Wisconsin Public Service Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 15 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 310, AFL;
AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION Or STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND
MOTOR' COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, LOCAL 1168 AND LOCAL 857,
AFL; AND INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERIIOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
`AFL - :
Case No. 13-RE-34.-Decided October 10, 1945
-Miller, Mack cC Fairchild, by Mr. James I. , Poole, of Milwaukee,
Wis., and Mr. C. B. Boulet, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Company.
Mr. Albert Weisbord, of Washington, D. C., Mr. Phil J. Kingsland,
of Milwaukee, Wis., and Mr. Clayton F. DeWolfe, of Green Bay, Wis.,
for the OE.
Zimring & Rabe, by Mr. Hans J. Lehman, of Chicago, Ill. ; Mr.
A: A. Deering, of Green Bay, Wis., and Mr. Anton Nowak, of Wau-
sau, Wis., for the Amalgamated.
Mr., Russell Packard, of Chicago, Ill., and Mr. Rex Fransway, of
Milwaukee, Wis., for the IBEW.
Miss Katharine Loomis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Wisconsin Public Service Corpora-
tion, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, herein called the Company, alleging
that a question affecting commerce-had-arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of its employees, the National Labor Relations ,Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Leon Rosell,
Trial Examiner.,' Said hearing was held at Green Bay, Wisconsin,
on May 24 and June 5 and 6, 1945. The Company, International
Union of Operating Engineers,. Local 310, AFL, herein called the OE,
Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway and Motor
Coach Employees of America, Local 1168 and Local 857, AFL, herein
called the Amalgamated, and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL, herein called the IBEW, appeared and participated.
At the beginning of the hearing the OE moved to dismiss the Com-
64 N. L. R B, No. 5.
15
16' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pany's petition on the grounds that the contract,of the OE and the
Company constitutes a bar to the present proceeding; that the filing
of the Company's-petition did-not comply with the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board; and that the unit sought by the IBEW is inappro-
priate. At the close_ of the hearing the IBEW.also moved to dismiss
the petition on the grounds that no question concerning representa-
tion had been raised and that the unit proposed by the Company is
inappropriate. For reasons set forth in Sections III and IV, infra,
the motions are denied. All parties- were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Wisconsin Public Service, Corporation is a Wisconsin corporation
having its principal office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of electricity and gas in various commu-
nities in Wisconsin and in the furnishing of public transportation at
Green Bay and Wausau, Wisconsin, where it operates buses and
maintains garages for servicing its buses and other automotive equip-
ment. Menominee and Marinette 'Light and Traction Company, a
wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, sells and distributes elec-
tricity and gas in both;Wisconsin'and Michigan and is incorporated
under,the laws of both those States., This subsidiary is known as the
Menominee-Marinette division of the Company and is operated as an
integrated part, of the Company's gas and electricity utility system.
Tlne• Company's' sales of gas and electricity in 1944 amounted in value
to $10,973,000. During the same year the Company's total purchases
exceeded $3,000,000 in value, a'substantial portion of which-represents
purchases made outside ,Wisconsin. Prior to the war, the Company's
sales of gas and electric appliances' purchased from manufacturers
located outside Wisconsin and Michigan exceeded $100,000 a year. IIi
its operations the Company manufactures gas in the State of Wiscon-
sin which is transported to and distributed in Michigan by its
Menominee-Marinette division. Thirty-seven percent, of the Com-
pany's sales of electric energy and approximately, 8 percent of its,gas
sales are to industrial concerns.' '
The Company does not deny, and we find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
'In computing the quantities and values mentioned in the above paiagraph, the opera-
tions of"the Menominee-Marinette division have been taken into account.
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 17
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 310; Amalga-
mated Association of street, Electric Railway and Motor Coach Em-
ployees of America, Local 1168 and Local 857; and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, are all labor organizations affil-
iated with the,Anlerican Federation of Labor, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The OE, under its contract with the Company dated March 29, 1944,
was recognized as "the sole representative for collective bargaining
for employees of operating departments of the Company, including
meter readers and male employees in storerooms and exclusive of em-
ployees of the transportation departments who are covered by other
agreements." The contract provides that "it shall be in full force and
effect until March 29, 1945 and thereafter from year to year unless
mutually changed by the parties hereto, or terminated at the end of
any such period by either party on-thirty days' prior written notice to
the other."
Under this and former contracts with the Company, the OE has
represented the Company's employees in virtually a company-wide
unit., Historically, the Amalgamated has represented the Com-
pany's bus drives both at Green Bay and Wausau, and the Amal-
gamated and the OE have each represented their respective mem-
bers among the Wausau garage mechanics.3
On March 27, 1944, the IBEW filed a petition with the Wisconsin
Employment Relations Board for a unit of electricians employed by
2The OE ente,cii into its first contract with the Company in 1934 In the eaihei years
of bargaining histori its contracts covered only union members In 1938 the contract
was changed to its present wording
s Since 1919 Local 857 of the Amalgamated has bargained with the Company under con-
tracts coveuug certain transportation employees at Gieen Bay During the early stages
of bargaining the Company operated a streetcar system, and streetcar opeiators and
car him ii mechanics were represented under the contracts Since 1938, however, when the
Company completely converted to bus opetations, Local 857 has represented only bus
drivers under its contracts and the OE has represented the garage mechanics at Green Bay
under its contracts The latest contract between Local 857 and the Company, dated March
1, 1945, covers all [the Company's] operators in the transportation department in the
Gi een Iiay area "
Local 1168 of the Amalgamated entered into its first collective bargaining contract with
the Company ni'1937 At that time it represented both streetcar opeiators and car barn
mechanics at Wausau However, since 1940, when the Company converted to bus opera-
tions at Wausau, although all the bus (]rivers have continned to be represented by Locil
1168, the garage mechanics have divided their allegiance between the OE and the Amalgam-
ated The latest contract between Local 1168 and the Company, dated March 1, 1945,
covers "all [the Conipanti's] employees in the transportation department in the Wausau
area
On December 7, 1944, Local 1168 filed a petition with the Wisconsin Employment Stela-
tions Board requesting an election among the garage mechanics at Wausau. A hearing
was subsequently held, but no further action has been taken
670417-46--vol 64-3
Is DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company in its Wisconsin Valley division. On June 27, 1944,
that agency issued a direction of election in a unit of: "All of the
employees of the Company in the Wisconsin Valley division, exclud-
ing executives, supervisors, gas distribution employees, transporta-
tion employees, and clerical employees." It certified the IBEW
.as bargaining representative for employees in this unit on August
4, 1944. Subsequent to the certification'the Company-and the IBEW
agreed that the latter would bargain for- these employees under an
oral agreement containing provisions similar to those embodied in
the OE's contract with the Company, with the understanding that,
upon the termination of the OE's contract, they would- draw up a
written contract. Pursuant to this oral agreement the' IBEW has
presented grievances for electrical employees in the Wisconsin Valley
division and has consulted with the Company on matters pertaining
to working conditions. The OE, however, has bargained for changes
under its contract which would affect the employees of the Wisconsin
Valley division, including two modifications of its contract which
were-approved-by the War Labor Board. - -
The Company, on January 18, 1945, filed its petition with the
Board in which it averred that it was confronted with, conflicting
claims of labor organizations and,in which it requested an investi-
gation and certification of representatives.
The OE claims that the filing of the -Company's petition prior
to the automatic renewal date of the contract did not stay the oper-
ation of the automatic renewal clause; that its contract covers the
employees of the Wisconsin Valley division for which, the IBEW
was certified by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board and
the garage mechanics at Wausau in addition to other employees of
the Company ; and that, since the Company has never given written
notice of termination, the'contract constitutes a bar to a present de-
termination of representatives among any of the employees covered
by it. , The Company takes the position that, regardless'of whether
the filing of the petition terminated the contract, it did prevent
it from constituting a bar. '
We are of the opinion-that the filing of the Company's petition was
an act entirely inconsistent with an intent to permit the operation of
the automatic renewal clause. Moreover, it is clear that the IBEW
has clainned to represent employees covered by the OE's contract since
the filing of its petition with the Wisconsin Employment Relations
Board on March 27, 1944, and that there has been rivalry between the
OE and the Amalgamated in regard to the garage mechanics at
Wausau since 1940.'4 We- find,' therefore,' thatth'e'OE's contract does
not constitute a bar, to the-present proceeding:
See Matter of Grotieton Papers Co 52 N L'•R B' 1,256 ;"Matter'oj James Doak, Jr,
Company , 52 N. L R. B. 378.
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 1D
The contention of the OE that the Company's petition does not
comply with the Board's Rules and Regulations concerns the unit con-
tentions of the parties. The OE considers as appropriate a unit to be
comprised of the employees who it claims are covered by its contract,
including the employees of the Wisconsin Valley division and the
garage mechanics at Wausau. Moreover, it would add to this unit
the Company's bus drivers, all of whom are claimed by the Amalgam-
ated. However, it is willing to exclude the bus drivers if its prefer-
ence for a more comprehensive unit is not adopted by the Board.
The IBEW contends that an appropriate unit should be comprised
of the employees of the Wisconsin Valley division for whom it was
certified by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board; this certifi-
cation excluded gas distribution employees and bus drivers. It would,
moreover, broaden this unit to include the employees of the power and
engineering department in the Wisconsin Valley area, excluding garage
mechanics. Alternatively, it would agree to two system-wide units for
the Company's employees, one to be comprised of all employees en-
gaged in the distribution of electric energy, and the other of all
employees in the power and engineering department excluding
garage mechanics.
The Amalgamated contends that the bus drivers at Green Bay con-
stitute an appropriate unit and that the bus drivers and garage me-
chanics at- Wausau constitute another appropriate unit. However,
it is willing to permit the garage mechanics at Wausau to decide for
themselves whether or not they should be included in a single unit with
the Wausau bus drivers.
The Company takes the position that all its employees, excluding
bus drivers, constitute an appropriate unit. However, it has no ob-
jection to the exclusion from this unit of the garage mechanics at
Wausau.
The OE contends that the filing of the Company's petition did not
comply with Article III, Section 2 (b) (3) and Section 3, of the
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as
amended,' in that two or more labor organizations have not presented
conflicting claims that each represents a majority of the employees in
a The pertinent portions of Article III read as follows •
SEC. 2 (b ). Such petition when filed by an employer shall contain the following:
(3) A brief statement setting forth that a question or controversy affecting com-
merce has arisen concerning the representation of employees in that two or more
labor organizations have presented to the employer conflicting claims that each
represents a majority of the employees in the unit or units claimed to be appropriate.
Sec. 3 . . . the Regional Director shall not institute an investigation on a petition
filed by an employer unless it appears to the Regional Director that two or more
labor organizations have presented to the employer conflicting claims' that each
represents a majority of the employees in the bargaining unit or units claimed
to be appropriate.
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the comprehensive unit claimed to be appropriate by the Company.
However, we interpret the phrase "the unit or units claimed to be
appropriate," to mean the unit. or units claimed to be appropriate by
the labor organizations, rather than by the Company.6 It is clear
that the unit claimed as appropriate by the OE overlaps the units
claimed by the IBEW and the Amalgamated, and that each of the
unions claims to represent a majority of the employees-in the unit- it
considers appropriate. Thus, the propriety of the filing of the peti-
tion is not open to question.
Both the OE and the IBEW also urge that it will not effectuate the
purposes of the Act to-hold elections at a time when these two organiza-
tions have asked to have the Company's petition dismissed. They
allege that only a small number of the Company's employees are cov-
ered by conflicting claims ' and that an election in a comprehensive
unit such as that suggested by the Company is not appropriate. But
the alternate unit contentions of the IBEW conflict with the unit con-
tentions of the OE so that the overlapping claims cover a large portion
of .the Company's employees., Moreover, both organizations are will-
ing to participate in an election, if directed, in the comprehensive unit
considered appropriate by the Company, which is, substantially the
same unit coiitended for by the OE. Although the OE and the IBEW
ask for dismissal of the petition, the circumstances warrant a deter-
mination of the appropriate unit or units and a determination of rep-
resentatives. Accordingly, we find no merit in the contentions of the
OE and the IBEW. -
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
"The wording "unit or units" suggests this interpretation Also, although Article III,
Section 3 , Series 2 , as amended, contained substantially the same provisions as the present
revision , Section ' 2 (b), (3) and ( 5) made clear that the unit or units were those claimed
to bel appropriate by the labor organizations.
The pertinent portions read as follows :
SEC. 2 (b) Such petition , when filed by an employer shall contain the following :
(3) A description of the bargaining unit or units claimed by the competing labor
organizations to be appropriate . .
(5) A brief statement getting forth that a question or controversy affecting com-
merce has arisen concerning the representation of employees in that two or more
such labor organizations have presented to the employer conflicting claims that each
represents a majority of the employees in the unit or units set forth above in para-
graah (b), (3).
7 Approximately 843 employees are covered by claims of the OR. The OE's claims
conflict with those of the IBEW in regard to 88 employees in the Wisconsin valley division
and 65 employees in the power and engineering department in that area . The OE ' s claims
also conflict with claims of the Amalgamated to 17 garage mechanics at Wausau and to
the Company ' s 85 bus drivers
The record does not show the exact number of employees engaged in the distribution
of electric energy. However , the nature of the Company ' s operations indicates that it is
large. There are 264 employees in the power and engineering department.
WISCONSIN PUBLIC, SERVICE CORPORATION 21
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The operations of the Company are carried on through its five
geographical divisions, namely, the Green Bay, Sheboygan-Mani-
towoc, Oshkosh, Menominee-Marinette, and Wisconsin Valley, and its
power and engineering department which operates separate and apart
from the divisions. Each division is -under the supervision of a divi-
sion manager who is in charge of the distribution of electric energy and
gas within his area. In the two cities where the Company's transpor-
tation systems are located, at Green Bay in the Green Bay area and
at Wausau in the Wisconsin Valley area, division managers are in
charge of bus operations. The power and engineering department is
under the supervision of the Company's chief engineer and vice presi-
dent, A. C. Carson. He is'in charge of the manufacture and trans-
mission of electric energy throughout all geographical areas and is
also responsible for the maintenance of automotive equipment, in-
cluding buses, throughout all areas. ,He has ultimate supervision of
the garages at"Green Bay and"Wausau. At Wausau a superintendent
of transportation is in immediate charge of both bus operations and of
the garage. He reports to the Wisconsin Valley division manager in
regard to bus operations and to Carson in regard to the maintenance
of the garage. The Company's personnel department also operates
throughout all areas. However, no hiring or discharges are made
through this department. Hiring is done through local superintend-
ents aid all discharges are subject to thorough review by the president
of the Company.
The unit of the Wisconsin Valley division area employees con-
tended for by the IBEW is not coextensive with a well-defined divi-
sion of the Company since it wonild exclude gas workers within the
Wisconsin Valley division and include some power and engineering
department employees. The alternate system-wide unit of employees
engaged in the distribution of electric energy likewise does not corre-
spond to any division of the Company. The alternate system-wide
unit of power and engineering department employees does correspond,
except for the exclusion of garage mechanics. However, even if the
unit contentions of the IBEW corresponded strictly to the organiza-
tional structure of the Company, this factor would be overbalanced
by the long history of collective bargaining between the OE and the
Company on practically it company-wide basis. Moreover, the Board
has stated that "a system-wide unit of a public utility is the optimum
unit and is the only appropriate unit whenever there is a labor organ-
ization in a position to represent employees throughout the system." e
oMatter of Duquesne Light Company , 57 N L R B 770 See also Matter of Pennsijl.
vania Electric Company, 56 N L R B. 625, Matter of Central Ohio Light and Power Co..
51N L R B 522
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although the Company's bus drivers come under the supervision
of the division managers who also supervise the work of employees
engaged in electric and gas distribution, the record indicates that
bus operations are directed with some. degree of independence and
that the Company's transportation system is not integrated to as
great an extent as its gas and electric systems.1° The Board has indi-
cated that transportation employees of a public utility,may properly
comprise, a separate unit.h1 These facts and the past history of collec-
tive bargaining between the Amalgamated and the Company concern-
ing bus drivers indicate that the present units of bus drivers at Green
Bay and Wausau should remain undisturbed and should not, as re-
quested by the OE in its primary contention, be included in a more
comprehensive unit. We shall, therefore, exclude the Company's bus
drivers from any unit finding.
In view of the integration of the Company's gas and electric op-
erations a comprehensive unit substantially as proposed by the Com-
pany and agreed to by the OE appears to be appropriate for the re-
maining employees of the Company. However, the record indicates
that the garage mechanics at Wausau might also properly function
as part of the unit of bus drivers at Wausau currently represented
by the Amalgamated.12 These employees spend approximately two-
thirds of their time maintaining and repairing the Company's buses.
Although they form a part of the power and engineering department,
they come under the more immediate supervision of the superintendent
of transportation at Wausau who, also supervises the bus drivers.
Under these 'circumstances, and since the history of collective bar-
gaining among these employees is inconclusive, we find that the
garage mechanics at Wausau may properly function for the purposes
of collective bargaining either as part of the bus drivers' unit at
Wausau or as part of a more comprehensive unit.13 Accordingly, we
shall determine the desires of the employees themselves by directing
separate elections among the Wausau garage mechanics and among
the remaining employees of the Company, excluding bus drivers.
Upon the results of the elections will, depend, in part, our determi-
nation of the appropriate unit or units.
The parties are agreed that office and 'clerical employees, the chief
engineers at the steam plants, and professional employees (including
chemists, Class 1), be excluded. They.also agree that all employees
10 The Company's personnel director testified that the Company planned to sell its trans.
portation system at some future time and that this could be done without materially
affecting its gas and electric systems.
11 See Matter of El Paso Electric Company, 50 N. L. It. B. 56.
11 Local 1168 thereof.
18 Matter of El Paso Electric Company, supra.
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 23
with job titles of foreman, working foreman, line foreman, watch
engineer, and chemists (Class 2 and Class 3) be included 14
The Company takes the position that employees with the job title
of general foreman should be excluded; the OE seeks to include two
employees with this title who maintain membership in the OE ; the
IBEW would include all employees who do any production and main-
tenance work. It is clear from the record that general foremen possess
sufficient authority to take- independent disciplinary action in regard
to employees who work under them and can also effectively recommend-
lay offs 15 It is also undisputed that they are engaged in, purely super-
visory duties and do no production or maintenance work. We shall,
accordingly, exclude general foremen.
The Company takes the position that the chief operators at its
High Falls and Bayside hydro-electric generating plants should be
excluded, and the OE and the IBEW that these employees should be
included. Since the record discloses that these employees possess
authority comparable to that of a general foreman, we shall exclude
them.
The record also discloses that Fred Smith, who is employed in the
power department at Wausau and whose job title is assistant foreman,
possesses the authority of a general foreman. We shall exclude Smith.
At the Wausau garage the Company has an employee with the
title of general garage foreman who, despite his job title, actually
possesses authority no greater than the Company's foremen. The
Amalgamated would include him in the unit it seeks. We shall
include him in any unit finding.
We shall direct that two separate elections be held among the Com-
pany's employees in each of the voting groups set forth below, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Elections, excluding all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction ; 16
(1) All the garage mechanics at Wausau, including the general
garage foreman; and
14 All these employees do manual work and are not supervisory within the meaning of
the Board's customary definition.
ii As has already been indicated, all discharges for cause are subject to thorough review'
by the President of the Company.
19 The OE requests that it be designated on the ballot-as "Local 310, Operating Engineers,
AFL," the Amalgamated, if an election were held among Wausau transportation employees,
as "Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Division 1168 ," and the IBEW, as "International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers." The requests are granted.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) All remaining employees of the Company, including employees
with the job titles of foreman, working foreman, line foreman, watch
engineer, and chemists (Class 2 and Class 3), but excluding bus drivers,
office and clerical employees, professional employees (including chem-
ists, Class 1), the chief engineers at the steam plants, general foremen,
the chief operators at the High Falls and Bayside hydro-electric
generating plants, and the assistant foreman at'Wassau.17
The OE and the Amalgamated shall participate in the election
among the Wausau garage mechanics; since the IBEW is not inter-
ested in these employees we shall make no provision for its participa-
tion in this election. And the OE and the IBEW shall participate
in the election among employees in the larger group.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Wisconsin Public
Service Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, separate elections by
secret ballot, shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Re-
gion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations
Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules
and Regulations, among the following groups of employees of the Com-
pany, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding any employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the elections, as well as all supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes,
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action :
(1) All the garage mechanics at Wausau, including the general
garage foreman, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by Local 310, Operating Engineers, AFL, or by Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Street Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of
America, Division 1168, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither ; and
11 Fred Smith
WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION 25
(2) All remaining employees of the Company, including employees
with the job titles of foreman, working foreman, line foreman, watch
engineer, chemists (Class 2 and 3), but excluding this drivers, office
and clerical employees, professional employees (including chemists,
Class 1), the chief engineers at the steam plants, general foremen,
the chief open ators at the High Falls and Bayside hydro-electric gen-
erating plants, and the assistant foreman at Wausau, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Local 310, Operating Engi-
neers, AFL, or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
0