Gulf States Utilities Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1942

42 N.L.R.B. 988 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTIIEBHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFFILIATED WITH AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No C-206/ -Decided July 29, 1942
Jurisdiction - electric utility industry
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference, Restraint, and Coercion charges of, dismissed-transfers of em-
ployees held to have been effected by the respondent without reference to
their union activities and not to prevent their attendance at union meetings;
respondent's public declarations of a policy of neutrality between competing
labor organizations held to have reflected, and to have been regarded by the
employees as, its attitude in fact, respondent's public statements concerning
its employees' possible choices with reference to affiliation with labor organ-
izations held not to have encroached upon the rights guaranteed under the
Act, acts and statements of the respondent's supervisors examined and held,
under the circumstances, not to constitute interfeience, restraint, or coercion,
respondent's conduct during strike held not to constitute interference, restraint,
or coercion with the employees' rights guaranteed under the Act
Company-Dominated Union charges of, dismissed
Practice and Procedure, complaint dismissed
Mr C Paul Barker and Mr Charles A Kyle, for the Board
Orgaan, Carroll ct Bell, by Mr Major T. Bell, of Beaumont, Tex,
and Taylor, Porter, Brooks ct Fuller, by Mr. Benjamin B Taylor,
Mr. C. V. Porter, and Mr Charles W Phillips, of Baton Rouge, La,
for the respondent.
Mr 0 A Walker, of Shreveport, La , for the Union
Mr George A Weller, of Beaumont, Tex, for the Association
Mr Wallaam F Scharnikow, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended charge 1 duly filed on August 1, 1941, by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the Union,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor the National Labor
I The original charge x% as filed on June 10, 1941
42 N L R E, No 188
988
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 989
Relations Board herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued its com-
plaint dated August 5, 1941, against Gulf States Utilities Company,
Beaumont, Texas, herein called the respondent, alleging that the
i espondent had engaged in and, was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stmt 449, heiein called the Act Copies of the complaint, accom-
panied by notice of hearing, weie duly served upon the iespondent, the
Union, and Gulf States Electric Service Employees' Association,
unaffiliated, heiein called the Association
The complaint alleged, in substance, that the iesp'ondent between
the month of November 1935, and the date of the issuance of the com-
plaint, inter fen ed with, i esti arced, and coerced its employees in the
exercise of the iights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act by
preventing the attendance of its employees at union meetings; by
espionage on union meetings, by making anti-union speeches, by
granting wage increases to prospective union members; by forecasting
less favorable working conditions, less eniploynient, and reprisals as
a result of union affiliation; by questioning employees concerning their
membership or interest in the Union, their attendance of union meet-
ings, and their satisfaction with working conditions and wage in-
creases; by inteipreturg union affiliation as a personal "stab in the
Lack" of supervisors; by inciting resignations from the Union; by
cliscrnnin,itorily denying union members the opportunity to discuss
individual grievances, by soliciting union members to abandon a
strike caused by the respondent's unfair labor practices; and by cir-
culating unfair i nfoi mation concerning the strike The complaint
also alleged that between December 1940 and the issuance of the com-
plaint, the respondent dominated and interfered with the formation
of the Association by permitting and encouraging the use of the
iespondent's time in the interest of the Association, for organizational
efforts, and the distribution of literature, by granting special privi-
leges to representatives of the Association, by facilitating their con-
tacts with the employees, by encouraging the employees to join the
Association and diop membership in the Union; by recognizing the
Association as bargaining agent without questioning the appropriate-
ness of the bargaining unit or the authenticity of its claim of repre-
sentation, and at the same time ignoring the Union's request for recog-'
nition, b'y referring to the Association as "our", union; and by
informing the public at large that the Association had been certified
by the Board as bargaining agent for the respondent's employees
On August 15, 1941, the respondent filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and a plea to the lunsdiction by which it asserted' that
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, having failed to establish its representation of a ma,oiity
of the respondent's employees in an appropriate unit, was not qualified
to file the charges upon which the complaint is based. Reserving its
rights under this motion, the respondent also filed an answer admitting
certain allegations of the complaint as to its business, denying its
commission of unfair labor practices, and affirmatively pleading that
;apse of time is a bar to certain of the charges; that the respondent
made wage and hour adjustments to comply with the Fan Labor
Standards Act and to extend a generally uniform policy to newly
acquired units in its system rather than for the discriminatory pur-
poses alleged in the complaint; that by their strike, the union mem-
bers sought to compel the respondent to recognize the Union as the
representative of employees in a bargaining unit which the Board
had already deteimined to be inappropriate; and that the respondent
took only such action during the strike as was legally justified for the
protection of its property and the continuity of its service
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on August 18, '19, 20, 21, 22.
25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, 1941, and on September 10, 11, 13, 16; 17, 18.
19, 20, 22, 23, and 24, 1941, at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, before Walter
Wilbur the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Exam-
iner. The Board, the respondent, and the Association were repre-
sented by counsel and the Union by one of its international representa-
tives At the outset of the hearing, the Association moved to be
made a formal party or in the alternative to be allowed to intervene
The motion to intervene -N- ,as granted to the extent of the Associations
interest in the proceeding. All parties participated in the hearing
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all
parties
At the beginning of the hearing, the Trial Examiner denied the
respondent's pending motion to dismiss the complaint and also a
similar motion of the Association which contended that the Union's
withdrawal of previous, identical charges and the Board's later dis-
missal of the Union's petition for investigation and certification of
representatives because of the inappropriateness of the unit sought,
precluded the revival of the charges in the present proceeding The
Trial Examiner also denied the motions of the respondent and the
Association for a bill of particulars as to certain ,allegations of the
complaint, reserving to them the right to move for special relief in
the event of surprise No such motions were thereafter made
At the close of the hearing, counsel for the Board moved to con-
form the pleadings to the proof This motion was granted Oppor-
tunity for oral argument was offered at the close of the hearing but
was waived Puisuant to the Trial Examiner's advice to all the
GULF STATES UTILITIES . COMPANY 991
paities of then tight to do so, the respondent and the Association
filed briefs with the TIial Examiner, which briefs we have considered
During the course of the hearing and in his Inteimediate Report, the
Trial Examiner made numerous rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence The Board has reviewed the
rulings of the Tiial Examiner and finds no prejudicial error was
committed The rulings ate hereby affirmed.
On January 26. 1942, the Trial Examinei, issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties He found
that the respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices and
recommended that the complaint be dismissed.
On Match 2, 1942, the Union filed with the Board its exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and its brief in support of the exceptions
On February 28, 1942, and Match 2, 1942, respectively, the respondent
and the Association filed then briefs with the Board and also excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, with the request that the exceptions
be considered only in the event another party filed exceptions On
February 16, 1942, and February 19, 1942, respectively, the Associa-
tion and the respondent filed with the Board their requests that they
be heard in oral aigument before the Board, in the event that another
party should request, and be granted, the light to such argument The
Union has made no such request
The Board has considered all the exceptions and briefs submitted
by the patties, and heteby finds the exceptions to be without merit
insofar as they are inconsistent with,the findings of fact, conclusions
.of law, and order set forth below.
Upon the entii e record in the case, the Boat d makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 2
The tespondent is a coipoiation organized in 1925 under the laws
of the State of Texas , having its principal office and place of business
in the ' eity of Beaumont , Texas It is engaged primarily ; in the busi-
ness of genet ating , ti ansmitting , and distributing electrical energy
By extension of its facilities and acquisition of other properties, the
respondent has become the predominant source of eleetiieal energy
for a continuous area embracing approximately 27,500 square miles,
coveting 25 counties in eastern Texas and 18 parishes in western
Louisiana , in w hich it is the exclusive supplier of energy to 244 com-
2 The findings in this section are based on ndnussions in the respondents answei, a stipu-
lation entered into by counsel for the respondent and the Board and introduced in evi-
dence at the hearing, and the testa none of the president of the respondent given oiigina]]v
at a hearing before the Board in the c'ise entitled Mattel of Calf States Utilities Company
and Intonational Biothcihood of l"lectaical We,ic,s, 31 N L R B 740, and incoiporated
b^ stipulation in the lecoitl of this pioceeding
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
munities The respondent genes ates substantially all its own curl ent
through 2 principal power plants located at Beaumont, Texas, and
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, respectively, with 2 small standby plants
located in the State of Texas It owns and maintains 255 miles of
high-voltage transmission lines and 4,342 miles of distribution lines
Some of these physically cross the boundary line between Louisiana
and Texas, and the flow of cuirent between the two States is con-
tinuous The gross revenues of the respondent for the year 1939
exceeded $10,000,000 1 1,
The respondent's business operations constitute a-closely knit and
integrated interstate system of electi is pow-ei pioduction, tiansmis-
sion, and distribution, divided into six achmnistiative divisions cooidi-
nated through its head office at Beaumont. Texas The iespondent
admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor or-
ganization affiliated with the Amer lean Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the respondent
Gulf States Electric Service Employees' Association is an unaffiliated
labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the
respondent.
III THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES,
A. Alleged interference, restraint, and coercion
In November 1935, the respondent effected the transfer of W T
Rooney, a line foreman at St Charles, Louisiana, and W L Ratclrff,
a lineman on Rooney's crew, to stations at Jennings, Louisiana, and
Navasota, Texas, respectively, thereby piecluding then attendance
as guests at a meeting of a union local at St Charles, scheduled for
November 29, to which they had been invited and which they had ex-
pected to attend- The first charge by the Union that these transfers
were caused by the respondent's hostility to the Union was made in
the amended charge in these proceedings, dated August 1, 1941 The
Union had, however, previously filed with the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region a charge against the respondent, dated August
27, 1936, alleging the discriminatory discharge of Ratclrff "on or
about November 25, 1935 " This charge had been withdrawn by the
Union on May 14, 1937 3 It appears from the testimony that neither
In connection with this chaige , counsel for the Board stated "I may say this for the
record, that the investigation of the Regional Director apparently did not show that the
charge was justified because It was subsequently withdrawn it is completely
closed and finished "
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 993
Rooney's nor Ratcliff 's transfer involved a demotion and neither of
the employees made any pi otest at the time of his transfer There is
^iothing to show that any attempt to organize the respondent's em-
ployees was then in contemplation of that the respondent sought to
prevent its employees from fiaternizing with other union members
at Lake Charles We find and conclude, as did the Trial Examiner,
that the transfers of Rooney from Lake Charles to Jennings and of
Ratcliff from Lake Charles to Navasota in November 1935, were ef-
fected by the respondent without refeience to their; union activities
Although at all times the Union had a scattered membership among
the respondent 's employees , the first serious effort to organize occurred
in the fall of 1939 About the middle of September, the Union held
a public meeting at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, which some of the re-
spondent's employees attended. During the course of the meeting,
someone informed 0 A Walker, an international representative of
the Union in charge of the meeting, that G S Wilkerson, chief en-
gineer of the Baton Rouge steam plant was in the audience Wilker-
son thereupon told Walker that if'his presence was considered out of
order he did not want to do anything to embarrass the respondent
or himself and that he would'ietiie Walker ieplied that there was
nothing in what he had to say that Wilkerson should not hear, but
that his attendance might prove a source of future embarassment to
the respondent Wilkerson then went forward to the platform and,
after a short conversation with Walker, shook hands with him and
left the meeting Shortly afterward, Thomas E Crossan, superin-
tendent of the steam plant and Wilkey son 's immediate superior, upon
learning that Wilkerson had been present at a union meeting severely
reprimanded him
As a result of the 1939 campaign, the Union established a local among
the employees of the steam plant, chartered October 4 , 1939, and known
as Local B-1124 Organizational efforts reached the point where
Crossan felt-that campaign activities in the plant were affecting its
efficiency , especially in the mechanical department One morning
Crossan called the men in the machine shop together and, referring to
their apparent inteiest in organizing , told them that as far as he of
the company was concerned they were free to join or refrain from
joining any union they pleased, that there was no need for secrecy
about it, and that all the management asked of them was that they con-
tinue to give a far day's woik Crossan further expressed the hope
that the men would not let their organizational activities make any
change in their personal 'relationships and stated that, if necessary to
preserve harmony in the plant, he would rather see all of them united
either in joining the Union or in staying out of it In the course of
his talk, Crossan made it clear that he ntias not peisonally opposed to
472814-42-von 42-63
994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
labor organizations as such, stating that neither he nor the employees
would be getting their present salaries if it had not been for the unions
Interest in unionization did not at this time extend beyond the em-
ployees of the steam plant and finally subsided there, and in the fol-
lowing February the charter was ievoked and the remaining membeis
were transferred to another local
In November 1940, the Union inaugurated another attempt to oi-
gamze the respondent's employees Acting at the suggestion of some
of the Baton Rouge employees, Walker held an open meeting at Baton
Rouge on November 27, resulting in an application foi a charter the
following day, signed by 38 to 40 of the employees in the line and
service department
News that the line and service men at Baton Rouge had organized
was received with marked interest among the supervisory staff, from
whom the union members made no attempt to conceal their affiliation
with the Union Indeed, some of the line foremen joined the Union
and one of them, Rooney, at Jennings, Louisiana, was particularly
active in its affairs Information that organization had been effected
early reached'H C Leonard, vice president of the respondent in ben-
eial charge of the Louisiana operations, and in direct administrative
charge of the Baton Rouge division Leonard at once issued instruc-
tions that there be no interference on the part of the supervisory staff.
He further advised IV R Bell, the respondent's general superintendent
at Baton Rouge, that he did not want to know the names of-,those who
joined the Union as he did not feel that this was proper information
for the respondent to have In the days immediately following the
meeting of November 27, however, D H Kuk, superintendent of
transmission and distribution, reproached a number of the linemen for
what he characterized as putting a knife in his back Kirk viewed
the act of the employees in resorting to unionization as evidence of
distrust of his own ability and interest in getting what "the boys"
wanted He and Mrs Kirk, an elderly couple, generally known to
the men under him as Father and Mother Kuk, were deeply hurt that
"the boys" had "turned against" them Finally, F G Hornsby, meter
and service superintendent, told A V Browning, president of the new
union local, that the Kirks were "pretty badly broken up about it," that
they were losing a lot of sleep worrying, and that it would help Kuk's
feelings if they would meet with him to assure him there was nothing
personal in their joining the Union Accoi dangly, a meeting was ar-
ranged at which Hornsby acted as spokesman and stated on behalf
of the men assembled that they had not turned against him and had no
intention of hurting\him Kirk thanked them for giving them this
assurance which he said made him feel better than he had ever felt
in his life. Hornsby then called on G D Denham, general line fore-
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 995
man to offer an-impromptu prayer After Kiik had shaken hands
with all the men, the meeting dispersed So far as the record shows,
Kirk thereafter made no further reference to the employees' union
activities
The interest shown at the Baton Rouge meeting was appaiently
the signal for intensified campaign efforts, the news of which soon
spreadby "grapevine" over the respondent's whole system On Satur-
day, December 7, following the organization meeting held at Baton
Rouge on November 27, a delegation of employees who had joined the
Union went to Jennings, Louisiana, to promote an organizational
campaign in that area They first approached M E Dennis, super-
visor of the operating department of the Jennings district, and
secured from him a list of employees in his department Among these
was Rooney, the line foreman who had been transferred to Jennings
from Lake Charles in 1935 On Sunday, December 8, Rooney visited
Dennis at his home, informed him that he intended to arrange an
organization meeting for the following Friday and wanted him to
know it, and that he and any other supervisors interested were
invited to attend The possibility of using the respondent's store-
room was discussed but Dennis deferred a final decision On Mon-
day, December 9, Dennis advised Rooney that he did not think it
advisable to hold such a meeting on the respondent's premises
On Monday, December 9, or Tuesday, December 10. Dennis, in
company with Beattie, the respondent's supervisor at Lake Charles,
went to the office of John G True, vice president in charge of the
respondent's Lake Charles Division, which includes Jennings Dennis
told True of the proposed meeting at Jennings and that Rooney had
extended through him an invitation to True to attend
,The proposed Jennings meeting created much interest among the
employees of the respondent at Lake Charles and became a topic of
active conversation During the moining•of either December 10 or
December 11, Jack Kill ough, a line foreman at Lake Charles, and his
crew were working out of Lake Charles substituting poles on a
distribution line Neil Carpenter, supervisor of transmission and
distiibution at Lake Charles, drove up in the course of a routine
inspection trip and as usual visited with the crew for a few minutes
during which lie asked at least some of the crew as to whether they
were going to the Jennings meeting, and joked about having received
no invitation to attend. J C Crowe and W J Theriot, linemen in ho
later joined the Union, testified that Carpenter stated at this time
that the Baton Rouge men did not know when they were well off
Killough and S N Bono, another member of the crew who later joined
the Association but dropped out, stated that they were present but
heard no such statement. Carpenter also denied making it We
credit Carpenter's denial, as did the Trial Examiner.
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 11, Killough asked for peimission to hold a meeting
of the employees in the respondent's Assembly Hall at Lake Charles
on company time Carpenter, who suspected what Killough wanted,
told him that he could make use of the hall but not during work hours.
A meeting attended by approximately 40 employees, was in fact held
at the close of work on the afternoon of December 11 Killough
stated in substance that the meeting was his own idea, that the com-
pany had nothing to do with it, and that it had been called as a sort
of get-together meeting to discuss the attitude of the employees to
the Jennings meeting Killough made it clear that he was opposed
to the Union's efforts to organize, stating that he had at one time
belonged to the Union but had received no benefits from it, and that
if the employees organized there was a chance that the respondent
would withdraw some of their present privileges, and that in any
case they would be liable to be called out on any sympathetic strikes
that might be ordered by the A F of L A general discussion of the
pros and cons of unionization then ensued The meeting lasted
about an hour
In the meanwhile, Ti ue had ieceived through his supervisory staff
and relayed to Leonard, his immediate superior, who was in Beaumont
at the time, reports that a number of employees were seeking advice
as to whether membership in the Union might become compulsory.
True was called in to Beaumont for a conference with Leonard and
Tom P Walker, the respondent's president, and arrived in Beaumont
the evening of December 11 After reviewing the situation with True
and Leonard, Walker decided that True should make an official state-
ment to the employees at Lake Charles setting forth the respondent's
policy toward organization Under Walker's instruction, ' True
drafted a statement that night which was submitted the next day,
December 12, to respondent's counsel and to Walker for approval
True then returned to Lake Charles and assembled all the white em-
ployees of the operating department, which included the group to,
whom Killough had spoken the afternoon before, in a meeting in the
'A ssembly Hall of the Lake Charles plant He there read his prepared
statement, the gist of which was that the employees were free to join
a union or to refrain from joining and were under no compulsion as to
either choice The full text of True's speech is set forth in, an ap-
pendix annexed to this decision
On Friday, December 13, the scheduled meeting was held at Jen-
nings with a representative attendance fionn Lake Charles and
Lafayette, as well as Jennings Application for a charter was made
at once, resulting in-the establishment of Local 1241 Rooney and
all of his line crew were among the charter members On Saturday,
December 14, Rooney told Dennis of the successful outcome of the
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 997
meeting and that of all those who had attended only,one eligible em-
ployee had not joined the Union
During these organizational efforts of the Union among the respond-
ent's employees, there were, in addition to the typical instances already
discussed, other similar acts and statements of supervisors,'which the
Trial Examiner did not deem it necessary to review in detail We
agree with the Trial Examiner that, under the circumstances, none of
these acts or statements would wairant a finding that the respondent
had violated the Act All these incidents involved the isolated and
unauthorized, acts and statements of supervisors and could no more
be regarded as an indication of company policy, than could the activ-
ities of other supervisois who not only joined the Union but also
openly assisted its organizational campaign In several instances,
the criticized statement of a supervisor, made in response to an invita-
tion that he join the Union, was obviously only an expression of
personal opinion not involving the respondent - Furthermore, the re-
spondent's officials neither inspired nor countenanced the supervisory
acts or statements in question On the contraiy, they eaily announced
the respondent's policy of non-interference through the medium of
True's speech, and, as will appear clearly and more conveniently in
recounting the later history of the case, took prompt and' effective
measures to prevent supervisory interference and influence and to as-
suie the employees of their safety and freedom in organizing as they
chose.
B. The organization of the Association
Tidings of the Union's organizational campaign around Baton
Rouge reached the ears of Frank W Jones, a meter department em-
ployee of the respondent in Beaumont Jones had formerly been a
member of the Union, but objected to the amount of dues required for
membership and to the Union's involvement in sympathetic strikes
He discussed the Louisiana developments with fellow employees in
Beaumont and found his opposition to the Union shared by Lewis
Roberts, another employee in the meter department, and E C Byrd,
a lineman They were all convinced that some form of organization
of the employees was inevitable, and were primarily interested in
diverting the movement from the control of the Union into some form
of organization that would seive the purpose of an agency for col-
lective bargaining and at the same time avoid involvement in sym-
pathetic sti ekes Their plans were at first nebulous, but from the
cutset the idea of a system-wide organization, embracing both the
operative and clerical employees, appears to have been contemplated.
On or about December 13, 1940, they decided to make a more definite
test of employee sentiment On the morning of December 13, Jones
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
called on W. M Larkin, a "district representative" or salesman, op-
erating out of the Beaumont office, an acquaintance of Jones and
recognized leader among the office group Larkin, while ineligible
for membership in the Union, had'an A F of L family background
and was not immediately responsive Jones, Roberts, and Byrd then
drove in Byrd's' car to Lake,Charles, where they talked with C. C.'
("Lum") Jordan and Matt Craig By this time Jones and his asso-
ciates had foi med the idea of organizing a mass meeting at Beaumont,
Texas, to be held about December 19, for a general canvass of employee
sentiment. On their way back to Beaumont they stopped at Orange,
Texas, where they talked'with Charles Cole, a lineman. At both Lake
Charles and Orange the trio avoided all supervisory officials and there
is nothing in the record to indicate that any official of the respondent
was cognizant of the purpose of their visit.
On his return to Beaumont that evening, Jones consulted George
A Weller, an attorney, and the counsel for the Association in these
proceedings Weller had no prior connection with the respondent and
acted throughout solely for the Association He stated that he was
unfamiliar with labor law but would examine the authorities and
advise Jones later as to how a legitimate inside union could be set
up. An appointment was made for Sunday, December 15
On December 15, Jones, Roberts, and Byrd met at Weller's office
in company with Larkin who was still dubious about the enterprise
but had been persuaded to attend. Weller discussed with the group
his conclusions upon a search `of the authorities and advised them
that it was possible to organize an inside union that would "stand up,"
but only if all categories of supervisory officials were excluded from
membership and all activities were conducted away from the respond-
ent's premises and completely free from the respondent's participa-
tion They were also advised by Weller of the practical necessity
for a substantial war chest, in view of the likelihood of subsequent
litigation to test the validity of the organization Laikni's objections
to participating in further organizational efforts appear to have been
put at rest at this conference and from this point on he became 'ex-
tremely active The conference concluded with a discussion of plans
for the proposed mass meeting of the employees -to be held at
Beaumont on December 19. '
Following the conference of December 15, Jones, Roberts, and Byrd,
now joined by Larkin, proceeded with plans for the Beaumont meet-
ing This was designed as a mass meeting of the respondent's em-
ployees with as wide representation as possible from all parts of the
system News of the proposed meeting was circulated by word of
mouth. On at least two occasions announcement of the meeting was
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 999
made by interested employees while on company property On De-
cember 16 , C C Jordan, an employee in the meter department at Lake
Charles, with the assistance of Killough and Murphy Gibbs, another
line foreman , assembled the line crews just before they left for work,
and made a brief announcement of the time and purpose'of the meet-
ing A similar announcement was made by Guy New, a relief service
man, at Jennings, on December,19, as the men were gathered just
outside the locker room at the substation Neither Jordan nor New
did more than announce that the meeting would be held and the an-
nouncements carried neither explicitly nor by inference any sugges-
tion of the respondent 's sponsorship.
Jones and Roberts spent Monday and Tuesday, December 16 and
17, on a tiip which included Liberty, Navasota, Huntsville, and
Conroe, Texas, at each of which places they spoke to individual em-
pldyees, to whom they explained the purpose of the Beaumont meet-
ing and left to them-the local dissemination of the news Prior to
leaving Beaumont , Jones and Roberts had applied for and secured
leaves of absence without stating the purpose for which the leaves
were desned Both were salaiied men and no deduction was made-
from their salaries for the peiiod of leave
Byid also obtained leave of absence for December 16 and spent the
day making arrangements for the use of the Lainar College Audi-
torium, at Beaumont, for the night of December 19 and visiting Port
Arthur, Texas, where he talked'to some of the employees about the
Beaumont meeting and enlisted their cooperation in publicizing it.
Byrd was an hourly paid employee and received no pay for the time
involved
The missionary efforts of these promoters of an "inside union,"
later known as the Association, involved in some' instances, the use of
time that would normally have been spent at work The Trial Ex-
aminer concluded, and we agree, that the respondent's general prac-
tice as to the granting to employees of short leaves of absence for
personal business was extremely liberal In cases of hourly paid
workers, a pro rata time deduction from the pay roll was made, ex-
cept when the time involved was inconsequential Salaried employees
were not normally charged for short periods of leave The duties of
certain classifications of employees , such as district representatives
and special service men, gave an habitual flexibility to their working
hours The record fails to show that employees engaged in organ-
izational activities on the respondent's tine in the sense that the
respondent gave specific authorizations for such puipose or in dis-
tinction to its customary practice of granting short leaves of absence
at the request of employees where operating conditions permitted
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the evening of December 19, several hundred non-supervisory
employees from all parts of the respondent's system met at Lamar Col-
lege at Beaumont Jones, who had taken the initiative in organiza-
tional activities, called the meeting to order and introduced Larkin to
state its purpose Larkin first announced that no foremen or super-
visors were wanted at the meeting There is no evidence that any re-,
marred in the audience Larkin then stated in substance that the
organization of employees in industry was an inevitable fact of the
times and that the only piacticable alternatives were whether to af-
filiate with an "outside" union and be subject to outside control, or
to have an autonomous "inside" union of their own. He stated his
own views as to the desirability of the latter type of organization, and
urged that it,be given a' trial Concluding, he asked that those in
agreement express the fact by a show of hands So far as the record
shows, the response was unanimous After a discussion of further
procedure, the meeting recessed long enough to peimit the employees
from the various sections represented to elect membeis to serve on an
organization committee. The meeting was reconvened and the names
of the representatives so selected wen e announced and i ecoi ded The
general meeting then adjourned to January 3, 1941, and the organiza-
tion committee met and selected a special committee to di aft a con-
stitution to be submitted to the oigamzation committee on December
27, 1940 On that date a meeting of the organization committee was
held at the Edson Hotel, Beaumont The special committee submitted
a draft of a proposed constitution prepared with the assistance of
Weller, who had been engaged as counsel This draft, after some re-
vision, was adopted by the organization committee subject to the ap-
proval of the employees The organization committee then called a
general meeting of the employees to be held on the evening of January
3, 1941, at the auditorium of the South Paik High School, in Beaumont.,
On January 2, Larkin, who had driven to Baton Rouge the day be-
fore, called on acquaintances among the Baton Rouge force, telling them
of his activities in promoting an independent union and asking them
to suggest the names of any non-supervisory employees they thought
might be interested Larkin made a list of the suggestions offered, th i
first name on the list being that of W B Gurney, described to Larkin
as "some sort of an efficiency engineer," at the steam plant, but not
classified as a supervisor ' In the course of the day, Larkin called on
Gurney, introduced himself as one of the employees from Beaumont,
and stated his mission Uncertain as to just what an efficiency engineer
was, Larkin asked Gurney if he had the power to hire and discharge,
or was classified as a supervisor Gurney replied that he did not have
the power to hire or discharge but was himself uncertain as to his
classification Larkin thereupon told 'him that if there was any doubt
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1001
about his status he did not want to talk to him, but would like to talk
to some of the other men at the plant , He then showed Guiney the
list of names furnished him earlier that day and told Gurney he would
like to talk to some of the men listed Gurney after some hesitation
finally decided to permit Larkin to talk to, a few of the men with no
supervisors present, and arranged for him to have short private inter-
views with three employees, none of whom was under Gurney's super-
vision Of the three men interviewed by Larkin only one, E P
Madigan, later identified himself with the Association Gurney test-
ified that he had been told the year before to have no connection with
union activities and that he had never discussed the subject with any
subordinate employees There is no evidence that he had done so
On Januaiy 3, 1941, the meeting of the employees, adjourned from
December 19, 1940, was held at the auditorium of the South Park
High School, at Beaumont. The proposed constitution of the "Gulf
States Electric Service Employees Association," was read by Weller,
explained, discussed, and after minor amendment, unanimously
adopted The signers of 229 cards became the charter members of the
Association. The general membership thereupon elected a temporary
executive committee in accordance with the provisions of the con-
stitution and the meeting adjourned
Membership in the Association was limited under the constitution
to employees of the respondent in grades below executives, foremen,
or supervisory employees An executive committee, composed of
elected representatives on aiquota basis from the several administrative
divisions of the respondent, was made the governing body of the Asso-
ciation with the powers and duties defined by the constitution
Initiation fees of $2 and monthly dues of $1 were provided for
C The respondent's pub lac statements and conduct concerning the
organization of its employees
With the formal organization of the Association, an intefisive cam-
paign for memberships ensued coincident with the organizational
effoits of the Union The Union confined its activities to the Louisiana
teiritory of the respondent while the Association endeavoied to organ-
ize on a system-wide basis For a while members of both organizations
compaigned freely on company propeity and to some extent while at
work, and the campaign was a common topic of conversation both
among the employees and between the employees and some of the
supervisory staff There is nothing in the recoid to suggest that any
of the participants purported to represent the iespondent in any of
these discussions The atmosphere of the discussions is realistically
reflected in Rooney's reply to the question as to whether he had dis-
cussed the Union with other employees during work hours: ' "In a
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
casual conveisation," Rooney replied, "just like discussing the war
situation, or like discussing a wreck, or somebody buying a house, or
something like that; you can't keep out all the conversation, with the
number of men ai ound, and if you did, it would be worse than Angola "
While interest in the campaign was acute, personal relationships among
the contestants continued on a normal and f i iendly basis with complete
absence of any untoward incident on either side
On January 8,1941, 0 A Walker telephoned to the Board's Regional
Office fiom Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that the iespondent was iestrain-
ing its employees at Baton Rouge, Jennings, and Lake Charles, Loui-
siana, from joining the Union, and was sponsoimg and dominating an
employees' association, and requested that he be furnished with forms
on which to submit charges On ' the same day the Regional Director
telegraphed the respondent the substance of the Union's complaint
On January 9, Tom P Walker, the president of the respondent,
telegraphed the Regional Director the following reply
We acknowledge receipt of your wire of January eighth addressed
to our Baton Rouge office concerning pi otest of Electrical Woi kei s
Local 1238 This company has at all times strictly complied with
the National Labor Relations Act and will continue to do so. It
has not through any officer or authorized agent or through any
other source acting with its consent or authority restrained any
employee at Baton Rouge, Jennings, Lake. Charles or elsewhere
from joining any labor oiganization Moreover this company
has at no time, past or present, sponsored any, company domi-
nated union In view of your'telegram we are preparing and will
post immediately through the company's teiritory a notice clearly
setting forth the company's policy in respect to labor unions, copy
of which will be sent you as soon as posted
On the following day, January 10, the respondent caused to be
posted throughout its system the following notice to its employees :
JANUARY 10, 1941
To the Employees of Gulf States Utilities Company:
The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board,
at New Oileans, Louisiana, has notified our company that he had
received a complaint from a national union that certain employees
of this company are being interfered with in their free choice of
joining that union, and also that the company is sponsoring the
organization of a company-dominated union
We have advised the Regional Director that such complaints
are not well founded, but in view of his communication we feel
that our employees aie entitled at this time to a statement of the
company's policy with reference to labor unions.
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1003
Gulf States Utilities Company recognizes'the right of every
employee to join any union he may wish and such membership
will not affect his position with the company. On the other
hand, we want to make it equally clear to each employee that it
is not necessary for him to join any labor organization Three
choices are open to every employee Fast, you may refrain from
joining any labor organization. Nobody can make you join
and nobody'caii pievent you from joining Second, you'may join
an outside or national union, but nobody can make you join and
nobody can prevent you from joining Third, you may form
your own labor organization, control and manage it yourself and
have it repiesent you, but nobody can make you join and nobody
can prevent you from joining Whether an employee joins or
does not join a union there will be no discrimination of any kind
by our company against him by ieason of any choice which he
might make The standing of such employee with our company
Will remain the same as before action by him or her
Under the Wagner Act, our company is piohibited from aiding
or inteifering with any union activities or even from giving any
advice about such matters. Accordingly it is directed that mem-
bers and repiesentatives of all unions refrain fiom soliciting
employees, collecting dues, holding elections or otherwise engag-
ing in union activities on company property or on company
time Likewise all employees of the company in supervisory
positions, including foremen, are instructed not to interfere with
other employees in any labor organizational effort in which they
may engage
Our company desires to comply and is complying with the
provisions of the Wagner Act If a majority of our employees
designate a bargaining agency, whether such agency be an outside
or a national union, or an independent union composed solely of
company employees, that bargaining agency will be received and
recognized by our company as the sole bargaining agency
Whatever your action may be, it is our hope that the happy re-
lationship of mutual confidence and understanding which has
always existed will continue to the same extent and to the same
degree as it always has Also, if you individually or as a group,
at any time have grievances to present, any officei or supervisor
of our company will, as in the past, be glad to discuss the matter
with you fully and frankly 4
4 The notices posted in the State of Louisiana were over the signature of Leonard, as
vice president , those in the State of Texas were over the name of Tom P Walker, as
president
1004 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
A copy of this notice was sent to the Regional Director the same day,
with a letter advising that it had been posted throughout respondent's
system
On January 15, Leonard followed up the posted notices of Janu-
ary 10 by addressing the following special bulletin to the supervisory
employees in the Baton Rouge division
JANUARY 15, 1941
To All Supervisors, Including Foremen:
Attention On January 10, 1941, there was posted throughout
the entire Company teriitory; a notice addressed to all of our
employees, setting out the Company's policy with reference to
labor unions We assume that you have read this notice, but in
of der to make sun e that you know what the Company's policy
is, we are attaching to this letter, a copy of the notice.
Please reread this notice carefully' and remember above all
things, as, Nye have repeatedly told you, that all employees of
the Company in supervisoiy positions, including foremen, are in-
structed not to interfere with other employees,in any labor organ-
ization efforts in which they may engage.
Yours very tiuly,
Enclosuie H. C LEONARD,
Vice President.
An identical hettei, over the signatuie of John G True, was sent to
each of the supei visory staff in the Lake Charles division
Supplementing his letter of January 15, Leonard on the same day
called together a group of the principal supervisors at Baton Rouge,
including Kirk whose activities have been discussed above Leonard
reported to them the complaint received through Regional Director
Logan, called their attention to the bulletin of January 10 and his
letter to the supervisoiy of January 15, and stated that he considered'
the matter serious enough to justify his calling the group into confer-
ence to emphasize the fact that the teims of the bulletin were to be,
strictly observed
On the same day, January 15, the Union filed with the Board's Re-
gional Office at New Orleans a formal chaige alleging in substance
that the respondent was dominating and inteifering with the forma-
tion, administiation, and opeiation of the Association, and generally
interfering with, restraining, and coeici ng its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaianteed in Section 7 of the Act
Between January 15 and 25, C Paul Barker, the Board's Regional
Attorney, made a field investigation of the Union's charge. On Jan-
uary 17, Barker had a conference at Beaumont with Walker, the presi-
dent of the respondent, and told him of reports which had ieached
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1005
hun as to Larkin's visit to Baton Rouge. and as to other activities on
the respondent's property in behalf of the Association On January
21, Walker wrote to Larkin advising that Barker had stated that he
had solicited the employees to join a union on company time and com-
pany property; that in view of Baiker's statement, Larkin's attention
was called to the company's bulletin of January 10 prohibiting union
activities on company property or company time, and ieiteiating that
Larkin and all other employees of the company were Instructed not
to indulge in such activities On January 22, Leonard, vice president
of the respondent in charge of Louisiana operations, wrote to Gurney,
advising him of Barker's report, calling his attention to the company's
bulletin of January 10 prohibiting any union activities on company
time or property, and concluding, "Moreover, since you are one of our
supervisors, you are instructed not to engage in any union activities of
any kind or at any time either on or off the company's property"
Leonard addressed a similar letter to A J Matheine and under
Leonard's instructions a letter similar to that addressed to Larkin was
addressed by True to Guy New
On January 25, Baiker had a final conference with Walker at which
he advised Walker of the'conclusions he had reached as a result of his
investigation Baiker recommended the posting by the respondent of
a notice specifically advising the employees that they were free to
join the Union and also that the respondent would disestablish and
refrain from recognizing the Association Walker took these recom-
mendations under advisement
On January 30, the respondent caused to be posted throughout its
system a notice to its employees reading as follows 5
NOTICE
JANUARY 30, 1941
To All Employees of Gulf States Utilities Company:
At the request of a representative of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board and supplementing prior notice, we are posting the
following notice which fuither explains the policy of our Com-
pany regarding labor unions:
(a) Gulf States Utilities Company recognizes and is abiding
by the National Labor Relations Act, Section VII of which reads
as follows "Employees shall have the right to self-organization,
to form, join or assist labor organizations, 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"
5 This notice appeared in Texas over the name of Tom P Walker as president and in
Louisiana over the name of H C Leonard, as vice president
1006 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(b) This, simply stated, means that employees of this Company
are free to join any labor organization of their choice, which, of
course, includes I B E W , without fear of interference from
any supervisory employee or of disciimination against them in
any manner by the Company
On the same day Walker w rote to the Regional Office enclosing a copy
of the notice posted, and advising that in view of Baiker's request, and
because such notice was "in line with the announced policy of the
company," it had posted the same With respect to the suggested
notice that the respondent would refrain fiom recognition of the
Association, Walker's letter stated •
Concerning the other notice, we know that the Gulf States Elec-
tric Service Employees ' Association is not company sponsored or
company dominated and allegations made by I B E W and in-
ferences drawn by your Mi Barker are not in accord with the
facts Further, our attorneys advise that the posting of such
notice would be in conti avention of both the letter and spirit of the
Wagner Act , and would not be in accord with the announced
policy of this company that "if a majority of our employees desig-
nate a bargaining agency whether such agency be an outside or
a national union, or an inside union composed solely of company
employees , that bargaining agency will be received and recognized
by our company as the sole bargaining agency " This company
therefore has concluded not to comply with Mr Barker's request
that we post the second notice.
D The respondent's recognition of the Association and their
subsequent contract
On February 5, 1941, 0 A Walker made a telephone appointment
with Leonard for a meeting with a union committee to be held at
Leonard's office the following day On February 6 the meeting was
held as scheduled The union committee consisted of Walker, W T.
Rooney, from the Jennings local, and C L Crochet and A V Brown-
ing, from the two Baton Rouge locals Leonard and W R Bell,
general superintendent of the Baton Rouge division , represented the
respondent The committee advised the respondent 's officials 'that the
Union clammed to represent certain categories of employees in Louisi-
ana for purposes of collective bargaining A memorandum describing
the bargaining unit contended for was prepared during the conference
and turned over to Leonard The comnuttee declined Leonard's re-
quest for proof of its claim to representation and offer ed in the a lterna-
tive to submit the Union's membership application cards either to the
Regional Director of the Fifteenth Region or to a Conciliator of the
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1007
United States Department of Labor to be checked against the respond-
ent's pay i oil Leonai d raised a further question as to the appropriate-
ness of the unit which the Union claimed to represent but made no
decision as to either the unit or the method suggested by the committee
for verifying the Union's claim A further meeting was tentatively
scheduled for February 13, subject to confirmation by telephone on
Febiuary 11 Tom P Walker was immediately notified at Beaumont
of the committee's visit and of the claim presented
On the afternoon of the same day, a committee from the Associa-
tion, accompanied by Weller, counsel for the Association, called on
Tom P Walker, at Beaumont, pursuant to appointment made that
day or the day before The committee presented in writing its claim
to a majority membership among the employees of the respondent in
all non-supervisory categories throughout the system, and requesting
recognition as the sole bargai in agency for such employees 6 The
Association further offered to present proof of the membership
claimed The committee told Walker, upon inquiry, that their proof
consisted of signed membership cards and that these would be made
available to the respondent to check against the pay roll.
On February 10, Walker was furnished a list of the members claimed
by the Association, certified and sworn to by the secretary before a
notary public, and accompanied by a letter from Weller requesting
that these documents be attached to the Association's request for
recognition and stating that the Association had a signed membership
card for each name on the list Walker referred the list to J H.
Liineham, an assistant treasurer of respondent, to check against the
iespondent's pay roll, and immediately wrote to Weller acknowledging
the receipt of his letter and the accompanying list of membership
claimed by the Association a'nd requesting Weller to submit the orig-
inal, signed membership cards so that they might be compaied with
the respondent's list of employees.
The Association at once made its signed membership cards available
and these were checked against the list the following afternoon at
Weller's office by a notary public jointly with Linnehan, J A Mer-
chant, secretary of the Association, and Weller, counsel for the As-
sociation The list, coriected in some instances as to initials or spell-
ing of names, was certified by the notary public as correct with the
9 \s described in the Association 's claim , the units for which it contended were as fol-
lows (1) employees throughout the respondent's system other than executives, foremen,
and superusoiy employees engaged in the production , transmission , or distribution of elec-
ti icity , gas, water , and ice or the operation , construction, and maintenance incident thereto ,
(2) employees throughout the respondent ' s system, excluding executives , foremen, of super-
visory employees engaged in office and clerical work, including meter readers, district
representatives ,, salesmen, bill deliierers , collectors , building service employees , and all
other emploiees not included in the production , transmission , and distribution unit
1008 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
exception of one name on the list for which there was no corresponding
card
On the same day, February 11, 0 A Walker telephoned Leonard
at Baton Rouge for a confirmation of the appointment made for the
union committee for 1Y ebruary 13 and obtained a definite appointment
for'the morning of February 14 -
Lmnehan completed his check of the list against the respondent's
pay roll On the morinnb of February 12 and telephoned Walker the
result indicating that the Association had a majority membership in
both the units for which it claimed representation 7
On February 13 Walker wrote the Association that the respondent's
check had substantiated the Association's claim, and that "Gulf States
Utilities Company hereby recognizes the Gulf States Electric, Service
Employees' Association as the bargaining agency for all employees,
other than executives, foremen and super visors " Bulletins to the
same effect were at once posted throughout the i espondent's system
On the morning of February 14, the union committee called at
Leonard's office Leonard came in shortly afterward and asked for
an interview with Walker privately After first apologizing that
circumstances had arisen beyond his control, he told Walker that on
the evening before, Tom P Walker, the -respondent's president, had
recognized the Association as the bargaining agent for all the re-
spondent's employees At Walker's request the other members of the
Committee were called in and Leonard repeated his announcement to
them 'The committee requested that Tom P Walker be advised of
their protest against the recognition of the Association in the face
of the Union's claim and pending a decision by the Board on the
charges filed on' January 15 `
In answer to a telegram received that evening from Regional Direc-
tor Logan, Walker wrote to Logan under date of February 17 enclosing
a copy of the Association's letter of February 6 and the respondent's
reply of February 13, together with a copy of the recognition bulletin
posted under the latter date line On the same day, February 17,
Walker filed with the Regional Director of the Board for the Fifteenth
Region, a petition on behalf of the Union for investigation and certifi-
cation, and the Regional Director wrote the respondent asking for a
statement of its position
' On February 13, the Association submitted a supplemental list of members, certified
and sworn to by the secretary of the Association, and certified by the notary public as
correct , and accompanied by a covering letter from Weller The supplemental list con-
sisted of 12 names, 11 of which had not appealed on the list submitted on February 10,
and 1 name which had been eliminated from the first list because not vouched by a signed
membership card Lmnehan added these names to the totals already communicated to
Walker and furnished Walker on February 14 kith a final summarization showing that the
Association membership constituted a clear majority of the employees in both bargaining
units
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1009
On Febiuary 17, 0 A Walker, in company with W L Horst, pres-
ident of a union local at Beaumont, and "Bill" Parks, president of the
Beaumont Central Trades and Labor Council, called on Tom P.
Walker at Beaumont, and renewed the protest sent through Leonard
Torn P Walker replied that he had acted on advice of counsel 0 A
Walker further protested against the respondent's continuing nego-
tiations with the Association pending adjudication of the Union's
contentions by the Board
On February 18, Balker wrote to Walker in effect that the posting
of the notice of January 30 could not operate as a settlement of any
part of the charges filed since no notice was posted in respect to
refraining from iecognition of the Association
Subsequently, the Board's agents at New Orleans advised 0 A
Walker that the Board would not proceed with a hearing on the
Union's petition for investigation and certification while charges were
pending against the respondent Walker accordingly on March 7
'filed with the Regional Office a request to withd i aw the charges
"without prejudice," which was thereupon granted At the hearing
in the representation case, held on Apiil 2 and 3, the respondent and
,the Association, as inteivenor, moved to dismiss the petition and
on May 10, 1941,' the Board, in its Decision and Order, dismissed
the petition on the ground that a system-wide unit was appropriate,'
rathei than the unit of Louisiana employees which the Union sought 8
In the meantime, on March 7, the respondent had entered into an
agreement with the Association, reciting the iecogmtion previously
extended to the Association on February 13 and the pendency of nego-
tiations looking toward a conti act, and providing that if such conti act
be agreed upon, its terms would be deemed effective' as of March 1,
1941, and that iecognition of the Association would be continued to
February 12, 1942 On April 8, after Weller had written two letters
to Tom P Walker, the respondent's president, requesting the respond-
ent to negotiate concerning the terms of the contract and wage rates,
representatives of the Association and the respondent commenced
negotiations These negotiations continued on April 9, 10, 11, 15, 16,
and 17 and resulted in an agreement on the terms of a contract ap-
proved by Walker, on behalf of the respondent, to be binding on both
parties upon final approval by the executive committee of the
Association
Larkin, as president of the executive committee of the Association,
wi ote to Walker on April 21 enclosing a certified copy of the minutes
of a meeting of the executive committee, held April 19, approving
the contract The record conclusively establishes that the respond-
BMatter of Gulf States Utilities Company and International Brotherhood of Electitcal
Workers, 31 N L R B 740
472814-42-von 42-64
1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent had no part in the selection of the Association's bargaining com-
mittee, that the parties dealt with each other at aim's length during
the negotiations , and that the terms of the contract finally arrived at
represented substantial concessions on both sides The contract pre-
sents a generally comprehensive agreement governing terms and con-
ditions of employment but leaving for future consideration a proposed
revision of job classifications, the check-off of Association dues by the
respondent, and rules concerning seniority Among others, the con-
tract includes provisions concerning holidays, vacations, and absences,
procedure for the review of discharges and adjusting grievances, and
minimum wage rates involving inci eases , ranging fiom 5 to 12 per-
cent over the existing rates No provision is made for a closed shop
or any form of union shop.
E. The conduct of the respondent 'immediately prior to, and during
the strike
On May 30, 1941, H B Munson and D R McClung, employees of
the respondent at Baton Rouge and members of the Union , called on
W. R Bell, genes al superintendent for the division, and asked that
the Union be recognized as the representative of its members for
the handling of grievances Bell referred this request to Leonard
for reply
On June 10, 1941, the Union filed with the Regional Office a charge
renewing its charge of January 15 as to respondent 's domination
of the Association and further charging that, by such domination,
"and by asking employees whether or not they were members of the
I. B E W, advising them they should join the Association, and by
other acts and conduct," the respondent had interfered with the iights
of its employees guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act s
Leonard replied directly to Munson and McClung by letter dated
June 25 reciting that the delay was caused by his absence from the
city and a congestion of work on his return, and stating that by virtue
of its recognition of the Association as the exclusive bargaining agency
for its non -supervisory employees , the respondent could not recognize
any other representative of such employees but that any individual
employee could confer with the respondent's officials at will
In June, Tom P Walker visited Baton Rouge in the course of a
trip over the respondent's system' After Walker gave a talk to the
Baton Rouge employees , which had no relation to union matters, A. V.
Brow ping, president of Union Local 1238, requested Walker to make an
appointment for a union committee to discuss employee grievances
Walker replied that lie would meet with any number of the employees
who came in an individual capacity but since the Association had been
s This charge was amplified in an amended charge filed by the Union on August 1, 1941
i
GULF STATES UTILITIES-COMPANY 1011 ,
recognized as the exclusive representative of the employees he could
not deal with any other union The result of this interview was
reported to a special meeting of the Local that evening, whereupon
the Local voted to take strike action
On June 30, 0 A Walker telegiaphed Tom P Walker, at Beaumont,
for an appointment The latter replied by telephone agreeing to
meet him at Baton Rouge the next day Pursuant to this understand-
ing, 0 A Walker, in company with E H Williams, piesident of
the Louisiana State Federation of Labor, called on Tom P Walker
and Leonaid at Baton Rouge on July 1 0 A Walker again de-
manded recognition of the Union as the baigaining agency for the
Louisiana operative employees Tom P Walker replied that he could
not extend such recognition, both by reason of the iespondent' s agree-
ment with the Association and because of the Board 's decision of
May 10, adjudging the unit contended for to be inappropriate 0 A
Walker then i eported to Tom P Walker the efforts of the Union to
secure recognition as representative of its own members for the pur-
pose of handling grievances and of Leonard's reply of June 25 to the
union committee Tom P Walker deferied decision on this point
The following day, July 2, he personally delivered a letter to 0 A.
Walker, confii ming his earlier refusal to grant i ecognition to the
Union, citing the respondent's agreement with the Association and
the decision of the Board in the repiesentation case, and also refusing
to recognize the Union as the baigaining agency for its members
with respect to grievances, citing the piovisions of the Act deemed to
be controlling The right of individual employees to discuss griev-
ances with the management was reaffiimed The letter further ad-
vised Walker of the iespondent 's intention to post bulletin notices
embodying the substance of the letter throughout the system "in
oider to fully acquaint our employees with their iights as to griev-
ances " Such notices were in fact posted over the signature of Tom
P Walker, as pies Iident, under date of July 2
O A Walker replied under date of July 7 to Tom P Walker's
letter of July 2, in effect taking issue with the respondent 's interpre-
tation of the Act and demanding that the respondent accord repie-
sentative status to union committees for the purpose of discussing
giievances and any other matters coming within their rights under
the Act This letter, addressed to Beaumont, was received in Tom P
Walkei's absence, and acknowledged by some other official of the
respondent.
On the morning of July 9 the Union went on strike Notice of
ilie strike was given by 0 A Walker to Tom P Walker by telegram
of July 9 ieading as follows:
Due to the position you continue to take and refusal to meet
with I B E W members who are your employees in Louisiana,
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it has been necessary to carry out a stoppage of work We are
ready to meet you or proper representative of the'company at
any time
in Tom P Walkei's absence from Beaumont, 0 A Walker's tele-
gram was acknowledged by H V Faber, the treasurer of iespondent,
by letter dated July 9, which was in part as follows
Mr Torn P Walker is now out of the-City; however, you
are advised *1 at neither Mi Walker nor the Gulf States Utilities
Company has ever refused to meet with I B E W member s who
are the Company's employees in Louisiana The employees of
the Company have been advised that the Gulf States Utilities
Company has recognized Gulf States Electric Service Employees
Association as the sole bargaining agency for employees of the
Company This was done only after it had been established that
a substantial majority of all eligible employees of the Company
were members of the Gulf States Electric Service Employees
Association, and a demand has been made by said Association
that it be so recognized
This Company has not refused to meet with an individual, em-
ployee, or group of employees, ^ desiring to present grievances to
the Company, but to the contrary is now ready and willing to
receive, and has always been ready and willing to receive any
indiv,dual employee, or group of employees, appearing as such
for the purpose of presenting grievances to the Company, or
having to do with any other matter wherein the recognized bar-
gaining agency is not made, by virtue of law, the exclusive
representative of all the employees for the purpose of collective
bargaining
On the morning of the strike, ingress to the Government Street
plant at Baton Rouge was barred by automobiles parked across the
driveway entrances and by a gathering of the strikers in force at
the gates of the plant The respondent made no direct attempt to
force an entrance, but the situation was reported to the office of the
sheriff of the parish of Baton Rouge and of the Louisiana State
Police, with a request for police protection At the direction of the
sheriff, the entrances to the plant were cleared and the workers de-
siring to continue to work were admitted without disorder or molesta-
tion The sheriff similarly cleared the entrance to the steam plant
at Baton Rouge, which had also been blocked by the strikers There-
after the Union maintained a small picket line at each plant which
continued unmolested throughout the strike As the strike continued,
numerous instances of sabotage at the hands of unidentified persons,
resulting in interruptions of service and in some instances minor
damage to property, were reported to the respondent's officials, and
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1013
arrangements were made with the public authorities for a more ex-
tensive guard and patrol service maintained under the direction and
control of the authorities, the additional cost to, the public being
borne by the respondent but the selection of personnel and the assign-
ment of duties being wholly in the hands of the authorities. The
services performed during the period of the strike by the sheriff of
the parish of Baton Rouge and other law enforcement officers were
of a routine nature, in the exercise of their independent public author-
ity, and without special incident
During the course of the strike the respondent undertook to prevent
further damage to its property and equipment; to resume normal
service as soon as possible for the homes and industries which depended
upon it; and to explain to its customers, particularly those who re-
quested extensions of service, the reasons for the curtailment, and
general inadequacy, of the service
With these objectives in nnind, the respondent wrote form letters
to its customers and inserted advertisements in the Baton Rouge
newspapers, explaining the situation which had given rise to the
strike and expiessly noting in seveial instances, that union recognition
and not wages was the issue Typical of the advertisements was the
following which cppeaied in the "State Times" on July 10 and in the
"Baton Rouge Morning Advocate" on July 11:
The usual efficient and instant sei vice that is the pride of our
organization at Gulf States Utilities Company is temporarily
handicapped
The membeis of the Inteinational Brotherhood of Electrical
Woikeis aie striking because of the iefusal of our Company to
bargain collectively with them instead of with Gulf States Electric
Employees' Association, an independent 'union Last spring the
I B E W union asked the National Labor Relations Board to order
Gulf States Utilities Company to so bargain, but in a decision
rendered by that Board on May 10, 1041, the petition of the union
was denied In its opinion, the Boaid said
Since it appears that the entire system of the Company is
functionally coherent and' closely integrated, and that the As-
sociation, has organized the employees of the Company on a
system-wide -basis, we find that the unit contended for by the
Brotherhood is inappropriate for purposes of collective baigam-
ing and shall, therefore, grant the motions of the Company and
the Association to dismiss the petition for invesigation and cer-
tificationof representatives filed by the Brotherhood
Before this decision was rendered, this Company had iecognized
the Gulf States Electric Service Employees' Association, an inde-
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendent union repiesentnig all of the employees of Gulf States
Utilities Company in both Texas and Louisiana, as the sole bar-
gaining agency, and since that recognition, the Company has bar-
gained with that Association This strike by the I..B E W,
therefore, is to obtain the recognition which was denied it by the
National Labor Relations Board-No dispute as to wages, working
hours, etc , exists
In view of the foregoing, Gulf States Utilities Company considers
this strike entirely unwarranted and unjustified It is hoped that
our employees who are members of the I B E W will realize this
and will soon return to work, thereby ending this interference with
our operations which are so important not only to the people of
South Louisiana, but to the very vital National defense industries
served by this Company.
After substantial damage to one of the transformers of its Oak
Grove substation on July 12. the respondent offered a reward in a
newspaper advertisement for infoimation leading to the arrest of the
persons who were damaging and destroying its propeity and quoted
exceipts from the applicable Fedeial Anti-Sabotage Act A copy of
this Act was mimeogiaphed with underscoiings of the piovisions
pertinent to sabotage of the propeity of public utilities and mailed to
each of the men who weie absent fi om woi k
On July 11, in a lettei to each of the men who weie not working,
Vice-President Leonaid wiote
The Nation's Numbei One Job right now is National Defense
The service of Gulf States Utilities Company is essential to in-
dustries in this aiea which are engaged in defense woik
For this reason, the men still at woik providing seivice are
being guaranteed full protection by the authoirties Those who
wish to retuin to their jobs are assuiecl that they, too, will be per-
mitted to go about then w ork unmolested
The gates are open Those who want to get back to woik will
be welcomed Thei e will be no discinmination by the manage-
ment, and you need not fear that you will be unfaiily treated be-
cause of the present situation Our only interest is that there
be a peaceful resumption of woik
Just walk in and say you're ieady to get on the job-or phone
your department head if you wish an escoi t -
Let's not jeopardize the Number One Job Let's do our part
for National Defense
Thereafter, in its iaiions similarly worded advertisements in the
Baton Rouge papers, and in a foam letter to the men still absent from
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1015
work, the respondent invited the men to return to work and assured
them of reemployment without clisciimination or loss of seniority.
Negotiations initiated by the Conciliation Service of the United
States Department of Labor looking forward to a settlement of the
strike were conducted at Baton Rouge and later at Washington These
were unsuccessful and the matter was referred to the National De-
fense Mediation Board The strike was settled July 29 by the ac-
ceptance by the respondent and the Union of the following recom-
mendations of the Mediation Board:
(1) The employees of, the Company now on strike shall mi-
mediately return to work with all employment relationships un.
unpaired, including then classifications and seniorities
(2) Any inchvdual employee or group of employees shall have
the right to present arriy grievance of grievances to the Company
regarding the application of any rules or standards of employ-
ment, either in person or by any person or persons including iep-
resentatives of the International Brotherhood of Electiical Work-
ers, when such employee or employees desire such representation.
(3) These procedures shall be effective immediately and pend-
ing a disposition of the charges of unfair labor practices now
on file with the National Labor Relations Board made by the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workei s
(4) In the event the parties hereto are unable mutually to agree
to a satisfactory adjustment of any grievance or grievances re-
ferred to herein, the matter shall be taken up with the proper
Federal agencies or with the Labor Division of the Office of Pro-
duction Management for assistance in effecting a settlement
Upon conclusion of the negotiations for the settlement of the strike,
Leonard returned from Washington by plane in order to be in Baton
Rogue nNhen the strikers returned to work and welcome the men per-
sonally back to the job
No notice was given to the Association of the terms of the proposed
settlement prior to its consummation between the respondent and the
Union Upon being advised thereof, the Association filed with the
respondent its protest to the strike settlement agreement, advising
the respondent that any recognition of the Union for the purposes set
forth in the agreement would be considered by the Association as a
breach of the terms of the respondent's agreement with the Association.
On July 31 the respondent posted a notice throughout the Louisiana
divisions of its system, over Leonard's signature as vice president,
reciting that at the request of the National Defense Mediation Board,
officials of the respondent had met with a panel of that Board and
representatives of the Union and the Association in Washington, D C,
1016 DECISIONS -OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the purpose of attempting to arrive at a satisfactory solution of
the dispute which had existed between the respondent and the Union,
and setting forth the recommendations of the National Defense Media-
tion Board to the respondent and the Union, with the statement that
these had been accepted.
F Summary; conclusions
We have found that the transfers of Rooney and Ratcliff in 1935
were effected by the respondent without reference to their, union
activities We pass, therefore, to a consideration of the general
charges of interference, restraint, and coercion, and of domination of,
and interference ^vith, the formation and administration of the
Association.
Considering first the events preceding the strike, it is clear that
the respondent took no direct action toward interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guai-
anteed by the Act Its policy of neutrality was stated at the outset
of organizational activities as a guide to the-supervisory staff When
specific issues arose, it was stated again and again in widely pub-
licized bulletins for the information of its employees We agree with
the Trial Examiner that in the present case the formal position
assumed by,the respondent reflected its intent in fact, and that the
employees so regarded it.
Counsel for the Board contended to the contrary that the re-
spondent's statements of policy from the outset included a reminder
to the employees that they weie not obligated to join any union
and that the later bulletins included a statement that they had the
right to join either a national, or an affiliated union, or•a union limited
in membership to the employees of the respondent, thus adroitly con-
veying a negative suggestion that affected the employees' freedom of
action The statements of employee choice made by the respond-
ent were objective and were made in a context free of any employer
pressure The respondent's statements of policy, moieover, were not
offered gratuitously The earlier statement of policy was made in
response to repeated inquiries as to whether membership in the Union
was necessary to a continuation of employment with the iespondent
and were directed to that issue alone The later statements were
made in the midst of the Association's campaign for members and
failure to take the ekistence of the Association into account might
have subjected the respondent to charges of disciimination from that
organization Under all the circumstances we find and conclude, as
did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent's public declarations of
policy did not encioach upon the rights guaranteed employees under
the Act
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1017
' There is no direct evidence that the respondent had any part in
the formation or administration of the Association or contributed
in any respect to its support, and any inference to the contrary would
be against the evidence and in disiegard of the testimony of the nu-
merous credible witnesses who testified categorically to the contrary.
It is contended that the respondent's recognition of the Association
at the time that charges of unfair labor practices weie already pend-
ing before the Board and when the Union had asserted a claim to
representation of a different bargaining unit, demonsti ates a preferen-
tial attitude toward the Association that vitiates its asseition of
independent-status - We agree with the Tiial-Exammer that this con-
tention is without meiit The Association was not recognized until it
had presented evidence of majority membeiship sufficient to satisfy
any ieasonable doubt on the respondent's part The bargaining units
contended for were reasonably logical and appropriate 10 The re-
spondent was under no obligation to assume the validity of the charges
preferred by the Union, when in fact such charges were clearly un-
supportable '
It is further contended by counsel for the Board that in refusing
to recognize the Union for the limited purpose of adjusting the griev-
ances of-its own membeis, the respondent acted in derogation of the
rights of its employees under the Act However, at all the times
that the respondent refused to recognize the Union, the Association
was , the-accredited representative of its employees for a bargaining
unit that included the employees that the Union purported to rep-
resent -As the rights of the Association were exclusive within such
unit, the respondent could not have extended the recognition requested
by the Union without violating the mandate of the Act There was
no impropriety, theiefoie, in the respondent's refusal to encroach
on the representative authority of the Association
The above conclusions have been reached on consideration of acts
of the respondent which may be attributable to its policy-making
officials There remains to be considered whether, irrespective of the
respondent's authorization, the rights of its employees under the Act
have been interfered with by subordinates acting with such ostensible
authority as to give, their conduct a, representative significance
The record in this case clearly establishes that organizational efforts
of the Union proceeded openly, with no attempt at concealment, and
"In it recent decision on the issue ins No] Ned the Board stated 'Me have frequently noted
that where employees in a system of public utilities are involved, the employer' s organiza-
tion, management and operation of its business as a single closely integrated enterprise
results in an intimate inter-relation and interdependence in the work and interests of the
employees In i rew of these circumstances, ss e hai e repeatedly held that a system-wide unit
of a public utility is appropriate wheneNer there is a labor orga nization in a position to
represent employees throughout the system" Matter of Northern States Power Company
of Wisconsin and District 50, United Mine Wolters of America, 0 1 0 and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A F L, 37 N L R B 991
1018 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were attended by no acts of hostility or reprisal on- the part of the
respondent There is nothing in the record to base any reasonable
inference of fear or apprehension of discriminatory treatment because
of union interest or affiliation , or to indicate that the official pronounce-
ments of policy on the part of the respondent were not accepted at
their face value and freely acted upon With the exception of the
Rooney and Ratclif incident , dating back to 1935, there is not even a
claim made by any employee of discriminatory treatment The Union
was a common topic of conversation among the employees and, until
interdicted by the respondent, between the employees and certain of
the supeivisory personnel , some of whom weie eligible for membership
in, and were active on behalf of the Union Testimony was offered
ai to numerous acts and statements attributed to certain of the re-
spondent 's supervisory officials which have not been set forth in detail
'by us or the Tiial Examiner , for the, reason that none of the acts or
statements proved warrants a finding under the circumstances that
these acts and statements were in violation of the Act.
Passing now to a consideration of the respondent 's activities during
the strike of July 9 to 29, 1941, it will be noted at the outset that
the demand made upon the respondent by the Union was one which
it could not meet It had recognized the Association as the exclusive
bargaining agency for all the employees of non-supervisory giade
thioughout its system The Board had subsequently specifically dis-
approved the unit which the Union claimed to repiesent The issue
was theiefore one on which the respondent could not make concessions.
On the other hand its responsibility as the sole source of power foi
an extensive territory placed it under the compulsion of supplying
constant and dependable service In meeting the exigencies of the
stiike the respondent resorted to three procedures One was to ac-
quaint its customers and the public generally with the cause of the
strike and the position in which the demands of the Union had placed
the respondent 'Another was to secure adequate protection from the,
authorities both for those of its employees who desired to continue
at work and for its properties The third was by a direct appeal
both through the public press and through individual bulletins ad-
dressed to the striking employees inviting their return to woik and
ultimately setting a deadline after which it would proceed to fill the
places of the strikers The respondent is not shown to have exceeded
its legitimate interests in its appeals to the public authorities to safe-
guard its operations There is no evidence that it directed any
interference with the orderly and peaceful picketing of its property.
Its statement to the public respecting the issues of the strike was not
challenged by the Union at the time or thereafter shown to be in-
accurate or unfair to the Union It was within its iights in making
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1019
its position known both as an explanation to the public of inadequacies
and interruptions of service, and to safeguard its own relationship
with the public The respondent's communications to the strikers,
were, under the circumstances herein, not unlawful It is clear that
the intent of the respondent in its communications to the employees
was not to discredit the Union but in effect to appeal to them to accept
the decision, of the Board in the representation proceeding No co-
ercive language was contained in'any of the appeals The willingness
of the respondent to recognize and to deal with the Union for such
limited purposes as might be proper under the circumstances, is evi-
denced by its conferences with the Union during ' the period of the
strike both at Baton Rouge and later at Washington Under `the
special circumstances, and in a context which completely negatives
any inference of hostility to the Union as such, we find and conclude,
as did the Trial Examiner, that by its conduct during the strike the
respondent did not interfere with, restrain, or coerce its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7 of the Act
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entii e record hei ern, we
find, as did the Trial Examiner, that the respondent has not inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act; we further find, as did
the Trial Examiner, that the respondent has not dominated and
interfered with the formation and adm nistiation of the Gulf States
Electric Service Employees' Association or contributed financial or
other support thereto.
Upon 'the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entne record in the case, the Board makes the following
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 International Biotheihood of Electrical Woikeis affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor is a labor organization, within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2 Gulf States Electric Service Employees' Association, unaffiliated,
is a labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3 The operations of the respondent, Gulf States Utilities Company,
occur in commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
4 The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (2) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions
of law and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the coin-
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plaint against Gulf States Utilities Company, Beaumont, Texas, be,
and it hereby is, dismissed
APPENDIX
TALK GIVEN BY MR J G TRITE AT A MEETING OF EMPLOYEES OF GULF
STATES UTILITIES COMPANY NEAR THE COMPANY GARAGE ON NORTH
RYAN STREETS LAKE CHARLES , LA , ON DECEMBER 12, 1940
Some of the supervisors , and foremen tell me that within the last
few days some of you men have asked them what the Company 's atti-
tude was or would be toward your joining a Union or labor organi-
zation , or in other words , what would happen to an employee of this
Company if he joined a Union, and on the other hand what would
happen to him if he refused to join a Union In view of these ques-
tions, I have thought it wise to call you together and advise you of
the Company 's view in matters of this kind
Some years ago a law known as the "Wagner Act" was passed by
Congress and this law forbids your company from in anywise advising
or interfering with its employees concerning their joining or not
joining a union This law does not forbid our advising what your
rights are as it relates to your status with the Company by reason,
of your joining or not joining a Union or labor organization of any
character . Whether or not, you are a member of a union or not a
member of a union does not affect your relation with this Company.,
Whether or not you do or do not join a union will not affect your
relation with this Company The Company recognizes the right of
every employee to join a union , and any union that he may wish to
loin, and such membership will not affect youi position with the
Company On the other band, the Company recognizes the right of
every employee not to join a union , unless he wishes to do so, and it
is not necessary for him to join any union or labor organization to
retain his position with this Company
There is no law that requires you or is intended to compel,you to
join any union or labor organization of any kind
The Wagner Act says that the employees have the right to bargain
collectively , which means instead of you individually going to your
supervisor or the management every time that you have a grievance
or complaint as it concerns your wages , hours, working conditions or'
matters of that kind, you select representatives and have them speak
for you You may or may not, as you choose, do this through a labor
organization The Company under the law, (and when I'say "Com-
pany" it means any officer , supeivisor or foreman ), cannot have any-
thing to do with the selection of a union or the representatives which
will bargain for you , nor does it desire to have anything to do with
GULF STATES UTILITIES COMPANY 1021
this because it is the Company's purpose and desire to comply strictly
with the provisions of the law, which law requires that the Company
cannot in any way, directly or indirectly, advise you or assist you
in determining whether or not you join a union, and, if you decide
to join a union, what union to join or who its representative may be.
The Company can only receive and bargain with you and your author-
ized representatives when requested by you to do so No one can
compel you to loin any labor organization or compel you to bargain
collectively and your failuie to do so will not affect your job with this
Company in any manner whatsoevei On the other hand, this Com-
pany or anybody else cannot keep you from joining a union of your
selection and to select representatives to bargain for and in your
behalf with the Company. '
As to whether you want a union to represent you, and if you want
a union, what union, is a matter for you each individually to decide
and it not a matter that the Company can or will attempt in the
slightest degree to decide for you, nor is it a matter that the Company
can or will advise with you about
This Company under the law cannot, and it will not, discriminate
against anyone because lie joins a union or because of union activity
on his part, and on the other hand, this Company will not discrim-
inate against you if you do not choose to join a union or any particular
union In other words, your individual relation to the Company is
not in anywise affected by reason of the fact that you are or axe not a
member of any union
In conclusion, I want to say that this Company has always dealt
with its employees in full recognition of the right of every individual
employee, or group of employees, to deal diiectly with the Company
with respect to any matter affecting their interest If any of you
individually ox as a group at any time have any matter which you
wish to discuss with us, any officer, supervisor or department head will
be glad, as they always have been, to meet with you and discuss such
matters frankly and fully ` It is always our earnest desire to
straighten out in'a friendly manner as we have endeavored to,do in
the past whatever questions that you may have in mind It is reason-
able to believe that your interest and the Company's interest are
mutual and scan be best served from the standpoint of both you and
the Company through confidence and cooperation, and this will con-
tinue to be the Company's attitude Thank you