The Ohio Power Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1134 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE OHIO Pow ER COMPANY and UTILITY WORXERB
UNION OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 8-C-2179.-Decided August 19, 1948
Mr. John A. Hull, Jr., for the General Counsel.
Day, Cope, Ketterer, Raley & Wright, by Mr. D. W. Raley, of
Canton, Ohio, for the Respondent.
Herman E. Cooper, by Mr. H. Howard Ostrin, of New York City,
for the Union.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On May 25,1947, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Report
in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief."
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-man
panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.*
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the Respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
1 Subsequent to the complaint hearing, the Respondent filed a motion, a supplementary
motion, and a further supplementary motion to reopen the record ; the Board and Union
Counsel filed affidavits in opposition . These motions allege no new material facts not
contained in the record of the case and , accordingly, they are hereby denied.
*Chairman Herzog and Members - Reynolds and Murdock.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 160.
1134
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 1135
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, The Ohio Power
Company, Canton, Ohio, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns,
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with the Utility Workers
Union of America (CIO), . as the exclusive representative of all its
regular employees at the Tidd plant, including control operators,
stores attendants, and janitors, but excluding guards, clerical em-
ployees, construction employees, probationary employees, part-time
employees, laboratory tester, chemist, junior chemist, test engineer,
junior test engineer, and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees or effectively recommend such action;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of Utility Workers
Union of America (CIO), to bargain collectively with it, as the ex-
clusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit
described above.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with Utility Workers Union
of America (CIO), as the exclusive bargaining representative of all
the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit, with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ-
ment, and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding
in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its plant at Brilliant, Ohio, copies
of the notice attached to'the Intermediate Report herein marked "Ap-
pendix A." 2 Copies of the said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being duly signed by the
Respondent's representative, be posted by the Respondent immediately
upon receipt thereof and maintained for sixty (60) consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from, the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
2 This notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF A TRIAL EXAMINER"
and substituting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER." In the event
that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there shall be inserted
in the notice, before the words "A DECISION AND ORDER ," the words "DECREE OF
THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ENFORCING. . . ."
1136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. John A. Hall,, Jr , for the General Counsel.
Day, Cope, Ketterer, Raley & Wright, by Mr. D. W. Raley, of Canton, Ohio,
for the respondent.
Mr. Herman E. Cooper, by Mr. H. Howard Ostrin, of New York City, for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed by Utility Workers Union of America
(CIO), herein called the Union, the General Counsel by the Regional Director for
the Eighth Region (Cleveland, Ohio) of the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, issued his complaint dated January 23, 1948, against
The Ohio Power Company, Canton, Ohio, herein called the respondent, alleging
that the respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act, and Section 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) of the Act, as amended by the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, Public Law 101, 80th Congress, chapter
120-1st Session. Copies of the complaint together with copies of the charge and
notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and the Union.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance that
the respondent (a) on or about June 13, 1947, and thereafter, refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
respondent's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although a ma-
jority of the employees in such unit, in an election conducted under the super-
vision of the Board on May 13, 1947, had designated and selected the Union as
their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and (b) thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer, duly filed herein, the respondent admitted certain of the allega-
tions, averred "that the proceedings of the Board and the purported certification
of representatives were without jurisdiction or authority, were unwarranted by
the facts and otherwise not in accordance with law; that the Board exceeded
its statutory jurisdiction and authority by assuming to exercise jurisdiction to
determine and establish an appropriate collective bargaining unit and to certify
a collective bargaining representative, when from the whole record before it and
the evidence submitted it appeared that a question affecting commerce had not
arisen when the Board purported to take jurisdiction ; that the finding, determi-
nation and orders of the Board that control operators, stores attendants and
janitors should be included in the collective bargaining unit . . . were arbitrary,
capricious, abusive of discretion, and unsupported by substantial evidence upon
consideration of the whole record," and denied it had engaged in any unfair
labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on-February 24, 1948, at Canton, Ohio,
before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial
Examiner. The General Counsel, the respondent, and the Union were repre-
sented at the hearing by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. At the close of the hearing, the undersigned granted
a motion by the General Counsel to conform the pleadings to the proof as to
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 1137
dates and minor variations and reserved ruling on the respondent's motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of proof. The motion is hereby denied. All
the parties were afforded opportunity to present oral argument at the close of
the hearing, and to file briefs and/or proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law with the undersigned. None of the parties presented oral argument or
submitted proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. Briefs were received
from the Union and the respondent.
Upon the entire record 1 of the case and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent , The Ohio Power - Company, an Ohio corporation , is engaged
in the production , sale and distribution of electrical energy, and owns and operates
a power plant at Brilliant , Ohio, known as the Tidd plant, which is involved
in this proceeding . The respondent operates its business in 55 counties in the
State of Ohio and furnishes energy to Timken Roller Bearing Company, Republic
Steel Corporation , Lima Locomotive Company, American Rolling Mills Company
and various other industrial concerns which produce goods for shipment to
points outside the State . It purchases and receives various equipment , such as
turbines and wire, from concerns located outside the States and has inter-
connections with public utility companies in Pennsylvania , West Virginia and
Indiana and transmits or receives electrical energy across State lines through
such inter-connections . The respondent concedes , and the undersigned finds,
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Utility Workers Union of America (CIO) is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain
A. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein
On April 14, 1947, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
Case No. 8-R-2463,2 finding, among other things, that all regular employees of
the respondent's Tidd plant, including control operators, stores attendants and
janitors, but excluding guards, clerical employees, construction employees, pro-
bationary employees, part-time employees, laboratory tester, chemist, junior
chemist, test engineer, junior test engineer, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
1 All the parties having joined in the respondent's motion to correct the transcript in
certain respects, the undersigned hereby grants the motion and orders the Transcript
-Clerk to enter the corrections on the face of the record.
2 The Ohio Power Company, 73 N L R. B 384.
1138 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On May 13, 1947, pursuant to the Direction of Election, an election by secret
ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the
Eighth Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally of Ballots was
furnished the respondent and the Union in accordance with the Rules and Regu-
lations of the Board. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed by
the respondent or the Union within the time provided therefor. The Tally
showed that 50 ballots were cast, of which 22 were for, and 20 against, the Union ;
and that 8 ballots were challenged. Seven of the challenges were made by the
respondent and 1 was made by the Union. The Regional Director, having duly
investigated the challenges, on May 20, 1947, issued and duly served upon the
respondent and the Union his Report on Challenges. In his report he made certain
findings and recommendations sustaining each of the challenges made by the
respondent, and not passing upon the challenge made by the Union which would
not have affected the results of the election. No exceptions having been filed
by the respondent or the Union to the Regional Director's findings and recom-
mendations, the Board on June 10, 1947, adopted them and certified the Union
as the representative, for the purposes of collective bargaining, of the employees
in the unit heretofore mentioned.
The respondent contests the Board's findings (a) that a question concerning
representation had arisen, and (b) that the control operators, stores attendants
and janitors are properly part of the appropriate unit. As appears from the
Board's Decision and Direction of Election and from the record in the representa-
tion proceeding, these precise contentions were raised by the respondent in that
case, and were there litigated and decided adversely to the respondent.
In the instant proceeding, the respondent, in support of its view that the control
operators should be excluded from the unit as supervisors, sought to adduce
testimony relating to matter in existence at the time of the representation hear-
ing. It was not shown that this testimony was newly discovered or unavailable
or not known to the respondent at the time of that hearing, or that the respondent
had not been given full opportunity to be heard. The issues having already been
litigated, the undersigned excluded this testimony offered by the respondent 8
' Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co., v. N. L R. B., 162 F. (2d) 435, 440, and cases there
cited. The matter excluded, which is essentially supplementary to and of the same general
character as the testimony adduced at the representation hearing, appears in the transcript
as a proffer.
This proffer shows that the control operator is employed in the control room where
instruments register the operation of the equipment at the plant. He is responsible to
the shift operating engineer who spends part of his time in the control room. In the
event an emergency is indicated on the instruments and the shift operating engineer is
performing other of his duties either in or outside the plant, the control operator would,
if he had the opportunity, report it to the engineer; if he did not have the opportunity
to do so, he would proceed to meet the situation or at the first opportunity he would reach
for the microphone and announce the circumstances on the public address system. The
shift operating engineer would generally know independently of the emergency because
of the variations in the sound of the operating equipment. Normally, the employees at the
plant are directed in their work by their respective supervisors through a series of work
orders, but during a minor or major emergency the control operator has authority to
requisition and direct the activities of substantially all the employees to keep the plant in
operation. Several times during the last winter, for example, when coal deliveries were
diverted to another point and the plant used coal from storage which had been frozen and
had the effect of clogging the conveying system, the control operators requisitioned men
from the maintenance department to hammer on the chutes and poke the coal along to
maintain a stream of supply.
The proffer also shows that the respondent plans to add additional sections to the Tidd
plant and that when the Tidd plant is developed to its anticipated capacity, its output
will be comparable to that of the respondent's Philo plant. The respondent plans at that
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 1139
Testimony concerning circumstances which had changed subsequent to the repre-
sentation proceeding was, however, received. The respondent, as new matter,
showed that on December 1, 1947, it had changed the method of payment to the
control operators from an hourly to a monthly salary basis, and that the control
operators are paid an amount in excess of $325 a month. No testimony concern-
ing the other disputed categories was offered.
The change concerning the payment of the control operators is not in the
undersigned's opinion sufficient in view of the other factors to warrant their
exclusion. Under these circumstances, the undersigned finds, in accordance with
the Board's previous determination, that all regular employees at the respondent's
Tidd plant, including control operators, stores attendants, and janitors, but ex-
cluding guards, clerical employees, construction employees, probationary em-
ployees, part-time employees, laboratory tester, chemist, junior chemist, test
engineer, junior test engineer, and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute, and at all times
material herein constituted, a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.` The undersigned further finds that on and at all times after June
13, 1947, the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a
majority of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit and that, pursuant
to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on June 13, 1947, and
at all times thereafter has been and is now the exclusive representative of all
employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment and other conditions of
employment.
B. The refusal to bargain
On June 13, 1947, the Union wrote the respondent, referring to the Board's
certification and requesting a meeting to negotiate an agreement. On July 3,
1947, the respondent replied stating in its letter that it had filed a petition with
time to set up a supervisory organization at the Tidd plant which it considers comparable
to that of the Philo plant, where all persons in the supervisory organization are excluded
from the bargaining unit. The proposed organizational set-up at the Tidd plant will
consist of a shift operating engineer and 4 or 5 control operators , one operator for each
of the additional sections to the Tidd plant However, the persons in the organizational
set-up at the Philo plant have classifications different from the classifications proposed for
the organizational set-up at the Tidd plant, and the Philo plant is radically different in
design from the Tidd plant Moreover, it does not appear that the Tidd plant will reach
its proposed ultimate capacity in the near future ; nor does it appear that the Board has
ever passed upon the merits of the exclusion of the classifications at the Philo plant
organizational set-up.
4 The respondent contends that the control operators are supervisors under the Act as
amended by the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 This contention assumes that
the record does not support a finding that the control operators are not supervisors under
the terms of the amendment Even if this assumption were accepted, the contention
lacks merit for it does not appear that the amendment has become operative as to this
case Section 103 of the amendment provides that it shall not "affect any certification of
representatives or any determination as to the appropriate collective-bargaining unit,
which was made under section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act prior to the effective
date of this title until one year after the date of such certification . .. " and 1 year
has not elapsed since the certification. Aside from this literal interpretation, it would
appear that when, as here , an employer has contested and has refused to honor a certifi-
cation, the period during which the certification has not had an opportunity to function
should be tolled from the computation of the 1-year period. N L. R B v P. Lorillard Co.,
314 U S 512; Franks Bros Co. v. N. L. R B., 321 U. S. 702; N. L. if. B v. Gatke Corp ,
162 F. ( 2d) 252
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a review of
the Board's findings in the representation proceeding and that it would not
arrange a meeting until the issue was disposed of by the Court. Thereafter on
November 3, 1947, the Union again requested a bargaining meeting pointing out
that the Court had dismissed the respondent's petition for review' At about
this time, too, William R. Munger, the Union's vice president, telephoned Harold
Turner, the respondent's vice president, and inquired about bargaining. Turner
stated that the respondent still refused to bargain with the Union, explaining
that the respondent was in the same position as it had been before it had filed
the petition for review with the Court, for the Court in dismissing the petition
had not passed upon the substantive issues. Turner also indicated that the
principal issue in the controversy concerned the control operators. Thereupon
Munger inquired if the respondent would consider negotiating a contract pending
and subject to an adjudication of this issue, and Turner declined to enter into
such an arrangement. By letter dated November 18, 1947, the respondent ex-
plained to the Union that its failure to reply to the Union's letter of November 3
was due to the illness of Turner. By the end of November there was another
exchange of letters between the parties with the Union requesting and the re-
spondent refusing to bargain. The respondent repeated its opposition to the
Board's unit determination and stated that if the Union wished to abandon its
claim relating to the inclusion of the job classifications to which the respondent
had objected, the respondent would be willing to commence negotiations with
the Union as representative of the remainder of the unit.
The undersigned accordingly finds that the respondent on June 13, 1947, and
at all times thereafter has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and has thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
It is found that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section
I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
'and obstructing commerce and the tree flow of commerce.
V THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been
found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union
as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will
be recommended that the respondent upon request bargain collectively with
the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Utility Workers Union of America (CIO) is a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
Ohio Power Company v N L R. B, 164 F. (2d) 275
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 1141
' 2. All regular employees of the respondent's Tidd plant including control
operators, stores attendants and janitors, but excluding guards, clerical employees,
construction employees, probationary employees, part-time employees, laboratory
tester, chemist, junior chemist, test engineer, junior test engineer, and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action cogstitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. Utility Workers Union of America (CIO) was on June 13, 1947, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all the employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,, within the meaning of
Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on June 13, 1947, and at all times thereafter, to bargain coh c-
tively with Utility Workers Union of America (CIO), as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent
,has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning'of
Section 8 (5) of the Act and 8 (a) (5) of the Act, as amended.
5. By, said acts, the respondent has interfered with, restrained and coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, and
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act and Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, as amended.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
The Ohio Power Company, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Utility Workers Union of America
(CIO) as the exclusive representative of all its regular employees at its Tidd
plant, including control operators, stores attendants, and janitors, but excluding
guards, clerical employees, construction employees, probationary employees, part-
time employees, laboratory tester, chemist, junior chemist, test engineer, junior
test engineer, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge,'disciphne, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effec-
tively recommend such action ; and
(b) Engaging in any other acts in any manner interfering with the efforts of
Utility Workers Union of America (CIO) to negotiate for or represent the em-
ployees in the aforesaid unit as exclusive bargaining agent.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will effectu-
ate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Utility Workers Union of America
(CIO), as the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the
bargaining unit described herein, with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment" br other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is
reached, embody such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Post in conspicuous places at its plant at Brilliant, Ohio, copies of the
notice attached hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Eighth Region, shall, after being' duly
signed by' the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent imme-
798767-49-vol 78-73
1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
diately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for a period of sixty (60)
consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where
notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered , defaced, or covered
by any other material ; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing within ten
(10) days from the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps the respondent
has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that, unless on or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Director
in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations , the National
Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take the action
aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.46 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board-Series 5, effective August 22 , 1947, any party may, within
twenty ( 20) days from the date of service of the order transferring the case to
the Board , pursuant to Section 203.45 of said Rules and Regulations , file with the
Board, Rochambeau Building , Washington 25, D C., an original and six copies
of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding ( including rulings upon all
motions or objections ) as he relies upon, together with the original and six copies
of a brief in support thereof ; and any party may, within the same period, file an
original and six copies of a brief in support of the Intermediate Report. Imme-
diately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs , the party
filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties. Proof
of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be promptly
made as required by Section 203.85. As further provided in said Section 203.46,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten ( 10) clays from the date
of service of the order transferring the case to the Board.
In the event no Statement of Exceptions is filed as provided by the aforesaid
Rules and Regulations , the findings , conclusions , recommendations and recom-
mended order herein contained shall, as provided in Section 203.48 of said Rules
and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become its findings, conclusions
and order , and all objections thereto shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
MAx M. GOLDMAN,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 25, 1948.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL NOT engage in any acts in any manner interfering with the efforts
of UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA ( CIO) to negotiate for or represent
the employees in the bargaining unit described below.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named union as
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit de-
scribed herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment or other
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY 1143
conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such
understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is :
All our regular employees of the Tidd plant including control operators,
stores attendants and janitors, but excluding guards, clerical employees, con-
struction employees, probationary employees, part-time employees, laboratory
tester, chemist, junior chemist, test engineer, junior test engineer and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recom-
mend such action.
THE OHIO POWER COMPANY,
Employer.
By -------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated ------------------•
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.