Opinion ID: 1503025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Association as Continuation of Plan.

Text: It is necessary to outline briefly the history of the Plan and of the Association. As early as the latter part of 1931 and continuously up to the hearing on the complaint, petitioner employed undercover men who were to report upon matters they observed while working with and as employees. Among other things, they reported upon the labor activities which they observed. In August, 1933, an American Federation of Labor Union began a drive to organize certain of the powerhouse workmen. This movement met rather ready response from the men. This continued for some weeks until the Plan took control and put an end thereto. During September, 1933, petitioner had its attorneys draw up the Plan. September 30, 1933, petitioner submitted the Plan in explanatory letters sent its employees. The Plan divided the employees into departments with departmental councils and a general council  each council was made up of equal representation of petitioner and of the employees. There were no dues. Secretaries for the councils were appointed by and paid by petitioner. Membership in the Plan seems to have been compulsory, or, at least, it worked out that way. In connection with the Plan, petitioner established a Director of Employees Relations who acted as chairman at the meetings of the joint representatives under the Plan and seems to have been the active constant agency of petitioner in maintaining proper touch with the employees. Alec E. Bettis acted throughout as this director. [1] Petitioner's answer to the complaint admits that it contributed by paying for printing the Plan and by paying the wages of the employee representatives while engaged in performing their duties under the Plan. The evidence leaves no doubt that the Plan was initiated, promoted and, so far as necessary, financed by petitioner. The Plan functioned until April 12, 1937, when the validity of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., was upheld. National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 57 S.Ct. 615, 81 L.Ed. 893, 108 A.L.R. 1352. It was not formally abandoned until the constitution of the Association was ratified by two-thirds of the chapters of the Association between June 23 and July 1, 1937. No meetings were held during April or thereafter. The labor matters seem to have lain dormant without action by petitioner or the employees until May 29, 1937. Apparently, both petitioner and at least some of the employees recognized that the Plan was not valid under the Act. On May 29, 1937, W. R. Kent, who had been an employee for 21 years and was then a trouble man [2] , acted. Kent had been considering the situation since early in May. Some years before he had, as he thought, an unfair experience while a member of a local of the A. F. of L. Recently, he had been threatened with violence by members of the C. I. O. He resolved to try to form an independent union of all of the employees, below supervisors, of petitioner. He made some inquiry among the employees and thought them favorable to the idea. May 29th he started to put his idea into execution. First, he told the head of his department (Dysart) of his intentions. Dysart refused to discuss the matter saying the men were free to do as they pleased without danger to their status. Kent asked Dysart if he had any objection to his taking up the matter with Mr. Bettis and asked him to make an appointment with Bettis. Dysart said he had no objection but Kent would have to make his own appointment with Bettis. Kent then called a fellow workman, Hamarstrom, to whom he communicated his plan. They called on Bettis. Kent told Bettis that he was under the impression that the old Plan was dead; that he intended to form a new union; and asked Bettis (who was vice-president of his department) to call a meeting of the employees under the old representation Plan for the purpose of disbanding that organization. Bettis refused to call a meeting or to have anything to do with the matter, saying that as far as he was concerned, the Association [Plan] ceased to exist; for Kent not to discuss it with him and that Kent was free to join any union he wanted to the C. I. O., the A. F. of L., or anything else. Bettis said he did not want us to use company time, hold any meetings on company property, or expect any legal advice from the legal department, or assistance from the company in any manner. Later in the same day, Kent and Hamarstrom went to the law office of Col. Garrett, a friend of Kent, and told him they wanted a constitution drawn up for a new union. They had with them a copy of the Plan and either had or sent for copies of several constitutions of independent unions, including that of the Association of Plant Employees of the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Mr. Ruark, partner of Garrett, took charge of the matter. He was told to draw up a constitution following the Telephone employees plan. [3] About noon next day, the draft was completed and was taken to a printer who delivered 3,000 copies several days later. Kent had blank membership cards printed, which were delivered May 29th or 31st, probably on the 31st. June 1st, after work hours, Kent had two young women [4] run off copies of the constitution on a ditto machine belonging to the company. There is testimony that this machine was used by the employees but whether this was for their own private purposes or only on company business is not clear. This work and the stationery were paid for by Kent. Kent and Hamarstrom called a meeting of the employee representatives under the Plan for the evening of June first at a place removed from company property. A majority of such representatives as well as several other employees (including Kent and Hamarstrom) attended. The idea of the new union and the proposed constitution were submitted and discussed. There was determined opposition to the entire matter by representatives of the two councils [5] from the power plant departments. Apparently, the others approved. From this meeting until organization of the chapters, there was an intensive membership campaign. With the exception of one instance, none of the solicitors acted on company time or property  two men were thus solicited while they were working with the solicitor but without knowledge of any superior. There was some solicitation of men out on line jobs on streets when the solicited were on company time. There were several instances of men asking for membership applications and filling them out during working hours. Apparently, most of the solicitation and filling out of application was off company property and out of hours. During this solicitation period, various meetings were held by those active in organizing work. These meetings were at night at the homes of employees. The applications for membership contained an approval of the constitution. The constitution provided that the employee representatives under the Plan should serve until their successors can be elected under the Association. On June 15, 1937, six of such representatives on the General Council (under the Plan) sent a letter to Porter, president of petitioner, that the Association had secured 1,263 members  more than 51% of the total employees  and requested a conference and recognition as sole bargaining agent. Porter replied agreeing to a conference at the convenience of the representatives. These organizing activities continued and finally resulted in meetings at which the various chapters were separately organized, the constitution adopted, formally, and the various chapter and General Council committeemen elected. All of the nine chapters were thus organized between June 23rd and July 1st, except Chapters A and B (which covered the powerhouse workers). These chapter meetings were in public halls at night. Members of the General Council elected by the above seven chapters met and organized as such the evening of July 2, 1937, at a hotel. A resolution was passed, as follows: Resolved, that the members of this Council, or a majority thereof, make an effort to have a conference with Mr. Joseph F. Porter, President of the Company, Saturday morning, July 3, 1937, for the purpose of negotiating a contract between this Association and the Company, covering the following points generally: 1. That this Association be recognized by the Company as the sole bargaining agency for all of the employees of the Company up to, but not including, those holding supervisory positions. 2. That the Company recognize seniority rights in each line of employment, based on length of service in said line of employment. 3. That the Company install the so-called check-off system for the collection of membership dues from members of this Association and that a reasonable compensation be paid the Company for such service. 4. That the Company recognize the principle of the closed shop, with the matter being placed before the Association membership at an election to be held within thirty (30) days from the date of the temporary agreement with the Company. Two-thirds (2/3) vote of the membership of the Association being necessary to decide. In pursuance of the resolution, a meeting was requested by the Council and held with Porter on July 3, 1937. This meeting resulted in recognition of the Association and in a temporary contract which was to be expanded into a more complete and detailed agreement. July 7, 1937, the General Council ratified the above temporary contract and appointed a Negotiating Committee to carry through the arrangement. After extended negotiations between this committee and petitioner, a definite contract was entered into on September 23, 1937, under which the Association and petitioner have since acted. Under the above recital of fact situation, it is clear that the Association was the successor of the Plan. By the very terms of the Association constitution [6] , the Plan was to cease to exist only when the constitution is adopted and such adoption was to be effective only when the constitution had ratification by two-thirds of the chapters which were functioning as Councils under the Employes Representation Plan, heretofore in effect. Also, such adoption shall constitute a reorganization of those Councils as Chapters of this Association  plainly implying that the councils continued until the ratification of the constitution. Also, the Committeemen and Councilmen now serving under the Employes Representation Plan shall serve as Committeemen and Councilmen of this Association, until their successors can be elected  such elections could not be held until the various chapters met and organized under the Association. The purpose and the effect of these provisions in the Association constitution were to prevent any hiatus between the Plan and the Association. It is true that the principal organizers of the Association as well as the company officials regarded the Plan as dead because of the effect thereon of the National Labor Relations Act. However, there is no evidence that the great body of employees so regarded the situation. Even though requested to give notice that the Plan was defunct, the company had refused to take such action. This attitude of the company may have been prompted by the belief that it was improper (under the Act) for it to take any action connected with labor organization matters. However, it is not the motive influencing this company stand but the effect of such inaction upon the employees which is important in this situation. The very fact that a new association was being formed would naturally lead the employees to believe that a change from the Plan was being made but the very constitution of the new organization assured them that the Plan would continue until the new organization had been formed and the requisite number of chapter ratifications of the constitution had been secured. Considering that the Plan was entirely company conceived and supported; that all employees were required to be and, apparently, were members thereof; that the Plan had been in operation for about four years; that it became inoperative solely because of the Act; that the attitude of the company to the effect that the Plan had become inoperative was not brought to the attention of the employees prior to or during the campaign period of organization of the Association; that the constitution of the Association expressly provided for interim continuation of the Plan and of the representatives of the employees thereunder, we cannot say that the Board had no basis in the evidence for its inference that the employees were not as free from the influence of this situation as the Act contemplates they must be in choosing their bargaining agent. The situation here seems directly ruled by National Labor Relations Board v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 308 U.S. 241, 60 S.Ct. 203, 84 L.Ed. ___. Also, compare National Labor Relations Board v. Falk Corporation, 308 U.S. 453, 60 S.Ct. 307, 84 L.Ed. ___; National Labor Relations Board v. Penn. Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 261, 58 S.Ct. 571, 82 L.Ed. 831, 115 A.L.R. 307, and National Labor Relations Board v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 303 U.S. 272, 58 S.Ct 577, 82 L.Ed. 838.