The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 889 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
AND BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA
In the Matter of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
AND BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA
In the Matter of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
AND BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA and AMERICAN COM-
MUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, CIO
In the Matter of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
AND BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF TELEPHONE WORKERS OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA
In the Matter of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
AND BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA and AMERICAN COM-
MUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, CIO -
In the Matter of THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
AND BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA and AMERICAN COM-
MUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, CIO
Cases Nos. 20-C-1287, 2O-C-1291 , 0-0-1309, 20-C 13.19, 20-C-1370,
and 20-C-1371, respectively.Decided March 23, 19.48
Messrs. John Paul Jennings and Robert E. Tillman, for the Board.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutra, by Messrs. Norbert Korte and Charles
F. Prael, of San Francisco, Calif., for respondent.
Mr. Arthur N. Hall, of San Francisco, Calif., for the UBTW.
Gladstein, Andersen, Resner, Sawyer & Edises, by Messrs. Bertram
Edises and Norman Leonard, of Oakland, Calif., and Mr. Bruce Risley,
of San Francisco, Calif., for the ACA-CIO.
Cushing d Cushing, Cullinan, Trowbridge c Gorrill, by Messrs.
Eustace Cullinan, Sr., Vincent Cullinan, and John H. Murray, of San
Francisco, Calif., for the AEO and Clerical Organization.
Mr. Henry Mayer and Mrs. Ruby P. Mayer, of New York City, and
Miss Marie DeMartini, of San Francisco, Calif., for the TTEO.
76 N. L R B, No. 123.
889
890 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On March 7, 1947, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer 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 Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the respondent, the AEO, the UBTW and counsel for
the Board filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting
briefs.
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearings and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.-
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and
briefs, and the entire record in the case; and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the
additions and modifications noted below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the AEO is the offspring
of four accounting organizations, that "the officers and representatives
of the four accounting organizations conceived . . . fostered and
directed every move by which the AEO was formed," and that "there
is such an intermingling that it is quite impossible to state with any
degree of exactitude at what time and in what manner the four old
organizations ceased to exist and the new organization began." Three
of the predecessors of the AEO were, in turn, successors to employee
representation arrangements which functioned in three of the account-
ing offices from 1934 to 1937 .1 We find, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner, that these initial organizations, which had been formed
at the suggestion of, and, at least in one case, in the presence of repre-
sentatives of management, were dominated, interfered with, and sup-
1 Those provisions of Section 8 (1), (2), and ( 3) of the National Labor Relations Act,
which the complaint herein alleged were violated , are continued in sections 8 (a) (1), 8
(a) (2), and 8 ( a) (3) of the Act, as amended.
a Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , as amended , the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the
undersigned Board Members [Houston, Reynolds , and Gray].
'Toward the close of the hearing the AEO renewed an earlier motion to dismiss the
complaint . The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this motion . For the reasons outlined
in the Trial Examiner 's Intermediate Report and in our Decision and Order herein the
motion to dismiss the complaint is hereby denied
4 We find, in accord with the Trial Examiner , that the chain of succession continued
unbroken when the leaders in the combined S. F. Revenue and Coast Accounting Offices
spearheaded the withdrawal of the Coast Accounting Office employees from the Revenue
organization in 1941, which led to the formation of the Coast Organization , one of the
immediate predecessors of the AEO.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 891
ported by the respondent; and that their continued functioning in the
manner related in the Intermediate Report, subsequent to the enact-
ment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935, was violative of the
Act.
Like the Trial Examiner, we do not agree with the respondent and
the AEO that the respondent took effective measures to sever its
proscribed ties with these initial organizations in 1935 and in 1937.
We are convinced and find that the 1934 organizations continued to
receive illegal support from the respondent through the entire period
of their existence. The respondent's mere statements, made in 1937,
only to the representatives of the then existing employee organi-
zations, to the effect that the respondent could no longer furnish its
support and assistance, appear to us to be inadequate to effect a
definite clear line of cleavage between the illegal 1934 organizations and
the organizations that succeeded them in 1937.5 Such statements could
not operate to dispel the impression or belief which could reasonably
exist in the minds of the employees from the circumstances surround-
ing the formation of these successor organizations, as more fully de-
tailed in the Intermediate Report, that these new organizations were
but a continuation of the old, or to create the conditions in which the
employees could exercise a genuine free choice in designating these
organizations as their bargaining representatives.
The absence of such effective cleavage rendered recognition of
the successor organizations formed in 1937, unlawful from their in-
ception. The record is barren of any evidence of conduct on the
respondent's part, in the years that followed, which was calculated to
deprive these organizations of the unlawful benefits that inured to them
by reason of the afore-mentioned illegal assistance and support. Nor
are we convinced that the mere passage of time fully dissipated the
effects of such illegal conduct. Accordingly, we find that the AEO, as
the successor and offspring of these organizations, obtained some
measure of unlawful advantage from this unremedied earlier assist-
ance and support, in seeking and obtaining adherents among the
accounting employees in 1945. Under these circumstances, we find
that the respondent has extended illegal support to the AEO which
tended to interfere with and coerce the employees in the exercise of
their rights under the Act .6
5 Western Electric Co., Inc . v N L. R. B , 147 F. (2d) 519 ( C. C. A. 4 ) enf'g 57 N. L R. B.
1177, cert . denied 324 U. S. 870.
6 Pursuant to our present policy , as outlined in Matter of The Carpenter Steel Company,
76 N. L It. B . 670, we find that this illegal interference and support constituted a
violation of Section 8 (2) of the Act , and not Section 8 (1) as found by the Trial Examiner.
In reaching the conclusion that the respondent ' s conduct was violative of the Act we
do not rely on the Trial Examiner 's finding that the respondent rendered affirmative
unlawful assistance to the organizations formed in 1937 by permitting them to use its
premises for the purpose of holding union meetings and elections . Nor do we rely on his
892 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Because of the existence of this illegal support it cannot be said that
the cross-check of AEO cards conducted in 1945 reflected such a free
choice of a bargaining representative as is contemplated in Sections 7
and 9 (a) of the Act. Like the Trial Examiner, we believe that the
employees here should be permitted to indicate their choice of a bar-
gaining representative in a secret election conducted by the Board
after the effects of the respondent's unlawful conduct have been dis-
sipated. Although an election cannot be directed in our Decision and
Order herein, we wish to make it clear that we will entertain an im-
mediate petition for an election, such election to be held upon com-
pliance by the respondent with our Order herein.
In order to assure to the employees a full and fair opportunity to
express their unfettered choice, we shall order the respondent to with-
draw recognition from the AEO and to cease giving effect to its con-
tract with that organization until such time as it has been certified as
bargaining representative by the Board. Nothing herein shall be
taken, however, to require the respondent to vary those wages, hours,
and other substantive features of their relations with the employees
which they have established in performance of any agreement as ex-
tended, renewed, modified, supplemented, or superseded.
Inasmuch as our unfair labor practice finding herein is restricted to
a finding that the respondent interfered with and contributed support
to the AEO we shall not issue the usual broad cease and desist order
used where other unfair labor practices, not directly related to the
unfair labor practices found, are reasonably apprehended. We shall,
however, order that the respondent cease and desist from engaging in
the conduct found unlawful herein and from engaging in like or
related conduct interfering with the representation of its employees
through a labor organization of their own choosing.
Under all the circumstances of this case, as more fully disclosed in
the Intermediate Report, we are of the opinion that the policies of the
Act will be effectuated by requiring the respondent in this instance to
post and maintain notices only for a period of 30 consecutive days.
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
Relations Board hereby orders that the respondent, The Pacific Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company and Bell Telephone Company of
Nevada, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
conclusion that the respondent unlawfully assisted the AEO directly by recognizing that
organization and entering into a contract with it during the pendency of the UBTW'a
charges of unfair labor practices and of its asserted claim for recognition.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 893
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Interfering with or contributing support to Accounting Em-
ployees Organization of Northern California and Nevada, or to any
other labor organization, and from engaging in any like or related con-
duct interfering with the representation of its employees through a
labor organization of their own choosing;
(b) Recognizing Accounting Employees Organization of Northern
California and Nevada as the representative of any of its employees
for the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other con-
ditions of employment, unless and until it shall have been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as said bargaining representative;
(c) Giving effect to its contract with Accounting Employees Organ-
ization of Northern California and Nevada or to any modification,
extension, supplement or renewal thereof, or to any superseding con-
tracts with it, unless and until the said organization shall have been
certified by the National Labor Relations Board.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act, as amended :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Accounting Em-
ployees Organization of Northern California and Nevada as the repre-
sentative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with the
respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment or other conditions of employment, unless and
until it shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board
as said representative;
(b) Post in each of its revenue and disbursement accounting offices
of the Northern California and Nevada area, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 7 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and maintained
by it f or thirty (30) 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 Twentieth Region in writ-
ing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
7In the event that this Order is enforced by decree of a Circuit Court of Appeals, there
shall be inserted before the words , "A Decision and Order ," the words , "A Decree of the
United States Circuit Court of Appeals Enforcing."
894 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint, insofar as it alleges that
the respondent discriminated against Alice Copeland within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (3) of the Act, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order 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 interfere with or contribute support to Account-
ing Employees Organization of Northern California and Nevada,
or to any other labor organization, or engage in any like or re-
lated conduct interfering with the representation of our em-
ployees through a labor organization of their own choosing;
WE WILL withdraw and withhold all recognition from Account-
ing Employees Organization of Northern California and Nevada
as the representative of any of our employees for the purpose
of dealing with us concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages,
rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of em-
ployment, unless and until Accounting Employees Organization
of Northern California and Nevada shall have been certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as said representative;
WE WILL cease giving effect to any and all contracts or other
agreements with Accounting Employees Organization of North-
ern California and Nevada or to any modification, extension, sup-
plement or renewal thereof, or any superseding contracts or
agreements with it, unless and until it shall have been certified
by the National Labor Relations Board as bargaining representa-
tive.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
and
BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA,
Employer.
By-------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title
Dated------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 30 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Messrs. John Paul Jennings and Robert E. Tillman, for the Board.
Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro by Messrs. Norbert Korte and Charles F. Prael, of
San Francisco , Calif., for the Respondent.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 895
Mr. Arthur N.' Tall, of San Francisco , Calif., for UBTW.
Gladstein, Andersen, Renner, Sawyer & Edises, by Messrs. Bertram Edises and
Norman Leonard, of Oakland, Calif., and Mr. Bruce Risley, of San Francisco,
Calif., for ACA-CIO.
Cushing & Cushing, Cullinan, Trowbridge & Gorrill, by Messrs. Eustace Cul-
linan, Sr., Vincent Cullinan, and John H. Murray, of San Francisco, Calif., for
AEO and Clerical Organization.
Mr. Henry Mayer and Mrs. Ruby P. Mayer, of New York, N. Y., and Miss Marie
DeMartini, of San Francisco, Calif., for the TTEO.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended charges duly filed by United Brotherhood of Telephone Work-
ers of Northern California and Nevada, herein called UBTW, and American
Communications Association, CIO, herein called ACA-CIO, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the
Twentieth Region (San Francisco, California ), issued its complaint dated No-
vember 14, 1945, against The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company and
Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, San Francisco, California, herein called
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1),
(2) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing thereon,
were duly served on Respondent , UBTW, ACA-CIO, and the following labor
organizations alleged in the complaint to be company dominated : Telephone
Traffic Employees' Organization , herein called TTEO ; Accounting Employees
Organization of Northern California and Nevada, herein called AEO ; and Or-
ganization of Plant Clerical and Office Forces of Northern California and Nevada
Area, herein called Clerical Organization.
With respect to unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in substance
that Respondent: (1) instigated, interfered with, dominated, and contributed
financial and other support to the formation and administration of TTEO, AEO
and Clerical Organization, and their respective named predecessor unions, and
urged, warned, and persuaded its employees to join the aforesaid organizations
and to refrain from becoming or remaining members of UBTW or ACA-CIO ;
(2) threatened to discharge and did discharge Alice B. Copeland, its employee,
because of her membership in and activities on behalf of UBTW ; and (3) by
the foregoing conduct violated Section 8 (1), (2), and (3) of the Act.
In its duly filed answer, Respondent denied the commission of any of the alleged
unfair labor practices. In their respective duly filed answers, AEO, Clerical
Organization, and TTEO denied that they were formed or administered in
violation of the Act. Motions for a bill of particulars filed prior to the hearing
respectively by Respondent, AEO, Clerical Organization, and TTEO, were denied
by George Bokat, a duly designated Trial Examiner ; also denied was Respondent's
alternate motion to dismiss the complaint. Motions by Respondent, AEO, Clerical
Organization, and TTEO to sever the complaint were denied by the Board,' A
petition to intervene filed by National Federation of Telephone Workers, herein
called NFTW, was granted prior to the hearing by Trial Examiner Bokat.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held from January 7 to February 21, 1946,
at San Francisco, California, before the undersigned, the Trial Examiner duly
' The cases listed in the heading of this report were consolidated by order of the Board
dated September 2°u, 1945.
896 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. All parties were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing . Full opportunity to be heard , to examine
and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues
was afforded all parties . At the outset of the hearing , the undersigned denied
Respondent 's renewed motion for a bill of particulars or, in the alternative, dis-
missal of the complaint ; and renewed motions by Respondent , TTEO , AEO, and
Clerical Organization for a severance of the complaint . These latter motions
were renewed from time to time during the hearing and were denied. At the
close of the Board's case -in-chief, various motions were made to dismiss the
complaint or portions of it, or to strike testimony , and the said motions were
denied. After all evidence had been taken , motions to dismiss the complaint, or
portions of it, were renewed and ruling thereon was reserved by the undersigned.
Renewed, or new motions , to strike testimony were denied . The Board ' s motion
to conform the pleadings to the proof with respect to minor variances was granted.
Oral argument at the close of the hearing was waived by all parties . All parties
were advised that they might file briefs with the undersigned and did so.
On motion ana amended motion of the TTEO , dated respectively June 10, 1946,
and October 4, 1946, and over the objection of the Board , Respondent, UBTW,
AEO, and Clerical Organization , the undersigned reopened the hearing by order
dated December 6, 1946, for the purpose of receiving evidence of alleged affilia-
tion of TTEO with ACA-CIO, one of the charging unions. This further hearing
was conducted pursuant to due notice to all parties , on January 20 and 21, 1947.
At the opening of the reopened hearing, the undersigned , upon the basis of his con-
sideration of the record already made , granted motions ( upon which ruling had
been reserved) for the dismissal of the 8 ( 2) and ( 3)2 allegations of the Board's
complaints During the course of the hearing , ACA-CIO and UBTW withdrew
their respective charges with respect to the TTEO and its alleged predecessor
unions.4 The undersigned thereupon acting pursuant to Section 203.7 of the
Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 4, effective September 11, 1946,` dismissed
the complaint insofar as it alleged that Respondent had engaged in any unfair
labor practices with respect to the TTEO or its alleged predecessor unions. The
Board's motion to stike all portions of the Board 's complaint containing the said
allegations, upon which ruling was reserved , is granted . Respondent 's motion
2 Alice Copeland was an active member and her father an officer of UBTW. Despite
knowledge of these facts , she and her supervisor , Etta Halterman , were friendly , visited
each other socially , and Halterman on numerous occasions assigned her to take charge
of the Salinas Air Base office where she worked although Copeland did not have the
highest seniority among the employees of that office . In May 1944 , Copeland resigned
because of expected confinement , and in December of that year returned to her same job.
She admitted that most of her solicitation for the UBTW preceded this latter date On
or about June 1945 , Halterman was on vacation for some 3 weeks and appointed
Copeland to substitute for her as Chief Operator during this time It was after Halter-
man returned from her vacation near the end of June that a disagreement aiose between
her and Copeland concerning Copeland 's request to take her vacation "but of turn "
The undersigned does not believe that this disagreement was caused or aggravated in any
way by Copeland ' s union affiliation and accepts Halteiman 's version of the incidents which
led to Copeland s resignation
a See footnote 33, infra
4 Cases 20-C-1237, 20-C-1309
6 Text of rule , "A charge that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair
labor practice affecting commerce may he made by any person or labor organization. A
charge may be withdrawn only with the consent of the Regional Director with whom such
charge was filed or of the Board . Upon withdrawal of any charge , any complaint based
thereon shall be dismissed by the Regional Director issuing the complaint , by the Trial
Examiner designated to conduct the hearing , or by the Board " [ Italics supplied ]
IHE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 897
to strike all testimony or other evidence with respect to the TTEO , upon which
ruling also was reserved , is denied ' Subsequent to the close of the hearing,
ACA-CIO and UBTW withdrew their respective charges against Respondent
with respect to Clerical Organization and its alleged predecessors .' Pursuant to
the Board 's Rules and Regulations , cited above , the undersigned by order dated
February 14, 1947, dismissed the complaint insofar as it alleged that Respondent
had engaged in any unfair labor practices with respect to Clerical Organization
or its alleged predecessors , and now, upon his own motion , strikes all the said
allegations of the Board 's complaint.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
Respondent, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company, a California
corporation, and its wholly owned subsidiary, Bell Telephone Company of
Nevada, a Nevada corporation, is engaged in the business of receiving and trans-
mitting interstate and intrastate communications by telephone and telegraph,
the former in the States of California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and the
latter in the State of Nevada.
For administrative purposes, the territory served by Respondent is and has
been since June 1930, divided into four geographical areas, namely, the Southern
California area, the Oregon area, the Washington-Idaho area, and the Northern
California and Nevada area. This proceeding involves only the Northern Cali-
fornia and Nevada area, having its headquarters at San Francisco, California,
and consisting of the State of California north of the Tehachapi Mountains and
the State of Nevada The Pacific Company serves the portion of the area which
is in California, and The Bell Company, the portion which is in Nevada.
As of November 30, 1945, Respondent employed 18,973 persons in the Northern
California and Nevada area.
As of September 30, 1945, Respondent had approximately 350 exchanges in
its Northern Calitornia and Nevada areas Its lines therein connect with those
of other companies operating in the same area and also with those of companies
operating in other areas. In this manner, Respondent offers to its customers
telephonic communications to all parts of the United States and to many foreign
countries.
The principal operations of Respondent are divided among four major de-
partments, namely, Traffic, Plant, Commerce, and Accounting. The Traffic De-
partment operates the exchanges. The Plant Department constructs and main-
tains telephone facilities and equipment. The Commercial Department secures
business, collects the Respondents' bills, takes orders for service installations,
removals and changes, and operates the business offices. The Accounting Depart-
ment keeps the books and records of the Respondent.
It is believed that such evidence has materiality in a full and proper consideration
of the remaining allegations of the Board's complaint
'Cases 20-C-1291 , 20-C-1370 The Regional Director's notice of withdrawal of
charges, dated February 13, and order dismissing cases 20-C-1291 , 20-C-1370, dated
February 14, are hereby incorporated in record as Trial Examiner Exhibit H ( 1) and (°1
respectively.
898 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Communications Association, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations (herein ACA-CIO), United Brotherhood of Telephone Work-
ers of Northern California and Nevada (herein UBTW), Telephone Traffic Em-
ployees' Organization (herein TTEO), Accounting Employees Organization of
Northern California and Nevada (herein AEO), and Organization of Plant
Clerical and Office Forces of Northern California and Nevada Area (herein
Clerical Organization), are each of them labor organizations admitting to
membership employees of Respondent.
Office Committee of Respondent's East Bay Division Revenue Accounting Office
and East Bay Revenue Accounting Employees' Organization ; Office Committee
of Respondent's San Francisco Disbursement Accounting office, Plan of Repre-
sentation, and Telephone Accounting Employees' Organization ; Office Commit-
tee of Respondent's San Francisco Revenue Accounting office and San Francisco
Revenue Accounting Employees Organization; Coast Division Revenue Account-
ing Employees' Organization ; and, Inland Division Accounting Employees Or-
ganization, were each of them labor organizations admitting to membership
employees of Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
Interference, restraint, and coercion
Accounting Employees Organization (AEO)
A. Its predecessor unions
Accounting Employees Organization, herein called the AEO, as it is now con-
stituted, was formed in 1945 by a consolidation or unification of four accounting
organizations then in existence and representing, respectively, all non-super-
visory employees in the following offices of Respondent: San Francisco Dis-
bursement Accounting,. Coast Division Revenue Accounting, East Bay Division
Revenue Accounting, and Inland Division Revenue and Disbursement Accounting.
Recognition as exclusive representative of all accounting employees in the
above offices was accorded the AEO by Respondent in May 1945, and con-
tractual relationship established with it, on the basis of a certification by
Certified Public Accountants, dated May 1, 1945, that 543 out of 663 eligible
employees had signed applications for membership in the AEO. This con-
tractual relationship has continued until the present time.
There is no substantial evidence that the AEO, subsequent to Respondent's
recognition of it in May 1945, and execution of a bargaining contract with
it, has been interfered with or dominated by Respondent or has received
financial or other support from Respondent inconsistent with its status as a
bona fide labor organization. Nor is there anything inherent in the structure
of its organization or modus operandi, as reflected by the record, which would
render it incapable of serving the employees as a bargaining representative.
The Board's theory, however, is that the four accounting organizations which
came together to form the AEO in 1945, were company dominated and that the
AEO itself received unlawful assistance in its inception. We turn first, there-
foie, to a consideration of the evidence relating to accounting organizations
which existed in the East Bay, San Francisco, Coast, and Inland offices prior
to the AEO and whose consolidation in 1945 constituted the AEO.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 899
1. East Bay
a. The Office Committee
The first form of labor. organization in the East Bay Accounting office of which
there is evidence was a committee, herein called the Office Committee, which
was formed about 1934 at the suggestion of Harry J. Fleming, then head of
that office. Fleming told the employees that they should have some form of
office representation and the employees, pursuant to his suggestion and in the
presence of officers of management, elected from among their number some five
representatives who served thereafter as the Office Committee. Ina Mae Chap-
man was named chairman of the committee.' This committee functioned from its
inception until May 1937, and its chief function was to meet jointly with repre-
sentatives of management for a discussion of employee grievances and similar
matters. The Office Committee had no general membership meetings, no dues,
no constitution and by-laws, and no formal membership requirements. It repre-
sented all non-supervisory accounting employees of this office.
b. The East Bay Organization
On or about May 1937, or shortly after the Supreme Court had rendered its
decisions finding the Wagner Act constitutional, R. O. Hoedel, Respondent's Audi-
tor who had general supervision over all accounting offices, advised the Office
Committee that it would have to disband due to the provisions of the Act, and
suggested that the employees "go out on their own."'
Following Hoedel's suggestion, Chapman called a meeting of all non-supervisory
employees of the East Bay office "for purpose of organizing said employees in
accordance with National Labor Relations Act . . ." This meeting, announced
on it bulletin board which had been used by the Office Committee, was held on
May 24, 1937. After Chapman had explained the purpose of the meeting, those
present, according to the record of that meeting, "expressed willingness to co-
operate." The record does not disclose where this meeting took place. On May
27 a second meeting was held in the Masonic Hall, and at this meeting can-
didates for the office of "committeeman" were nominated and it was agreed
that the election would be held at the same place on the following day at noon.
This meeting was held as scheduled and a committee of five was elected, three to
serve for 2 years, two to serve for 1 year. Among those elected to 2-year terms
were Chapman and Margaret Gallagher. It appears that all non-supervisory
employees were permitted to participate in these meetings. On June 3, 1937,
the newly elected committee met in Respondent's plant and named Chapman
chairman and Gallagher secretary. A charge of 1 dollar was made by Re-
spondent for this use of its premises. The organization thus formed was given
the name East Bay Revenue Accounting Employees' Organization, herein called
the East Bay Organization. Neither Chapman nor Gallagher could account for
the origin of the name. According to the witnesses the newly elected Employee
Committee drafted the constitution for the organization. Chapman testified
that it was drafted without "outside" assistance, that the committee "started
6 Chapman 's credited testimony concerning the origin of the Committee : "The Manage-
ment suggested that we should have office representation to bring up things that we
wanted to bring up, so it was voted right there in the office. The people were suggested
for the five positions that they suggested we have."
9 Chapman 's undisputed and credited testimony • "Management met with us-I speak of
the Office Committee now-and said that we would have to disband our present set up,
that it wasn ' t according to the Wagner Act, and suggested that we go out on our own."
781902-48-vol. 76-58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
right from scratch" in drafting it, and that while it was common knowledge that
there were contemporaneous organizational activities in other offices, the com-
mittee had no "contacts" with company representatives or employees in other
departments and offices. Gallagher testified substantially to the same effect.
These witnesses clearly were mistaken in this, however, for there is entirely
too much similarity in the constitutions of the East Bay and other accounting
organizations for it to have been coincidental.
c Organizational structure of East Bay Organization
The constitution of the East Bay Organization provided for the election of five
Representatives to constitute an Employee Committee, the election to be held
within 2 weeks following the adoption of a constitution by a majority of the
employees, and annually thereafter on a given date. (In fact, the original com-
mittee was elected before there was a constitution.) All non-supervisory em-
ployees of the East Bay office were eligible to vote but only those of at least 2
years' employment by Respondent were eligible for election as Representatives.
The Representative had the duty of receiving "any question or suggestion" from
individual employees represented, and was authorized to "adjust" such matters
directly with the lower hierarchy of management or to refer them to the Em-
ployee Committee. If such matters were not "satisfactorily adjusted" by the
Representative or at any meeting of the Employee Committee, they could be re-
ferred by the Representative or the Committee "for adjustment to successive
higher levels of management." The Employee Committee was authorized to
enter into an agreement for joint meetings with management for purposes of
collective bargaining, and to execute a bargaining agreement. Subject to rati-
fication by a majority of members, the Employee Committee was authorized
to assess such regular dues as were "necessary in carrying out the provisions"
of the organization All non-supervisory employees of the East Bay office were
eligible for membership, and provision was made for membership applications.
d. Recognition of the East Bay Organization
On or prior to July 9, 1937, the Employee Committee executed an agreement with
respondent to be effective on that date and to remain in force for 1 year and
thereafter unless terminated by mutual agreement or upon 60 days' notice by
either party Chapman testified that she prepared the draft for the agreement
but admitted that it was modified to conform to the suggestions of management
representatives10 The agreement is substantially identical with agreements by
Respondent with accounting organizations in its other offices and in the opinion of
the undersigned represents a standard form used by Respondent in its dealings
with the various unions No proof of majority was submitted by the Employee
Committee, and none requested by Respondent, other than the bare statement of
the committee that it represented a majority. The agreement, in addition to
establishing the Employee Committee as representative of all non-supervisory
employees of the East Bay office, provided for joint conferences between the com-
mittee and the East Bay Revenue Accountant, "to settle through collective bar-
gaining, matters relative to wages, hours of work and working conditions . . .
Any matter not settled in joint conferences might be carried "by the Committee
to successive higher management levels if desired." The joint conference pro-
cedure of the old Office Committees was thus continued in practice.
10 Chapman resigned from the organization in 1940 upon being promoted to a supervisory
job.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 901
So far as the record discloses, the agreement of July 9, 1937, was extended
throughout the existence of the organization. In addition there were agree-
ments relating to wages and working conditions but there is no substantial evi-
dence, with a single exception, upon which to base findings generally as to the
processes by which they were arrived at. The exception has to do with a
wage agreement of September 18, 1942. At 10 a. m. on that date, at a meeting
between the Employee Committee and Fleming, Respondent's representative, in
the latter's office, thele was discussion of a letter proposing a blanket wage in-
crease of $2 a week for all non-supervisory employees. The proposal must have
been put forward by management since the minutes of the meeting state that
Fleming recommended that a general meeting of the organization be held at noon
in order that the employees might vote on the wage proposal. The meeting was
held as suggested, on company premises, and the employees rejected the proposal.
The employees then voted for their Committee to request a 10-percent wage in-
crease "as cost of living had increased so much." The Employee Committee con-
ferred a second time with Fleming and broached the matter of the 10-percent
increase. Fleming then suggested that the Committee submit management's pro-
posal to the employees for a vote by secret ballot. Although the employees had
already rejected this proposal in open meeting, the Employee Committee com-
plied with Fleming's suggestion, ballots were prepared and passed among the
employees that same day between the hours of 1: 30 and 4: 30 p. m., and a tabu-
lation of the ballots showed that 58 employees had voted to accept Respondent's
proposal and 55 had voted to reject it This appears to have concluded the
"negotiations" on this particular wage issue.
e. Meetings of the East Bay Organization
From June 28, 1937, through January 25, 1945, the East Bay Organization held
some 17 general meetings and 42 committee meetings. Of the 17 general meet-
ings, 11 were held on company property, 2 off company property, and 3 at un-
designated locations Of tpe 42 committee meetings, 36 were held on company
property, 2 off company property, and 4 at undesignated locations.11 Financial
records of the organization from June 7, 1937, to May 12, 1939, only, were intro-
duced in evidence While these records indicate that small sums amounting
to scarcely more than token payments were paid to Respondent for the use of
its premises on some occasions, there is no sufficient itemization for specific find-
ings in this respect and, in any event, these financial records cover only a brief
pet iod in the organization's existence The testimony of Chapman and Gallagher,
the only two witnesses to testify concerning the organization, is vague and gener-
ally unsatisfactory as to financial transactions between the organization and
Respondent Admittedly, numerous committee meetings were held during the
lunch hour in Respondent's lunch room or cafeteria for the use of which the
organization paid nothing. The witnesses testified that these meetings occurred
while members of the committee were having their lunch and that Respondent
was not advised that meetings were being held However, since notice of the
meetings was posted on the organization's bulletin board it can hardly be assumed
that Respondent was totally unaware of the time and place of their occurrence.
Other meetings were held in Respondent's toll room, but at least a token pay-
ment was made for the use of this room for some, and perhaps all, the meetings
held there. For the period between June 7, 1937, and May 12, 1939, for the 2
general meetings and 10 committee meetings held on Respondent's premises, the
11 The undersigned accepts the Board's recapitulation in its brief from Gallagher's testy
,mony, based on records, as substantially correct.
902 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organization paid Respondent a total of $9.30. All joint meetings of the Em-
ployee Committee with management were held on Respondent's premises with-
out charge to the organization or reduction in wages of committee members for
time spent in the said meetings.
2. an Francisco Disbursement Accou ntivg
a. The Office Committee and the Plan
As in the case of the East Bay office, an employee committee, called herein
Office Committee, was formed at the suggestion of management in the San Fran-
cisco Disbursement Accounting office at some time prior to June 7, 1934.12 Gerald
Wierda, a member of this committee, was unable to recall any meetings prior to
June 7, 1934, or any functions performed by the committee prior to that date.
However, a document bearing the names of Wierda and six other employees, under
the designation "Employee Committee," shows that on June 7, 1934, this commit-
tee recommended the adoption of a Plan of Representation to "replace the exist-
ing Employee Committee and informal organization." The Plan of Representa-
tion, herein called the Plan, thus recommended by the Office Committee, was
purportedly prepared by a sub-committee composed of Wierda, George K. Diffen-
derfer, Floyd McColl, and S. M. Ray, and the document referred to above recites :
"Your Committee has had the opportunity of investigating the plans of other
departments and feel that the attached Plan is desireable (sic) for our Group."
The Plan thus proposed bears a marked similarity to the constitution of the
East Bay Organization and in many important respects is identical with it. It,
also, provides for the election of five Representatives to an Employee Committee,
and this committee is authorized to execute bargaining agreements with manage-
ment ; all non-supervisory employees of the office are represented by the Employees
Committee and are eligible to vote in all elections ; the grievance procedure of
the two organizations is substantially the same.
The Plan was adopted by a vote taken on Respondent's premises, and election
of Representatives also occurred on company premises Four of the five Repre-
sentatives thus elected were members of the original Office Committee and com-
prised the sub-committee which purportedly drafted the Plan. An agreement
was executed by the Plan committee and Respondent to be effective July 25, 1934,
for a period of 1 year and thereafter unless terminated on 60 days' notice by
either party. No proof of majority was requested or given. This agreement
provided for monthly, senu-annual, and special joint conferences between repre-
sentatives of management and the Plan, and further provided that Respondent
would pay "all reasonable expense" required in the operation of the joint con-
ferences. This agreement was superseded by an agreement executed by the
parties to be effective September 10, 1935. The two agreements are identical
except that the latter omits the clause relating to expenses. However, since no
dues or other fees were collected during the life of the Plan prior to April 1937,
it is a reasonable inference that its expenses, if any, were defrayed by Respondent
during this entire period. The undersigned so finds." Wierda testified that he
12 Gerald Wierda, a supervisor at time of testifying though not while affiliated with a
labor organization, testified, "As I recall, there was a meeting of the employees called by
the Company one day This Committee was formed after that meeting."
11 It is reasonable to suppose that if any payments were made by the organization to Re-
spondent for use of its premises and facilities, it would have some record of such pay-
ments. Respondent was represented by able and alert counsel and obviously would have
produced such records, had they existed, to refute the inferences of support arising from
the organization's lack of funds and other circumstances disclosed by the record.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 903
did not recall any general meetings under the Plan, and that some of the meet-
ings of the Employee Committee under the Plan were held in Respondent's file
room, others in restaurants off Respondent's premises.
b Telephone Accounting Employees' Organization (herein called Disbursement
Organization)
In 1937, at the time the Plan was reorganized, the following constituted its
Employee Committee : Leon V. Leonard, Chairman ; Nelson E. Maurer, Secretary ;
Patrick McGivven, George Olsen, and Curtis Smith.
On May 3, 1937, the Employee Committee issued a statement to the effect that
the Employee Committee had failed to function as effectively as it might for
lack of sufficient organization and "organized facility" for determining the wishes
of employees, and lack of funds. The statement refers to a "proposed plan"
authorized by the committee in a meeting on March 11, 1937, and solicits financial
contributions for the purpose of remedying the deficiencies in the operation of
the Plan. A longer and more detailed document is undated. This latter docu-
ment, also issued of er the names of members of the Employee Committee, quotes
from Section 7 and portions of Section 8 of the Act, and then states that the
operation of the Plan has failed to provide "two most essential elements of
achievement, i. e. finance and effective organization, and without which the
Employee Committee of Representatives has been working under a handicap
ever since its inception." The balance of the statement calls for voluntary con-
tributions from employees and outlines a method of administering funds through
a Board of Directors.
In addition to the foregoing, the Employee Committee issued two other an-
nouncements. The first stated that certain facts were "determined at a joint
meeting of your present Committee and the Management." These facts were, in
substance, that in view of the Act Respondent could no longer donate its premises
and facilities to "employees in furthering group interests," or pay employees
for time spent in "group interests or activity," except for time spent in joint
meetings with management. This announcement further stated that as soon
as arrangements had been made with management for rental of floor space,
a meeting would be called for the purpose of "determining the employees' de-
sires relative to the modification and adoption of a plan of organization for the
association and the election of representatives and/or of officers." "In the
meantime," the announcement concluded, "your Committee will continue to ac-
cept subscriptions to the Accounting Employees Representation Fund." The
second anouncement was that a meeting of the employees would be held on the
evening of June 11, 1937, on Respondent's premises, for the adoption of a con-
stitution and bylaws, and the transaction of other "relevant business ." " Pre-
sumably this meeting was held, though the witnesses had no clear recollection
of it In any event, the constitution prepared by the Employee Committee of
the Plan was adopted by the employees attaching their signatures to copies of
it which were circulated and signed on Respondent's premises.
14 Leonard, Chairman of the Employee Committee, testified concerning activities outlined
above : ". . . along about this time I believe the Supreme Court upheld the Wagner
Act and the Plan of Representation that we had did not meet the requirements of the Act
and when we were elected the committee, why that was the first thing we realized that we
had to reorganize the thing to meet the requirements of the Act . . That is why
we solicited funds and rewrote the constitution." . . "After we were elected under
the Plan of Representation we decided that we would dissolve the old Organization and
prepare a new one " Admittedly , members of the Employee Committee who were instru-
904 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The constitution provided for an "executive representative committee of five
members" to be chosen by the membership, the said executive committee to
name from its number the officers of the organization. The executive coin-
mittee was also authorized to appoint a Board of Directors consisting of a
director for each "supervisory or occupational group." Directors served as
"group leaders and as representatives of their group in executive council " The
Board of Directors and the Executive Committee together formed the Council,
"for the determination of policy and procedure in all matters" The constitu-
tion also provided for an Election Committee to preside over all elections, for
terms of office, and for general as well as Council meetings The date of the
first election is not disclosed with any degree of certainty but an agreement
with Respondent to become effective July 15, 1937, was signed on behalf of the
organization by Leonard, Curtis A. Smith, and Wierda, all members of the
Employee Committee under the Plan, and two others. Hoedel, Respondent's
Auditor who suggested to employees of the East Bay office that they dissolve
their Office Committee and start an organization on their own, signed the agree-
ment on behalf of Respondent. This agreement is substantially identical with
the one executed by Respondent and the East Bay Organization, and here again
Respondent extended recognition without proof of majority on the bare certifi-
cation of the organization that it represented a majority.
All elections of officers in the Disbursement Organization were conducted, as
were elections under the Plan, in the lobby on the ninth floor of the building
occupied by Respondent and just outside its offices. Leonard, last chairman of
the Employee Committee under the Plan, was the first chairman of the Dis-
bursement Organization. He testified that he served in that capacity for 2
years and was vice-president for 1 year. Concerning membership in the
Disbursement Organization, Olsen testified: ". . . the best recollection I have
is that those that were in the old Organization [the Plan] were, you might term
them, charter members of the new Organization . . . In other words, those
people that were in the Organization in 1936 were in 1937 plus any others that
wished to join." It is noted, however, that membership under the plan was
"automatic" whereas it appears that the Disbursement Organization had appli-
cation cards, membership requirements, and collected dues. Olsen did not recall
and the record does not disclose when dues collections were started or if they
were ever, in practice, a prerequisite of membership The Disbursement Or-
ganization functioned as bargaining representative of all non-supervisory em-
ployees in this office from its formation until the consolidation of the four
accounting organizations in 1945, and so far as the record discloses there was no
change in its organizational structure or inodus operandi during this period.
In 1937 there were some 100 to 125 employees in this office; in December 1945,
there were 223. -
3. Coast Division Revenue Accountinng
a. The Office Committee and the Revenue Organization
The Coast Division Revenue Accounting Employees' Organization, called herein
the Coast Organization, was formed in the latter part of 1941 when a split
occurred in an organization then existing in the San Francisco Revenue Ac-
counting Office (not to be confused with the San Francisco Disbursement Office),
namely, the San Francisco Revenue Accounting Employees Organization, called
mental in drafting the constitution of the Disbursement Organization , used an office on
Respondent 's premises while engaged in that work.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 905,
herein the Revenue Organization Since the Board contends that the Coast
Organization was a successor to the Revenue Organization, it is necessary to
refer to the background and history of this latter organization.
Prior to the formation of the Revenue Organization, there had existed in this
office substantially the same kind of informal office committees that were set
tip in the East Bay and San Francisco Disbui sement offices It was organized
at the suggestion of the head of the office, Ruh, the Revenue Accountant, and
appears to have functioned in the same manner as the other office committees
previously dealt with. Martha Matthews, secretary to Ruh, was a member of
this committee, and according to her testimony, was the only one left on the
committee at the time the Revenue Organization was formed in 1937. Matthews
testified that when the Wagner Act was declared constitutional in 1937, she
prepared the constitution of the Revenue Organization and addressed the em-
ployees at a noon hour concerning organization. In the preparation of the
constitution she consulted employees in two other departments (San Francisco
Disbursement and Traffic) who "had started the organization in their respective
departments " She could not recall the name of any employee she constlted
in the matter but denied that she consulted management representatives. The
constitution is substantially identical with the constitutions of the East Bay and
Inland organizations.
Claire E. McLaughlin testified without contradiction that copies of the con-
stitution were circulated among employees for their endorsement, openly and
during working hours.18 It was heir further credited testimony that there was
a general meeting of employees on Respondent's premises after working hours
for the purpose of discussing organizational matters. Later, according to Mc-
Laughlin, lists bearing the names of candidates for office in the Revenue Organi-
zation were left on the employees' desks. She testified that some of the
employees objected to this list of candidates because it contained names of
certain clerks whom they considered more representative of management than
of employees, and, accordingly made up a rival list of candidates. The ballot-
ing which ensued was conducted by mail.
The Revenue Organization, like the organizations in the other accounting
offices, functioned chiefly through an Employee Committee. An agreement,
identical with those previously dealt with in this Report, was executed by
Respondent and the organization to be effective July 1937. As in the case
of the other accounting organizations, no proof of majority was required or given.
McLaughlin testified that initiation fees or dues or both were collected at the
time the employees endorsed the constitution prepared by Matthews, and that
no further dues were collected until the organization was "revived" in 1941 It
appears from McLaughlin's testimony that after one or two general meetings,
no more were held for a time.
In 1941, according to McLaughlin's credited testimony, Matthews, then sec-
retary to McInerny, Revenue Accountant who had succeeded Ruh, spoke to her
about "starting" the Revenue Organization again, referred to the fact that there
were still some funds in the treasury, and asked McLaughlin if she would be
interested in running for an office. An election was held and McLaughlin and
John Cooney, among others, were elected Representatives on the Committee.
to McLaughlin's credited testimony : " . we were given a copy of the Constitu-
tion and By Laws and told that we were forming an organization and asked to sign it and
pay initiation fees " Bernice L Hansen's credited testimony on the same topic. "She
(Matthews ] had a bundle of papers in her arm and she was coming down the aisle system-
atically from one desk to another and passed out these papers and asked us to sign them "
'906 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Cooney was named president or chairman by the committee, and McLaughlin
secretary-treasurer. This Employee Committee functioned under the recognition
agreement originally executed by the Revenue Organization and Respondent.
It appears, therefore, that while the organization for some indefinite period
between 1938 and 1941 may have been inactive, it was not dissolved nor dis-
banded, and started actively functioning again in 1941 with the election of new
officers. Some two or three meetings of the Revenue Organization were held
after the election of new officers in 1941. Meetings of its Employee Committee,
like those of the East Bay Organization, were held in Respondent's cafeteria
during the lunch hour.
b. Split in the Revenue Organization
Until some undisclosed date in 1941, the San Francisco and Coast Revenue
Accounting offices were operated by Respondent as one unit, with offices in the
same building in San Francisco. Thereafter, the offices of the San Francisco
and Coast divisions were operated as separate units and in different buildings.
At a general meeting of the Revenue Organization on or about November
1941, certain employees of the Coast Division withdrew from it preparatory to
setting up a separate organization. At the time the split occurred, McLaughlin
was the only Representative on the Employee Committee from the San Fran-
-cisco Revenue office, the other four being in the Coast unit which was now
operated as a separate office. By letter dated January 6, 1942, the Employee
Committee notified W. A. Cantwell, then Respondent's Auditor, of the cancella-
tion of the original agreement between Respondent and the Revenue Organiza-
tion."' This letter was signed by Cooney, as chairman, and McLaughlin, J.
Pardee, Catherine H. Curran, and Catherine Gordon, as constituting the Em-
ployee Committee 1' The agreement was cancelled as of January 15, 1942.
Cooney, Pardee, and Curran had resigned from the Revenue Organization on
November 24, 1941, and therefore were hardly authorized at the time this letter
was written to act on behalf of that organization ; nevertheless, they did so
act and Respondent honored the request for the cancellation The Revenue
Organization thereupon ceased to function, and in 1943 the UBTW, one of the
charging unions in this case, was recognized by Respondent as representing the
employees of the San Francisco Revenue Accounting office.
c. Formation of the Coast Organization
On or about November 21, 1941, J A. Barrere, an employee of the Coast Reve-
nue Accounting office, circulated a petition among employees of this office on
company premises. This petition, signed by approximately 100 of the some 130
employees of this office, stated that those signing it thereby tendered their
resignations from the Revenue Organization. Heading the list of signatories
were Cooney, Pardee, and Curran, three of the five members of the Employee
Committee of the Revenue Organization. Under date of November 24, 1941, a
telegram signed by Barrere as "Chairman Pro Tem," was sent to Respondent
16 The letter gave the following explanation for the cancellation of the agreement : "It is
our contention that since the former San Francisco Revenue Accounting Department has
become a divided office ( now established as (1) San Francisco Revenue Accounting and (2)
Coast Division Revenue Accounting ) a more successful employee representation plan may
be substituted by each office having its individual organization."
1e McLaughlin testified concerning this letter • "The Coast Division wanted to break
away, and they couldn ' t form another organization without breaking up the San Fran-
cisco Employees Organization , so I signed it."
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 907
advising it of the "blanket" resignation of employees of the Coast office from
the Revenue Organization, and further stating:
AS SOON AS OUR COMMITTEE IS AUTHORIZED BY A CONSTITU-
TION SAID REPRESENTATIVE BODY WILL SEEK FORMAL AGREE-
MENT WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE MANAGEMENT. . . .
BUT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE NECESSARY AGREEMENT HAS BEEN
SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES WE WISH TO ADVISE THAT NO ONE
INDIVIDUAL OR GROUP HAS BEEN EMPOWERED BY US TO NEGOTI-,
ATE COLLECTIVELY ON OUR BEHALF....
Under date of December 26, 1941, Respondent replied to the effect that the
agreement it had executed with the Revenue Organization effective July 1,
1937, was binding on the parties until cancelled according to its provisions.
As outlined above, this agreement was formally cancelled as of January 15,
1942, and the Revenue Organization thereafter ceased to function.
Following the circulation of the petition of withdrawals from the Revenue
Organization, the last meeting of that organization in which employees of both
the Coast and San Francisco offices participated, was held on company premises.
Cooney, at that time President of the Revenue Organization, read off the names
on the petition, and the employees of the Coast office then left the meeting of the
Revenue Organization, and went to another office on Respondent's premises
where a separate meeting was held. Cooney called the meeting to order and
appointed Barrere "Chairman Pro tem." It is clear that this meeting was held
between November 21, 1941, the date Barrere circulated the petition, and Novem-
ber 24, the date on which Barrere as "Chairman Pro tem" dispatched a telegram
to Respondent. Pardee was elected "Secretary Pro tem" at this same meeting.
A motion was made and adopted that an organization be formed to be known as
"The Coast Division Revenue Accounting Employees' Organization." Cooney,
who had appointed Barrere chairman of the meeting, then moved that the "Chair"
appoint a committee of five to draft a constitution. The committee was appointed,
with Cooney as chairman.
The second meeting of the Coast Organization was held on December 3, 1941.
At this meeting, Cooney read the proposed Constitution which he had been
instrumental in preparing and it was adopted. Officers were then elected. None
of those elected appears to have held office in the Revenue Organization. Re-
spondent executed a recognition agreement with the Coast Organization identical
with agreements executed with the East Bay, San Francisco Disbursement, and
San Francisco Revenue organizations, to become effective January 16, 1942,
the day following the cancellation of the agreement with the Revenue Organiza-
tion. As with the other organizations, no proof of majority was asked or
given. The constitution provided for regular meeting dates, initiation fees
and monthly dues, and an election procedure. Instead of the employee com-
mittees provided by the constitutions of other organizations previously dealt
with herein, the constitution of the Coast Organization provided for three
Directors with authority to name -from their own number a president, vice-
president, and secretary-treasurer. The Directors were authorized to execute
bargaining agreements with Respondent, subject to ratification by members. To
qualify for election as Director a male candidate was required to have had at
least 3 years employment with Respondent, and a female candidate at least 5
years.
It is clear that some organizational and other meetings, though not all, of the
Coast organization were held on Respondent's premises, and while Cooney
f j08 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
testified that a fee was paid Respondent for such use of its premises, his testi-
mony, extremely evasive and obviously slanted to favor Respondent, is worthy of
little credit.18 The first item for rental of space appearing on the organization's
financial record is dated 1943. Stationery of the organization bearing a date as
late as 1943, gave Respondent's office as the address of the organization. Eliza-
beth A. Menne, a Director and President of the organization in 1943 and 1944, was
one of two representing the Coast Organization in a meeting of representatives of
the four accounting organizations held on November 20, 1944, when consolidation
of these organizations was discussed.
The Board contends that Respondent caused the split in the Revenue Organiza-
tion and the resultant formation of the Coast Organization. Evidence relied upon
to support this contention is that at the last meeting of the Revenue Organization
held prior to the split, there appears to have been a debate on a wage demand
with Cooney apparently voicing the position of management. It was decided at
this meeting that a secret ballot should be taken to determine whether the
employees wanted the organization to continue to bring the "question" of a
general wage increase to the attention of management. While Cooney was an
evasive witness and, in the opinion of the undersigned, withheld information
concerning the formation of the Coast Organization, the undersigned finds no
substantial basis in the evidence for finding that Cooney was an authorized agent
of Respondent in forming the Coast Organization. The separation of the San
Francisco and Coast revenue accounting offices would seem to supply a reasonable
motive for the split, particularly since employees of the Coast office were out-
numbered by those remaining in the San Francisco Revenue office. This is not to
say that Respondent rendered no aid and support to the formation and adminis-
tration of the Coast Organization ; the undersigned is convinced that it did.
4. Inland Division Revenue and Disbursement Accounting
The Disbursement and Revenue Accounting offices of the Inland Division are
in the same building, and there is evidence of only one organization existing
among employees of this division prior to the formation of the AEO. Arthur I.
Raynor was the only witness called to testify concerning organizational activities
in these offices. He testified that the first organization of which he had knowledge
was formed in 1937. He was able to recall very little concerning the circum-
stances of its formation further than that it resulted from conversations among
the employees and that some reference was made to the Wagner Act which, it
will be recalled, was declared constitutional in April of that year. He testified
that he took no part in the formation of the organization. Certain persons were
elected informally to prepare a constitution though who they were and what were
the circumstances of their "election" he could not recall. At any rate, a constitu-
tion was prepared and circulated among the employees for their approval and
apparently ratified by them by the placing of their signatures upon a sheet
attached to the document. It provided for the election of an Employee Com-
mittee consisting of seven members (four from revenue accounting and three from
disbursement accounting) and in all substantial respects is identical with con-
stitutions of the East Bay and San Francisco Revenue organizations. The name
of the organization was Inland Division Accounting Employees Organization,
called herein the Inland Organization. As in the case of the other organizations
dealt with previously herein, Respondent executed an agreement with the Inland
18 Cooney was a supervisor at the time he testified but not while associated with an
employee organization.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 909
Organization , effective June 25, 1937 . This agreement provided for recognition
of the Employee Committee of the Inland Organization as exclusive representa-
tive of non-supervisory employees in the Inland offices , provided for the same
type of Joint Conferences and grievance procedures as the other agreements
previously referred to. Hoedel signed this , like the other agreements , on behalf
of management. It is inferred and found, in the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, that Respondent executed this agreement with the Inland Organization
without requiring or receiving any proof that it represented a majority of
employees , inasmuch as this would be in keeping with the circumstances under
which it executed similar agreements with accounting organizations in its other
offices.
Raynor was president of the Inland Organization in 194.3 and 1944 and in
1944 attended a conference with representatives of the three other accounting
organizations for the purpose of discussing a consolidation of the four organi-
zations. In 1943, the Inland Organization executed a wages and working
conditions agreement with Respondent. It also appears from Raynor's testi-
mony that initiation fees or dues were collected from employees at the time
they signed their approval of the constitution , and that the Inland Organi-
zation had an agreement with Respondent for a voluntary check-off of dues
from its inception.
It is clear that the record of this proceeding reflects no more than a partial
and extremely sketchy account of the formation and administration of the
Inland Organization , but in view of Respondent 's general practices with respect
to organizations formed in its various accounting , clerical , and traffic offices,
there is every reason to believe that such practices were a matter of general
policy and applied to the Inland as well as its other offices.
B. Formation of the AEO
On November 20, 1944, representatives of each of the four accounting organi-
zations,19 including their respective chairmen or presidents , attended a meeting
at a San Francisco hotel20 Gallagher opened the meeting and was its chairman.
The purpose of the meeting as stated in its minutes was "to see if a joint em-
ployee organization could be formed ." Certain matters were proposed such as
the pooling of the funds of the four existing organizations , membership dues,
a new contract to be drawn up "for the approval of management if the 4 organi-
zations are organized as one," the number of representatives to be allowed each
office, and the hiring of a lawyer . This meeting represents the first concrete
step toward the formation of the AEO, though it appears that there may have
been some informal discussion of the matter prior to this date.
Gallagher , chairman of the East Bay Organization , who was elected to the
Employee Committee of that organization in 1937 when it was first formed to
succeed the informal Office Committee , testified that she called the meeting of
November 20 after having discussed the matter with the chairmen of the other
three accounting organizations . She apparently did not discuss the matter with
the employees of the San Francisco Revenue Accounting office who were then
represented by the UBTW . Gallagher agreed, in response to a leading question
19 Wherever used "the four organizations " means the East Bay, Coast , Inland, and San
Francisco Disbursement organizations
20 Representing the San Francisco Disbursement Organization • Bryant, Heikell , Gibson,
Scamiel ; Inland Organization • Raynor, Decker, Coast Organizations Menne, Whiting ;
East Bay Organization . Gallagher, Saari
A
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by AEO's counsel, that the consolidation of the four organizations was her own
idea ; she admitted, however, that she "mentioned" the matter to C. H. Myers,
Respondent's Auditor, before calling the meeting of November 20 Also, ad-
mittedly the UBTW was actively engaged in organizing all accounting employees
during this period.
A second meeting, Gallagher again presiding, was held at the same place on
December 20, 1944. This meeting like the first was attended by representatives
of each of the four organizations. It was reported at this meeting that each
division had "voted or agreed" to the "New Organization." Those attending the
meeting decided to have some 2,500 application and membership cards printed and
to purchase various clerical supplies. A draft of a pay-roll deduction (check-off)
card was submitted by Bryant, chairman of the Disbursement Organization. It
was also decided that each of the four organizations would continue to function
as "individual Organizations" until officers had been elected to the new organiza-
tion ; that 30 days after membership cards had been signed "new members" would
have to pay initiation fees; and that instead of hiring a lawyer to prepare a
constitution and by-laws, the representatives of the four organizations would do
it themselves.21 The minutes of this meeting recite : "Mrs. Menne offered her
home for a meeting to be held Friday, January 5, 1945, to draw up the constitu-
tion " Menne was chairman of the Coast Organization. The minutes also made
reference to agreements relating to job classifications and wage rates, to be drawn
up for presentation to management by the "new representatives."
Gallagher, Menne, Heckel, and Volk drafted a constitution, using the existing
constitutions of the East Bay, Inland, and Disbursements organizations as their
guide. According to Gallagher they met for this purpose at Menne's house.
The constitution thus drafted was approved by the committee which Gallagher
had called together for the two meetings mentioned above, and later was sub-
mitted to the employees of the four accounting offices, respectively, for their ap-
proval and ratification. An agreement to be submitted to management by repre-
sentatives of the new organization was also drafted.
Gallagher testified that the constitution was submitted to employees of the
East Bay office in a general meeting which was held on Respondent's premises
January 25, 1945. The meeting was announced on the organization's bulletin
board 22 Gallagher presided, read the proposed constitution, and it was ratified
by a show of hands. The proposed agreement, also, was read. Only members
of the East Bay Organization were admitted to this meeting Gallagher testified
that the meeting was held during the lunch hour but the minutes of the meeting
state that it was convened at 12: 45 and adjourned at 1: 55 p in The lunch hour
was from 12 noon to 1 p. in. Gallagher's recollection except when refreshed by
documentary evidence was generally rather poor, and the undersigned believes
that the minutes of this meeting furnish the most reliable evidence as to the time
when it occurred. Inasmuch as the employees were not furnished with copies of
the constitution prior to the meeting and it was read to them in its entirety and
was discussed section by section before a vote was taken, and the proposed agree-
ment also was read, it appears more likely that the meeting consumed the time
stated in the minutes than the half hour between 12: 30 and 1 p. in. which
Gallagher testified was the total time consumed
21 The AEO did later, however, employ legal counsel
22 Gallagher testified that the organization paid Respondent 5 or 10 cents a month for
the use of the bulletin board. UBTW paid the same fee for the use of a bulletin board in
the office where it had representative status
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 911
From the foregoing it would appear that the proposed AEO constitution was
adopted by the East Bay Organization before elections were held for representa-
tives of the new organization. It does not appear, however, that this procedure
was followed in all divisions, inasmuch as Raynor, then chairman of the Inland
Organization, testified that a copy of the proposed constitution was handed him
during his lunch hour by a representative of the new organization, and Olsen, of
the San Francisco Disbursement office, testified that the newly elected representa-
tives (of which he was one) were given copies of the constitution for circulating
among the Qmployees of their respective divisions. Adoption of the constitution
appears generally to have been evidenced by the signatures of employees subscrib-
ing thereto affixed to attached sheets. Olsen testified that the constitution was
formally adopted in April 1945, whereas representatives of the new organization
were elected prior to February 28, 1945.
The constitution of the AEO continued in effect the basic organizational struc-
ture of the four organizations. Thus, it provided for an Employee Committee
consisting of eight members, called Representatives, two from each of the four
accounting divisions ; officers of the organization to be named by the Employee
Committee from among its own number; the Employee Committee to have author-
ity to execute agreements with management, to assess clues, incur expenses, etc. ;
the Representatives to adjust grievances with management within their respective
jurisdictions, or to submit the said grievances to the full committee.
The record is somewhat sketchy as to the time, place, and manner of the
elections in which representatives of the four accounting divisions were chosen
to constitute the Employee Committee of the AEO. It appears generally that all
ineinbers of the four organizations were eligible to participate in these elections.
Olsen testified that in the San Francisco Disbursement office, the election was
conducted in the same manner as all previous elections, namely, by placing a
ballot box in the lobby of the ninth floor of the building occupied by Respondent.
Gallagher testified that in the East Bay office ballots were mailed to members and
were cast during a noon hour in a ballot box which was placed in a car parked
outside Respondent's prenuses. There were no signed applications for member-
ship in the AEO at the time the first election occurred, and it further appears that
members of the four organizations "automatically" became members of the AEO.
Thus, Gallagher testified: "We went right into the Accounting Employees (AEO)
as a part of it." Later, however, membership applications were obtained on
forms which contained also authorization for a check-off of dues. There is no
showing that the AEO collected dues prior to its arrangement with Respondent for
a check-off.
The first meeting of the newly elected representatives of the AEO occurred on
February 28, 1945 They met jointly with officers of the four organizations in a
San Francisco cafeteria and there chose from among their own number the officers
of the AEO.33 Olsen, a representative of the San Francisco Disbursement Organ-
isation, was nauied chairman, and Menne, chairman of the Coast Organization,
secretary-treasurer.
33 Olsen's testimony • Those present there were the eight representatives, two
from each Division Accounting Office who had been elected for the new Committee,
and the ofllceis of the old Organization, I believe the presidents of the old organiza-
tions . . "Tlie primary discussion there, or rather the first order of business was
the election of the new officers and also a discussion concerning the foimation of, or con-
tinuance ahead ii e night say, on the torniation of this AEO "
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
C. Respondent's Recognition of the AEO and Execution of a Bargaining Con-
tract with it
On February 28, 1945, after the newly elected personnel of the Employee Com-
mittee of the AEO had met for the first time, they conferred with C. H. Myers,
Auditor, in the latter's office. They requested recognition of the AEO and were
advised by Myers that recognition could not be granted inasmuch as Respondent
had contracts outstanding with each of the four organizations.'
On March 21, 1945, the chairmen of the four organizations served formal
written notice on the heads of their respective offices, of the termination of
existing contracts, the terminations to become effective May 21, 60 days from the
date of the notice. The letters (which were identical) stated that the existing
contract "is to be superseded, upon its termination, by a new contract embodying
the merger and consolidation of" the four organizations.
By letter addressed to Myers, dated April 3, 1945, Olsen, who had been named
chairman of the AEO, requested recognition of the AEO as sole bargaining repre-
sentative of "all accounting employees in the Northern California Area." Myers
replied on April 12 to the effect that Respondent had a contract with the UBTW
covering employees of the San Francisco Revenue Accounting office, and therefore
could not recognize the AEO as representing the employees of that office, but
that Respondent would consider the claim of the AEO to represent the remaining
employees upon "evidence and verification" that the AEO had been authorized
by a majority of them. "Accordingly," the letter concluded, "I shall be glad
to meet with representatives of the Union [AEO] at a mutually agreeable time
so that you may present evidence and proof in verification of your claim."
On April 19, the AEO filed a petition for certification with the regional office
of the Board and was advised by it that charges of company domination had
been filed by the UBTW with respect to each of the four organizations, and that
representation proceedings could not be instituted while these charges were
outstanding. On the following day, the AEO withdrew its petition."
In the meantime, on March 15, 1945, Arthur Hall, UBTW's Organizing Director,
had served written notice on Myers of the UBTW's claim to represent employees
of all the accounting offices other than the San Francisco Revenue office which the
UBTW already represented."
On March 28, Myers replied to Hall's letter to the effect that since Respondent
had outstanding recognition contracts covering the employees whom the UBTW
21 Myers testified that he first learned of the formation of the AEO at this meeting, and
that he advised the committee that he could not even enter into a discussion with it in view
of outstanding contracts with the four organizations. While it may be true that this was
Myers' first notice of the formal organization of the AEO, Gallagher had spoken to him con-
cerning plans for a unification of the four organizations in November 1944 prior to calling
the first meeting on the proposed merger. Further, the committee's appointment with
Myers was made through Hammerick, Respondent's Auditor of Disbursements, on the pre-
vious day, and the undersigned is unable to believe that Myers was totally ignorant of the
purpose for which the appointment was made. Olsen testified concerning this meeting :
"We were told, if we wished to consolidate, we would have to terminate the contracts,
establish our proof of majority, submit a constitution and become a recognized organiza-
tion, before the Company could do any business with us at all." 1051. The constitution
was not, however, actually submitted, according to Olsen
25 The UBTW filed charges on November 21, 1944, alleging that each of the four organi-
zations was company dominated The Board served written notice of the charges on the
organizations involved April 28, 1945 ; a letter notifying Respondent of the said charges
was dated June 13, 1945
2" Hall admitted that the UBTW had not signed up a majority in all these offices, but
testified that he believed it would win in a bargaining election, and that this was the
basis of his claim to represent a majority.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 913
now sought to represent, it could not comply with the UBTW's demand for recogni-
tion. Myers' letter also refers to an "understanding that certain organizational
changes are contemplated by the unions now representing the employees in ques-
tion." As a matter of fact, Myers had been informed of the formation of the AEO
when he wrote this letter and knew that the four organizations had served notice
of cancellation of their contracts, the said notices having been dated March 21.
On April 26, nearly a month later, Myers wrote to Hall again, stating that the
AEO "claiming to be a consolidation of the unions with which we had contracts,"
had advised Respondent of its "organization and assumption" of existing contracts.
The letter further stated :
Because of this consolidation and in view of your demand, we have requested
The Accounting Employees' Organization [AEO] to furnish us with evidence
in verification that the organization as now constituted continues to represent
the majority of the employees in question. We have advised the organization
that a cross-check by a Certified Public Accountant or by the National Labor
Relations Board would be satisfactory evidence. If the U. B. T. W. still
claims to represent a majority of these employees, I suggest that you furnish
similar evidence in support of your claims so that it may be considered at this
time. [Italics supplied.]
On May 1, Hall replied to the Myers letter, stating that certification on the basis
of a card check was not according to Board procedure where more than one union
was involved. The letter further stated that the issue of representation was
complicated, and could not be settled by a card check, because of charges which
had been filed with the Board that the "so-called Unions" were company domi-
nated. Finally, the Hall letter stated that it was assumed that the AEO intended
to have the card check made by a Certified Public Accountant and that if Respond-
ent accepted such certification, this "would be a flagrant violation" of the Act.
Despite the UBTW's protest and with full knowledge of its rival claim to repre-
sent the employees involved, Respondent on May 14 advised the AEO by letter that
it recognized the AEO's majority claim on the basis of a certification by public
accountants submitted to it on May 2. On May 31, Respondent executed a bargain-
ing contract with the AEO covering all employees previously represented by the
four organizations. The effective date of this contract was May 21, the day
following the expiration of the recognition agreements with the four organizations.
The contract provided, inter alia, for a check-off of membership dues on the basis of
signed authorizations of the individual employees involved.
D. Concluding Findings
It makes little difference whether the AEO is called a "new organization" or
a continuation, consolidation, unification, or merger of the four accounting or-
ganization which existed in the East Bay, Inland, Coast, and San Francisco
Disbursement offices. Euphemistic terms do not alter facts, and the pertinent
facts are that the officers and representatives of the four accounting organiza-
tions conceived, plotted, fostered, and directed every move by which the AEO
was formed. The transition appears to have been such a painless one that the
employees themselves must hardly have noticed the difference, since members of
the old organizations automatically became members of the new, and not only
were the four old organizations never formally dissolved but the funds in their
respective treasuries found their way into the treasury of the AEO, apparently
without a vote of the respective membership authorizing the transfer. Also,
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for some time after the AEO had elected officers and adopted a constitution and
presented its recognition claims, the four old organizations continued to function
under their respective identical recognition contracts with Respondent which,
when finally cancelled, were immediately succeeded by a new contract executed
with the AEO. In short, there is such an intermingling that it is quite impossible
to state with any degree of exactitude at what time and in what manner the four
old organizations ceased to exist and the new organization began. Since there
is not the slightest evidence of such a "definite, clear line of cleavage" between
the old and the new organization as is meant in the decisions on successor unions,
it follows that the AEO is heir to the infirmities, if any, which existed in the
four accounting organizations at the time the AEO took over .21
The four parent unions, in turn-with one exception-were the offspring of
still earlier parentage, and though the genealogical survey, due to the passage of
time and the all too fallible recollection of the witnesses, is not as replete with
detail as might be desired, the ancestry of at least three of the four organizations
which gave birth to the AEO, is traceable to the informal office committees
which Respondent itself sired in its East Bay, and San Francisco Revenue and
Disbursement Accounting offices in 1934. (It is recalled that the Coast and
San Francisco Revenue personnel were contained in a single unit until sometime
in 1941.) While the precise character and scope of these office committees is
not too clearly delineated in the record, there is sufficient evidence to show that
they fall in the general category of Employee Representation Plans which flour-
ished in industry following the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act
(NIRA). That Respondent was responsible for setting up these office committees
and that they functioned as labor organizations wholely dependant on the pa-
ternalistic benevolence of management, is established in the evidence.
It is Respondent's contention, however, that in the summer of 1935 or shortly
after the passage of the Wagner Act, it severed all proscribed ties with these com-
mittees and that thereafter they functioned independently of management.
The evidence does not support this contention. Respondent did cause to be de-
leted from its recognition agreement with the organization then existing in its
an Francisco Disbursement office, a clause by which Respondent was committed
to pay all "reasonable expense" in joint meetings between the Employee Committee
of that organization and management, but inasmuch as the organization neither
collected nor disbursed fees, dues, or funds of any kind prior to 1937, it has
been inferred, in the absence of any credible evidence to the contrary, that Re-
spondent continued its financial support. Also, it appears that Respondent at all
times to the present has borne the expense of joint meetings between the organi-
zations and management, the said joint conferences constituting almost the sole
function of the earlier organizations. Respondent in further support of its
,contention, points to a letter dated June 5, 1935, directed to certain supervisory
personnel, which states in substance that Respondent intends to observe "both
the letter and spirit" of the Act and that any agreements inconsistent with the
Act "are null and void " Asuming that this letter was brought to the attention
of the employees generally, and the evidence does not support the assumption,
it stands for no more than a statement of good intentions-intentions which were
not translated into deed, for the Employee Committees continued to exist and
function just as they always had, without any means of support except that
furnished by management, until after the Act had been declared constitutional
in Api it 1937.
21N L .R B v Coaiden'ierCoip,128F (2d) 67 (C C A 3)
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 915
In the spring of 1937. or shortly after the Act was declared constitutional,
Respondent notified the Employee Committees that it could no longer contribute
to their support, nor extend to them the use of its facilities and premises. In
the East Bay office, Hoedel, Respondent's Auditor, advised the committee of
that office that the existing arrangement would have to be discontinued since
it "wasn't according to the Wagner Act." It is assumed that similar statements
were made to the committees then functioning in the San Francisco Revenue and
Disbursement offices, inasmuch as Hoedel had supervisory authority over all of
Respondent's accounting offices and it is reasonable to infer that Respondent's
policy would be uniform as to each 28 In May or June of 1937, each of the three
existing organizations underwent certain organizational changes, the most
important of which, probably, were the adoption of constitutions and the collec-
tion of fees or dues. Prominent in these organizational changes and instru-
mental in bringing them about, were the personnel of the employee committees
already in existence, many of whom served as representatives or officers of the
new or revised organizations. Some of the activities attendant on the reorgani-
zation of the various committees, though not all, took place on Respondent's
premises and there is no substantial credible evidence that Respondent was paid
for the use of its premises on each of these occasions, the undersigned is con-
vinced that it was not To be effective July 1, 9, and 15, 1937, respectively, Re-
spondent executed identical recognition agreements with the East Bay, San
Francisco Revenue and Disbursement organizations. To be effective June 25,
1937, Respondent executed an identical recognition agreement with the Inland
Organization, which unlike the other three unions, is not shown to have sprung
from an office committee. The structure and modus opei audi of the Inland Or-
ganization , when formed, were substantially identical with those of the East Bay
and San Francisco Revenue Organizations and this, of course, could not have been
accidental. As has been found, in executing identical recognition agreements
with each of the four accounting organizations in June or July of 1937, Respond-
ent iequested and was furnished no proof that they represented a majority of
employees in their respective claimed units, further than the bare statement of
their officers and representatives that they did.
Again, in 1937 as in 1935, the undersigned is unable to discover any action on
the part of Respondent constituting an effective cleavage between the old and
the new organizations in the East Bay and San Francisco Revenue and Disburse-
ment offices 2' The old organizations, brought into existence and supported and
dominated by Respondent, were not disestablished by it and were not, in fact,
formally dissolved though they ceased to function as such when through the
28 Respondent contended that its statements to various organizations in 1937 that it
could no longer lender financial and other support , was merely a reaffirmation of the posi-
tion it took immediately upon the passage of the Wagner Act. Obviously, if Respondent had
clearly and unequivocally withdrawn in 1935 the various items of support listed in its 1937
communications , there would have been no need for such a restatement . The undersigned
is convinced on the basis of credible evidence that Respondent took no such definite un-
equivocal stand in 1935, and that it continued a substantial measure of support to the
organizations ,Nhich it had brought into existence until the Act was declared constitutional
in 1937.
zD While the general pattein of this case is somewhat similar to that in the Wisconsin
Telephone Company case (12 N. L. R. B 375, 393), it is noted in that case that in 1937,
at the time the Independent was formed , the employer affirmatively and unequivocally
proclaimed its neutrality and "hands-off' policy with respect to employees ' organizational
activities , by the posting of notices throughout its offices In Mohawk Carpet Mills, Inc
(12 N L R B 1265, 1959), the eniplo%er disestablished the old organization betoic the
new one was formed
781902-48-vol 76-59
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
instrumentality of their representatives and officers and at the suggestion of
management, slightly more formalized organizations were brought into existence
and promptly recognized, without proof of majority, by Respondent The most
that can be said is that because of the changes effected the organizations gained
at least a substantial measure of self-support and therefore were in a better posi-
tion to function independently of the dictates of management.
In view of the foregoing, it would appear that a strict application of the rationale
found in the leading decisions on successor unions would require a finding that
Respondent has interfered with and dominated the AEO within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act, and a remedy calling for the disestablt; hnient of that
oiganization.n The undersigned is not persuaded, however, that such a drastic
order is required by the facts of this case The decisions have correctly observed
that experience teaches us that "effects of long practice persist" and "a long
continued influence does not suddenly evaporate'' , " however, unless the theologi-
cal doctrine of original sin be thought applicable, it must be recognized that such
influences if not sustained or reinforced by renewed overt acts of miteiference
and coercion, may cease to play a dominant role in employee activities after a
lapse of years and an accompanying turnover in personnel The record in this
(ase is almost singularly free of coercive acts or statements by Respondent's super-
visory personnel in its accounting offices which threaten the employees' right
to a free choice of baigaining representatives. Neither has Respondent, so far as
the record shows, offered rewards oi other inducements to its employees to refrain
from joining "outside" unions or to continue.in the organizations already formed,
although it is responsible for the reasonable assumption the employees would
make, on the basis of circumstances outlined above, that Respondent favored
the continuation of the inside unions. It is significant that when the Coast em-
ployees split with the San Francisco Revenue Organization and set up their own
unit, employees of the San Francisco Revenue office, atter a period of functioning
without a bargaining representative, affiliated, apparently without hindrance
from management, with the UBTW This does not appear to have been the act
of employees whose organizational activities were controlled by the employer 82
Other units of Respondent's employees also have affiliated with national labor
organizations. The undersigned is unable to ignore the fact that the Telephone
Traffic Employees Organization (TTEO), by far the largest labor organization
among employees of Respondent, whose line of ancestry even more clearly than
that of the ARO stems from a company established and dominated union, after
it had reached its maturity was free enough of employer control to athliate amid
disaffiliate twice with the National Federation of Telephone Workers (NFTW),
and, later, to affiliate with the American Communications Association, a CIO
affiliate. While, theoretically, it is entirely possible that Respondent may have
continued its control over the organizational activities of its comparatively small
'° "The theory is that in cases such as this, where an unaffiliated union seems to the
employee at large to have evolved out of an earlier joint organization of enipiover and
einplovees, the Board may take it as datum, in the absence of satisfactory evidence to
the contrary, that the employees will suppose that the company approved the new, as it did
"the old, and that their choice is for that reason not as free as the statute demands
Westinghouse Electric and Mfg Co., 112 F (2d) 657 (C. C A 2) affirmed per curiani,
312 U. S 660; See also, International Ass's of Machinists, 311 U S. 72; Standard Oil
Co, 142 F (2d) 676.
31 Southern Bell Telephone & Telegi aph Co , 319 U. S. 50 ; Sperry Gyroscope Co. v.
N. L. R. B., 129 F. ( 2d) 922 (C. C. A. 2).
12 It is observed , however, that employees of this office appear to have been more
jealous of their independence than some others.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 917
number of accounting employees to an extent not possible with its traffic employees
who are numbered in the thosuands, the freedom with which the TTEO ap-
parently chose its national affiliations is entitled to some consideration in de-
termining the scope and degree of Respondent's illegal interference.
In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record of the case, the under-
has dismissed the S (2) allegations of the Board's complaint, believingsigned
that the less drastic remedy customarily applied under a finding of S (1)
violations is inore suitable here"
That there has been a considerable measure of employer interference with and
assistance of the AEO and its predecessors, is clearly established in the evi-
dence. While Respondent has avoided the harsher and more reprehensible forms
of coercion, such as discrimination in tenure and conditions of employment, by
processes both negative and affirmative it has conveyed to its employees over a
long period of years its approval and support of the AEO and its predecessor
unions-negative, in failing unequivocally to disestablish the unions which it
brought into existence and to notify the employees directly and generally of its
withdrawal of all forms of assistance and support from the said organizations;
affirmative, in recognizing and contracting with the successor unions without
proof of majority and, in many instances, in permitting them to carry on their
organizational or other activities on company time and/or property. Outside
of the issue of successorship (though aggravated by it), Respondent's recog-
nition of the AEO in 1945 and execution of it contract ww ith it on the basis of a
card chei k, when Respondent was fully advised of the representation claims
of the UBTW and had been advised by the UBTW that charges of company
domination had been filed against AEO's predecessor unions, was assistance of
such character and degree that it alone would compel a finding of 8 (1) vio-
lations. That the card check was made by Certified Public Accountaiits and
that Respondent made the gesture of offering the UBTW the same opportunity to
prove its majority, is entitled to little weight under the circumstances. It has
been recognized by the Board in its procedures and is a matter of general prac-
tical knowledge, that where two labor organizations are competing for repre-
sentation of the same group of employees, a card check is unreliable and urisati,,-
factory as a method of proving a majority. The only method of determining
a majority under such circumstances, with the full freedom of choice guaranteed
by the Act, is the secret ballot This is never more true than in a situation
such as is presented here, where the employees have just cause to believe that
the employer favors one organization over the other and where one of the coni-
peting organizations is perinitted to carry on certain of its organizational activi-
ties on company premises whereas the other is denied an equivalent use of such
premises .m It is significant that when dealing with the UBTW and othei
"outside" unions, Respondent has customarily required proof of majority by
secret ballot.
Upon the entire record, the undersigned finds that Respondent has interfered
with, restrained, and coerced its employees within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act, and will recommend a remedy which he believes is necessary in
"The same general considerations outlined here apply in almost equal degree to each
of the three labor organizations alleged in the Board 's original complaint to be illegally
formed and administered • AEO, TTEO, and Clerical Organization.
8; The undersigned is convinced and finds on the basis of Hall 's credible testimony, that
the UBTW was refused an equivalent use of Respondent 's premises with respect to em-
ployees of the East Bay, Coast , Inland, and San Francisco Disbursement offices.
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
order to insure to the employees the full and unfettered freedom of choice in
choosing a bargaining representative guaranteed them by the Act '
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
0 The undersigned finds that the activities of Respondent set forth in Section III,
above, occurring in connection with its operations 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 free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices, it will
be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action which the undersigned believes to be necessary in order to effectuate the
policies of the act.
It has been found that Respondent, in violation of Section 8 (1) of the Act,
has interfered with and contributed support to the formation and administration
of AEO and other labor organizations which the undersigned has found to have
been the AEO's predecessors. While the undersigned has found that Respondent's
interference with these organizations has not, on the whole, been of sufficient
degree and scope to amount to domination of AEO within the meaning of Section
8 (2) of the Act, the undersigned, after mature consideration, is convinced that
Respondent's interference and support over a long period of years is of such
character and degree as to have deprived its employees of the full and unfettered
freedom of choice in the selection of a bargaining representative guaranteed
them by the Act. This remedy is, and should be, designed to restore to these
employees the freedom which they have been illegally denied and to afford them
full and fair opportunity for expressing their unfettered choice. The under-
signed accordingly will recommend that Respondent withdraw its recognition
of AEO as the bargaining representative of any of its employees, and set aside
each and every contract or agreement with the said organization or renewal
thereof and refrain from recognizing it and from entering into any contract or
agreement with it, unless and until it shall have been certified by the Board as
a proper bargaining representative. The undersigned will further recommend
that Respondent cease and desist from rendering AEO any assistance or support
whatever, including use of its premises or other facilities, until and unless AEO
shall have been certified by the Board as bargaining representative. The under-
signed will also recommend that Respondent post notices informing its account-
ing employees of the action taken.
While the undersigned has no control over the administrative procedures of
the Board, it is believed that prompt compliance with the above recommendations
a6 Counsel for Respondent and the AEO may very well complain that inasmuch as the
Board ' s complaint was on a consolidation of cases and alleged company domination of two
labor organizations other than the AEO and its predecessor unions , and these said allega-
tions were fully litigated though later dismissed , that there is an inequity in singling out
the AEO for a remedial order. The undersigned can only remark that he has no authority
over administrative processes of the Board by which unions are permitted to withdraw
charges, and that upon the withdrawal of charges involving TTEO and the Clerical Or-
ganization the dismissal of the complaint with respect to those two organizations was
mandatory under the Board's rules and regulations . There is therefore no more "singling
out" of the AEO than if the complaint had in the first instance alleged that Respondent
had illegally interfered with the formation and administration of the AEO alone.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 919
will, within a period of no more than 3 months, create an atmosphere which
will make feasible the holding of a bargaining election. Since the disestablish-
merit of AEO is not required, an election may be initiated by the filing of a
petition for certification by it or any other labor organization. Also, since Re-
spondent is not required by these recommendations to vary those wages, hours,
seniority and other such substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves which Respondent has established in the performance of contracts
or agreements with AEO, the setting aside of the said contracts and agreements
should cause no serious injury to the employer-employ ee relationship in the
interim preceding a bargaining election.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record of
the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Communications Association, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organization ; United Brotherhood of Telephone Workers of Northern
California and Nevada ; Telephone Traffic Employees' Organization ; Organiza-
tion of Plant Clerical and Office Forces of Northern California and Nevada
Area ; and Accounting Employees Organization of Northern California and Ne-
vada, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
Office Committee of Respondent's East Bay Division Revenue Accounting office
and East Bay Revenue Accounting Employees' Organization ; Office Committee
of Respondent's San Francisco Disbursement Accounting office, Plan of Repre-
sentation, and Telephone Accounting Employees' Organization ; Office Committee
of Respondent's San Francisco Revenue Accounting office and San Francisco
Revenue Accounting Employees Organization ; Coast Division Revenue Account-
ing Employees' Organization ; and Inland Division Accounting Employees
Organization, were labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. By interfering with the formation and administration of Accounting Em-
ployees Organization of Northern California and Nevada, and its predecessor
unions as found herein, Respondent has engaged in and is engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act;
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
4. 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 foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that Respondent, The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph
Company and Bell Telephone Company of Nevada, their officers, agents, suc-
cessors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Recognizing Accounting Employees Organization of Northern California
and Nevada as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with Respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates
of pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, unless and
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
until it shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as said
bargaining representative;
(b) Giving effect to its contract with Accounting Employees Organization of
Northern California and Nevada or to any modification, extension, supplement
or renewal thereof, or any superseding contracts with it, unless and until the
said organization shall have been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board,
(c) In any manner interfering with or contributing financial or other support
to Accounting Employees Organization of Northern California and Nevada, or
any other labor organization;
(d) In any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of a free choice of bargaining representatives as guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw and withhold all recognition from Accounting Employees Or-
ganization of Northern California and Nevada as the representative of any of
its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other conditions of
employment, unless and until it shall have been certified by the National Labor
Relations Board as said representative ;
(b) Post in each and every one of its revenue and disbursement accounting
offices of the Northern California and Nevada areas, copies of the notice attached
hereto, marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the
Regional Director of the Twentieth Region, shall, after being duly signed by
Respondent's representative, be posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that
said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material ; and
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region in writing within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what steps
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the date
of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, Respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring Respondent to take the
action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1046, any party or
counsel for the Board may, within fifteen (15) days from the date of service
of the older transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203 38 of
said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Roclhanibeau Building, WV'ash-
ington 25, D. C., an original and four 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 four copies of a brief in suliport
thereof ; and any party or counsel for the Board may, within the same period, file
an original and four copies of a brief in support of the Inteimediate Report.
Immediately upon the filing of such statement of exceptions and/or briefs, the
party or counsel for the Board filing the same shall serve a copy thereof upon
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY 921
each of the other parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director.
Proof of service on the other parties of all papers filed with the Board shall be
promptly made as required by Section 203 65. As further provided in said
Section 20339, should any party desire permission to argue orally before the
Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10)
days from tile (late of service of the order transferring the case to the Board
WILLIAM E SPENCER,
Trial Examiner.
Dated March 7, 1947
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 withdraw and withhold all recognition from Accounting Em-
ployees Organization of Northern California and Nevada as the represent-
ative of any of our employees for the purpose of dealing with us concerning
grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment or other
conditions of employment, unless and until Accounting Employees Organi-
zation of Northern California and Nevada shall have been certified by the
National Labor Relations Board as said representative ;
WE WILL cease giving effect to any and all contracts or other agreements
with Accounting Employees Organization of Northern California and Nevada
or to any modification, extension, supplement or renewal thereof, or any
superseding contracts or agreements with it, unless and until it shall have
been certified by the National Labor Relations Board as bargaining repre-
sentative;
WE WILL not interfere with, restrain, or coerce any of our employees in
the exercise of the right to full and unfettered freedom in their choice of
bargaining representatives;
All of our employees are free to become or remain members of United
Brotherhood of Telephone Workers of Northern California and Nevada,
American Communications Association affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, Accounting Employees Organization of Northern
California and Nevada, or any other labor organization.
THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
and
BELT, TELEPHONE COMPANY OF NEVADA,
Employer.
Dated ----------------- By------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.