Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 23, 1941

35 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS , AFFILI-
ATEDwrrHAFL
Case No. C-1911.-Decided September 03, 1941
Jurisdiction : telephone industry.
Unfair Labor Practices
Interference , Restratint , and Coercion : declarations of union preference.
Company-Dominated Union: formation of successor organization by officers of
admittedly predecessor -dominated Plan ; participation in by supervisory em-
ployees; employer support of predecessor carried over to successor without
any "line of fracture " ; failure of employer to advise employees that predeces-
sor Plan was illegal-support : allowing use of company facilities until domi-
nated successor was well established ; signing contract with dominated suc-
cessor and checking off dues for it.
Remedial Orders : employer ordered to disestablish dominated -successor organi-
zation and cease giving effect to contract with it.
Mr. Warren Woods, for the Board.
Mr. Marion Smith, Mr. E. W. Smith, and Mr. John A. Boykin, Jr.,
of Atlanta;, Ga., for the respondent.
Mr. 0. A. Walker, and Mr. E. H. Williams, of Shreveport, La.,
Mr. G. X. Barker, of Birmingham, Ala., and Mr. George L. Googe, of
Atlanta, Ga., for the Union.
Mr. Frank A. Hooper, Jr., Mr. Samuel A. Miller, Mr. James A.
Braiiwh, and Mr. Thomas B. Branch, Jr., of Atlanta, Ga., for the
Association.
Mary M. Persinger, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
O
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges and amended charges duly filed by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director
for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana), issued its com-
plaint dated February 17, 1941, against Southern Bell Telephone
35 N. L . R B, No. 137. -
621
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Telegraph Company, Atlanta, Georgia, herein called the re-
spondent, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint, together with notice of hearing thereon, were duly
served upon the respondent, the Union, and Southern Association of
Bell Telephone Employees, herein called the Association.
Respecting the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in
substance that the respondent : (1) on or about October 1, 1919,
formed the Association and thereafter, to the date of the complaint,
dominated and interfered with its administration and contributed
financial and other support thereto by paying its expenses to July
5, 1935; on that date notified its employees that it could not there-
after defray the expenses of the Association and suggested that they
continue it as their bargaining agent and make arrangements for its
independent financing ; about May 20, 1935, paid the expenses of the
Association in canvassing its members for the collection of funds,
such funds continuing to be received after the effective date of the
Act; from August 1, 1935, to February 1, 1936, paid the expenses of
Association representatives meeting in Atlanta to revise the struc-
ture and joint agreement of the Association and advised them con-
cerning such matters; from August 1, 1935, to July 1937, permitted
the free use of its facilities and property by the Association for the
conduct cf business and solicitation of membership, and after June
25, 1937, charged only a nominal rental for such privileges; per-
mitted its agents to discourage membership in the Union so as to
encourage membership in the Association ; and failed to notify its
employees at any time of its discontinuing its support of the Asso-
ciation and of their rights under the Act; (2) entered into contracts
with the Association, those executed in 1940 being in effect when the
complaint was issued, and (3) interfered with, restrained, and
coerced its employees by permitting its managers at Shreveport,
Louisiana, and other places to make statements antagonistic to labor
organizations other than the Association; during November and De-
cember 1940, and January 1941, attempted to influence its employees
in their choice of a labor organization by threats and inducements;
and during November and December 1940, caused a rumor to circu-
late at its Shreveport, Louisiana, plant that employees who joined the
Union would be demoted or discharged, and advised its employees
that the Union would do them no good and might. do them harm.
1-Ineorrectly designated in the formal papers as "Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph
Co (Incorporated)" and corrected at the hearing, pursuant to motion, by counsel for the
Board.
SOUTHERN BELL TEDE 'PHONEI & T'ELEGR'APH 00. 623
The respondent filed its answer dated February 26, 1941, denying
the commission of any unfair labor practices.
On March 11 , 1941 , an 'amended complaint was issued in which
the allegations respecting statements antagonistic to labor organiza-
tions by managers of the respondent , were limited to Shreveport,
Louisiana . The respondent filed its answer to the amended com-
plaint , dated March 15, 1941.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held March 17 through 21, 1941,
in Atlanta , Georgia, before Josef L. Hektoen , the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner . The Board, the re-
spondent , and the Association were represented by counsel and the
Union by its representatives ; all 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.
At the beginning of the hearing the Association was granted leave
to intervene ; it thereupon filed its answer by which it asserted that
it was free of domination by the respondent . On March 21, 1941,
the Association filed an amendment to its answer expanding certain
information contained therein. At the close of the hearing , counsel
for the Board moved to conform the complaint to the evidence; the
motion was granted without objection.
During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings
on other motions and on 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. After the hearing, the respondent and the Asso-
ciation filed briefs with the Trial Examiner.
On June 16, 1941, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port, copies of which were duly served upon all the parties. He
found that the respondent 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 Act, and
recommended that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair
labor practices and take certain affirmative action in order to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
Thereafter , the respondent and the Association duly filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report. Pursuant to notice , a hearing for
the purpose of oral argument was held on August 5, 1941, before
the Board , at Washington , D. C. All parties were represented by
counsel and participated in the hearing . Briefs were duly filed with
the Board by the respondent and the Association . The Board has
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
considered the exceptions and briefs filed by the respondent and the
Association and, to the extent that the exceptions are inconsistent
with the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order set forth
below, finds them to be without merit.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Com-
pany, is a New York corporation having its principal office in
Atlanta, Georgia. It is one of 24 associated companies of the Ameri-
can Telephone and Telegraph Company which owns all of its issued
stock. The respondent conducts a general telephone business in
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. It furnishes both local
and long distance telephonic communication and its lines connect with
those of: (1) the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and
associated companies; (2) 837 other telephone companies in the
States served by it; and (3) foreign systems throughout the world
by wire, cable, and radio. It serves numerous units of the armed
forces of the United States, many defense industries, and approxi-
mately 140 broadcasting stations within its territory. It also
furnishes ship-to-shore communication.
As of March 1, 1941, the respondent served approximately 1,375,000
subscribers, employed approximately 23,000 persons, and its physical
properties and equipment represented an investment of approxi-
mately $315,000,000. During 1940, it purchased equipment and
materials valued at "many millions of dollars," the greater part
thereof from outside the territory served by it. During 1940, its
gross revenues exceeded $75,000,000, "several millions of dollars"
thereof representing revenues from interstate commerce.
The respondent 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 organ-
ization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits
to membership employees of the respondent.
Southern Association of Bell Telephone Employees is an unaffili-
ated labor organization. It admits to membership only employees
of the respondent.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEiPHONE! & TELEGRAPH 00. 625
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Interference with, domination of, and support given to the
Association
1. Organization of the Association
The Association was established in 1919 under the sponsorship
of the respondent. Its purpose was provision of "facilities for the
exchange of views and suggestions, for negotiations, either indi-
vidually or collectively, between the employees and the Manage-
ment . . ." "Joint agreements were entered into between the Asso-
ciation and the respondent respecting procedure for conferences
between their representatives.
Applications for membership, though provided for in the Asso-
ciation constitution, were not uniformly required; no overall mem-
bership list was maintained; the Association had no office and
transacted its business on the respondent's premises; no dues for
expenses were collected; and membership was restricted to white
employees and those below supervisory grade. The respondent did
not directly participate in the internal affairs of the Association and
had no voice in naming its officers and committees, but it defrayed
all expenses of the Association and paid the salaries and expenses
of employees engaged in Association business.
The respondent admits that it sponsored the Association and con-
tributed financial and other support to it at all times from its
creation to the effective date of the Act, July 5, 1935.
2. The events of April 1935 to February 1, 1936; changes in the
Association
During April and May 1935 when passage of the Act was con-
sidered imminent, the Association solicited a 50-cent contribution
from each member. The respondent paid the salaries and expenses
of the solicitors and extended to them the use of its facilities, includ-
ing automobiles. For example, Lloyd H. Weil, vice president of the
Association, canvassed Louisiana and Mississippi and held meetings
of the respondent's employees on its premises and time. He in-
formed such,meetings that: (1) passage of the Act would "outlaw"
the Association; (2) it was the "consensus" of "quite a few of the offi-
cers of the Association" that the employees of the respondent should
be represented by their own organization; and (3) to that end funds
were vital. At least one local official of the respondent directly aided
the canvass. A. F. Bear, district traffic manager at Shreveport,
Louisiana , addressed the meeting conducted there and said that the
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent had supported the Association since 1919, and that the
employees should now do so because the respondent would be unable
to interfere in the event that outside organizations attempted to
organize them.
The contributions to the Association amounted to about $5,000.
This sum was turned over to Jane H. Wilkes, general secretary of
the Association, and for this purpose acting treasurer by appoint-
ment of Howard M. Askew, Association president since 1933, and an
officer of the Association since 1920.2
On July 12, 1935, Askew wrote to Association members informing
them of the amount collected, and stated :
The fact that this Bill [the Act] has become law does not affect
the status of our Association, so far as I am able to learn, except
that its expense must be borne by the members instead of by the
Company . . . We still have the machinery for handling our
problems in Local Joint Conferences and Mr. J. E. Warren, Vice
President, has assured me that if any matters are referred to the
higher officers of the Association he will ask that' the proper
Management Representative get in touch with such officer in
order to handle these matters to a conclusion.
Askew added that "we should retain our present Association" and
upon personal assurance given him by Warren,3 informed the mem-
bership that "the Management wished to cooperate with the Asso-
ciation in every way possible."
On July 16, Warren called a meeting in Atlanta of the respon-
dent's ranking supervisory employees. Askew and Wilkes, of the
Association, attended by invitation. Warren read Sections 7 and 8
of the Act to the meeting, stressed employees' right of self-organiza-
tion, and announced that the respondent would follow a "hands off"
policy. The substance of his remarks was thereafter transmitted
8 Wilkes was secretary to the general commercial manager and the chief engineer of
the respondent at Atlanta from 1934 to 1940, when she became personnel supervisor over
the entire territory of the respondent , working under J S Kerr. assistant to the president,
at which time she resigned her office and membership in the Association ., Askew had
been State Cashier of Georgia since 1929. His duties were to pay the salaries of the
respondent's employees and its expenses in that State according to information furnished
him by the accounting department . Askew resigned from the Association in 1939 because
he was considered by the employees to be a supervisory employee While it does not
appear that Wilkes and Askew had clear supervisory powers , they were not engaged in
ordinary plant uuork , their duties allied them more closely with the management of the
respondent than with the other employees , and it is reasonable to assume that to such
employees they represented the management . They thereby occupied a strategic position
to translate to the employees the desires of the respondent We find that the respondent
was responsible for the activities of Wilkes and Askew in conducting the canvass for
contributions and in initiating the movement for a "new" Association which are discussed
in fra
3 Warren , on account 'of the illness of the respondent ' s president , was then its acting
chief executive He succeeded to the presidency dunng August 1935
SOUTHEUN BELL TEDE'PHONEI & TELEGRAPH CIO. 627
by word of mouth to their subordinates by the respondent's more
than 120 higher officials, and was by these subordinates transmitted
to the general body of employees.
On July 20, the respondent issued the following notice which
came to the attention of its employees :
MEMORANDUM
WAGNER BILL INTERPRETATIONS
The Company can continue to' pay salaries of Association of-
ficers who are filling their regular jobs and doing Association
work incidental to their regular duties.
The Company can continue to pay the salaries of Association
officers while engaged in confering (sic) with Management and
while they are meeting among themselves before or after these
conferences to discuss their presentation or disposition of the
matters involved. Salaries cannot be paid when Association of-
ficers are devoting their time solely to internal affairs of the
Association.
The Company cannot pay traveling expenses. However, all
Management Representatives are anxious to cooperate and will
endeavor to meet Associatioh officers at such times. and places
as will be most convenient and economical.
The Association may continue to use Company premises for
their meetings without charge. Space for the exclusive full
time use of the Association could not be provided without
proper charge.
Association Local meetings cannot be held on Company time.
The Association may use Company typewriters and other
office facilities when such is incidental to the regular Company
use of these facilities. Out-of-pocket expenses such as stamps,
stationery and supplies cannot be borne by the Company.
Association Representatives may make limited use of toll
lines upon the same basis as is effective for employees generally.
The expense of preparation and distribution of the Minutes of
Joint Conferences will be borne by the Company.
Issued July 20, 1935
On August 26, a small committee of the General Assembly, gov-
erning body of the Association, met at Askew's call in the respond-
ent's Atlanta office. The committee formulated certain changes in
the constitution and joint agreement of the Association and obtained
the agreement of the respondent through H. S. Dumas, assistant to
Warren, that should the changed joint agreement be approved by the
451270-42-vol. 35-41
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Association, the respondent would enter into it. Dumas also agreed
that the respondent would check off dues for the Association.
On August 30, a special meeting of the General Assembly " to for-
mulateplans for financing and continuing this organization in ac-
cordance with the provisions of the Wagner Labor Relations Bill"
was held in Atlanta. Askew resigned and was succeeded by Weil4
as president . Dumas addressed the meeting and informed those
present that as an economy measure , joint conferences would be
called in the future only at the request of the Association; that such
meetings would no longer be used by the respondent for "discussions
of sales, safety practices, etc.", and "where Management wished to
use the facilities of the Association to broadcast information these
meetings would be considered strictly as special meetings called by
Management , the expense of which could be lawfully borne by them."
The revised constitution 5 and joint agreement were approved and
it was resolved that weekly dues of 5 cents for women and 10 cents
for men be collected from the membership.
The new joint agreement eliminated "all reference to the Com-
pany financing the expense of the Association," incorporated the
new plan for calling joint conferences, was silent respecting recog-
nition of the Association as the bargaining agent of the respondent's
employees, and was terminable on 60 days' notice. Pursuant to
Dumas's promise, it was signed by the respondent and the Association
on September 3, 1935. Notwithstanding that it was by its terms
effective on execution, 6 both the respondent and the Association
claim that an understanding existed that it was not to become ef-
fective until such date as the new constitution should be ratified by
the membership, and that pending such ratification, the Association
did not exist. 7 The inconsistency of this contention with continued
action by the "old" Association is underlined by the fact that War-
ren admitted at the hearing that dues were checked off pursuant to
agreement with the "non-existent" Association beginning November
1,,1935, although the new constitution was not ratified until Febru-
ary 1, 1936. He also admitted that at the time he signed the agree-
ment on September 3, the "new" Association had made no showing
of membership, and that, although he would not have signed a con-
4 Well was "plant practice supervisor " of the Louisiana Division of the respondent from
1935 to 1939 His duties included the distribution , clarification , and interpretation of
plant routine instructions received from the head office of the respondent in Atlanta.
What is said above respecting Wilkes and Askew, applies to Weil , and we find the re-
spondent responsible for his activities in the Association . Well became assignment office
supervisor at New Orleans in 1939, in charge of 25 or 30 employees , but nevertheless main-
tained his membership in the Association.
5 Ratified by the membership February 1, 1936, and further discussed infra.
e All other joint agreements became effective as of the date of their execution.
7 Weil testified that he believed the passage of the Act to have spso facto "disbanded
the Association ." Wilkes testified that the Association did not exist between September 3,
1935 , and February 1, 1936.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH Co. 629
tract with the Union without some showing of membership, he did
not think it was unusual that the Association should be able to show
to prospective members a signed contract with the respondent before
it even came into existence. Moreover, Well on September 3 sent a
letter to the members of the Association in which he referred to
"our Association," the "revised constitution," and stated that
"our employee body, as manifested in your recent special contribu-
tion, desires no outside influence ' in our ranks . . ." On September
11, in a letter to "All Local Chairmen" he stated, "your Association
is on trial. He described modifications of the preamble and Article
I of the constitution as changes, which "while not affecting the
operation of our plan, were desirable in that they eliminated many
references to the Company"; other changes or "proposals" he referred
to as "amendments." Wilkes, in a communication of September 18,
pointed out that "this proposed Constitution is in reality an Amend-
ment to your present plan . . ." The new constitution was by its own
terms "a revision [which] is hereby adopted superseding the Consti-
tution effective May 1934," and provided prerequisities of one and 5
years' membership in "the Association" for holding local office and
for the office of president, respectively. 8
The resolution for collection of dues 9 adopted by the General
Assembly was approved by a required majority, and Wilkes on
October 1, 1935, sent membership applications and check-off authori-
zations to "Local Chairmen" of the Association for signature by em-
ployees. In her instructions respecting these matters, she pointed
out that membership applications were to be signed "by each mem-
ber who desires to continue his or her membership in the Association
" and "when requesting the present members of your local to
sign the new applications for membership . . . it should be explained
that the purpose of this form is to provide the officers of the Associa-
tion with a complete and uniform record of membership in the
Association and is not to be considered as a new application for
membership." Beginning November 1, the respondent began deduc-
tion of dues from the salaries of those who had authorized such pro-
cedure. The dues were then paid over to the Association.
On February 1, 1936, after the revised constitution 10 had received
8 Although Well testified that it took several days and nights to complete a drafting
of the "new" constitution , he was unable to explain why, after such minute consideration,
the revisors continued to require 5 years' membership in "the Association " as a pre-
requisite for holding the office of the president in the "new " organization.
9 This document stated, in part , that the "Association is threatened with impairment,
an emergency is declared to exist
10 Paragraph 1 of the preamble read •
The employees of the Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Incorporated,
formed in 1919 the Southern Association of Bell Telephone Employees to provide
facilities for adjusting by conference and co-operation all questions affecting the
employees and the Management . This relationship between the Association and the
Company has been in continuous operation since that time.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ratification, the joint agreement signed on September 3, 1935, went
into effect. A majority of eligible employees were members of the
Association. Weil and Wilkes continued in office, the latter as gen-
eral secretary-treasurer. The Association bank account remained in
the same bank as before and in her name, her new title being sub-
stituted for acting treasurer.
During the period discussed above, all communications from the
Association, including- membership applications and dues deduction
authorizations, and all communications to it, were handled by the
respondent's inter-office mail facilities. The respondent furnished
the Association information concerning the number of employees
eligible for membership in the Association, extended the use of its
facilities and premises for holding meetings, paid the salaries of
Association members for time spent before, during, and after con-
ferences with officials of the respondent on Association business, and
permitted the use of its toll lines by officers of the Association if
calls were made incidental to the respondent's business. Association
mimeographing was performed on the respondent's machine, but was
paid for monthly by the Association, beginning August 1935.11 The
general secretary used space in the respondent's offices for Association
business without charge; the respondent permitted the free use by
the Association of its typewriters, office facilities, and bulletin boards,
and made no charge for deducting dues.
Both the respondent and the Association contend that by virtue
of the distribution of the July 20, 1935, notice by the respondent, the
termination "to a very large extent" of the respondent's financial
support of the Association in accordance with such notice, and the
dissemination of Warren's remarks of July 16, the Association was
released of the ties which theretofore bound it to the respondent.
We cannot agree with this contention. Warren's remarks were only
verbally transmitted, third-hand, and since they were made but 4
days before publication of the notice, it must be assumed that in
many instances they were brought to the attention of the employees
only after receipt by them of the written notice which came directly
from the respondent's executive officers. Far from stating that the
respondent would no longer recognize the Association and thence-
forth would pursue a "hands off" policy, such notice in fact an-
nounced an assumption on the part of the respondent that the
Association would continue to exist and function. Moreover, Warren
himself admitted at the hearing that neither at the July 16 meeting
nor at any time since has the respondent taken any steps to dissolve
the Association and sever relations with it.
' This arrangement continued until February 1938 , at which time the Association
bought its own mimeograph machine.
5OUTHE 'R1Ti BELL TULEPHONE ' & TELEGRAPH 00. 631
Furthermore , the $5,000 in contributions , received in part after
July 5, 1935, resulting from the canvass financed by the respondent
and enabling the Association to carry on from that date to November,
when deductions of dues began , is not to be overlooked . All contri-
butions were later returned by the Association to those making them,
but not until December 1936, when it was for the first time financially
able to do so. The respondent was never reimbursed for its ex-
penses in this connection . Moreover , the respondent never removed
the impact upon its employees of its assistance to the Association in
collecting such funds and its reasons therefor.
The contention that a break occurred between the respondent and
the Association , rendering employee activity for self -organization
free and uninspired by the respondent as of July 20, 1935, is there-
fore rejected . From the facts related above it is clear that the em-
ployees correctly read and understood the July 20 notice. Weil and
Wilkes, the dominant figures in the Association , sought to reconcile
their contention that a new organization came into being on Febru-
ary 1, 1936, with the findings above, inconsistent with their conten-
tion, by pleading unfamiliarity with technicalities, ill-advised use of
significant terms, and the absence of counsel . Weil , however , testi-
fying with respect to occurrences in 1937, stated that the Association
did not then have counsel because "we had quite a few of the boys
in our organization who were members of the Association who had
studied law. . .." There is no showing that competent advice was
unavailable to the Association in 1935-6. The Trial Examiner found,
and we agree , that both Weil and Wilkes while on the witness stand,
gave indications of education, were articulate , and demonstrated
complete qualification for affairs of the sort managed by them in
connection with the Association . We therefore find that Weil and
Wilkes, as demonstrated by their authorship of the documentary evi-
dence - described above, were motivated by a desire to continue the
Association unchanged except for concessions respecting its more
obvious financial support by the respondent . This was in accordance
with the latter's own manifest wish.
3. The , events of February 1, 1936, to February 1941; continuing
support of the Association.
The minutes of the annual meetings of the General Assembly for
• 1936 to 1939 , inclusive , refer to such meetings as the "17th" to "20th
Annual Meeting[s]." The preamble of the constitution remained
unchanged during these years and likewise placed the beginning of
the Association 's relationship with the respondent in 1919.
Weil continued as president until 1939 , was its vice president in
1940, and was still a member at the time of the hearing . Wilkes con-
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tinued as general secretary-treasurer until 1938, when she became
vice president-treasurer. She resigned her office and membership in
1939, when she became personnel officer of the respondent.
At the 1936 meeting of the General Assembly, it was resolved that
the respondent be requested to restore salary and wage cuts then in
effect. The reaction of the respondent thereto, while sympathetic,
was negative. After the meeting, Wilkes wrote the division chair-
man, on February 28, stating in part : "But try to remember, keep
your people happy and lead them to be patient. We don't, I believe,
have an awful lot, to worry about. But you must help them to
remember that our Company is run on sound and sensible measures
and it is the duty of our Management to keep it so for the continued
welfare of us all. We must approach Management with the same
sound and sensible tactics." On August 28, 1936, Weil wrote the
division and local chairmen of the Association announcing a $450,000,
wage increase granted by the respondent after negotiations with it.
In January 1937, the respondent prepared and distributed to all
employees the following notice :
MEMORANDUM
WAGNER BILL INTERPRETATIONS
The Company can continue to pay salaries of Association of-
ficers while engaged in conferring with management and for
incidental time while they are meeting among themselves be-
fore and after these conferences to discuss their presentation or
disposition of the matters involved. Salaries cannot be paid by
the Company while Association officers are devoting their time
solely to internal affairs of the Association.
The Company cannot pay travelling, board and lodging ex-
penses for employee representatives while engaged in Association
business.
Space for the exclusive full time use of the Association can-
not be provided by the Company without proper charges. The
Association should be billed for Company office space used by
the General Secretary for Association business.
Association Local Meetings cannot be held on Company time.
Out-of-pocket expenses, such as stamps, stationery and sup-
plies, cannot be borne by the Company and Company mail can-
not be used for Association business.
The Company cannot permit the use of its toll lines free of
charge for purely Association business. The Company cannot
provide free of charge telephones used exclusively for Associa-
tion business.
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE! & TELEGRAPH 00. 633
The expense of preparation and distribution of a limited num-
ber of minutes of Joint Conferences will be borne by the Com-
pany.
The Company will discuss with the Association officers the
question of proper charges for collecting association dues and
the necessary procedure for making this effective.
Revised January, 1937.
In April 1937, the following revision was likewise distributed by the
respondent:
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ACT
MEMORANDUM FOR SOUTHERN BELL TEL. AND TEL. CO.
The National Labor Relations Act prohibits an employer from
contributing financial or other support to any labor organiza-
tion; "Provided, an employer shall not be prohibited from per-
mitting employees to confer with him during working hours
without loss of time or pay."
In view of the provisions of this Act, the following summary
is provided to be observed by this Company in dealing with the
Southern Association of Bell Telephone employees :
1. The Company can pay salaries of association officers
while engaged in conferring with Management. The Company
cannot pay salaries of association officers under the following
conditions :
(a) While they are meeting among themselves before and
after joint conferences to discuss their presentation or disposi-
tion of the matters involved.
(b) While association officers are devoting their time solely
to internal affairs of the association.
2. The Company cannot pay traveling, board and lodging
expenses for employee representatives while engaged in asso-
ciation business.
3. The Company should charge a fair rental rate when
members of the Association use Company space for the pur-
pose of conducting association business or for holding their
monthly local meetings. These charges should be calculated on
the proportional cost to the Company for the space used.
NoTE.-The Company is now reviewing with the association
officers the charges for such space.
4. The Company cannot permit the use of its toll lines for
association business except at full tariff rates.
5. The Company cannot provide telephones for conducting
association business except at full tariff rates.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
6. The Company cannot permit elections on Company time
and any Company premises used for this purpose should be
confined to space rented as a meeting place.
7. Company Bulletin Boards cannot be used for posting
association activities, notices or bulletins.
NOTE.-The Company is now reviewing with the association
officers the matter of space which they might desire to rent
for Bulletin Boards.
8. The Company can pay for copies of minutes of joint con-
ferences for distribution to employees attending the joint
conference meetings. The Company cannot pay for extra
copies of these minutes for distribution among other members
of the association.
9., The Company mails are not to be used for association
business.
10. The Company has an agreement with the association
officers for making payment for the cost of collecting dues
under the payroll deduction plan. The Company cannot incur
this expense without making the proper charges.
11. The Company cannot engage in any activity designed to
induce or prevent its employees from joining this or any other
labor organization.
12. Association Local Meetings cannot be held on Company
time.
13. Out-of-pocket expenses, such as stamps, stationery and
supplies for association business , cannot be borne by the Com-
pany.
14. The provisions of this Act make it illegal for an employer
to dominate or interfere with the formation or administration
of any labor organization, and the Management of this Com-
pany should conscientiously observe these provisions.
Revised April, 1937.
The above-indicated changes were made. The Association there-
after paid for its use of toll-lines, for dues deductions at the rate of
one-half cent each, and for meeting places on the respondent's prop-
erty at 75 cents for 4-hour meetings and $1.50 for longer meetings;
the Association rented an office in the respondent's Atlanta headquar-
ters at $84 per year,12 and the respondent ceased to pay the salaries
of Association representatives except for such time as they actually
spent in conference with it.
'a This arrangement as abrogated by the Association on November 1, 1937 , when it
took quarters in another building.
SOUTHERN, , BELL T'ELEPHON'E' & TELEGRAPH CO. 635
The Association retained counsel in 1939, and the March 1940 meet-
ing of the General Assembly changed the preamble of the constitu-
tion, to be effective on September 15, 1940, to read as follows :
The Southern Association of Bell Telephone Employees was
formed on the 30th day of August, 1935, subsequent to the pas-
sage of the National Labor Relations Act, known as the Wagner
Act, supplanting a former organization of employees by the
same name.
Minor revisions were made in the constitution, but its provisions re-
mained substantially unchanged. The minutes of this meeting re-
ferred to it as the "5th Annual Meeting." 18 They were prepared
by Clifford Dennis who succeeded Wilkes in 1939.
The 1940 joint agreement between the Association and the re-
spondent was dated July 30, and together with other contracts
entered into by the parties pursuant to its terms, was in effect at the
time of the hearing.' It provided that "the Association having certi-
fied to the Company that it has not less than 14,500 members in good
standing who are employees, the Company agrees that this number
constitutes a majority of the employees," and granted sole recogni-
tion to the Association for purposes of collective bargaining.14
Prior contracts were silent respecting recognition. The agreement
provided that it remain in effect for 1 year and thereafter renewable
,for periods of 1 year, subject to cancellation by either party on 60
days' notice. Prior contracts were silent as to how long they were
to be effective.
4. The Events of February and March 1941
On February 10, 1941, the Association, having been previously
informed that a complaint charging its domination by the respondent
would be issued by the Board, wrote Warren of this fact, stating that
"because such a charge clouds this Association's right to represent
the employees of the Company," the Association, pending a canvass
of its membership by signed ballot, would not act as the bargaining
representative of the employees. The letter also called attention to
the fact that a union "is seeking to organize certain of your em-
ployees."
On February 11, Warren acknowledged this letter and at the same
time instructed his staff to refrain from in any way interfering
with or influencing employees in their choice of representatives.
13 It will be remembered that both minutes and constitution had theretofore dated the
Association back to 1919
14 Prior contracts, similar to this one, were entered into by the respondent without
proof of the Association ' s representation of the majority of the employees J. S. Kerr,
assistant to warren , testified that the respondent had knowledge of the Association's
membership through the check off of dues
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Notices were posted on its bulletin boards at 2,173 places by the
respondent . They set forth Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, and stated :
THE COMPANY RECOGNIZES ITS EMPLOYEES'
RIGHT TO JOIN, FORM OR AFFILIATE WITH ANY
LABOR ORGANIZATION OF THEIR OWN CHOICE AND
FREELY TO EXERCISE ALL RIGHTS SECURED THEM
BY THIS ACT.
THE COMPANY GUARANTEES ITS STRICT COMPLI-
ANCE WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT AND
THAT NO EMPLOYEE WILL BE DISCRIMINATED
AGAINST OR SUFFER ANY OTHER PENALTY BE-
CAUSE OF HIS OR HER EXERCISE OF ANY RIGHT
SECURED BY THIS ACT.
THE COMPANY IS NOT INTERESTED IN WHETHER
ITS EMPLOYEES JOIN OR DO NOT JOIN ANY LABOR
ORGANIZATION.
The Association thereafter polled its members by means of signed
ballots. More than 15,000 members indicated that they wished the
Association to represent them in collective bargaining and that they
desired to continue membership therein.15
On February 28, 1941, the Association wrote Warren informing
the respondent of the result of its canvass and demanded exclusive
recognition. Warren replied on March 3 and asked for copies of
letters relating to the balloting sent out by the Association, the affi-
davit of the public accountant who tabulated the votes, and a copy of
the ballot used. This material was sent to Warren on March 5.
On March 6 he wrote the Association recognizing it as the
"authorized collective bargaining agent of the employees of this
company" and so informed his staff, asking that they "be governed
accordingly."
The respondent and the Association contend that the Association,
-by its letter to Warren on February 10, 1941, "disestablished" itself as
a bargaining representative for the employees. We do not so in-
terpret its action. Warren testified that the respondent did not regard
the Association's letter of February 10 to have constituted cancellation
of the contract in effect between them. The contract was not re-
executed after March 6, and the parties have continued to conduct
their mutual affairs pursuant to its terms. Indeed the respondent
made no move to withdraw recognition from the Association, or to
deprive it of its firmly rooted and manifold advantages in the eyes of
the employees. In his February 11 reply to the Association, Warren
16 As of March 16, 1941 , 15,713 members of the Association bad so voted
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. 637
merely "noted" that pending the canvass, the Association would not
act as bargaining agent of the respondent's employees ; he did nothing
which would lead them to believe that he was removing his stamp of
approval from the Association and leaving the field clear for an unin-
fluenced expression of opinion by such employees 16
5. Concluding findings
The respondent sponsored the Association as an advisory agency
supported by it for adjusting differences with employees within man-
agement limitations. It was formed, existed, and functioned only
through the respondent's control, financial support, and sufferance.
With the passage of the Act, the respondent therefore had a plain
duty to its employees. As was stated in the Western Union case :17
. . . an unaffiliated union, known for long to be favored by
the employer, carries over an advantage which necessarily vitiates
its standing as exclusive bargaining agent. It cannot remain
such until measures are taken completely to disabuse the em-
ployees of any belief that they will win the employer's approval
if they remain in it, or incur his displeasure if they leave.
Rather than so disabusing its employees, the respondent openly
announced that the Association would continue to exist, and merely
withdrew its more obvious financial support. Minor revisions in the
Association were accomplished by Askew, Weil, and Wilkes. Askew
ceased his activities before the revision was completed, but both Weil
and Wilkes continued their leadership of the Association for several
years thereafter. Such duplication of personnel coupled with sub-
stantial continuity of existence is indicative of continued domination
by the employer.ls
The Association, which originated in 1919, continued after the ef-
fective date of the Act, substantially unchanged, and not only without
any "line of fracture,""' but without so much as a change in name.
Shortly after the effective date of the Act, the respondent executed a
contract with the Association, made its membership and dues deduc-
tion campaigns possible, and extended to it other support as more
fully outlined above.
In January and April 1937, revised notices setting forth the
respondent's position respecting the Association were issued. These
American Enka Corporation v N. L. R. B, 119 F. ( 2d) 60 (C. -C A 4)
31 Western Union Telegraph Company v N. L. R B., 113 F ( 2d) 992 (C C A 2).
International Association of Machinists v. N. L R . B, 110 F . ( 2d) 29 ( App. D. C.),
enforcing Matter of Serrick Corporation and International Union, United Automobile
Workers of America, Local 459, 8 N. L. R. B 261, aff ' d 311 U. S 72 See also Roebling
Employees Association, Inc. v. N. L. R. B . (C. C. A. 3 ), decided April 28, 1941.
19 Westinghouse Electric & Mfg . Co. v. N. L. R. B., 112 F. ( 2d) 657 ( C. C A. 2), affd
312 U. 8 660
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notices, too, instead of announcing that the respondent was severing
relations with the Association assumed that the Association continued
unchanged except as affected by further withdrawal of financial sup-
port to it by the respondent. - `
In February 1941, the respondent for the first time made an unL
equivocal announcement to its employees of their rights under the Act.
It once more failed, however, to disassociate itself from,the Associa-
tion by any announcement of its discontinuance of countenance there-
of. The effect of the domination and support of the Association by
the respondent prior to and during the years since 1935, could not,
under the circumstances, be dissipated except by an explicit announce-
ment to the employees that the respondent would no longer recognize
or deal with the Association. In the absence of such action by the
respondent, its employees were not afforded the opportunity to start
afresh in organizing for the adjustment of their relations with the
employer which they must have if the policies of the Act are to be
effectuated.20
The respondent and the Association contend that the results of the
1941 election, wherein a majority of the employees voted for the
Association, should not be disregarded in evaluating the Association's
status under the Act. Aside from the fact that the election was con-
ducted under unilateral auspices and was in no sense secret , since the
ballots were required to be signed, we are of the opinion that the
choice by the employees, of an organization which up to that time
had been company-dominated, does not reflect a free choice, and
cannot change the status of such organization. We have in prior
cases refused to place a company-dominated organization on the
ballot in a Board election. Reviewing our action in this respect, the
Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Black, has said :
... the Board justifiably drew the inference that this company-
created union could not emancipate itself from habitual sub-
servience to its creator, and that in order to insure employees
that complete freedom of choice guaranteed by § 7, Independent
must be completely disestablished and kept off the ballot.21
The respondent also contends that it engaged in arm's length bar-
gaining with the Association and relies on the fact that it made
concessions to this organization to support its contention. The fact
that the respondent bargained with the Association and that the
Association procured benefits for its members is immaterial under
the Act, if the respondent has in fact interfered with, dominated,
20 N. L. R. B v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 308 U. S 241.
21 N. L R. B. v Falk Corp., 308 U. S. 453, reversing mod'f. of Board's order in 106 F
( 2d) 454; N. L. R. B. v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company , 308 U. S.
241, 251; Bethlehem Steel Co. v. N. L. R B, May 12, 1941, (App. D. C.).
SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH Co. 639
or supported the organization.22 We are convinced from the record
that such interference, support, and domination has occurred.
We find that the respondent, by the above-described course of
conduct, and by certain acts of its supervisory employees described
in Section III B, below, has since July 5, 1935, dominated and inter-
fered with the administration of Southern Association of Bell Tele-
phone Employees, has contributed financial and other support there-
to, and has thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced its em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
B. Other interference, coercion; and restraint
During the fall of 1940, the Union began organizational activity
at the respondent's Shreveport plant. A special local of the Union
for employees of the respondent was established there on December
4, 1940. The Union's activity was known to the respondent.
There was undenied testimony that shortly after the local was
formed, E. B. Mason, district traffic manager of the respondent at
Shreveport, told Long Distance Supervisor Lora Sibley, "Mrs.
Sibley, if you have any influence with your people, you should in-
fluence them against the union." Sibley thereafter told two operators
that "we really did not need the union; that the Association was
everything that they had or could get, you know, and I did not feel
like that they would get any better than that, than they did out of
the Association." There was evidence that shortly after Mason made
his remarks to Sibley, he was instructed by the respondent' s general
traffic manager that he and his associates must maintain a neutral
attitude toward labor organizations in Shreveport. However, there
was no showing that the traffic manager's reprimand of Mason was
ever made known to the general body of employees at Shreveport.
About March 1, 1941, Hazel Bostick, toll operator at Shreveport,
and chairman of the Association local there, resigned her office.23
She testified that she resigned because she believed that Mason had
not properly considered a grievance advanced by her as chairman
of the Association local. Proceedings to select her successor were
held on the respondent's premises shortly after her resignation. Be-
fore balloting on this question, Ina Lee Burrows, operator, met
Vivian McCain, employment supervisor, in the rest room. Accord-
ing to Burrows, McCain inquired which side she was on; Burrows
replied, "I am on my own side"; McCain then told Burrows, "It is
a shame we can't fire all of these old dissatisfied employees and
replace them with new girls that would be appreciative of their jobs."
22 N L. R. B. v. iVewport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, 808 U S. 241 ;
Corning Glass Works v. N. L. R B, 118 F ( 2d) 625 (C C A. 2).
23 She had applied for membership in the Union during November 1940
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
McCain testified that she merely inquired of Burrows, "Which side
are you on?" and that she had reference to Bostick's 'successor. In
effect, McCain denied making the statement attributed to her by
Burrows regarding the discharge of "dissatisfied employees." The
Trial Examiner accepted Burrows' testimony as being in substantial
accord with the facts. He found that McCain's remarks respecting
dissatisfied employees clearly referred to Bostick, and that under
the circumstances they were inimical to the Union. We find that
McCain made the remarks attributed to her by Burrows.
The respondent contends that since it has 9000 exchanges and more
than 20,000 employees, the two incidents at Shreveport are trivial and
unimportant. However, we are impressed by the fact that in Sibley's
statement to the operators -specific reference was made to the Asso-
ciation, and the respondent's preference for the Association was clearly
pointed out; and that both of the anti-union statements recited
were made at Shreveport at the time the Union made its first attempts
to organize in the Southern Bell System.
We find that the respondent, by the statements and acts of Mason,
Sibley and McCain, described above, has interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Sec-
tion 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the respondent set forth in Section III above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent set
forth in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tion to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and with
foreign countries, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and
obstructing commerce, and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in unfair labor practices we will order it to cease and desist there-
from and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the
policies of the Act.
We have found that the respondent has dominated and interfered
with the administration of Southern Association of Bell Telephone
Employees and contributed financial and other support thereto.
Since the effects and consequences of such practices with respect to
the Association and its continued recognition as a bargaining repre-
sentative, constitute and will constitute a continuing obstacle to the
free exercise by the respondent's employees of their right to self-
organization and to bargain collectively through representatives of
SIOUTHER BELL TEfLEPHONE' & TELEGRAPH CO. 641
their own choosing, we will order the respondent to withdraw all
recognition from, and completely disestablish the Association as the
representative of any of its employees for the purpose of dealing with
the respondent respecting grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of
pay, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
Having found that the respondent entered into contracts with the
Association embodying recognition of the Association as such repre-
sentative, and that such contracts were the result of, and tend to per-
petuate the effects of, the respondent's unfair labor practices, we
will order the respondent to cease and desist from giving effect to or
performing any contract between the respondent and the Association
relating to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment, now existing, and to refrain from entering
into, renewing, or extending any contract with the Association relat-
ing to such matters. Nothing in this Decision and Order shall be
taken, however, to require the respondent to vary those wage, hour,
and other substantive features of its relations with the employees
themselves, if any, which the respondent has established in perform-
ance of any contract as extended, renewed, modified, supplemented,
or superseded.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following :
CONOLusioNs OF LAW
1. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor; and Southern Association of Bell
Telephone Employees, are labor organizations within the meaning
of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By dominating and interfering with the administration of South-
ern Association of Bell Telephone Employees, and by contributing
financial and other support thereto, the respondent has engaged in,
and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of
Section 8 (2) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices,
within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
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 Rela-
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
respondent, Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, At-
lanta, Georgia, and its officers, agents, successors, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) In any manner dominating or interfering with the adminis-
tration of Southern Association of Bell Telephone Employees, or with
the formation or administration of any other labor organization of
its employees and from contributing financial and other support
thereto;
(b) Recognizing Southern Association of Bell Telephone Employ-
ees as the representative of any of its employees for the purpose of
dealing with the respondent concerning grievances, labor disputes,
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment ; ,
(c) Giving effect to, or entering into, any contract or arrangement
with Southern Association of Bell Telephone Employees relating
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment ;
(d) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing
its employees in the exercise of their 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 purposes of collective bargaining or other
mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action, which'the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Withdraw all recognition from Southern Association of Bell
Telephone Employees as a representative of any of its employees for
the purpose of dealing with the respondent concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other
conditions of employment, and completely disestablish said Southern
Association of Bell Telephone Employees as such representative;
(b) Immediately post notices to its employees in conspicuous
places throughout all its offices, plants, and places of business and
maintain such notices for a period of not less than sixty (60) consecu-
tive days from the date of posting, stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a), (b), (c), and (d) hereof; and (2) that it
will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) hereof;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region in writ-
ing within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.