Tishomingo County Electric Power Association

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 864 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL
852, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. 15-C-1002.Decided July 31, 1.947
Mr. T. Lowry Whittaker, for the Board.
Messrs. Lowell W. Taylor and James W. Watson, of Memphis,
-Tenn., and Messrs. J. 0. Clark and 7'. A. Clark, of Iuka, Miss., for
-the respondent.
Mr. W. L. Hoist, of Beaumont, Tex, and Mr. C. A. Dugas, of Lake
Charles, La., for the Union.
Mr. Julius Topol, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 29, 1946, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
--mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the re-
spondent 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. On November 14, 1946, the respond-
ent filed with the Board in Washington, D. C., a motion to reopen
the record and allow the respondent to offer proof. On December 16,
1946, pursuant to an extension of time granted by the Board, the re-
spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
.brief.
In its motion and its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the
respondent contends, in effect, that its right to offer evidence was im-
properly restricted by certain rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing, and that it is therefore now entitled to have the record re-
-opened for the purpose of putting in its case. The rulings in question
were as follows : After introducing evidence on all issues, counsel for
.the Board announced that his case was complete except that he desired
74 N. L. R. B., No. 135.
864
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 865
leave to introduce at a later time, through testimony or deposition of
certain witnesses then absent, and through documents then not avail-
able,) certain supplementary evidence, the expected content of which
was either revealed or known to the respondent,' concerning the re-
spondent's business and its effect on commerce.3 The Trial Examiner
granted this request, fixing a time and place for taking the deposition
of James Salisbury, Jr., an employee of the REA, and ruling that
his deposition would be incorporated in the record. The Trial Ex-
aminer also indicated that, upon appropriate motion, the record might
be reopened to receive documents and testimony that might become
available as a result of enforcement of the afore-mentioned subpenas.
The Trial Examiner instructed the parties that any evidence which
Board counsel would be allowed to introduce by these means must be
strictly confined to the interstate commerce issue; and he stated that,
upon appropriate application, the respondent would be given an oppor-
tunity to offer evidence countervailing that which Board counsel might
thereafter introduce. With these reservations, the Trial Examiner
ruled, over the respondent's objection, that the respondent must pro-
ceed to put In its case, particularly any evidence it might have on the
unfair labor practice issues, as to which the Board's case was com-
plete. The respondent chose not to do so, and the Trial Examiner,
thereupon, closed the hearing.
Salisbury's deposition was subsequently taken in Washington, D. C.,
and made a part of the record. Although duly notified, the respondent
1 James Salisbury. Jr , an employee of the Rural Electrification Administration at
Washington, D C , was unavailable for testimony at that time Other witnesses, including
the respondent's manager and a number of its customers, had, as of that date, failed to
comply with subpenae issued by the Board at the request of Board counsel In addition,
the respondent, itself, had not, as yet, complied with a subpena daces tecuim issued by the
Board.
The respondent knew that Salisbury s testimony would be substantially identical with
that given by him in a previous case (Matter of Gibson County Electric Membership
Corporatton, 65 N L R B 760) and that it would relate to certain financial matters
which were applicable to all REA cooperatives, including the respondent Counsel for
the Board had a copy of the transcript of the record of Salisburv's testimony in that
case in his possession and had, earlier in the hearing, asked the respondent to stipulate
concerning the matters contained therein, in order to avoid the necessity of having
Salisbury repeat that testimony for the purpose of this case The respondent apparently
refused to so stipulate As to the testimony that night be given by the subpenaed
customers, the respondent was shown affidavits obtained from them containing a detailed
account of their purchases and sales in interstate commerce Although the affidavits
were, themselves, not admitted in evidence, they served to indicate the nature of the testi-
monv which these customers would give The respondent was, of course, aware of the
intorination which it, or its manager, might later supply in answer to the pending
subpenas.
'We note that virtually all the evidence referred to and relied upon by the Trial
Examiner in his finding. hereby affirmed, that the respondent is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, had already been introduced into the record prior to Board
counsel's request for this ruling, and the supplementary evidence referred to above
would, if introduced in its entirety, have served only to incorporate detailed figures
which were unnecessary- to the Board's disposition of the "commerce" issue in this case
866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
did not avail itself of the opportunity to be present at the taking of
the deposition. The subpenas issued to the respondent and to the per-
sons whom Board counsel desired to call as witnesses were not enforced
and no further evidence was introduced.
We hold that, in making the aforesaid rulings, the Trial Examiner
did not abuse his discretionary power, as hearing officer, to control
the order of proof. On the contrary, he protected amply the right
of the respondent to refute the evidence offered in support of the alle-
gations of the complaint and to defend itself against the charges of
unfair labor practices. We affirm the rul ings. As to the respondent's
motion to reopen the hearing, filed after the issuance of the Intermedi-
ate Report, this document does not specify the issues concerning
which the respondent desires to offer evidence.' Nor does the motion
otherwise purport to claim the privilege, which the Trial Examiner
granted to the respondent, to apply for reopening of the record for the
limited purpose of meeting evidence introduced by Board counsel
after the hearing closed. It is apparent, rather, that the respondent
now requests the opportunity, which it has already been afforded and
has foregone, to introduce evidence on all the issues in the case. The
motion is denied.
The Board has reviewed the other rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial error was commltted.5 The rulings are
hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report,
the respondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner with the additions and modifications noted below.
The respondent contends that it should not now be required to
bargain with the Union, in view of the fact that seven of the eight
employees now working in the unit, in their petition dated August 6,
4 The stated purpose for reopening the record is as folloiss
Comes no« your respondent, Tishonnugo County Electric Power Association and
respectfully requests that they be allowed the oppoitunity of presenting their
evidence now that the Board's attorney has completed his proof
The Trial Examiner denied employee Deaton's motion to intervene, formally, in behalf
of the employees now working in the unit He stated, however that Deaton could present
any matter material to the case, at the pioper time in the course of the proceedings.
Deatom asserted no interest in either supporting or opposing the allegations of the coni-
plauit as to the respondent's unfair labor practices but, rather, indicated that the em-
ployees (mistakenly) believed that the hearing was prelinunary to an election to be
ordered by the Board as a means of determining a question of representation The
purpose of their intervention, he revealed. was to register their opposition to the Union
This purpose was adequately served by their petition, which was admitted in evidence
and which we have considered as relevant to our remedial order herein It is clear.
from the abo'e, that no prejudice can have resulted from the Trial Examiner's refusal
to permit the employees, whom Deaton represented, to become formal parties to the
proceeding (See John J Oughton, et al N N L R B , 118 F (2d) 486, 495 (C C A 3),
cert denied 315 U S 797, enforcing 20 N L It B 301)
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 867
1946, which the Trial Examiner received in evidence ,6 stated that they
"do not want and never have wanted a union. " However, this fact
does not alter our conclusion that the order to bargain with the Union,
recommended by the Trial Examiner , is necessary and proper. In
the circumstances of this case , the Union 's failure to maintain its
majority representation in the unit must be attributed to the unfair
labor practices engaged in by the respondent . As the Trial Examiner
found, the respondent at all times refused to grant the Union the
recognition as sole bargaining representative required by the statute,
which is essential to any bona fide bargaining relationship . When two
,of the three employees working in the unit ' at the time of the respond-
ent's original refusal to bargain engaged in a strike to induce the
respondent to comply with its statutory duty, the respondent unlaw-
fully refused to reinstate them. The respondent thus demonstrated
to its employees , in defiance of the Act that their designation of the
Union not only failed to achieve its primary purpose of collective
bargaining, but that their adherence to the Union for that purpose
jeopardized the security of their employment with the respondent. It
would be natural, therefore , for the employees working subsequent to
these events to eschew union organization . We have found that prior
to these unlawful acts the Union represented a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit. This majority status must be presumed , at law,
to have continued after the unlawful refusal to recognize the Union
and the discharge of Scruggs and Barnes , for the respondent 's unfair
labor practices cannot operate to change the bargaining representative
selected by the untrammeled will of the majority .,, Moreover, the
employees ' recent expression of opposition to the Union cannot, in
view of the restraints to which they have been subjected, be deemed to
reflect their free choice. The fact that all the employees now in the
unit , excluding Scruggs and Barnes, were hired , or returned to work
from service in the armed forces , subsequent to the events described
herein does not, in itself , warrant an inference that the restraints
c See footnote 5, supra
The Trial Examiner found that there were three employees working in the unit at the
time of the iefusai to bargain, A T. Scruggs, N H Baines and W E Ellis, and that all
theee weie members of the Union We agree Although the evidence shows that Ellis
spent a laige portion of his time doing office work, which is outside the ambit of the unit,
we ate of the opinion, and we find, that Ellis' work in the field with the linemen gave him
a sufficient interest in the choice of a collective bargaining agent to warrant including
him in the unit as a pact-time lineman We further find, in agreement with the Trial
Examiner, that Scruggs was not a supervisor
8 See N L R. B. v. Biadfoid Dyeing Association, et al, 310 U S 318, 339, enforcing
4 N L R B 604 and S N L R B 979, G? eat Southern Ti ticking Co v. N L. R B, 139
F. (2d) 984 (C C. A. 4), cert. denied, 322 U. S 729, enforcing 34 N. L R. B. 1068,
N L R B v Franks Bios Com pany, 137 F (2d) 989 (C C A 1), affirmed 321 U S 702,
enforcing 44 N L R B 898, John J. Oughton, et at. v. N L. R B , supra, Matter of Karp
Metal Products Co, Iite, 51 N L. R. B 021, enforced without opinion, after remand, on
October 23, 1943 (C. C A. 2).
868 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engendered by the respondent's unlawful conduct are no longer opera-
tive. Unremedied unfair labor practices exercise a coercive effect, not
only upon the immediate victims, but on future employees as well.9
In any case, we believe that the effect of the unfair labor practices
cannot be completely dissipated, and conditions permitting freedom
of choice by the employees restored,' unless the employees are assured'
that the Act carries sufficient force to compel the respondent to bargain
with their freely chosen representative.- We, therefore, conclude
that it will best effectuate the policies of the Act to require the respond-
ent to bargain collectively with the Union."
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Tishomingo County Electric Power-
Association, luka, Mississippi, and its officers, agents, successors, and
assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to recognize and bargain collectively with Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all
its construction, operation, and maintenance employees, including
linemen, linemen helpers, and meter readers, but excluding the man-
ager and all supervisory employees, with respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment;
(b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization of its employees, by discharging
or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by discriminating in
any other manner in regard to their hire and tenure of employment, or
any term or condition of their employment;
'Had the Union been extended recognition as the employees ' bargaining representative,
and had Scruggs and Barnes not been discriminatorily refused reinstatement , it is reason-
able to assume that the Union would have retained its majority status by accessions among
the new and returning employees ( N. L R. B. v. Franks Bros Company, supra ) However,
the respondent . by its conciuct , created an atmosphere which made noimal growth of the
Union impossible.
10 International Association of Machinists v. N. L R. B ., 311 U. S . 72, enforcing 8
N. L. R B 621 ; Matter of Karp Metal Products Co., Inc , supra.
n Franks Bros. Company v. N L. R. B, 321 U. S 702, enforcing 44 N. L. R . B. 898;
Inteinational Association of Machinists v. N. L R. B, supra ; N. L R B. v. P. Lorillard
Company, 314 U. S 512, enforcing 16 N. L R B 68 4 ; Great Southern Trucking Co. v.
N L. R B, supra, N L R. B v Swift and Company, 162 F. (2d) 575 (C. C. A. 3),
decided June 11, 1947 See also N L It. B'v Barris- il'oodson Co, Inc, 162 F. (2d)
97 (C. C. A. 4), decided May 31, 1947.
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC PO`VER ASSOCIATION 869 -
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization, to form
labor organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid_
or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act
(a) Upon request, recognize and bargain collectively with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of the
employees within the unit hereinbefore found to be appropriate, with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached, embody such
understanding in a signed agreement;
(b) Offer A. T. Scruggs and N. H. Barnes immediate and full rein-
statement to their former or substantially equivalent positions, with-
out prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges;
(c) Make whole A. T. Scruggs and N. H. Barnes,for any loss of pay
they may have suffered by reason of the respondent's discrimination
against them, by payment to each of them of a sum of money equal to,
the amount which he normally would have earned as wages during the
period from the date of the respondent's discriminatory refusal to rein-
state him to the date of the respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his
net earnings during such period;
(d) Post at its plant at luka, Mississippi, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto, marked "Appendix A." 12 Copies of said notice, to be
furnished by the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, shall,
after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted
by the 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 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 ;
(e) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
12 In 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 "
870 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
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 in any manner interfere With, restrain, or
coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organi-
zation, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collec-
tive bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.
WE WILL OFFER to A. T. Scruggs and N. H. Barnes, im-
mediate and full reinstatement to their former or substantially
equivalent positions without prejudice to any seniority or other
rights and privileges previously enjoyed, and make them whole
for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the discrimination.
WE WILL RECOGNIZE AND BARGAIN, collectively upon request
with the above-named union as the exclusive representative
of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein With
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment or other con-
ditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, em-
body such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All our construction, operation and maintenance employees,
in
linemen, linemen helpers and meter readers, but
excluding the manager, clericals and all supervisory
employees.
All our employees are free to become or remain members
of the above-named union or any other labor organization.
We will not discriminate in regard to hire and tenure of
employment or any term or condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf
of any such labor organization.
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION,
Employer.
By----------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------------
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION - 871
NOTE.-If either of the above-named employees is presently serving
in the armed forces of the United States he will be offered full rein-
statement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service
Act, after discharge from the armed forces.
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and
must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mi T Lowry 11 hittaA,er , for the Board
lllessrs . Lowell W Taylor and James W. Watson, of Memphis , Tenn., and
MIessi s J 0. Clai k and T A Clai h,, of luka, Miss ., for the Respondent.
Mr W. L . Hoist , of Beaumont , Tex, and 311 C. A Dugas, of Lake Charles, La.,
for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge duly filed February 6, 1946 , by International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with American Federation of
Labor , herein called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board , herein called
the Board , by its Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans,
Louisiana ), issued its complaint , dated July 19, 1946 , against Tishomingo County
Electric Power Association , herein called the Respondent , alleging that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section S (1), (3), and ( 5) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat 449, herein called the Act.
Copies of the complaint with notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon
the Respondent and the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance:
(a) that all the Respondent ' s construction , operation and maintenance employees
including l inemen, linemen helpers and meter readers, a nd excluding the man-
ager , clericals , and all super visor y employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge , discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or
effectively recommend such action constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act ; ( b) that
a majority of the employees in the afor esaid unit designated the Union as their
representative ; ( c) that the Respondent in October 1943 and all times thereafter
refused to recognize the Union as the representative of the employees within the
appropriate unit above described ; ( d) that on or about April 22, 1945, the
Respondent refused to reinstate A T Scruggs and N. H Barnes in their employ-
ment, which they had previously left because of the Respondent 's unfair labor
practices , and that the Respondent ' s refusal to reinstate Scruggs and Barnes was
because of their union membership and activities ; and (e ) that be the foregoing
conduct the Respondent has interfered with , restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor piactices within the meaning of Section S (1),
(3), and ( 5) of the Act
On July 30, 1946, the Respondent filed an answer in which it averred that the
Union had not filed the change upon which the complaint was based and chal-
lenged the right of the Board to proceed on the ground that the Act was uncon-
stitutional The nuclei signed finds no meiit in these contentions.
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Respondent's answer further averred that it was not engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, averred that the Union was not a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act; and denied that it had
engaged in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint but averred
that Scruggs and Barnes had voluntarily quit their employment with the Re-
spondent and were not thereafter reinstated for the reason that their jobs had
been previously filled
Likewise on July 30, the-Respondent filed a motion for a Bill of Particulars with
the Regional Director which was refereed to the Trial Examiner for ruling.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at Memphis, Tennessee, on August 7 to
12, 194G, inclusive, before Louis Plost, the undersigned Trial Examiner, duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the Respondent were
represented by counsel and the Union by representatives. Full opportunity was
afforded all parties to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues.
The undersigned granted the Respondent's motion for a Bill of Particulars in
part and denied it in part. The undersigned also granted, without objection, a
motion by the Respondent to amend its answer.
At the opening of the hearing one A. V. Deaton asked leave to present a docu-
ment Leave being granted by the undersigned, Deaton presented 1o the Trial
Examiner a document' and on the basis of the document sought to intervene
as a party in behalf of the signatories. Deaton stated on the record that the
signatories were not an organized group. The undersigned admitted the docu-
ment in evidence as a Board exhibit without objection and denied the request
for intervention.
At the close of the Board's case counsel for the Board rested subject to taking
the testimony by deposition of one witness, shown to be not available? The
counsel for the Board stated that the testimony would go only to facts surrounding
the question of the Respondent's operations affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act, and not to any facts relating to the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint.
The Respondent then declined to offer any evidence until the Board's case had
been fully piesented.
The undersigned stated on the record that in the event the witness testified
he would be permitted to testify only on matters affecting the question of com-
merce and would not be permitted to testify on any matter relating to the unfair
labor practices alleged, and that having so limited the testimony the under-
signed did not consider that the Respondent would be prejudiced in any manner
by proceeding with its defense. The undersigned ordered the testimony to be
taken by deposition with all parties represented, and stated that should the
deposition raise any new matter the Respondent would be permitted to rebut
on proper motion. The undersigned then adjourned the hearing in order to
afford the Respondent ample time for consideration. When the hearing was
resumed the Respondent again declined to proceed. The undersigned set a date
i The document read :
AUGUST 6, 1946.
To the National Labor Relations Board-
We undersigned employees of the
Tishomingo Electric Power Association
do not want and never have wanted a Union
"We want to be heard
The document bore seven signatures.
2 The witness in question was an employee of the REA and the agency would not permit
him to leave Washington , D. C, in order to testify in the hearing.
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 873
and place for the taking of the testimony by deposition. The deposition was
taken in Washington, D. C. on August 22, 1946.
Counsel for the Board moved to conform the complaint and the answer to the
proof with respect to minor matters, such as names, dates and typographical
errors. The Respondent concurred in the motion, which was granted.
In -his opening statement the undersigned advised the parties that on request
made before the close of the hearing the undersigned would grant them an
opportunity to file briefs with him. No request to file briefs was made. The
parties were afforded an opportunity to argue orally on the record, but did
not do so.
After the close of the hearing counsel for the Board filed with the under-
signed a motion that lie reconsider certain of his rulings with respect to the
admission of certain affidavits offered by the Board. The Respondent filed
objection to this motion. The motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case and from his observation of the witnesses
the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT 3
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, Tishomingo Electric Power Association, is a Mississippi
corporation, organized in 1935 as a non-profit cooperative for the purpose of
distributing electrical energy. The Respondent has its office at Iuka, Missis-
sippi, and distributes electrical energy at retail throughout Tishomingo County,
Mississippi . It also distributes a small amount of electrical energy in Itawamba
and Prentiss Counties. For the distribution of the electrical energy it sells, the
Respondent maintains 205 miles of lines.
The Respondent received financial assistance 4 from the Rural Electrification
Administration, herein called REA, an instrumentality created by the Congress
of the United States to facilitate the distribution of electric power through
cooperative agencies and other enterprises 5
The Respondent is the only supplier of electrical energy in the territory it
serves. Its customers consist of cotton gins, ice and water supply companies,
schools, telephone companies, a newspaper plant, a bus line office, a U S. Post
Office, a court house, a W P. A. office. It also furnishes energy to light a rail-
road station and to maintain block system signals for this railroad which is
engaged in interstate commerce It furnishes the energy to light the guiding
beacon for air lines crossing Tishomingo County. It also furnishes energy for
street lights in various communities as well as power and light for rural and
urban homes.
During the fiscal year July 1, 1943 to June 30, 1944, the Respondent serviced
customers identified as to groups and amount of energy supplied them as follows
Number Type of Customer Kilowatt Hrs. used
1, 047 Residential-------------------------------------------- 1,261,637
226 Small Light and Power-------------------------------- 415,339
1 Power------------------------------------------------ 219,060
4 Street Lighting --------------------------------------- 30, 532
3 The Respondent called no witnesses . The findings herein are based on undemed testi-
mony which the undersigned credits.
4 The Respondent's original loan from REA was $35,000. It has now pending with REA
an application for a loan of $640,000.
Rural Electrification Act, 49 Stat. 1363.
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
During the fiscal year, July 1, 1943 to June 30, 1944,6 the Respondent purchased
ar wholesale 2,252,380 KWII of electric energy, for which it paid $14,010 49. All
this energy it resold at retail
During the same period the Respondent purchased materials from outside the
State of Mississippi amounting to $1,444 95.
The Respondent purchases all the electrical energy it sells from the Tennessee
Valley Authority, herein called TVA This energy is delivered to the wires of
the Respondent at a point just within the State of Mississippi. The TVA gen-
erates electric can ent by means of 13 hydro-electric plants located in Tennessee,
3 in Alabama, 2 in North Carolina and one each in Georgia and Kentucky It
also generates power in two steam operated plants which are located in Missis-
sippi, one at Tupelo and the other at Corinth These plants are small and are
used principally for "stand by" purposes. No other generating plants of TVA
are located in Mississippi. All TVA plants are interconnected through a system
of transmission lines and are integrated in their operations with the interstate
functioning of TVA's multiple purpose waterway system designed primarily to
facilitate navigation and control floods.7
Power delivered by the TVA to the Respondent comes from the Wilson Dam.
generating plant located in Alabama and from the Pickwick Darn generating
plant located in Tennessee. Some power from the TVA's steam generating plant
located at Memphis, Tennessee, is also fed into the Respondent 's lines
but it is doubtful if either of the "stand by" plants at Tupelo. and Corinth, Mis-
sissippi, furnish any prover to the Respondent, because of the small size of these
plants and the character of their operations It is impossible to determine from
w hat given point power originates because of the integrated character of the
TVA distribution system and for the further reason that all energy furnished to
the Respondent by TVA is fed through a common girl
The record further discloses that TVA also transmits power over the Respond-
ent's lines for the use of another electric distributing company located in Ala-
bama Approximately 28 miles of the Respondent's lines are used by the TVA
for this purpose foi which use TVA pays the Respondent.
The iecoid is clear that a consideiable area of the State of Mississippi is
wholly dependent upon the Respondent for the distribution of electrical energy
and that within this area instrumentalities of interstate commerce such as a rail-
road, air lines, and bus lines as well as Federal and State governmental agencies
are dependent upon the Respondent as their source of electrical energy. The
Respondent's operation is part and parcel of the life of the community it serves.
Part of the Respondent's facilities are used by TVA to transmit power across
the State of Mississippi from Tennessee to Alabama The Respondent purchases
a portion of its materials outside the State in which it operates All of the
electrical energy the Respondent sells is secured from TVA which generates it
outside the State of Mississippi.
The Respondent contends that the Board is without jurisdiction. The under-
signed finds no lieu it in this contention The undersigned finds that the Respond-
ent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act 8
6 The record discloses that the Respondent' s general operations are now substantially
as they wen e in 1943 and 1944
7 TVA has its plants geogi aphically spaced along the Tennessee River and its tributaries
which flow through seven States.
8Ml atter of Gibson County Electric Membeaship Corporation, 65 N L R B 760.
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 875
H. TIIE ORGANIZ \ IION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Woi hers, Local 8:52, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain collect ively
1 The appropriate unit and the Union 's representation of a majority therein
The complaint alleges that in order to insure to the employees of the Re-
spondent their full right to representation and to baig:un collectively and to
otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act :
all construction, operation and maintenance employees of the respondent
including linemen, linemen helpers and meter readers, and excluding the
manager, clericals, and all supervisory employees with authority- to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The record discloses that some time in November 1943, the Union ineffectually
sought to bargain with the Respondent for its "outside" employees On January
27, 1044, and again on Februaiy 17, the Union again met with the Respondent
and again sought to bargain for all the "outside" employees, meaning men cu-
gaged in maintenance work, line work. construction work and all work pertaining
to power and lighting The Respondent had three such employees, all of whom
were present at the February 17 conference All three were members of the
Union The Respondent raised no objection to either the authenticity of the
employees union memberships or the appiopriateness of the unit claimed by the
Union. In fact at a later meeting on June !), 1944, one of the Respondent's
officials remarked that all the employees "belong and are all here " It is apparent
from the entire record that the Respondent fully understood the extent of the
unit claimed appropriate by the Union and raised no objection to it except that at
a later date the Respondent challenged the Union's majority on the basis that
certain of its employees who were then in the Armed Services should be included
within the unit There were in fact two such employees However the objec-
tion raised by the Respondent is without merit inasmuch as the Board has held in
the Supersweet Feed Company case °
the number of these persons in military service need not be added to the
number of employees in the respective appropriate unit, who are working at
the time the Union made its demands for recognition, for the purpose of
determining the Union's status as majority representative.
The record discloses that the Union at all times material herein maintained its
status as the representative of time Respondent's "outside" employees. Inasmuch
as the unit alleged to be appropriate in the complaint adequately describes the
sIn the Matter of Supersueet Feed Company, Incorporated and General Drivers Union
Local 851 , A F L and in the Matter of Minnesota Bb-Products , Inc. and General Drivers
Union, Local 851 , A. F. L, 62 N L R B 53
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit recognized as appropriate by the parties, the undersigned finds that the unit
as hereinabove described constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and that at all times material herein the Union has been
the exclusive representative of the employees within the said above-described
appropriate unit within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. The refusal to bargain
Paul M. Parker, at present the assistant business manager of the Union and its
business manager in 1943 and 1944, testified that some time in November 1943,
he called at the Respondent's office and informed W. J. Brinkley, the Respondent's
manager and J. C. Jourdan, Jr., its vice president, that the Respondent's employees
had joined the Union.10
Parker obtained a conference with the Respondent on January 27, 1944 In
addition to Parker the Union was represented by J. R. May, another union offi-
cial, and the three employees who comprised the bargaining unit The meeting
was one of general discussion and ended with an agreement to meet again on
February 17. On that day the parties met again, the Union being represented
by the same individuals as before The Union presented a proposed contract to
the Respondent. On April 27, the parties met again. Parker, the three em-
ployees previously referred to, and 1V L. Hoist, an International Representative
of the Union, were in attendance. Hoist,, who coiroborated Parker, testified that
at this meeting the proposed agreement which had been previously piesented by
the Union was discussed, but no agi Bement was reached Anion,,, the topics of
discussion was the status of the Respondent's employees then in military service
and the "closed shop " The Union informed the Respondent that it was not
seeking a "closed shop " During the discussion the Respondent's president, J. D.
Finch, stated that he was satisfied that all the employees [in the unit I were mem-
bers of the local. No agreement was reached at this meeting Another meeting
was held June 9 At this meeting the Respondent was asked if it desired that
an election be held. One of its officials replied, "No, we don't want to take any
ballot on that because they all belong and are all here "
10 The record discloses that at the time and at all times material herein, the Respondent
had three employees within the unit heieinbefore found appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining, and that all three weie members of the Union Of the three em-
ployees, within the unit, namely, A T Scruggs, N H Barnes, and W. E Ellis, the latter
divided his time between office work and "outside" work Upon the entire record the un-
dersigned finds that Ellis was properly included within the unit. Scruggs testified that
he was classified as a line foreman , that he worked together with Barnes and Ellis ; that
he and Barnes did substantially the same work and that his authority over the two men
did not include the right to discharge, discipline, promote or make changes in their status.
Regarding his authority Scruggs testified
Q Did you have the authority to recommend effectively that Mr Barnes be dis-
charged, or demoted, or disciplined or anything?
A The only authority I would have would be to go to the'Manager and express niy
opinion about it. If he wished to the him, lie could let him go, or lie could overrule me
Scruggs testified that he did, under instructions to Bunkley, employ casual labor when
necessary However, the record does not show that lie did anything more in this regard
than carry out orders Scruggs received the highest pay of the three men, all of whom
were paid on a monthly basis The undersigned finds that Scruggs did not exercise such
supervisory authority as to bar his inclusion within the bargaining unit. The record also
discloses that two of the Respondent's employees who had performed such work as would
have properly included them within the appropriate unit were then in the armed services
of the United States. The effect of the militaiy status of the afore- mentioned employees
upon the unit has been found elsewhere in this report.
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 877
On June 28 and 29, 1944, the Union, represented by Parker, Hoist, and the three
employee members, held what turned out to be the last bargaining conference
with the Respondent At this meeting (June 29), the Respondent submitted a
written counterproposal to the Union. The proposal was introduced in evidence
and shows that the Respondent understood fully the issue as to the unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining and the fact that Employee Scruggs was included
therein Significantly the Respondent's proposal named the Union as one of
the contracting parties After a reading of-this proposal the parties agreed that
the Union should submit a proposal which if accepted by the Respondent would
then be spread on its minutes and a copy of the minutes given the Union in
lieu of a foimal contract
Parker testified, without contradiction, and the undersigned credits his testi-
mony, that the Union then drew and submitted a proposal the same day, but
that the Respondent refused to accept the proposal because it contained the
name of the Union there. Hoist testified, credibly, that J. C Jourdan, the Re-
spondent's vice president stated that he "was in politics and it would be suicide
to recognize the Union "
There is testimony in the record that Jourdan is the local County Attorney and
Finch, the Respondent's president, is Chancery Court Clerk The Union sought
no further negotiations with the Respondent after June 29, 1944
Manager Brinkley admitted that "Vice-President Jourdan refused to sign
the agreement submitted by the Union on or about June 29, 1944, because that
was not part of the verbal agreement, and because it would be harmful politically."
The respondent and the Board stipulated that the Respondent "would not agree
to [recognize] the Union, but would agree to the terms of it [the proposed con-
tract] on behalf of the employees "
It is clear on the record that the stipulation refers to the events occurring on
June 29, as hereinbefore found
An offer to grant to employees the benefits sought by their legal bargaining
agent coupled with a refusal to recognize the bargaining agent as such, is not col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act but is a violation of Section 8 (5)
thereof.' The undersigned so finds.
The record discloses that none of the Respondent's employees, within the ap-
propriate unit, presently employed are members of the Union It has been deter-
mined by the Board, and the Courts, that a loss of majority resulting from an
unfair labor practice does not deprive a bargaining agent of the status it held at
the time the unfair labor practice was committed.
11 It is clear from the iecord that the refusal here referred to was the refusal to spread
the agreement on the minutes of the Respondent so long as it contained the name of the
Union as a party thereto
11 See McQuay-Noirss Manufacturing Company v. N. L. R. B, 116 F. (2d) 748 (C. C. A.
7), wherein the Court said, -
In the first place, the recognition required by Section 9 (a) is not a bargaining
matter . When it was dis' losed to petitioner that Local 226, represented a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit, . the obligation was then
fixed upon it to recognize the Local as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent . . .
s ♦ s t r a s
Neither can the consequences of its refusal to grant complete recognition be dissi-
pated by the fact-if it be a fact-that it bargained with the Union on all other
matters in dispute
See also-Matter of Prosper Brazen, individually, doing business as B B Crystal Com-
pany and Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union Local 65, C. 1. 0 , 70 N L R B 985,
in which the Board held that the failure to agree to the usual recognition clause in a col-
lective bargaining contract constitutes a violation of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
S78 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned therefore concludes and finds that any contention that the
Union does not now represent a majority of the employees, in view of the Re-
spondent's unfair labor practices, is without merit."
Upon the entire record in the case the undersigned finds that on June 29, 1944,
and at all tunes thereafter the Respondent refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, and thereby interfered with, restrained. and coerced its employees in the
.exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act14
B I'hc discrinuiaatoy dischai de of A. T Sci eggs and N. H Baines
A T Scruggs was employed by the Respondent as a lineman for approximately
.9' years As herein found Scruggs was present during the negotiations between
the Union and the Respondent Following the Respondent's refusal to recognize
the Union he and Barnes struck'° The strike began on November 1, 1944, and
the men remained on strike until November 30, 1944. Scruggs testified that the
,cause of the strike was.
Because the Board of Directors would not recognize the Union so we could
negotiate on wages and working conditions.
.Scruggs retinned to work on November 30.
On February 12, 1945, the two men again went on strike. Scruggs told Brinkley
,before the strike ,we had been unable to get cooperation and that we were com-
ing out until we could get some hearing and something done about it."
Q Done about what?
A About the Board of Directors recognizing the Union.
Scruggs further testified that following the February 12 strike a hearing was
held before a Panel of the National War Labor Board on April 21, 1945. At the
-hearing Scruggs was asked by the Panel chairman if lie would return to work
and was instructed by the Panel chairman to give a "N es or no" answer. The
Panel chairman at the same time indicated that Scruggs should return to work on
the following Monday, the day then being Friday. Scruggs' reply to the question
-was "yes."
Upon receiving this reply the Panel chairman asked the Respondent if it would
put the strikers back to work and was told by one of the Respondent's repre-
sentatives that a Board of Directors' meeting would be called as soon as possible
to act oil the matter.
In view of the fact that Scruggs categorically stated in the presence of the
,Respondent that lie would return to work, and the question then put by the
,Panel chairman to the Respondent, which clearly showed that the former treated
Scruggs' reply as a flat offer to return which called for action by the Respondent,
,and in the light of the entire record, the undersigned finds that on April 21, 1945,
Scruggs made an unconditional offer to return to work."
See Matter of Karp Metal Products Co., Inc, and Fabricated Metal Local 22J, United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, C 1 0 , 51 N. L R B 621
1q Assistant Business Agent Parker testified that the Union sought through these pro-
ceedings only the right to bargain for its members. He also testified that lie did not
-know what an exclusive bargaining or a sole bargaining agency is The undersigned finds
that the ignorance of the Union' s business representative as to the law and the legal rights
.of the Union in no manner affects those rights
as Apparently Ellis, the other employee within the unit, did not join the strike.
ae FXie same i;ationale applies to the case of N H. Barnes, hereinafter discussed
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 879
Approximately 1 week later, Scruggs received a letter from the Respondent.
The letter read as follows.
APRIL 27, 1945.
INIr A. T. SoRUGcs,
luka, Dlissisaippi
DEA lt 11R. Serious : At a meeting of the Directors of the Tishomingo County
Electric Power Association held in the office of the Association on April
26. 1945, the following resolution was adopted with a vote of 10 to 0 (one
ch,urniau and one director not votnig-one director absent)
Be it resolved that A T. Scruggs and N. H. Barnes, former employees
of the Association who have left the Association on two occasions and who
are at piesent not working, be hereby prohibited from retuining to em-
ployment with the Tishomingo County Electric Power Association.
You may have a certified copy of this resolution if you so desire.
Very truly yours,
(Signed) W J BRINKLEY, Manager,
Ttshomtnyo County Electric Power Association
N. H Barnes " was first employed by the Respondent in September 1943, as
a lineman; he attended the bargaining conferences between the Union and the
Respondent, he went on strike on November 1, 1944, because the Respondent
refused to recognize the Union; he returned to work on November 30, on in-
struction of Business Agent Parker ; he again went on strike February 12^, 1945,
because of the Re_pondent's ci utinued refusal to recognize, the Union ; he at-
tended the P.uiel Bearing of the National War Labor Board and at this meeting
stated that lie would return to work. Barnes testified that the Respondent was
asked by the Panel Chairman when the strikers would be returned to work
and that the Respondent answered that "they would have to get, the Board
together and speak for themselves " On or about April 27, 1945, Barnes received
a letter, similar to the one found herein to have been received by Scruggs
The testimony of Barnes and Scruggs relating to the Panel hearing of the
National War Labor Board was corroborated by Parker and Hoist.
Concluding findings on the discriminatory discharges of Scruggs and Barnes
The record is clear, and the undersigned finds, that Scruggs and Barnes
went on strike November 1, 1944, and again on February 12, 1945, because of
the unfair labor practices of the Respondent in not according recognition to
the Union. It is also clear from the record, and the undersigned finds, that
on April 21, .1945, the Respondent's striking employees, Scruggs and Baines,
made an unconditional offer to return to work and that following the offer the
Respondent refused to reinstate them.
The undersigned finds that by its refusal to reinstate A T. Scruggs and N. H.
Barnes, after their unconditional offer to return to work, made on April 21,
1945, the Respondent has discriminated in regard to their hire and tenure of
employment and has discouraged membership in a labor organization and
thereby has interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
17 Identified in the record as Noel Henry Barnes.
755420-48-vol 74-57
880 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in Section III, above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the Respondent's business 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 burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor prac-
tices, the undersigned will recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Having found that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit,
it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively
with the Union.
Having found that the Respondent discriminated in the hire and tenure of
employment of A. T. Scruggs and N H. Barnes, it will be recommended that the
Respondent reinstate Scruggs and Barnes to their former or substantially equiva-
lent positions' without prejudice to their seniority or other rights and privileges.
it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request, bargain collectively
they may have suffered by reason of such discrimination, by payment to each
of them of a sum of money equal to the amount he would have earned as wages
from the date of his ofter to return to work (April 21, 1945), to the date of
Respondent's offer of reinstatement, less his net earnings," during said period.
Inasmuch as the entire record clearly shows that the Respondent's illegal
conduct is designed to defeat self-organization and its objects among its em-
ployees and furthermore as a discriminatory discharge "goes to the very heart
of the Act," 20 the undersigned is convinced that the Respondent's unlawful con-
duct as tound herein, together with its underlying purpose as iellected by the
record, are persuasively related to the other unfair labor practices hereinater
proscribed and that danger of their commission in the future is to be anticipated
from the Respondent's illegal conduct in the past. The preventive purposes of
the Act will be thwarted unless the recommended order is coextensive with the
threat In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guarantees of
Section 7, to prevent a recurrence of unfair labor practices, and therefore to
minimize strife which burdens and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the
policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the Respondent cease
and desist from in any manner infringing the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of
the Act.
18 In accordance with the Board's consistent interpretation of the term, the expression
"foiniei or substantially equivalent position" is intended to mean "former position wheiever
possible, but if such position is no longer in existence, then to a substantially equivalent
position " See Matter of the Chase National Bank of the City of New Yo) k, San Juan,
Puerto Rico Branch, 65 N L R B 827.
19 By "net earnings" is meant earnings less expenses, such as foi ti ansportation, room,
and board, incurred by an employee in connection with obtaining work and woiking else-
where than for the iespondent, which would not have been incurred but for his unlawful
discharge and the consequent -necessity of his seeking employment elsewhere See Matter
of Crossett Lumber Company, 8 N L R B. 440 Monies received for work performed upon
Fedeial, State, counts, municipal, or other work-relief projects shall be considered as eain-
ings. See Republic Steel Corpoi ation v N L R B, 311 U S 7
20 N L R. B v Entwistle Manufacturing Co, 120 F. (2d) 532, 536 (C C. A 4).
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 881
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record in the case,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 852, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 All construction, operation and maintenance employees of the Respondent
including linemen, linemen helpers and meter readers, and excluding the mi}n-
ager, clericals, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effectively recommend such action, at all
tunes material herein constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of_the Act.
3. International Brotherhood of Electric Workers, Local 852, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, was at all times material herein and now is
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4 By refusing to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees in the above-described unit the Respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5 By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of A T.
Scruggs and N. H. Barnes, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organi-
zation, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act
6 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1)
of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law the under-
signed recommends that the Tishomingo County Electric Power Association,
luka, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 852. affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
as the exclusive repiesentative of all its construction, operation and maintenance
employees, including linemen, linemen helpers and meter readers, and excluding
the manager and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment and other conditions of employment ;
(b) Discouraging membership in International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 852, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or any
other labor organization of its employees by discharging and refusing to reinstate
any of its employees or in any other manner discriminating in regard to the
hire and tenure of employment, or any terms or conditions of employment ;
882 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(c) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to
join or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 552, affil-
iated with American Federation of Labor, or any other labor organization, to
bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual
aid or protection as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2 , Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will ef-
fectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees within the'unit hereinbefoie found to be appropriate
_for the purposes of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of pay, hours of em-
ployment, or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
,,embody such understanding in a signed agreement ;
(b) Make whole A. T. Scruggs and N. H Barnes for any loss of pay they may
have suffered by reason of the Respondent's discrimination against them in the
manner provided in the section entitled "The remedy" ;
(c) Postat its plant at luka, Mississippi, copies of the notice attached hereto
marked "Appendix A." Copies of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region, after being signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon the receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive clays 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, del aced, or covered by any other material;
(d) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, in writing, within
ten (10) days fiom the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) clays from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the Respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the Respondent to take the
action atoresaid.
As provided in Section 203.39 of the Rules and Regulations of the National
Labor Relations Board, Series 4, effective September 11, 1946, any party or
counsel for the Board may. within fifteen (15) clays from the date of service
of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 203.38
of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Rochambeau Building,
Washington 25, 1) C., an original and tour copies' of a statement in writing
setting torth 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 sup-
port 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 Intermediate
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 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 75. As further pro-
vided in said Section 203 39, should any party desire permission to argue orally
before the Board, request therefor must be made in writing to the Board
TISHOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION 883
within ten (10) days from the date of service of the order transferring the
case to the Board.
Louis PLOST,
Trial Examiner.
Dated October 29, 1946.
"APPENDIX A"
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor
Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce our
employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor
organizations, to join or assist International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local 8.52, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor or any
other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of
their own choosing, and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection
WE WILL OFFER to A. T. Scruggs and N. H. Barnes immediate and full
reinstatement to their former or substantially equivalent positions without
prejudice to any seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed,
and make them whole for any loss of pay suffered as a result of the dis-
crimniation.
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative oL all employees in the bargaining
unit described hereon with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment, or
other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All our construction, operation and maintenance employees, including
linemen, linemen helpers and meter readers, and excluding, the manager,
clericals, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of the above-named
union or any other labor organization. We will not discriminate in regard to
hire and tenure of employment or any term of condition of employment against
any employee because of membership in or activity on behalf of any such labor
organization.
TISIIOMINGO COUNTY ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION,
Employer.
By -----------------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
Dated--------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material