Southern California Edison Co., Ltd.

In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-18 AFL. In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-18 AFL., In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-18 AFL. In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-18 AFL. Cases Nos. 21-R-2104, 21-R-2112, 21-B-2167 and 21-R-2196 respectively.Decided February 09, 1944 Gibson, Dunn cf Crutcher, by Mr. J. Stuart Neary, of Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. R. G. Kenyon, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company. Mr. David Sokol, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the' I. B. E. W. Katz, Gallagher cC Margolis, by Mr. Ben Margolis, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the U. W. O. C. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon three separate petitions and an amended petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, AFL, herein called the I. B. E. W., alleging that questions affecting com- merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Southern California Edison Company,-Ltd., Los Angeles , California, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board con- solidated the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William B. Esterman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Los Angeles, California , on November 26 and 27, and 55 N. L. R. B., No. 2a 201 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD December 2, 1943. The Company, the I. B. E. W., and Utility Work- ers Organizing Committee, CIO, herein called the U. W. O. C., ap- peared, participated, and 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 OF FACT • I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., a California corpora- tion, is engaged in the business of generating, distributing, and selling electric power. During 1942 the Company purchased supplies, ma- terial, equipment, and machinery valued in excess of $33,400,000, of which more than $2,200,000 represented purchases from points out- side the State of California. During the same period, the total sales of the Company amounted to more than $50,000,000. No electric power is directly sold or shipped outside the State of California. The Company delivers wholesale electric power to other cities and com- panies, including specifically the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, to which the Company delivered in excess of $2,500,000 worth of electric power during 1942. The total wholesale electric power so delivered to the cities and companies is in excess of $3,400,000. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. It. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. Utility Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company refuses to recognize either of the labor organizations involved herein in the absence of certification by the Board ; it further contends, as a basis for its refusal, that the units sought are inappro- priate. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. 203 Statements of the Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicate that the I. B. E. W. represents a substantial number of employees in the units hereinafter found appropriate.' We find that questions affecting commerce have 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. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS All parties herein agree that, ultimately, a system-wide unit, com- posed of all employees of the Company, with the exception of com- mercial, supervisory, and plant-protection' employees will constitute the proper unit. The labor organizations, however, disagree with the Company's contention that such a unit is the only proper one, and contend that units less than system-wide may properly be found ap- propriate in the early stages of organization for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. In addition, they disagree between themselves with respect to the formation of units less than systemwide. Thus, in the instant consolidated proceeding, wherein the I. B. E. W. seeks to represent four different groups of the Company's employees 2 the U. W. 0. C. disputes the appropriateness of three of the units sought,3 contending that these units have no logical basis functionally, geo- graphically, or historically; with respect to the fourth unit sought 4 it contends that the employees therein more properly constitute two separate units, one composed of substation division and EDS district ' The statements of the Board agent may be summarized by the following chart, using only apparently original signatures of employees appearing upon the Company 's pay roll: Case No. Pay-roll date unit . B the I B. . E E L. I.B.E.W.. 21-R-2104-------------------------- 7-31-43--------------------------- 27 11 21-R-2112 --------------------------- 7-30-43----------------------------- 45 23 21-R-2167-- ------------------------ 10-26-43------------- ----------- 294 '123 21-R-2196-------------------------- 11-20-43 -------------------------- 21 16 *The I. B. E. W. submitted 163 designations which may have included clerical em- ployees among the signatories contained therein. The pay rolls in this unit were not checked for clerical employees , and accordingly , the showing of the I. B. E. W. may be even larger than herein set forth. The U. W. 0. C. submitted no evidence of membership among the above-mentioned employees. 2In Case No. 21-11-2104, it seeks a unit comprised of all non-supervisory employees in the Western Substation Division, excluding office and plant -protection employees ; in Case No. 21-R-2112, it seeks a unit comprised of all non-supervisory employees , including clerical employees , engaged at the Fullerton, Santa Ana, and Huntington Beach EDS ( Electrical Distribution System ) Districts in Case No . 21=R-2167, it seeks a unit comprised generally of all non-supervisory employees of the Company, including office and clerical employees, but excluding commercial and plant-protection employees, regularly employed north of the Tehachapi Mountain Range ; and in Case No . 21-R-2196, it seeks a unit comprised of all non-supervisory employees, including office . and clerical employees , engaged at the Vernon Diesel plant, and'the Vernon EDS District. $ The proposed units in Cases Nos. 21-R-2104, 21-11-2112, and 21-11-2196, - Case No . 21-R-2167. 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, and the other composed of employees of the generating and transmission divisions. The record in the instant proceeding, augmented by those portions of the record in a'prior proceeding concerning employees of the Com- pany,5 incorporated by reference, indicates that the Company is a highly integrated public utility, conducting operations over an area comprised of 10 counties in southern California. The center of this system is the general offices located in Los Angeles, wherein all general and administrative policies are formulated and through which clear- ance for all new employees is obtained. The Company has established uniform pay and work classifications throughout the system, as well as a uniform policy with respect to pensions, vacations, and sick leaves, and medical plans. Transfers of personnel are system-wide, although usually upon a departmental basis; seniority is similarly upon a de- partmental basis. In keeping with its centralized administrative set-up, the Company has placed in the hands of a manager of operations the supervision of all functional operations. These operations are divided into 4 depart- ments, each under a separate superintendent directly responsible to the manager of operations. These 4 departments, designated as gen- eration, transmission and communication, substation, and distribution, respectively, are further divided into smaller administrative units. Thus, the generating department, which operates the 23 generating plants controlled by the Company, is divided into 6 generating divi- sions; the transmission and communication department is divided into 6 geographical divisions; the substation department is divided into 6 geographical and 1 system-wide division; and the distribution depart- ment is divided geographically into 31 EDS districts. The boundaries of none of the departmental subdivisions were drawn with reference to those of other departmental subdivisions, and there are frequent over- lappings. However, the operations of each of the departments are functionally related with those of the other departments in that elec- tricity generated at the generation plants is sent throughout the system. via transmission lines to substations where it is "stepped up" or "broken down" and from there, either directly or through other substations, is sent to the ultimate consumer who is serviced by the employees in the EDS districts. It is evident, therefore, that because of the centralized and closely integrated nature of the Company, the system-wide unit advocated by it is,. ultimately, the appropriate one. However, it is also apparent that the area of the Company's operations is too large for the conducting of immediate and simultaneous organizational activities for the pur- poses of collective bargaining on a system-wide basis. Therefore, in 5 Matter of Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., 51 N. L. R. E. 9. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. 205 order to render collective bargaining a more immediate possibility, it is necessary that such interim collective bargaining be conducted upon the basis of units less than system-wide.6 However, such interim units must be identifiable and possess a degree of homogeneity sufficient to permit their functioning as separate bargaining units. We shall examine the several units proposed by the petitions of the I. B. E. W. in the light of the foregoing. A. The proposed unit in Case No. 21-R2104 As hereinbefore stated, the I. B. E. W. seeks a unit comprised solely of Western Substation Division employees, excluding plant-protection employees, division superintendents, station chiefs, assistant station chiefs, all other supervisory employees, and the division clerk. The Company contends that the proposed unit, being less than system- wide, is inappropriate, and the U. W. 0. C. also opposes this unit upon the ground that it has no basis either functionally or historically. The proposed unit of the I. B. E. W. consists of approximately 27 employees, constituting a complete administrative subdivision of the Substation Department, who service a geographical area covering that also occupied by 5 EDS districts. Although working, in many in- stances, side by side with the EDS district employees, as well as with employees of the generating and transmission departments, they are under separate supervision and are listed on a separate pay roll. It is true that there are transfers both in and out of this group,' but these appear to be more or less permanent transfers rather than temporary, and, in a large majority of cases, intradepartmental, and do not appear to affect the identity of the group as such. In the recent Union Pro- ducing Company case," the Board had occasion to pass upon a situa- tion somewhat analogous to that presented by the instant proceeding; in that proceeding, a labor organization sought 2 units, 1 consisting of a distribution district, and the other of a production district which overlapped several distribution districts, including the one sought therein. In finding both the distribution and the production districts appropriate interim units, the Board stated : The Union's present organization of the Company's employees is co-extensive with ... identifiable, separate administrative divi- sions of the Company's extensive operations. Employees in the [distribution] district work under supervisors subject to that 6 In view of this, our findings with respect to the units in this consolidated proceeding are not to be considered final, but are subject to reconsideration whenever petitions are filed concerning employees . therein which seek units more clearly approaching the ultimate system-wide unit. 7 The record indicates that approximately nine persons per year are transferred out of the division , and are replaced by approximately the same number of employees. 8 Matter of Union Producing Company and Associated Companies, 53 N. L. R. B. 1287. 206 DECISIONS OF ' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD district manager. The Companies have seen fit to place these, employees in a position' to work with employees, of another district and yet maintain air administrative independence with respect to their work ... Since employees within the [distribu- tion] and [production] districts have signified a desire for col- lective bargaining, we shall not require that they be deprived -of their right to collective bargaining until the organization of any other employees . . . may be accomplished. In our opinion, the same reasoning is applicable to the unit proposed herein for, although the substation division overlaps various EDS districts and although the substation • employees work side by side with, employees of other departments of the Company, they are, re- sponsible to their own supervisors, and thus "maintain an adminis- -trative' independence" with respect to their work. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the employees engaged in the Western Sub- station Division of the Company constitute an appropriate unit. A dispute exists with respect to the status of the division clerk whom both the Company and the I. B. E. W. would exclude from the Unit, whereas the U. W. 0. C. would include him. The division clerk is, designated by, the Company ; as a supervisory clerical em- ployee; he is responsible for all paper work of 'the division, has charge of personnel records, which contain appraisals and recommendations respecting the individual employees, and performs the duties of the division superintendent in the latter's absence. In view of the fore- going, we are of the opinion that the interests of, this employee,are more aligned with those of management than with the rank and file workers; accordingly, we shall exclude him. Accordingly, we find that all employees of the Company assigned to its ,Western Substation Division, excluding the division-,superin- tendent , station chiefs, assistant station chiefs, division clerks, plant- production employees, and all other supervisory employees with au- thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, of 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. The; proposed unit in Case No. 21-R--2112 In this petition,, the, I. B., E. W.: seeks a unit-composed of all non- supervisory employees of the Company assigned to the Fullerton, Santa Ana, and'Hiuntirigton Beach EDS Districts, inclriding junior, apprentice, sand .senior clerks, but,excluding-the, divisio`n' accountant, assistant division accountant, EDS superintendents, estimators,'heavy crew foremen, and ,light crew foremen. Both C. and the Company contend that this unit is inappropriate,'the'latter upon SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. 207 the. ground that it is not company-wide, and both upon the ground that.it is neither a functional nor :geographical entity. Ili' addition, .dispute exists with respect to the status of, certain. classifications hereafter discussed. • ' ':•As previously indicated, the,functional operations of the Company are-not administered upon the basis of all-inclusive and self-sufficient subdivisions, but upon a departmental basis with • each ' department divided into smaller ,,administrative subdivisions.' The,-distribution department, which is concerned primarily, with the servicing of com- mercial' current to, the ultimate consumer, as previously noted, is divided 'geographically, into 31 EDS districts. - For administrative 'reasons, the Company has placed most-of the EDS districts:in several distinct groups, having either common pay rolls, or employees, or both.'- Each of these groups appears, for the 'most part,10 to. function independently. ,The unit-which the I. B. E. W. proposes as appropriate consists of one of these groups.. These EDS districts share a.common division accountant, equipment repairman,, heavy crew assistant, a cable fore- man: and a crew°of,three.. In addition., an appliance serviceman works in both the Santa Ana, and Fullerton Districts, and another. works in .both the Santa Ana and Huntington Beach Districts: The employees of all three districts are listed on the same pay roll. So far as it can be ascertained, none.of the employees assigned to these districts regu- larly perform duties in other parts of the Company's system, nor are there employees from other districts or other departments regularly employed by these subdivisions of the distribution department. Ac- cordingly, we 'are of the opinion that this group of, EDS districts sought by the I. B. E. W. may "properly constitute an appropriate unit.' ' 9 The following groups of EDS'districts have either common pay rolls, or employees who work in two or more EDS districts comprising each group, or both : a. Alhambra, Monrovia, Pasadena, and San Fernando b. Hanford, Tulare, Delano (Kernville), Portervllle (Lindsay); and Visalia c. Huntington Park, Compton, Montebello, Whittier, and Vernon., d. Santa Ana, Fullerton, and Huntington Beach e. Inglewood, Redondo, and Santa Monica. f. Ontario, Covina, Pomona, Redlands, and San Bernardino. g. Oxnard, Santa Paula, Ventura, and Santa Barbara Only the Long Beach and Lancaster EDS Districts are not so linked. 10 The Company, submitted as exhibits several lists of transfers, both to and from Gioup D (see footnote, 9 supra) from and to other areas. These exhibits showed that permanent, transfers from'the EDS'districts in Group D averaged 10 per year for the past 3 years, and that permanent transfers to the EDS districts in this group average slightly mole than 6 per year during the same period These exhibits further indicated that the majority of the total number of transfers were temporary in nature. We are of the opinion, however, that neither the permanent nor the temporary transfers affect the identity of the group as a whole.' ' i 11 We are aware' of the fact that we have previously indicated that there is a functional relationship between EDS'districts and substation divisions While this is true, it is also true that the same relationship exists between all departments of the Company. Since the Company has drawn lines in accordance with departments rather than in accordance with r 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS-BOARD As previously, indicated,' a 'dispute exists with respect to certain .classifications of employees . • The Company and the I. B. E. W. agree that - light crew foremen should be excluded' from the unit, whereas the U. W. 0. C. would include them therein. ' The Company and,the U. W: 0. C. take similar positions with , respect to service crew and,cable crew foremen , whereas the I. B. E. W. takes no position with respect -to -these employees , being content -to be governedby. the Board's determination with regard to them. As hereinafter stated'12 all fore- men possess authority to make effective -recommendations with respect - to. employees assigned - to them, and under these circumstances, They fall -within our customary- supervisory definition :. Accordingly, we 'shall-exclude light , crew foremen , service crew foremen, and- cable crew foremen from ''the 'unit. , , I . 1 _ , .. .11 'Accordingly , we -find that all employees of the Santa Anai, Fuller- ton, and Huntington Beach 'EDS Districts, including junior, appren- tice; -and. senior clerks but excluding plant protection employees, divi- sion-accountants , assistant division •accbuntants, EDS superintendents, estimators, heavy crew, -light' crew, service crew, and cable crew fore- men; as.well-as all other -supervisory'employees with ,authority_,to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,'or.-other.wise effect changes in the status -of .employees; or effectively , recommend such action'!constitute ;a unit appropriate for the purposes ,of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act., C. The proposed •unit ,in Case No. 21-R-2167 `In'this petition , the I. B. E. *" 'seeks a unit comprised of 'all em- ployees of the Company, including ' clerical employees, regularly.en- gaged ' ilorth of the Tehachapi Mountain Range, excluding com- mercial employees, plant-protection employees , Lancaster EDS Dis-, trict employees, transportation department employees, garage em- ployees, Boulder Dam employees , and supervisory employees. This proposed unit includes therein all . non-supervisory employees of the Northern Substation- Division , the Northern and Big Creek Trans- mission Divisions, the Northern Hydro Division,. the Kern River Hydro plants, and the'-'Delano (Kernville), Hanford, Porterville (Lindsay), Tulare; and Visalia ,EDS Districts ,13,as . well, as hydro jnmlintenance , and construction crews assigned to divisions of' the Company other than those above set forth , but regularly employed north of the Tehachapi Mountain Range. , The: U. W. 0. C. is in geographical subdivisions, we are of the opinion that bargaining units formed in accordance with such lines may be more practicable from an administrative standpoint. Furthermore, -the unit sought in this petition is distinguishable from those sought in,the prior proceeding (see footnote 5, supra), in that the petition herein seeks all EDS districts falling within one of `the above-mentioned groups (see footnote 9 supra), whereas the units previously sought included only portions theieof. iz See discussion of proposed unit in Case No. 21-R-2167 infra. is These EDS districts comprise one of the groups listed in footnote 9 supra. I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. 209 general agreement with respect to the employees involved in this petition, but, as- hereinbefore stated, contends that they should be divided into two units, one comprised of substation division and.EDS district employees, and the other comprised of the -employees of the transmission and generating departments. The Company contends that the unit sought is inappropriate since it is not system-wide. The unit sought in this petition more nearly approaches the ultimate system-wide unit than any others proposed in the petitions in this consolidated proceeding. It seeks to include therein all non-super- visory employees, of the Company in a specific geographic area. As such, and because of the closely integrated nature of the Company's operations, it fulfills the requirements of functional homogeneity; the employees therein are distinguishable from the remaining em- ployees of the Company because of the geographical boundary; and the unit appears to be a logical one from an administrative view- point.14 In view of these circumstances, we are of, the opinion that the unit sought, as modified hereinafter; is appropriate at, this time for the purposes,of collective. bargaining,15 As noted above, the I. B..E. W. seeks to include.within its proposed unit employee's in hydro maintenance and construction crews who, iiltliough listed on pay rolls of subdivisions' of the, Company lhead- quartered elsewhere, regularly work north, of the Tehachapi Moun- tain Range. We are. off, the opinion,, however, that the inclusion of such employees would be administratively ulifeasible, and shall, there; fore,, exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.. The parties; are, in. agreement, generally, with .respect- to, certain exclusions of a supervisory, or, confidential nature, which are set'fort1 in Appendix A,attached hereto. The,, following, classifications are.in dispute. . 1, Big, Creek Trainsmission Division. Both, labor organizations seek the inclusion, of senior patrolmen, whereas the, Company, would exclude these, employees. The record indicates that senior patrolmen are, «orking',foremen responsible for keeping transmission,-lines re- paired.,. They are usually assigned a crew, and have authority to make recommendations, to the, division superintendent affecting the, status of the employees thereof. We are of, the opinion that, in view of these 39 Although the Kern River liydro plants form only a portion of the Southern Hydro Divi- sion; it is widely separated from the remainder of this di%ision and appears to be'a com- plete entity, similar" to the Long Beach steam generating plant which we have previously found to constitute'an appropriate unit. Accordingly, we ate of the opinion that these plants may properly be severed from the remainder of the division and included within'the unit herein - I' We do not imply in this finding that the units proposed by the U. W. 0 C ate without merit, but are confining 'ourselves solely to the unit proposed by the petitioner herein, which is the only labor organization that has submitted any showing of representation among these employees 578129-44-vol. 55-15 I 110 210 DECISIONS. OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD circumstances, senior patrolmen fall within dur.customary definition of supervisory-employees,, and iwe shall, therefore, exclude them. 2.: Northerw-Transnzisszbn Division.' In addition to senior'patrol- nien."previously, discussed;, both,, labor organizations - w'ould . include within the unit, the apprentice -clerk, whereas the Company, would exclude both. classifications: The record 'indicates that +the appren- tice clerk,, although a non-supervisory employee,'performs, 'all of the clerical duties of-a; division clerk'(see'discussion.in,Case No. 21-R-'2104, supra) which affords her4ecess to-person:nel records. Iii accordance with our- prior findings, we shall exclude both t senior patrolmen and thetapprentice clerk in the' Northern-Transmis-sion Division. - 3. Northern, I Substation Division. Both' ,the 'Company : and the I: iB. •E. W.'would exclude from the-unit'the division'clerk' (see discus- sioin.inf Case' No. 21-R-2104, supra) ; station chiefs ''and • assistant 'sta tion chiefs, whereas the U. -W.:0. C. woilld include th'erein'e<ich-of these classifications. The record indicates' that-'station chiefs ' are - responsible for the operation of their stations; and the per`formance' of the employees as`- signed thereto: ''They keep personnel records, and rare empowered to 'make' recomineridations affecting the status 'of station- employees which are'accorded'great'weight: Assistant station' chiefs a's'sist the station chief in the performance of his duties,' and•'perfdrm manual labor ,'approximately 20 percent 'of their • *drking time. • They take the place 'of `the station chief iii 'the' lattePs absence, and'•'may make recommendations 'affecting' the'-status`of 'station employees:' These recommendations are made td the= station chief,'or,"in his absence, to the' division - superintendent,' and are also' accorded great weight., 'We shall, therefore, exclude station;'chiefs; 'a'ssistant station 'chiefs; and the division clerk from the unit. .4: 'Kern River' Flydro 'Plants. The Company would exclude sub- foremen from the unit, whereas' both labor' organizations '`seek 'to'iii- clude'these employees therein.- The''record indicates that, subfdremen are working foremen in charge of groups ranging from 1 to° 10 em- ployees with regard to - whom they have authority to make effective recommendations to the" foremen. " 'Furthermore; since * these em- ployees are often in sole charge of cre' s'in the field, they 'also enjoy a large measure of independent responsibility. In view of -the. fore- going, we are of the opinion and find that they exercise powers suffi- ciently supervisory in nature to warrant their' exclusion from the unit. ' ' • 5. North,e? n. Hydro Division. The Company would exclude sub-' foremen, discussed above, and. the division dispatcher, whereas both -labor organizations would include these employees. 'The division dis- patcher directs all switching and loading operations of the division, and regulates the flow of water into the hydro plants. He issues' in- SOUTHERN CALIFORNI-A EDISON COMPANY, LTD. 211 structions to four' operators, and can recommend disciplinary action with respect to them., His authority and salary are comparable to that of statidii chiefs in the substation divisions. ,We are of the oliin- ioli that` the division dispatcher is a supervisory employee, and sha11, therefore, exclude=him as well as the subfoiemen from the unit. 6. The EDiS Districts: Delano (Kerri,vil,/,e), Hanford, Porterville (Lindsay), Tulare; and Visalia. The Company seeks the exclusion of light crew foremen, service crew foremen, cable foremen, tree trimmer foremen, assistant division superintendent of accounting, and district clerks, whereas the labor organizations herein generally either desire the inclusion of these employees or` tilke no position with respect to theii•'status.'6 The record iiidicate`s that all foremen supervise crews ranging froiii two to eight' persons, and that' all have authority to make 'effective recommendations to the 'district supeiintendent-witli'respect to their respective crews. WO'.shall, therefore, exclude all foremen from the' unit. District clerks have access to all district personnel records. In ad- dition, the' siipervise'the work of the ordinary clerical employees assigned to the district, and have the authority to make recommenda- tions with respect to them. The powers and duties of the assistant division siiperiiitendent'of accounting are similar to those of it district' clerk. * e shall, therefore, exclude both district clerks and the assist-' ant division-superintendent of accounting from the unit.17 In view of the foregoing, we find that all employees of the Company, including clerical employees, engaged at its Northern Substation Divi- sion, Northern and Big Creek Transmission Divisions, Northern'Hydro Division (Kaweali River, Tule River, and Big Creek Hydro plants), Kern Rix';er Hydro Plaiits, and.at its Delano (Kernville), Porterville (Lindsay), Tulare, Hanford, and Visalia EDS Districts, excluding commercial employees, transportation department employees, garage employees, Boulder Darn employees, Lancaster District employees, plant-protection employees, employees of subdivisions of the Com- pany other than those expressly included herein, 'employees listed on Appendix A attached hereto, the employees listed in Appendix B.at- tached hereto,18 acid all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect 'changes in the, status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 16 An exception to this is the fact that the I B • E W agrees with the Company that the light crew foremen should be excluded from the unit The positions with respect to these EDS district classifications are the sane as those taken by them isith respect to similar classifications in Case No 21-R-2112, supra , " We also note that the parties agreed upon the exclusion of the assistant division ac- countant in Case No 21-11-2112, supra 18 These employees comprise the disputed classifications hereinbefoi e discussed 212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD D. The proposed unit in Ca.se No. 21-R-21196 The I. B. E. W. seeks to represent a unit comprised of the Vernon Diesel plant and the Vernon EDS District employees. Both the Company and the U. W. 0. C. contend that this unit is improper, the former claiming that the proper unit is system-wide, and the latter contending that the unit has no logical, functional, or geographical basis. The record indicates that, other than the fact that the clerical work of the Vernon Diesel plant is performed by employees attached to the Vernon EDS District, there is no closer relationship between the Diesel plant and the EDS District than exists between the Diesel plant and any other subdivision of the Company. The Diesel plant em- ployees are engaged in the generating of electricity, whereas EDS Dis- trict employees are engaged in servicing operations at the stage where electricity is distributed to the ultimate consumer. It is apparent, therefore, that no unique functional relationship exists between them which would warrant a finding that the employees of the district and the Diesel plant constitute an appropriate unit. We shall, therefore, sever the two groups. .With respect to the employees of the Vernon EDS District, we are of the opinion that, by themselves, they do not constitute an appro- priate unit, and that they are more properly included within a unit consisting of employees in an EDS group such as previously set forth.10 However, the record shows that the Vernon Diesel plant is operated by the Company under terms different from all of its other properties.20 In addition, we have found in a previous case involving the Company herein that the employees engaged at the Long Beach generating plant properly constituted an appropriate unit.21 For similar reasons we are of the opinion that a similar finding is properly made with respect to the Vernon Diesel plant, We find that all employees of the Vernon Diesel plant, excluding the Diesel superintendent, plant protection employees, chief switchboard operator, electric and head engine operator '22 as well as all other super- visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec- ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 19 See footnote 9, supra, wherein the Vernon EDS District is included within Group C. This inclusion is based upon the fact that the Vernon EDS District shares in common with the Huntington Park and Compton EDS Districts a test crew of two employees. 20 The Company operates this plant under a long-term lease which provides that upon termination thereof, the plant becomes the property of the lessor. sl See footnote 5, supra. 21 These exclusions were proposed by the I . B. E. W. or the Company and agreed upon or not objected to by the other parties. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. 213 V.- THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the respective units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in said Direction. At the hearing, the U. W. O. C. expressed a desire to participate in any election which the Board might direct among the employees in the iuiits found appropriate herein, although it did not submit any evidence to indicate the extent, of its interest among such employees. The I. B. E. W. agrees that the U. W. O. C. should be accorded a place on the ballot, and in view of the U. W. 0. C.'s continuing organizational efforts among the Company's employees we shall provide that the U.' W. O. C. par- ticipate in the elections hereinafter directed. 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, Nof National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 3, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain rejpresenta- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., Los Angeles, California, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60) days from, the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article, III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules- and Regulations, among the employees of the Company in the respective units found appropriate in Section IV of the Decision herein, who were employed during the pay-roll period uumedlately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill, or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, and" have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or by Utility Workers - Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. ' 214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD APPENDIX A Big Creek Transmission Division Division superintendent Northern Substation Division Division superintendent Northern Transmission Division Superintendent of transmis- sion and supervisor of road and right-of-way Kern River Hydro Plants Division superintendent Division engineers Station chief supervisor Station chief hydro Station chief supervisor as- sistant Station chief hydro assistant EDS Districts North of Teha- chapi Superintendent accounting di- vision EDS superintendent Estimator Heavy gang foremen Northern Hydro Division Division account supervisor Commissary steward Commissary steward assistant Station chief hydro Assistant chief hydro Chief dispatcher Station chief supervisor Assistant station chief super- visor Division superintendent Division engineer hydro Local agent Hydrographer Superintendent mcc:uanical maintenance Foremen. APPENDIX B Big Creek Transmission Division Senior patrolmen Northern Substation Division Division clerk Station chiefs Assistant station chiefs Northern Transmission Division Apprentice clerk Senior patrolmen Kern River Hydro Plants Subforemen EDS Districts North of Teha- chapi Assistant division superin- tendent of accounting Cable foremen Tree trimmer foremen Light crew foremen Service crew foremen District clerk Northern Hydro Division Division dispatcher Subforemen