Southern California Edison Co., Ltd.

In the Matter Of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD.,, EM- PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL B-18, AFL, PETITIONER In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD., EM- PLOYER and, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Cases Nos. 21-R-3156 and 21-R-3.77, respectively.-Decided August 16, 1946 Gibson, Dunn cl; Crutcher, by Messrs. David P. Evans and R: G. Kenyon, of Los Angeles , Calif., for the Employer. Mr. William B. Esterman , of Los Angeles , Calif., for the IBEW. Katz, Gallagher c6 11argolis, by Thelma S. Herzig , of Los Angeles, Calif., for-the CIO. Mr. F. G. Dunn, of counsel to the Board. DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed, hearing in these consolidated cases was held at Los Angeles, California, on May 17, 1946, before George H. O'Brien, Trial Examiner. The petition of the International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, AFL, herein called the IBEW, in Case No. 21-R-3156 sought a system-wide unit of super- visory employees. However, at the hearing, a consent election agree- ment was reached in Case No. 21-R-3156 which specifically excluded the supervisory employees sought in Case No. 21-R.3277. We shall therefore direct that Cases Nos. 21-R-3156 and 21-R-3277 be severed, and shall proceed herein to'a determination of the issues in Case No. 21-R-3277, in which the IBEW was permitted t6 intervene. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer moved that the petition be dismissed. Ruling on said motion was reserved for the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : 70 N. L. R. B., No. 8. 80 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. FINDINGS of FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER 81 Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., a California Corpora- tion, is engaged in the business of generating, distributing, and selling electric power. During 1942, the Employer purchased supplies, mate- rial, equipment, and machinery valued in excess of $3,400,000, of which in excess of $2,200,200 represented purchases from points out- side the State of California. During the same period, the total sales of the Employer amounted to more than $50,000,000. No electric power is directly sold or shipped outside the State of California. The Employer delivers wholesale electric power to other cities and com- panies, including specifically the Pacific Gas & Electric Company, to which the Employer 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. There has been no substantial change in the business. of the Employer since 1942. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, herein called IBEW, is a labor organization affiliated with American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all supervisory employees of the Employer at its Long Beach Steam Plant, excluding the station chief and the assistant station chief. The IBEW, although agreeing to the specific composition of the unit sought by the Petitioner, contends that a system-wide unit is the ultimate appropriate unit. Inasmuch as the supervisory unit sought herein conforms to the pattern of that found 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD appropriate by the Board for the non-supervisory employees,I we find no merit in this contention. The Employer contends that the unit of supervisory employees is inappropriate, first, because such employees do not come within the scope of the Act, and secondly, be- cause the unit embraces different supervisory levels in one collective bargaining unit. The status of foremen and other comparable supervisory categories has been determined in several recent decisions by both the Board and the courts, wherein the language of Section 2 (3) of the Act defining the term "employee," has been construed to include supervisory em- ployees.'- Accordingly, we find that the employees sought herein come - within the scope of the Act. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced in the record, we are of the opinion that the employees sought herein are readily distin- guishable from the station chief, the assistant station chief, and the other higher level policy-I$aking officials of the Employer, and do not constitute such an integral part of management that they may not be segregated therefrom as a separate group for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. The record is clear that these employees have a definite community of interest in that they perform comparable super- visory functions in their respective departments. Accordingly, we find that the supervisory employees whom the Petitioner desires to represent constitute a homogeneous group appropriate for collective' bargaining. The record indicates that there is some question as to the inclusion or exclusion of the following categories : Steam plant engineer: 3 The 'record does not reveal any duties per- formed by this employee that would warrant his exclusion from the unit. However, inasmuch as it appears that he is not an employee of the Employer, we shall exclude him from the unit. Safety engineer: The record indicates that this employee has no subordinates, and thus does not fall within the Board's definition of a supervisory employee. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the unit 4 We find that all supervisory employees of the Employer at its Long Beach Steam Plant, excluding the station chief, the assistant, station chief, the steam plant engineer,-' and the safety engineer, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 'The unit of production and maintenance employees was confined to the Long Beach Steam Plant. Matter of Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., 51 N. L. R. B. 9. Matter of Jones t Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shanndvin Coal Division, 66 N L. R. B. 386 ; Matter of Potomac Electric Power Company, 66 N. L . R. B. 1432. a Jack Toten. Matter of Jones f Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, supra. The record indicates that this position may be filled in the future by an employee of the Employer. In such event, this category shall be deemed included within the unit. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, LTD. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 83 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Southern California Edison Company, Ltd., Los Angeles, California, an election 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 direction and super- vision 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 National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, 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 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 elec- tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Utility Workers Union of America, Local No. 342, C. I. 0., or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local B-18, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. - ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to Article III, Section 13 (c), (4), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, that Cases Nos. 21-8-3156 and 21-R-3277 be, and they hereby are, severed. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : I am constrained to disagree with the result in this case for the reasons set forth in my dissent in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, as well as the additional reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Jones d Laughlin Steel Corpo- ration, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L. R. B. 386. 712344--47-vol. 70-7