Southern California Edison Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 16, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 80 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD.,, EM-
PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL B-18, AFL, PETITIONER
In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD., EM-
PLOYER and, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0.,
PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 21-R-3156 and 21-R-3.77, respectively.-Decided
August 16, 1946
Gibson, Dunn cl; Crutcher, by Messrs. David P. Evans and R: G.
Kenyon, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the Employer.
Mr. William B. Esterman , of Los Angeles , Calif ., for the IBEW.
Katz, Gallagher c6 11argolis, by Thelma S. Herzig , of Los Angeles,
Calif., for-the CIO.
Mr. F. G. Dunn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, hearing in these consolidated cases was
held at Los Angeles, California, on May 17, 1946, before George H.
O'Brien, Trial Examiner. The petition of the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, AFL, herein called the
IBEW, in Case No. 21-R-3156 sought a system-wide unit of super-
visory employees. However, at the hearing, a consent election agree-
ment was reached in Case No. 21-R-3156 which specifically excluded
the supervisory employees sought in Case No. 21-R.3277. We shall
therefore direct that Cases Nos. 21-R-3156 and 21-R-3277 be severed,
and shall proceed herein to'a determination of the issues in Case No.
21-R-3277, in which the IBEW was permitted t6 intervene. The
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer moved that the
petition be dismissed. Ruling on said motion was reserved for the
Board. For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
70 N. L. R. B., No. 8.
80
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD.
FINDINGS of FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
81
Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., a California Corpora-
tion, is engaged in the business of generating, distributing, and selling
electric power. During 1942, the Employer purchased supplies, mate-
rial, equipment, and machinery valued in excess of $3,400,000, of
which in excess of $2,200,200 represented purchases from points out-
side the State of California. During the same period, the total sales
of the Employer amounted to more than $50,000,000. No electric power
is directly sold or shipped outside the State of California. The
Employer delivers wholesale electric power to other cities and com-
panies, including specifically the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, to
which the Employer delivered in excess of $2,500,000 worth of electric
power during 1942. The total wholesale electric power so delivered
to the cities and companies is in excess of $3,400,000. There has been
no substantial change in the business. of the Employer since 1942.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18,
herein called IBEW, is a labor organization affiliated with American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all supervisory employees of the
Employer at its Long Beach Steam Plant, excluding the station chief
and the assistant station chief. The IBEW, although agreeing to the
specific composition of the unit sought by the Petitioner, contends that
a system-wide unit is the ultimate appropriate unit. Inasmuch as the
supervisory unit sought herein conforms to the pattern of that found
82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate by the Board for the non-supervisory employees,I we
find no merit in this contention. The Employer contends that the
unit of supervisory employees is inappropriate, first, because such
employees do not come within the scope of the Act, and secondly, be-
cause the unit embraces different supervisory levels in one collective
bargaining unit.
The status of foremen and other comparable supervisory categories
has been determined in several recent decisions by both the Board and
the courts, wherein the language of Section 2 (3) of the Act defining
the term "employee," has been construed to include supervisory em-
ployees.'- Accordingly, we find that the employees sought herein come -
within the scope of the Act.
Upon consideration of the evidence adduced in the record, we are
of the opinion that the employees sought herein are readily distin-
guishable from the station chief, the assistant station chief, and the
other higher level policy-I$aking officials of the Employer, and do
not constitute such an integral part of management that they may not
be segregated therefrom as a separate group for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. The record is clear that these employees have a
definite community of interest in that they perform comparable super-
visory functions in their respective departments. Accordingly, we
find that the supervisory employees whom the Petitioner desires to
represent constitute a homogeneous group appropriate for collective'
bargaining.
The record indicates that there is some question as to the inclusion
or exclusion of the following categories :
Steam plant engineer: 3 The 'record does not reveal any duties per-
formed by this employee that would warrant his exclusion from the
unit. However, inasmuch as it appears that he is not an employee of
the Employer, we shall exclude him from the unit.
Safety engineer: The record indicates that this employee has no
subordinates, and thus does not fall within the Board's definition of a
supervisory employee. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the
unit 4
We find that all supervisory employees of the Employer at its Long
Beach Steam Plant, excluding the station chief, the assistant, station
chief, the steam plant engineer,-' and the safety engineer, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'The unit of production and maintenance employees was confined to the Long Beach
Steam Plant . Matter of Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., 51 N. L. R. B. 9.
Matter of Jones t Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shanndvin Coal Division, 66
N L. R. B. 386 ; Matter of Potomac Electric Power Company , 66 N. L . R. B. 1432.
a Jack Toten.
Matter of Jones f Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division , supra.
The record indicates that this position may be filled in the future by an employee of the
Employer. In such event , this category shall be deemed included within the unit.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
83
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Southern California Edison
Company, Ltd., Los Angeles, California, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for_ the Twenty-first Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately 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 elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Utility Workers Union of America, Local No. 342, C. I. 0., or by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, AFL,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. -
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED , pursuant to Article III, Section 13 (c), (4),
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,
as amended, that Cases Nos. 21-8-3156 and 21-R-3277 be, and they
hereby are, severed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
I am constrained to disagree with the result in this case for the
reasons set forth in my dissent in Matter of Packard Motor Car
Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, as well as the additional reasons set forth
in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Jones d Laughlin Steel Corpo-
ration, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L. R. B. 386.
712344--47-vol. 70-7