Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 874 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and UTILITY
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 4-R-1793.-Decided November 20, 1945
Mr. Harvey H. Steckel, of Allentown, Pa., for the Company.
Messrs. 0. J. Harper and J. A. Straub, of New York City; Mr.
Joseph M. Walsh, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.; and Mr. Reginald Brown, of
Pittsburgh, Pa., for the CIO.
Messrs. Henry Mayer and Irwin Panken, of New York City ; and
Mr. John Thomas, of Catasauqua, Pa., for the Independent.
Mr. -Yelverton Cowherd, of Washington, D. C.; and Messrs. Angelo
Cefalo, August Rouse, and Robert R. Fahl, of Philadelphia, Pa., for
District 50.
Mr. George B. Acker, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the IBEW.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Utility Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, now known as Utility Workers Union of America, a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein
called the CIO,1 alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Pennsylvania Power &
Light Company, Allentown, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hear-
ing upon due notice before William P. Webb, Trial Examiner. The
hearing was held at Allentown, Pennsylvania, on September 24 and 25, .
1945. The Company; the CIO; Employees Independent Association,
herein called the Independent; District 50, United Mine Workers of
I The petition was filed on June 15, 1945, by Utility Workers Organizing Committee, an
organizing committee , which was succeeded by Utility Workers Union of America , a union
chartered by the same parent body. The change in status from committee to chartered
union with a corresponding change in name does not impair the identity of the petitioner
The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the present name of
the CIO.
64 N. L . R. B., No.149.
874
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 875,
America, herein called District 50; and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, herein called the IBEW, appeared and partici-
pated? All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
auiine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from'prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Company and District 50 request permission to present oral
argument before the Board. The requests are denied. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
:Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, a Pennsylvania corpora-
tion, has its general offices at Allentown, Pennsylvania. The Company
supplies electrical energy to approximately 432,600 customers in all
or parts of 28 counties in the eastern portion of Pennsylvania. It also
supplies manufactured gas to approximately 67,000 customers in the
same area, and steam-heat service to approximately 1,500 customers
in Harrisburg and Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. The Company's
system includes 16 steam electric power plants, 20 hydroelectric gen-,
crating stations, all connected by a network of power lines, and a num-
ber of attended and unattended substations, which are fed from these
lines, and 15 manufactured gas plants. All of these power plants, sub-
stations, and power lines are operated as a unified whole. This inte-
grated system is in turn connected with the power lines of public utili-
ties situated in other States, and thus constitutes a link in the chain
of power companies serving other States.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Utility Workers Union of America is a labor organization, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
Employees Independent Association is an unaffiliated labor organi-
zation , admitting to membership employees of the Company.
2 Although the IBEW moved to intervene in this proceeding and a representative of the
IBEW appeared on the first day of the hearing, the IBEW submitted no showing of interest
among employees of the Company in its proposed bargaining unit. Its representative did
not appear during the second day of the hearing . Under these circumstances , we will not
consider the IBEW as a party in interest in this proceeding.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is an unaffiliated labor
organization, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 11 , 1945 , the CIO informed the Company that the CIO
represented the Company 's employees and requested a bargaining con-
ference. On June 18 , the Company refused to recognize the CIO,
alleging that a contract between the Company and the Independent
constituted a bar.
Since August 1937 , the Company has recognized the Independent as
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees and has entered
into contracts with the Independent covering employees in the several
work categories usually employed in gas and electric utility com-
panies. The latest agreement , executed on March 7, 1942, provides
that it shall remain in full force and effect until December 31, 1942,
and from year to year thereafter unless notice of 90 days be given
by either party to terminate or change the agreement . The parties
further agreed not to exercise their right to terminate , the contract
during the period of national emergency . Numerous supplementary
agreements covering changes in particular working conditions for
employees of the Company have subsequently been executed between
the parties . Since the original agreement of March 7 , 1942, is one
of indefinite duration and has already been in effect for more than
3 years, we find that it constitutes no bar to a determination of repre-
sentatives at this time.3
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of employ-
ees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate 4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
s The agreement between the parties to the contract not to terminate their contract
until the emergency due to war has officially closed does not constitute a bar to a determina-
tion of representatives upon a petition of a rival union claiming to represent the same em-
ployees To hold otherwise would , in effect, permit the parties by contract to defeat the
purposes of the Act
4 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO had submitted 1,036 authorization cards and
an affidavit of its secretary alleging that 399 employees of the Company were members of
the CIO in good standing
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner read into the record a statement
that District 50 had submitted to him 427 authorization cards purporting to bear signa-
tures of employees of the Company in the appropriate unit.
The Independent relies upon its contract to Indicate its interest among the Company's,
employees.
There are approximately 4,200 employees In the appropriate unit.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
877
The Company's employees fall into two general classes, the so-called
physical employees, who perform the manual work in constructing,
maintaining, and operating the Company's lines and plants, and the
office and clerical employees, who work in the Company's main offices
and plants, and who perform work which, for the most part, is clerical
in nature.
The CIO contends that the Company's physical forces constitute
an appropriate unit apart from the office and clerical employees. The
Company, the Independent, and District 50 agree that a system-wide-
unit of the Company's physical and clerical forces constitute a single
appropriate unit.5
The Company's employees fall into the usual categories of em-
ployment found in gas and electric utility systems. The nature of
the utility and the quality of the public service rendered admittedly
require a very high degree of coordination and integration among
,employees in its several departments. Since 1937 the Independent
has bargained for physical and clerical workers in a single unit, and
the Company, the Independent, and District 50 urge the the unit so
established should not be broken down. In some cases, we have felt
that the dissimilarities in skills and functions inherent in physical and
clerical work outweighed other considerations and, in spite of bar-
gaining history upon a broader basis, we have established separate
ants for physical workers.,' In other cases, we have been impressed
with the high degree of integration of work among all employees of
a public utility and, despite functional differences, and even in the
absence of any substantial bargaining history, we have found appro-
priate system-wide units of physical and clerical workers.7
The CIO, which presently contends that the unit appropriate for
the Company's employees should be confined to physical workers, re-
'ceives office and clerical employees of public utility companies into
its membership and, on occasions, includes physical and clerical work-
ers in a single bargaining units At the time of the hearing in this
proceeding, the CIO contended that it had not yet exerted any special
effort to organize the Company's clerical employees, although it de-
sired to represent them. The parties disagreed as to whether certain
categories of inside employees should be included in a unit largely
5In its motion to intervene, the IBEW likewise urged the single unit as appropriate
Matter of Boston Edison Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 118; Matter of Indianapolis Power
and Light Company, 51 N. L. R. B. 670.
7 Matter of Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, 55 N. L R. B. 1058, Mat-
ter of Pennsylvania Edison Company, 36 N. L R B. 432,
8 E g, see Matter of Pennsylvania Edison Company, supra, wherein the CIO requested,
and the Board granted, a single unit of physical and clerical employees
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
composed of physical employees. Proper placement of fringe groups
within a restricted unit is uncertain. Under these circumstances, and
in view of the long history of bargaining in the larger unit, we believe
that a system-wide unit of clerical and physical forces is the appro-
priate unit for the Company's employees.
We shall exclude from the bargaining unit all confidential secre-
taries, executives, managerial employees, and all supervisory em-
ployees within our usual definition of that term."
We find that all employees of the Company, excluding confidential
secretaries, executives, managerial employees, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot.
Between June 15,1945, the date when the CIO filed its petition, and
September 25, 1945, the date of the close of the hearing, the Company
had hired from 200 to 300 employees, of whom approximately 50 per-
cent were returned service men. Under these circumstances, the CIO
urges that the date of the filing of its petition should determine eligi-
bility to vote in the election. The Company, the Independent, and
District 50 urge that the Board's usual custom should prevail. We
see no reason to depart from our usual practice in determining
eligibility.
The Regional Director requests that, in the event of an election
among the Company's employees, permission be granted him to hold
the election in whole or in part by mail. Since the Company's em-
ployees are widely distributed over 28 counties in the State, we will
grant the request and authorize the Regional Director, at his discre-
tion, to conduct the election in whole or in part by mail.
Those eligible to vote in the election which we now direct shall
be all employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction
of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth
in the Direction.
6 Although the parties disagreed as to the classification of system operators and local
operators as physical or clerical employees , it seems clear that employees in these cate-
gories are not supervisory employees , and they are included in the larger unit found
appropriate.
PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
879
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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Pennsylvania
Power & Light Company, Allentown, Pennsylvania, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, act-
ing in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Reg-
ulations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the
armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since, quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire
to be represented by Utility Workers Union of America, CIO, or by
Employees Independent Association, or by District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
none.