I 0 That' this con-
tinued to be their primary purpose, and was so understood by the employees, is indicated
by a letter written by G J Gleason, fist vice-president of the Westeiii, to Biillhart on
September 9, 1938 Gleason asked Bi lihart to come to Fresno the following week for the
purpose of addressing a meeting of the Western's members, stating that "a maiked lack of
interest" was noticed, "especially in the Fiesno group They seem to feel that the danger
of the C. I 0 intervening has passed and that there will not be any need for holding
(Western ) together any longer " He suggested that Brillhart come to Fresno and deliver
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 555
groups of employees for a further discussion of the subject and the
planning of the establishment of the local. Harris and Ivers attended
most of these meetings together and spoke against the C. 1. O. and
of the need of an unaffiliated organization to oppose it. One such
meeting, as indicated above, had been held in Merced on the night
of May 21. During Harris' and Ivers' leaves of absence, other meet-
ings were held at Fresno, Madera, Corcoran, Selma, Dinuba, Coa-
linga, Bakersfield, and-Taft. Harris attended all of these-meetings;
Ivers attended all of them except those at Bakersfield and Taft. A
representative from Los Banos was present at,the,Madera meeting.
Among those active in these original meetings and thereafter in the
establishment of the various locals of the Western were line foremen,
"hot tap" foremen, and other supervisory employees,-most of whom
had conferred with, and were selected for this purpose by, Harris
and Ivers.
At Fresno, two locals were organized with the assistance of T. R.
Salm, an accountant in the Fresno office. - Harris and Ivers enlisted his
aid because they wanted a man from the office and because Salm was
a past president of the San Joaquin Power Club in Fresno and was
well known to the employees in that area. At the request of Harris
and Ivers,,Salm also attended the meeting held in Madera on the
night of May 24, 1937.
Promptly thereafter, Harris, Ivers, and Salm engaged Attorney
Arthur C. , Shepard of Fresno to assist in the new organization.
In the preparation of articles of incorporation, a constitution, and
bylaws, they examined and studied the corresponding instruments of
the California Union. On June 1, 1937, Western Utility Employees'
Union was incorporated as a non-profit corporation under the laws
of the State of California.
Harris, Ivers, and Salm were the incorporators and the first directors
of the new 'corporation. On June 1, 1937, as directors, they wrote a
letter to the San Joaquin Light and Power Corporation in which they
requested for the Western "your written recognition as bargaining
agent for the employees of the San Joaquin Light and Power Corpora-
tion, Midland Counties Public Service Corporation and Valley Elec-
trical Supply Company and your written assurance that you will not
in any way discriminate, coerce, or otherwise distinguish the members
of its union, and that you will not encourage or discourage by any acts
of discrimination of any kind membership in it."
On June 2, Wishon replied by letter to the Western,, acknowledging
receipt of the "request for recognition as a bargaining agency" and
an address , which would "assist us greatly." Since the letter also stated that Brillhart's
expenses for the trip would be paid, and since the letter, which is in evidence , bears the
notation , " paid $25 check," we find , as did the Trial Examiner, that Brillhart came to
Fresno for the purpose indicated in the letter.
e
P
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stating that, "We w ill so recognize your union, and you may be assured
that we will not discriminate against your union, or against its mem- 4
bership." Wishon testified that he wrote this letter primarily to assure
the Western against discrimination, since' it was his impression that
Western's letter emphasized its request for such assurance. Wishon's
further testimony suggests that, by the language used in his letter, he
intended to recognize the. Western as "a bargaining agency" but to
defer exclusive recognition. It is to be noted, however, that his letter
contained no request that the Western prove its representation of a
majority of the employees, and that it contained a clear intimation at
least that the San Joaquin companies would eventually recognize the
Western as the exclusive bargaining - agent of their employees.
Wishon admitted, in this connection, that his letter received publicity
in the general press and also in a newspaper published by the Bakers-
field Chapter of the San Joaquin Power Club which was circulated
among the employees.
After Harris and Ivers had returned to work from their leaves of
absence, during the first week of June 1937, they made a trip through
the coastal area of the system, where they met with employees at Santa
Maria and San Luis Obispo. Harris was working in that area at the
Time and took no time off. Ivers accompanied Harris to work on this
particular job. Ivers was not normally Harris' assistant, but Harris
told his superior, Mulkey, that he was taking Ivers as his assistant on
the job in question, and Mulkey raised no objection. ' The meetings at'
Santa Maria and San Luis Obispo followed the pattern of the meetings
which had been held during the leaves of absence of Harris and Ivers.
4. Structure of the Western and its relationship to the Adjustment
Committee and the Power Club
Pursuant to. Western's articles of incorporation, Harris, Ivers, and
Salm constituted its original board of,directors and, under the terms
of the constitution, they appointed Harris as president, Salm as first
vice,-president, and Ivers as second vice-president. By July 7, 1937,
they had issued charters to 16 locals which had been organized in 15
communities throughout the system.16 Harris, Ivers, and Salm ap-
pointed temporary officers in each of the locals, to serve until an election'
could be held. According to the Western's constitution, the person
appointed president of each' local, or thereafter elected, became ex
,officio a member of the general board of directors of the Western.
The Western's constitution divides its members into eight classifica-
tions, according to crafts. Each craft elects one or more members
to each local's board of"directors, and designates one of them as craft
'e In addition to the localities visited by 11111 1`18 and Ivers, and mentioned above, locals
were also established in Crane Valley, Balch Power Ircuse, and Paso Robles
t
PACIFIC GAS & 'ELECTRIC CO. 557
representative if there are more than one. Either the local boarct_
of directors or the membership of the local elect the officers of each
local, according to the decision of the local 's membership. At the
annual convention of the locals , the representatives of each craft elect
-a general craft representative . The general craft representative par
ticipates "in negotiations with the company and in the consideration
of any matters relating generally to the craft he represents . The con-
stitution further provides for the annual election of all officers and
directors. All such elections are confined to the individual locals,
except for the three general officers , that is, the president , the first
vice-president , and the second vice-president , who are elected' by the
membership at large. The general board of directors meets every 2
months . Between meetings of the general board of directors, the
business of the general body is handled by an executive group com-
posed of the three general officers and two members selected by the
general , board.
In most instances , the persons selected by Harris , Ivers, and Salm
as temporary presidents of the respective locals were the employees
of the San Joaquin conmpanies , including Valley, who had been orig-
inally enlisted by them to establish the locals. They served until
August 21 , 1937, when their successors were chosen in the first elec-
tion under the constitution . At that time, Salm having resigned from
the Western in July when he was promoted to a supervisory position,
Harris, G. J. Gleason , and Ivers were elected general president, first
vice-president and second vice -president , respectively.
As already noted, Harris was alive-line-tool inspector and Ivers was
aline subforeman . The temporarily" appointed presidents of the lo-
cals and their elected successors included line foremen, line subforemen
or "hot tap " foremen, and substation inspectors . There is uncon-
tradicted testimony that aline foreman has charge of a construction
crew consisting normally of six but never less than four men. A line
subforeman , also known as a "hot tap " foreman, has charge of a truck
and a crew of not more than three men engaged in line maintenance.
Although line foremen and subforemen or "hot tap " foremen have no
authority to hire or discharge, they may recommend the hire, dis-
charge, promotion , or demotion of -employees . A live-line-tool in-
spector inspects tools on live lines , instructs the men in their use, and
performs special jobs, sometimes with the assistance of a regular line
crew in charge of the district line foreman . A substation inspector,
now known as a maintenance subforeman , is charged with the main-
tenance of substation equipment. He has an electrician as a helper
and frequently calls upon the substation operators for assistance. We
find, as did the Trial Examiner , that live-line-tool inspectors , line fore-
men, line subforemeni , known also as "hot tap " foremen , and substation
inspectors are supervisory employees.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The following chart sets forth the names of the general officers of
the Western, the locals, the names of the persons appointed as presi-
dents of the locals by Harris, Ivers, and Salm, the names of the -per-
sons first elected as presidents of the locals, and their occupational
classifications. It also indicates those who were originally approached
by Harris and Ivers in the organization of the Western.
ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
OF' WESTERN-
Incorporators, and temporary officers Elected officers
and directors
President : W. LYMAN HARRIS.
W LYMAN HARRIS ** (live line tool in- First vice" president : G. J. GLEASON
spector). (salesman).
A. F. IVERS **( line subforeman ). Second vice president • A F IVERS
T R. SALM (accountant).
OF THE LOCALS
Local
(number and location)
1 Merced______________
2 Los Banos -----------
3 Madera--------- ------
4 Fresno ----- ---------
-5 Fresno_______________
6 Selma________________
7 Dinuba -------------
8 Corcoran -_______-_-_
9 Bakersfield ----------
10 Taft - ----------------
11 Santa Maria --------
12 San Luis Obispo-----
13 Coalinga-------------
14 Crane Valley __-_--__
15 Balch Power House -
16. Paso Robles __-____-_
Appointed
(name and position)
*M A Blackman, **Line foreman---_-
C C Schubert, **Line foreman--___-_
*L M Mossman, **Hot tap foreman--
Harry Champion, **Asst Chief Clerk
A. K Dickson, Clerk, Stores dept---_
*G E Smith, **Hot tap foreman and
lineman
*Ralph Brians , ** Foreman__-____---_
*C A Goan, **Substation mspector__
*Geo Olerich, **Foreman and lineman
*Guy Berrvhill, **Line foreman------
Frank Edsal, Storekeeper_____________
Lloyd C Stone, Lineman--__
Albert Lenz, **Hot tap foreman and
line foreman
Hugh M Smith, **Chief Operator
No 1.
J H VanMeter, **Chief Operator----
George Taaffe , Salesman-----
Elected
(name and position)
O L Craighead, **Inspector and sub-
station inspector.
Leonard Post, **Line foreman.
H G Tretheway, Storekeeper.
Don Justice, Gas serviceman.
A J Cullington, ** Sales supervisor
and ranee supervisor
W L Henderson, Power salesman.
Mack Wheat, Power salesman.
(Same )
Mike Oldershaw, Helper.
*L. J Fuller, **Line foreman.
(Same )
(Same)
(Same )
F. G Pettys , Power house operator
L F Paulsen , First operator.
(Same )
*Indicates original contacts of Hairis and Ivers In addition to these persons, Harri* and Ivers saw others
who assisted in the establishment of the various locals, some of them supervisory employees Included in
this latter group are Joe Little, a construction foreman (at whose home the original meeting at Dinuba was
held), and Witter, a line foreman at Corcoran
**Indicates persons with supervisory authority.
It will be noted that, in the 16 locals of the Western, 12 of the
temporary presidents appointed by Harris, Salm, and Ivers and 6 ,
of the presidents first elected by the membership were supervisory
employees. In succeeding elections, 13 supervisory employees have
continued in or have been returned to office in the locals for one or
more annual terms. -
The active participants in the formation of the Western included
A.' J. Wright, L. M. Mossman, A. F. Ivers, G. E. Smith, A. J. Lenz,
L. C. Stone, Joe Little, and E. Ladouceur. These men were among.
the original members of the Adjustment Committee of the Employees
Mutual-, Benefit Association. That Association, which is still in
existence, was established by the San Joaquin companies to supply
financial aid to their employees. The San Joaquin companies con-
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Co. . 559,
tributed, and P. G. & E. now contributes, to the Association an amount
equal to payments made by the employees. The funds are controlled
by a Board of Managers composed of two representatives selected by
the companies and five representatives chosen by the employees. In
1933 or 1934, the San Joaquin companies, believing that the'National
Industrial Recovery Act required them to bargain with some agency
of their employees, established the Adjustment Committee for'that
purpose as'an adjunct of the Employees Mutual Benefit Association
by amending the Association's bylaws. ' It was provided that the
Adjustment Committee be composed of employee representatives from
various districts and also of the Board of Managers of the Association,
including thereby the two members of that Board who were chosen -
by the companies. During its existence the Adjustment Committee
considered only one matter relating to working conditions. This oc-
curred in 1934. Since then, the Adjustment Committee has field no
further meetings: District adjustment committees, however, con-
tinued to meet until 1937, and the last election of committee members
was held in December 1937 for the year 1938. While amendments
to the constitution and bylaws of the Employees Mutual Benefit As-
sociation have been drafted removing all provisions, for the district
adjustment committees-and the central Adjustment Committee, these
proposed amendments have not been adopted.
There is also considerable testimony concerning the Power Club
and its relation to the Western. As already noted, the Power Club,
which is•still in existence, was established by the San Joaquin com-
panies as a social, educational, and-recreational association of their
employees. Membership in the Power Club is voluntary, and most
of the employees and officials are members.- The Power Club has
chapters in the same communities in,which there are locals of the
Western. Each chapter appoints a director of an, organization known,
as the Super Power Club. The Super Power Club functions as a
coordinating agency for the several chapters. - Personnel Manager
Tilson of the San Joaquin Power Division is, and has been for several
years, secretary-treasurer of the Super Power Club, the general board
of directors of which is composed of officers of, the Fresno chapter
and a director elected, by each chapter. He is and has been, also,
a management representative on the Board of Managers of the Em-
ployees Mutual Benefit Association.
Officers in eight of the chapters of the Power Club elected in De-
cember 1937 were active in the formation of various locals 'of the
Western or in its early activities, and some of them were also super-'
visory employees of the San Joaquin companies. IT
17 The supervisory employees in question were J H VanMeter, president of the Balch
Camp chapter and a director of the Super Power Club (VanMeter was president of Local 15
of the western from July 7 to August 21, 1937) ; Ralph Brians, president of the Dintiba
chapter (president of Local 7 from July 7'to August 21, 1937) ; A. F. Ivers, president of the
560 DEICISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In Bakersfield, the local chapter of the, Power Club has a clubhouse
built upon land then owned by the San Joaquin companies and now
by P. G. & E. and continuously leased by them to the Club at a rental
of, $1 per year. This clubhouse was built with salvaged material
supplied by the companies and with labor supplied by members of the
Power Club or at its expense. The Bakersfield local of the Western
regularly holds meetings in .the clubhouse, paying the Bakersfield
chapter of the Power Club an annual rental of $1. In addition, the
San Joaquin companies used, and P. G. & E. now uses, this clubhouse
for sales meetings and safety meetings, paying a rental of $5 per after-
noon and $10 per evening for such use..
,5. Formal'recognition; the General Working Agreement, and
supplementary contracts
On September 15, 1937, the Western presented a proposed form of
contract to the San Joaquin companies. In a letter dated September
17, 1937, which referred to demands made by the Western "at a recent
meeting," Wishon 'informed Harris, president of the Western, that
the San Joaquin companies would announce a new schedule'of over-
time work for the outside physical forces. Thereafter, representa-
tives of the Western and the San Joaquin companies entered into a •
series of conferences in an attempt to negotiate a general agreement.
On October 23, 1937, after four conferences had been held, Harris,
in a letter to Wishon, requested recognition of the Western as the
sole bargaining agent' of the employees of the San Joaquin companies
and offered whatever proof of majority representation might be re-
quired. Only upon this suggestion of the Western, after negotiations
for a contract had been under way for more than a month and the
San Joaquin companies had already made one concession, did Wishon
ask for proof of the extent of Western's membership. As a result,
the Western submitted to Wishon affidavits of the officers of its locals
setting forth their respective memberships, together With 'photo-
graphic copies of the membership rolls, showing that a majority of
the employees' were members. The San Joaquin companies checked
the names' on the membership lists of the Western against their pay
roll and found that the Western represented 'a majority of the em-
ployees in, each' craft. On December 3, 1937, Wishon accordingly
wrote to the Western, stating that it was entitled to recognition as
Merced chapter ( organizer , director , and general officer of the western ) ; L. J. Fuller , presi-
dent of Taft chapter (president of Local 10 in 1939 and 1940) ; Hugh M. Smith, educational
vice president and registrar of Crane Valley chapter (president of Local 14 from July 7
to August 21, 1937) Non-supervisory employees who were active in the organization of
the western held office in the following chapters of the Power Club • Bakersfield, Madera,
Santa Maria , and Crane Valley It has already been stated above that one of the reasons
for selecting Sal,m to assist in the organization of the western was that he had been presi-
dent of the Power Club in' Fresno
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 561
sole bargaining agent for all employees in the eight crafts set up by
the Western. o
During the following several months, representatives of the
Western and the San Joaquin companies continued to negotiate a
working agreement. The representatives of the companies in' these
conferences, were E. T. Smith, assistant to the president, D. D. Smal-
ley, general superintendent, R. J. Tilson, personnel manager, and,
others. Representing the Western were Harris and a committee
composed of other general off=icers and directors and certain craft
representatives. These negotiations culminated in the making of a
"General Working Agreement" between the San Joaquin companies
and the Western dated April 12, 1938.18
Before the Working Agreement was implemented with detailed
provisions concerning wages and conditions of employment,
P. G. & E. acquired the assets ,of the San Joaquin companies, exclud-
ing Valley. Thereafter, on October 28, 1939, after further negoti-
ation, the respondents, P. G. & E. and Valley, entered into a contract
with the Western covering the rates of pay and working conditions
of the "physical workers" in the San Joaquin division and incor-
porating the provisions of the Working Agreement by reference.
On September 18, 1940, the respondents and the Western amended
the General Working Agreement and, on August 13, 1941, executed
a contract covering the rates of pay and working conditions of the
remaining employees. All the contracts provided for recognition
of the Western as exclusive bargaining 'agent and contained clauses
automatically renewing them yearly, absent notice of discontinuance.
They are still in effect.
6. Relationship between the Western and the, California Union
Organization of the California Union preceded that of the Western
by` approximately a month: The organizations were both formed
to oppose the C. I. O. and were supplementary'to each other in that
they sought to represent all the employees of the affiliated utility sys
tems now owned and operated by P. G. & E. At all times the California
Union and the Western were friendly in their contacts and cooperated
16 the extent their governing boards thought advisable. In the very
beginning, Brillhart furnished Western's organizers with copies of the
constitution and bylaws of the California Union as `a guide in the
drafting of their own. Pursuant to standing reciprocal invitations,
representatives of each organization frequently attended meetings of
the other's board of directors. Harris, Gleason, and Gean, respectively
the president, first vice president, and a director of the Western, at-
tended the first convention of the 'California Union in November 1937,
18 In the "General Working Agreement,", the companies recognized the western as the
exclusive bargaining agent of their employees Agreement as to rates of pay and working,
conditions was expressly left to subsequent negotiation.
504086-43-36
562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD '
and other representatives of the Western attended the 1938 convention
of the California Union. In turn, the California Union sent its repre-
sentatives to the conventions held by the Western.
In anticipation of P: G. & E.'s absorption of the San Joaquin Light
and Power Corporation, the California Union and the Western estab-
lished a joint committee which met in Fresno on December 16 and 17,
1938. Among other matters, this committee discussed the possibility
of uniting the two organizations. The representatives of both organi-
zations accepted a, draft of an agreement which stated that -it was
"desirable for the welfare of both unions and their members that they
act in concert in regard to those problems which are common and in
full cooperation with each other in all matters relating to the mutual
welfare of their members." This agreement also provided that each
organization would fully inform the other concerning its negotiations
for contracts and would .furnish the other with copies of proposed
contracts at least 10 days prior to their "consummation"; that each
organization would maintain a "contact committee"; that the Cali-
fornia Union would publish in its paper, "Common Sense," such news
and other items as might be supplied by the Western and would dis-
tribute the paper among the Western's members; and that the Western
would bear its share of the expense in the publication and distribution
of "Common Sense."' By its terms, the agreement was to become
effective upon approval by the boards of directors of both organiza-
tions. Western's board of directors subsequently approved the agree-
ment, with the exception of the provision for joint publication of
"Common Sense.".
The joint committee met once again, on January 28, 1939,, at Sacra-
mento. Since then it has had no formal meetings, although on frequent
occasions representatives of each organization have attended meetings
of the board of directors and conventions held by the other. Although
on such occasions the proposal to amalgamate was frequently discussed,
no progress was made. The organizations, however, continued their
friendly, relationship and their exchange of information, particularly
concerning their negotiations of contracts with management.
7. Support of the Western and opposition to the C. I. 0. and the
I. B. E. W.
We have already referred to the part played by supervisory em-
ployees of the San Joaquin companies in the formation of the various
locals of the Western. Much of this activity, including the solicitation
of members, took place on company time and property and was accom-
panied by statements discouraging membership in the C. I. 0. and the
I. B. E. W. and by discriminatory threats.
In approximately April 1937, before the Western was organized,
.Howard H'.- Young, district manager at Selma, discussed with his sub-'
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC Co. 563
ordinates rumors that C. I. O. organizers had appeared in a'section of
the territory served by the San Joaquin companies, and indicated that
the C. I. O. was not, in his opinion, "a desirable set-up."
In the spring of 1937,,C. W. Lightner, superintendent of the south-
ern and coastal area of the San Joaquin companies, visited a substation
at Taft in that portion of the system. Byron Peevy, an employee at
the substation, told Lightner that several days previously he had been
visited by a man whom he assumed to be a C. I. O. organizer. Accord-
ing to Peevy, whose, testimony was uncontradicted, Lightner said,
"There is no use talking with such fellows as that. ' There is a union
started up north and that union will be in full force in a short time.
Wait for that union." Shortly thereafter, a local of the Western was
established at Taft. Whether Lightner's statement referred to the
imminent formation of the Western in the northern part of the' San
Joaquin system, or, as counsel for the I. B. E. W. contends, to the Cali-
fornia Union, it was an attempt to discourage affiliation with the
C. I. O. and to encourage affiliation with an "inside" union.
Paul 0. Pease, a lineman at Bakersfield, testified without contra-
diction, and we find, that in June 1937, R. C. Barnes, the assistant
district foreman, refused to receive grievances presented by individual
employees at a first-aid meeting, stating that grievances would have
to be pressed through the Western. This occurred in the infancy of the
Western and before there was any contract between the San Joaquin
companies and the Western or any proof of the extent to which the
Western represented the employees.
In the spring of 1937, while the men- were loading material at_ the
company warehouse in Bakersfield, Foreman George Olerich and Line=
man Arthur J. Wright circulated a petition for the signatures of
employees who wished to join the Western. According to the uncon-
tradicted testimony of Pease, which we credit, Olerich and Wright
explained to the men that they were organizing a union to keep out the
A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. At the same time similar petitions were
circulated in other, districts, in most instances on company property.'
Calvin A. Thompson, a groundman in 'the Bakersfield district,'testified
that he signed one of these petitions and that, on the following morn-
ing, in a conversation with Line Foreman Paehlig, he expressed regret
for having signed the petition because the Western appeared to be
company-dominated. After first denying that the Western was domi-
nated by the company, Paehlig finally said, "We know that it is a
company union but we must get into it." Thompson further testified
without contradiction, and we find, that, on another occasion in the'
summer of 1937, he heard Foreman Olerich tell an employee whose
membership Olerich was soliciting that the employees ought to join
the Western, although they could not expect much from it since "You
cannot get in there and raise hell." Thompson, himself, according to
'564' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONIS BOARD
his testimony , was solicited for membership in the Western by Line
Foreman John W. Reed of the Bakersfield district in the summer of
1941.
On occasions , line foremen urged on employees the advantages of
membership in the Western . Employee Paul C. Pease testified that,
in 1938, Line Foreman Jim Bishop told two members of his ,line crew,
while they were at work , that he thought the Western was "a good
thing" and that they should get behind it and keep their dues paid up.
Lineman Arthur J. Wright testified 'that, in 1939 or 1940, he heard
Line Foreman Reed say in the presence of his crew while they were
working on a company truck that he thought that members of the
Western would receive better positions with the Company . We credit
their testimony , which was uncontradicted.
Pease and Wright further testified ' that, in the summer of, 1941,
Line Foreman Reed told Barker, an apprentice lineman in Reed's
crew, that he should put on a Western button 'or he would be "digging
holes." Reed, in his testimony , said ' that he had spoken in jest, but
admitted that he might have made the same statement to other em-
ployees. We find, as did the Trial Examiner , that Reed expected
Barker to understand that the latter would get undesirable and diffi-
cult assignments unless he wore the Western button.
The record shows that the employees were fully aware of P. G. & E.'s
opposition to the C. ' I. 0., as expressed in the above -described state-
ments by supervisory employees . In the summer of 1941 , Kenneth R_
Hall , a lineman and an ex-craft representative of the Western, and
John Matley , another employee, applied for membership in the I. B.
E. W. at a meeting held in Bakersfield . The next morning, according
to Hall 's testimony , Tom Long, then a craft representative of the
Western, told him that Long had a list of everyone who had joined
the I . B. E. W. and that the names would be "taken up°to the manage-
ment." Long made the same statement to Matley . Hall and Matley
thereupon pleaded with the officers of the Western's Bakersfield local
not to report them to the Company. The local 's officers denied any
such intention , but told Hall and Matley that their names would be
forwarded to the Western's general headquarters . After further
pleading by Matley and Hall, it was decided, by the officers of the
Western's Bakersfield local not to make a report either to"the Company
or ,to the Western's central body. Long,denied at the hearing having
-told Matley and Hall tiiat\hey would be reported , but admitted in=
forming the officers of the Bakersfield local of the Western of the names
of those who had applied for I . E. W. membership .. We credit
Hall's testimony on this point, as did the Trial Examiner.
On January 8, 1938, the Western's board of directors decided that,
in view of the fact that it had been recognized by the San Joaquin
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. 565
i
companies as exclusive bargaining agent, its business might thereafter
be handled on company time and property, at the option of the locals.
The-record shows that proponents of the Western, including super-
visory employees, had' continually conducted its affairs during working
hours on the companies' property from the time the Western had been
formed.' Tom Long, for example, testified that he solicited employees
for membership "from 6 in the morning to 6 the next morning, at home,
on the job, off the job, wherever I run into them"; Foreman Bill Reed
testified that he solicited members for the Western during working
'hours, "if it was convenient;" Long and Hall both testified that., while
they were craft representatives, they collected dues from members of
the Western while they were on the job; and Pease and Henderson
testified that the "Union News," Western's monthly publication, was
openly distributed during working hours on company property. This
testimoney was uncontradicted, and is accepted by us.
In contrast with the freedom thus permitted the Western in its ac-
tivities, District Foreman H. E. Mann, as the Trial Examiner found,
refused in August 1941, to permit -Pease, then a member of the I. B.
E. W., to solicit members for the I. B. E. W. on company property
after working hours.
B. Conclusions
In the spring of 1937, within the period of approximately a month
and almost immediately following the Supreme Court decisions up-
holding the constitutionality of the Act,1° the California Union and
the Western were hastily established in opposition to the C. 1. 0. among
the employees of P. G. & E. and the employees of the San Joaquin
companies, respectively.20 Among the principal factors which made
" N L R It V Jones h Laughlin Steel Corp, 301 U S 1; N JL R 13 v Fi uehau f Trailer
Co, 301 U S 49; N L. R It v Friedman-Hairy Marks Cloth my Co, 301 U S 58 ; Asco_
ciated-Press v N L R B , 301 U S . 103; Washington , Virginia ( Maryland Coach Co v
NLRB, 301U 5.142
In view of P G & E's relationship ' to the San Joaquin companies at the'time the
western was fotmed and thereafter, 1' G; & E's succession to the business and assets, and
its assumption of the liabilities , of the San Joaquin companies ( excluding Valley) , the
continuation as a business entity of the utility system of the San Joaquin companies attet
its acquisition by P G & E, without