Malden Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 1077 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter Of MALDEN ELECTRIC COMPANY and GAS & BY-PRODUCT
COKE WORKERS #12007, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DIs-
nuer No. 50.
Case No. R-3.541.-Decided March 04,1941"?
Jurisdiction : electric utility and appliance industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : controversy between rival
unions as to appropriate unit; refusal of employer to recognize either union
until certified by the Board; certification of representatives upon proof that
all employees in the appropriate unit are members of petitioning union and
none are members of intervening union.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : credit employees at the Company's
Malden, Massachusetts, plant, excluding supervisory employees ; factors con-
sidered : history of self-organization among Company's employees ; prior recog-
nition of homogeneous groups ; desire of employees.
Mr. Robert H. Jameson, of Boston, Mass., for the Company.
Mr. Samruel E. Angoff, of Boston, Mass., for Mine Workers.
Mr. William M. Kerwin, of Boston, Mass., for the Brotherhood.
Mr. Fred A. Dewey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 8, 1941, Gas and By-Product Coke Workers #12007,
United Mine Workers of America, District No. 50, herein called the
Mine Workers, filed with the Regional Director for the First Region
(Boston, Massachusetts) a petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning representation of employees of Mal-
den Electric Company, Malden, Massachusetts, herein called the
Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On January 20, 1942, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pur-
suant to Section 9' (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-' Series 2, as
amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Di-
39 N. L. It. B., No. 203.
1077
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
rector to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On January 23, 1942, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Mine
Workers, and the Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New England,
Inc., herein called the Brotherhood, a labor organization claiming to
represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant
to notice, a hearing was held on February 12, 1942, at Boston, Massa-
chusetts, before Albert J. Hoban, the Trial Examiner duly designated
by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company, the Mine Workers, and
the Brotherhood appeared by their representatives and participated in
the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was
afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial
Examiner made several rulings on motions and objections to the
admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the
Trial Examiner and, finds that no prejudicial errors were committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the fo1]oving:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Malden Electric Company, a Massachusetts corporation, is engaged
in the distribution and sale of electricity and electrical appliances in
Massachusetts.. It purchases its supply of electricity from other com-
panies, some of which is generated at points outside of Massachusetts.
During the year 1940, the Company sold 114,270,370 kilowatt hours of
electricity for a total revenue of $3,576,433.37. The Company also
sells electrical appliances at retail, such appliances in many instances
being obtained from sources outside of Massachusetts. During the
year 1940, the amount of such sales was $187,721.64. The Company
also purchases wire, transformers, trucks, cars, poles, meters, gasoline,
and other equipment and supplies shipped from sources outside of
Massachusetts. The Company also sells substantial quantities of elec-
tricity to numerous manufacturing concerns which ship a substantial
quantity of their products in interstate commerce, and also to various
instrumentalities of commerce such as railroad companies, telegraph
companies, radio stations, and telephone exchanges. The Company
does not contest the jurisdiction of the Board in this proceeding.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Gas and By-Products Coke Workers #12007, United Mine
Workers of America, District No. 50, and Brotherhood of Utility
MALDEN ELECTRIC COMPANY 1079
Workers of New England, Inc., are labor organizations . Each admits
to membership employees of.the Company.
-III. THE 'QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Brotherhood and the Mine Workers each have contracts with
the Company by virtue of which they are- recognized as bargaining
representative of a part of the Company's employees. They disagree
as to the appropriate unit for the Company's credit employees. The
Company is willing to recognize whichever union is certified by the
Board.
It appears that Mine Workers represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit below found appropriate.,
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described
in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to
trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States atld tends to lead
to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerceand the free flow
of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Mine Workers, in its original petition alleged as the appropriate
unit "all inside collection and credit department employees, excluding
the supervisors and assistant supervisors ." At the hearing the petition
was amended so as to describe the appropriate unit in alternatives as:
"All inside collection and credit department employees , excluding the
supervisors and assistant supervisors ; or all employees in the stores,
night cash posting, outside collection and inside collection and credit
department , excluding the supervisors ; or all inside collection and
credit department employees and outside collection department em-
ployees, excluding the supervisors."
The Mine Workers has a contract covering the stores , night-cash
posting and outside-collection employees . The credit men are all mem-
i The Trial Examiner stated , after examination of four application cards submitted to
him by the Mine workers, two of the cards being dated February 24, 1941, one February
24, 1940 , with a notation on the card reading "Feb. 24, 1941," and one dated September 16,
1941, that all the cards appeared to bear genuine, original signatures and that three of the
names appear on the pay roll as of February 19, 1941, in the pay-roll classification
indicated on the cards, there being but three in that classification as of that date. Cards
for the same employees authorizing the deduction of union dues by the Company were also
submitted by the Mine workers and appeared to the Trial Examiner to bear genuine original
signatures . The appropriate unit is comprised of approximately three persons
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hers of the Mine Workers whose contention is that it should represent
these men either (1) as a separate unit or (2) included in a unit with
all of the other employees it represents or' (3) as a part of a collection
department unit to be composed of the credit men and the outside
collectors whom it represents.
The Brotherhood has a contract covering production, garage and
commercial-department employees, and it contends that the credit
employees are a part of the commercial department which it now
represents.
The Company has divided its business into a few large departments
for accounting -purposes but collective bargaining units have not paral-
leled these departmental divisions. For example, at the time of the
execution of the contract in which the Company recognized the Broth-
erhood as bargaining representative of the commercial employees, the
Mine Workers had a contract with the Company covering the stores,
night-cash posting, and outside collectors; and the International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers had a contract covering the bill deliver-
ers and meter readers. All of these groups of employees are included
in the commercial department as constituted for accounting purposes,
yet the Brotherhood does not contend that any of them are a part of the
unit which it represents.
The'Company's departmental set-up as shown by its pay-roll roster
of February 27, 1941, differs materially from its departmental divisions
as set up,for accounting purposes. On the pay-roll roster the follow-
ing departments, all of which are included in the commercial depart-
ment for accounting purposes, are listed separately : commercial, col-
lection, night posting, meter reading, and bill delivery and collection.
The contract with the Brotherhood covering the commercial-depart-
ment employees, was not executed until October 9, 1941, the day after
the petition in this proceeding was filed. At that time the credit
employees were not carried on the Company's pay-roll roster under
the commercial department. While their : names were listed on the
schedule of -wages in the Brotherhood's contract, this was done with
notice of the Mine Workers' claim to represent them and with the
express understanding that the Brotherhood's right to represent them
was contingent upon the outcome of this proceeding. Therefore the
contract obviously does not preclude a .,determination that the credit
employees constitute a separate appropriate unit.
The collective bargaining history of the Company, as well as that
in other subsidiaries and affiliated corporations of the New England
Power Service Company, of which the Company is a subsidiary, shows
that it has been the practice to recognize as an appropriate unit any
small, homogeneous group of employees who do the same kind of work
and who desire to bargain collectively. In a prior proceeding, the
MALDEN ELECTRIC COMPANY 1081
Board denied the Brotherhood's petition for a plant-wide unit.2 The
credit employees have never bargained collectively with the Company
either separately or as part of a larger unit.
While the work of the credit employees brings them in contact with
various other groups of employees of the Company, including the em-
ployees. in.the - so-called commercial department represented by the
Brotherhood, their work is more closely connected with the work of
employees now represented by the Mine Workers than with the work
of employees represented by the Brotherhood. Though the credit
employees-might appropriately, be included in a broader unit, in, view
of the fact that these employees form a compact homogeneous group
engaged in doing the same kind of work, and in view of the fact that
they have indicated a desire to be represented by the Mine Workers
apart from the employees represented by the Brotherhood, a unit
comprised 'of the credit employees is appropriate.
We find that the credit employees of the Company, excluding super-
visors and assistant "supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining and that such a unit will insure to
employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organ-
ization and collective bargaining and otherwise will effectuate the
policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Brotherhood does not contend that it has been designated or
selected by any of the, employees in the unit found appropriate as
their representative. The evidence establishes, and We find, that all
employees in the appropriate unit have designated and selected the
Mine Workers as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The Mine Workers is, therefore, the exclusive repre-
sentative of all the employees in such unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and we shall so certify.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Malden Electric Company, Malden, Massa-
chusetts, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The credit employees of the Company, excluding supervisors and
assistant supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
'Tatter of Talden Electric Company and Brotherhood of Utility Workers of New
England, Inc, 33 N. L R B. 78
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR REIiATIONS BOARD
of,collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
3. Gas & By-Product Coke Workers #12007, United Mine Workers
of America, District No. 50, is the exclusive representative of all em-
ployees in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Gas & By-Product Coke Workers
#12007, United Mine Workers of America, District No. 50, has been
designated and selected by a majority of the credit employees of
Malden Electric Company, Malden, Massachusetts, excluding super-.
'visors and assistant supervisors, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to the provisions of
Section 9" (a) of4the Act, Gas & By-Product Coke Workers #12007,
United Mine Workers of America, District No. 50, is the exclusive
representative of all such employees for the purposes of collective
bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment,
and other conditions of employment.
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no. part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.