9 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

Postal Telegraph-Cable Corp. of New York

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 22, 1938

9 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter Of POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE CORPORATION OF NEW YORK, POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (LAND LINE SYSTEM), POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (DELAWARE), THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH- CABLE COMPANY OF INDIANA, POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY OF MISSOURI, THE OHIO POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (TEXAS), THE COLORADO POSTAL TELE- GRAPH-CABLE COMPANY, POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY (OKLA- HOMA), THE KANSAS POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY, POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY KENTUCKY), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY (MICHIGAN ) and COMMERCIAL TELEGRAPHERS' UNION In the Matter of THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (LAND LINE SYSTEM ), POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY (ARIZONA ) , POSTAL TELEGRAPH- CABLE COMPANY (ARKANSAS) j POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY (CALIFORNIA) , THE COLORADO POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE CCOMPANY^ POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (CONNECTICUT), POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY ( DELAWARE), POSTAL TELE- GRAPH-CABLE COMPANY OF IDAHO, POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COM- PANY OF ILLINOIS, THE POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY OF IN- DIANA POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY OF IOWA, THE KANSAS POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY, POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COM- PANY (KENTUCKY), POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (LOUIsI- ANA) POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, POST- AL TELEGRAPH COMPANY (MICHIGAN), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY (MINNESOTA), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY OF MISSOURI , POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY OF MONTANA, POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COMPANY OF NEBRASKA , POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE 'COMPANY (NEVADA), POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY ( NEW MEXICO) , POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (NEW YORK), THE OHIO POSTAL TELE- GRAPH-CABLE COMPANY POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY (OKLA- HOMA), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY (OREGON), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY ( PENNSYLVANIA), POSTAL TELEGRAPH AND CABLE COMPANY ( RHODE ISLAND), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE 'COMPANY OF TENNESSEE , POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY (TEXAS), POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY OF UTAH, POSTAL TELEGRAPH -CABLE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, POSTAL TELEGRAPH- 'CABLE COMPANY OF WEST VIRGINIA POSTAL TELEGRAPH - CABLE COM- PANY (WISCONSIN), POSTAL TELEGRAPH-CABLE COMPANY OF WYO- MING and AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION -9 N. L. R. B., No 98. 1060 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1061 Cases Nos. R-6441 and R-997, respectively.Decided November -92, 1938 Communications Industry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees : rival organizations ; extension of exist- ing master contracts dependent upon a determination of majority representation by Board; controversy concerning appropriate unit-Contracts: no bar to investigation : where contracting union petitions Board to investigate represen- tatives ; where initial term of agreement ends shortly ; where petition filed prior to date for renewal ; where subject to action by Board , by its terms- Untt Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all employees of the system, exclud- ing executives , general managers , attorneys , confidential secretaries , general wire and traffic chiefs, and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and discharge , and excluding employees located in Washington, Oregon, North- ern Idaho, and Montana, and excluding also the line gang engaged in construc- tion work on lines of the Company on the Illinois Central Railroad south of the Ohio River ; organization of business ; nation-wide ; functional coherence- Election Ordered Mr. John H. Dorsey, and Mr. Jacob Blum, for the Board. Mr. James C. Phelps, of New York City, for the Company. Boudin, Cohn & Glickstein, by Mr. Sidney Elliott Cohn, of New York City, and Mrs. Mervyn Rathborne, of New York City, for the A. C. A. Mr. Patrick J. Taft, and Mr. Frank B. Powers, of Washington, D. C., for the C. T. U. Mr. William F. Steinmiller, of New York City, for the I. B. E. W. Miss Margaret M. Farmer, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On March 31, 1938, Commercial Telegraphers' Union, herein called the C. T. U., filed a petition, and on June 9, 1938, an amended peti- tion with the National Labor Relations Board at Washington, D. C., as authorized by said Board under Article III, Section 10 (a), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, alleging that a question ' affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of the following named cor- porations : Postal-Telegraph Cable Corporation of New York; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Land Line System) ; Postal Telegraph- -Cable Company (Delaware) ; The Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Indiana; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Missouri; The ,Ohio Postal Telegraph-Cable Company ; Postal Telegraph-Cable ,Company (Texas) ; The Colorado Postal Telegraph-Cable Company; -Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Oklahoma) ; The Kansas Postal 1062 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Telegraph-Cable Company; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Ken- tucky) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Massachusetts; and Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Michigan). The petition re- quested an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The Board, in accordance with Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3,.of the Rules and Regulations- Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation. On June 9, 1938, the Board issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the C. T. U., upon American Communica- tions Association, herein called the A. C. A., a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investiga- tion and upon International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W., a labor organization claiming to repre- sent employees of the Company within a certain area. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on July 14 and 15, 1938, before Tilford E. Dudley, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board, at Washington, D. C. The Board, the Company, the A. C. A. and the C. T. U. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. The I. B. E. W."did "not appear. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on 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. On September 8, 1938, the A. C. A. filed a petition with the Board at Washington, D. C., as authorized by said Board under Article III, Section 10 (a), of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, alleging that a question affect- ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of the following named corporations : The Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Land Line Systems) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Arizona) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Arkansas) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (California) ; The Colorado Postal Tele- graph-Cable Company; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Con- necticut) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Delaware) ; Postal Tel- egraph-Cable Company of Idaho; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Illinois; The Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Indiana; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Iowa; The Kansas Postal Telegraph- Cable Company; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Kentucky) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Louisiana) ; Postal Telegraph- Cable Company of Massachusetts ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Michigan) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Minnesota) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Missouri; Postal Telegraph-Cable- DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1063 Company of Montana; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Ne- braska; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Nevada) ; Postal Tele- graph-Cable Company of New Jersey; Postal Telegraph-Cable Com- pany (New Mexico) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (New York); The Ohio Postal Telegraph-Cable Company; Postal Tele- graph-Cable Company (Oklahoma) ; Postal Telegraph Company (Oregon) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Pennsylvania) ; Postal Telegraph and Cable Company (Rhode Island) ; Postal Telegraph- Cable Company of Tennessee; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Texas) ; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Utah; Postal Tele- graph-Cable Company of Washington; Postal Telegraph-Cable Com- pany of West Virginia; Postal Telegraph-Cable Company (Wiscon- sin) ; and Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Wyoming. The peti- tion requested an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. The Board, in accordance with Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III of the Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation, and in accordance with Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered that the two cases be consoli- dated for all purposes. On September 20, 1938, the Board issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Com- pany, the A. C. A., the C. T. U., and the I. B. E. W. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on October 6, 1938, in New York City before Charles A. Wood, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the A. C. A., the C. T. U., and the I. B. E. W. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-exam- ine 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 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. Upon the entire record in both cases, the' Board makes the fol- lowing : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY 1 Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation is a holding company or- ganized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Maryland. This corporation controls the Mackay Companies (more I The facts set forth In this section are derived from a stipulation signed by a repre- sentative of the Company and counsel for the Board and introduced in evidence at the first hearing. At the second hearing, it was stipulated by and between all parties that the stipulation should be considered to all intents and purposes in the case as if filed as an exhibit. 1064 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD recently known as the Associated Companies and now under 77B of the Bankruptcy Act), a Massachusetts trust, which in turn controls the 35 Postal Telegraph-Cable Companies that have been made parties to this proceeding. Each of these companies is a corporation incor- porated under the laws of the States indicated in their respective corporate names. The Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation, through its operat- ing subsidiaries, provides a closely coordinated system of communica- tions comprising land-line telegraph, cables, and domestic and foreign radio telegraph, through which messages may be forwarded directly or via connections to any part of the world. Land-line telegraph operations are carried on throughout the United States by the 35 Postal Telegraph-Cable Companies. These land lines extend into every State in the United States and telegraph service is provided through more than 2,000 main and branch offices and approximately 2,800 agency and connecting line offices. Gross telegraph revenue from the operations of the land-line system for the year 1937 amounted to the sum of $21,791,050.29. To facilitate the operations of the land-line system 2 (hereinafter referred to as the System), a written agreement was entered into by and between the 35 Postal Telegraph-Cable Companies in the nature of a general power of attorney delegating to the Postal Tele- graph-Cable Company of New York full power and authority in the name of the New York Company : (a) To keep books (hereinafter referred to as "System books") which shall reflect the operations of all of the parties as if to- gether they constituted a-single business entity; (b) To apportion among all of the parties the common ex- penses described in Paragraph 9 of the agreement and to bill and collect from each party at such times as it shall deem advisable the proportionate share of such party; (c) To prepare and file with the Interstate Commerce Com- mission and/or with such other Governmental agencies as may lawfully require the same, reports containing summaries or ab- stracts from the System books; (d) To make and execute any and all contracts concerning or in any wise pertaining to the business transacted or to be transacted by any party or by all of the parties; (e) To do all and everything necessary and proper for the accomplishment of the foregoing enumerated purposes or any of them or necessary or advisable to the attainment of the ob- jects of the agreement. 2 The issues raised herein concern only the employees of the land lines system. The Company employed approximately 15,650 such employees as of October 1, 1938. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1065 The executive office of the System is located in New York City. Active management and control of its operations as a single unit is vested in its operating vice president of the New York Company assisted by vice presidents who are in turn officials of each of the 35 companies comprising the System. The System is divided into seven geographical divisions covering the whole United States. Divisional General Managers are at the head of each division, who are directly responsible to the officials of the New York Company. The divisions are in turn subdivided into districts under the jurisdiction of the District Superintendents. Divisional bank accounts are maintained in each Division, from which salary disbursements are made to the employees within the Division. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED C. T. U. is a labor organization affiliated with the American Feder- ation of Labor, apparently admitting to its membership all em- ployees of the System except executives, general managers, confiden- tial secretaries, general wire and traffic chiefs, and those employees who have the right to hire and discharge. A. C. A. is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, apparently admitting to its membership all employees of the System except executives, managers, attorneys, con- fidential secretaries, general wire and traffic chiefs, and those em- ployees who have the right to hire and discharge. I. B. E. W. is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Its membership requirements are not disclosed by the record. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On December 10, 1937, the American Radio Telegraphists Asso- ciation 3 filed a petition and amended petition with the Board alleg- ing that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the rep- resentation of employees of the 35 companies involved in the present proceeding. On the salve date, the C. T. U. filed a petition with the Board alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of three of said companies. Each petition asked for an investigation and certification of repre- sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. After an investi- gation and hearing with respect to the petitions, the Board on Feb- ruary 12, 1938, issued a decision in which it found that all the employees of the System, with specified exceptions, constituted an appropriate bargaining unit and directed the holding of an election $ Subsequently the American Radio Telegraphists Association by referendum vote of its membership changed its name to American Communications Association , heiem called the A. C. A. 1066 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD by secret ballot among such employees. On March 1, 1938, the Board withdrew the said decision and direction of election and dismissed the petition for an investigation and hearing filed by the A. C. A. Prior to the issuance by the Board of the aforesaid decision and direction of election, the Company and the A. C. A. entered into an agreement dated December 18, 1937, whereby the A. C. A. was recog- nized as exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Coin- pany in 19 cities and areas throughout the United States. Following the Board's withdrawal of its decision and direction of election, the agreement was extended to cover employees of the Company in 30 additional cities. The agreement was extended to employees of a majority of the cities only after a check of membership or authoriza- tion cards, made through one of the regional offices of the Board, showed that a majority of such employees desired representation by the A. C. A. On January 12, 1938, a date also prior to the issuance by the Board of its decision and direction of election, the Company and the C. T. U. entered into an agreement whereby existing contracts recognizing the C. T. U. as exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Company in Indianapolis, Indiana, Jacksonville, Florida, and Kansas City, Missouri, were consolidated and extended to cover employees in Louisville, Kentucky. The agreement provides that it shall remain in effect until December 31, 1938, and thereafter from year to year as of November 30 in each year, unless notice in writing shall be given by either party to the other of its termination or of any changes de- sired at least 60 days prior to the end of the then current term. Sub- sequently, the agreement was extended to cover also employees of the Company in Lexington and Paducah, Kentucky. The extension of the agreement to the latter two cities took place after a check of mem- bership or authorization cards, made through one of the regional offices of the Board, showed that a majority of such employees desired representation by the C. T. U. The Company has by an agreement dated September 1, 1937, recog- nized the I. B. E. W. as bargaining representative of its employees in Washington, Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Montana. This agree- ment provides that it shall remain in effect until September 1, 1938, and thereafter from year to year subject to 30 days' written notice given by either party prior to September of any year. Testimony was also offered that the I. B. E. W. has been recognized as represent- ative of the linesmen engaged in construction work on Company lines on the Central Railroad of Illinois south of the Ohio River and that a contract covering such employees was being negotiated. The A. C. A. now seeks certification by the Board as bargaining representative of all the employees of the System, excluding certain supervisory and confidential employees. The Company has refused to DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1067 grant the A. C. A. recognition as bargaining representative of such employees in the absence of certification by the Board. The C. T. U. seeks certification as bargaining representative of employees of the System in 45 cities, including employees in the six cities named in its- agreement with the Company. The agreements which the Company has entered into, as aforesaid, with the A. C. A. and the C. T. U., respectively, constitute no bar to an investigation or a certification of representatives by the Board.3a- Furthermore, the initial period of the agreement between the A. C. A. and the Company ends on December 31, 1938. The petition of the- A. C. A. asking for an investigation and certification of employees throughout the System was filed with the Board prior to the date on which the agreement would become effective for an additional period in the absence of written notice. Since the A. C. A. has petitioned the Board to investigate and certify representatives on a nation-wide basis, it clearly does not claim that its agreement with the Company constitutes such a bar. The C. T. U., by its petition for investiga- tion and certification of representatives for employees in 45 cities, inclusive of employees in each city covered by its agreement with the Company, would appear to have wi ived any claim that its agreement constitutes a bar. It is not, however, necessary to make any decision as to a waiver since the initial term of the agreement ends shortly, namely, on December 31, 1938; since the petition of the C. T. U. was filed with the Board prior to the date on which the agreement would automatically be extended for an additional period in the absence of written notice; and since the agreement by its terms clearly indicates that the parties intended that it should be subject to action by the Board with respect to the designation or bargaining representatives. In Section 1 of the agreement, the Company recognizes the C. T. U. as bargaining representative "during the life of this contract or until another collective bargaining representative is designated in accord- ance with the law." The Company does not assert that any of the agreements constitute a bar to an investigation and certification by the Board. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COA13YERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the System described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial 81 In view of the conclusions reached in Section V below, it is not necessary here to con- sider the Company's agreement with the I. B. E. W. 1068 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT In its petition the A. C. A. claims that all the employees of the System, except executives, general managers, confidential secretaries, general wire and traffic chiefs, and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and discharge, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.4 The C. T. U. contends that the employees of the System, except executives, attorneys and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and discharge's in each of 45 specified cities appropri- ately constitute separate bargaining units. The record shows that under the operating agreement set forth in Section I above, the 35 companies composing the System are oper- ated as 1 company. This is due to the very nature of its business of telegraphic communications on a national scale. Each division and subdivision within the System is inseparably linked and a necessary part of the proper function of every other part of the System. In the event of labor disturbances at one or more of the principal ter- minal points in congested areas, the whole System would be to a great extent disrupted. An employee engaged in sending a telegraph mes- sage in New York and another receiving the message in San Fran- cisco thus occupy much the same relation as employees working side by side in a mass-production industry. Each has a duty to perform that is dependent on the other to insure the uninterrupted conveyance of the communication from the sender to the receiver. Under the operating agreement employees of the System are under one employer," and are transferred from one place to another through- out the United States. System seniority is maintained, and in the event of a transfer of an employee to another locality in a different district, seniority rights are retained. A national policy as to pen- sions and disability payments is in operation. Mr. Logue, one of the vice presidents connected with the New York office, in charge of operations of the System, testified that decisions on matters of policy affecting employees throughout the System are 4 The agreement of January 12, 1938, between the A . C. A. and the Company includes attorneys among the employees declared to be ineligible to membership in the A. C. A and without the scope of the agreement . It would appear , therefore , that the A. C. A. desires also to exclude attorneys from the unit. 6 The general agreement between the C. T. U. and the Company names as ineligible to membership in the C T. U. general traffic chiefs, general wire chiefs, executives , attorneys, confidential secretaries and their supeilors , city and branch managers with six or more operators including the supervisor constituting the day force . It would appear , therefore, that the C. T . U. desires all such employees excluded from the units See Matter of Cosmopolitan Shipping Company , Inc. and National Marine Engineers' Iienefcial Association, Local No 33, 2 N L. R B. 759. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1069 vested solely in the New York officials; that no final agreement con- cerning wages, hours, and working conditions of employees through- out the System could be made by any manager or other official in a particular locality. Although the C. T. U. is at present seeking the establishment of 45 separate bargaining units, it did not deny the statement of Mr. Logue at the second hearing that it had, prior to the filing of its petition, demanded recognition as collective bargaining agent on a nation-wide basis. Furthermore Frank E. Powers, president of the C. T. U., ad- mitted that the situation of an employee in one part of the country was in general the same as that of an employee in another part of the country and that the sole reason for seeking separate bargaining units was that the local and national officers desired such units.? We think the evidence is convincing that effective collective bar- gaining can best be accomplished by negotiations with the New York officials because the employees throughout the System are, in effect, under one employer, with authority vested only in that employer to make any final agreement concerning wages, hours and working con- ditions of employees. We think it is equally true that in the main this can best be accomplished, in the interest of both the employer and the employees, upon the basis of a single bargaining unit through- out the System." Employees throughout the System are closely inter- related, subject to the same general policies, engaged in the same type of work, under the same classifications, and in general, have the same problems concerning wages, hours and working conditions. The general agreements which the Company has entered into with the A. C. A. and the C. T. U. covering employees in widely separated 7 The C. T. U. cited in support of its contention the decision of the Board in matter of Postal Telegraph-Cable Company of Massachusetts and American Radio Telegraphists Association, 7 N. L. R. B. 444, where the Board found that employees of the Company under the jurisdiction of the city superintendent of Boston constituted an appropriate bar- gaining unit. The Board, however, expressly pointed out that the ultimate goal of the A. C. A. and possibly of the C. T. U. was to organize the employees of the System on the basis of a nation-wide bargaining unit and stated the employees In Boston "should not be denied the benefits of the Act pending more complete organization of all the employees throughout the country." In that case, unlike the instant case, no labor organization asked for a nation-wide bargaining unit. See in this connection Matter of R. C A. Commu- nications, Inc and Independent Employees Association of it. C. A -C, 9 N. L. R. B 915. 8 The Board has in many decisions involving the communications Industry found a nation-wide bargaining unit appropriate See Matter of R C A Communications, Inc and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, 2 N. L. R. B. 1109 ; Matter of Mackay Itadso Corporation of Delaware, Inc. and Mackay Radio it Telegraph Company, a corpora- tion and American Radio Telegraphists' Association, 5 N. L R. B. 657; Matter of Colum- bia Broadcasting System, Inc. and American Radio Telegraphists Association, 6 N L R. B. 166; Matter of Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc and American Communications Association (formerly American Radio Telegraphists' Association), 8 N. L R. B 508; Matter of R. C. A Communications, Inc and Independent Employees Association of R C. A -C., 9 N. L. R. B 915. The increasing number of successful agreements on a nation-wide basis between unions and individual railroad companies is indicative of the appropriateness of a nation-wide bargaining unit in industries where the proper function- ing of the entire system is dependent upon the functioning of each part of the system. See Third Annual Report of National Mediation Board, including the Report of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, pp 2-3. 1070 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD localities throughout the country clearly indicate the feasibility of inclusion in a single -unit of employees throughout the System. It appears from the record, as stated above, that the I. B. E. W. has exclusive bargaining contracts with the Company covering em- ployees in Washington, Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Montana. Pre- sumably these contracts are based upon majority representation by the I. B. E. W. of the employees covered thereby. It appears from the record also that the Company has recognized the I. B. E. W. as exclu- sive bargaining representative for the line gang engaged in construc- tion work on lines of the Company on the Illinois Central Railroad south of the Ohio River, and that a contract covering such employees is being negotiated. The A. C. A. stated at the hearing that it had no objection to exclusion from the unit at this time of all the aforesaid employees. The C. T. U. and the Company raised no objection to such exclusion. In view of these facts, we shall omit the aforesaid employees from the national unit at the present time. We find that all the employees of the System, excluding executives, general managers, attorneys, confidential secretaries, general wire and traffic chiefs, and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and discharge, excluding also the employees in Washington, Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Montana, and excluding further the line gang engaged in construction work on lines of the Company on the Illinois Central Railroad south of the Ohio River, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES At the hearing, a company representative testified that as of Octo- ber 1, 1938, approximately 15,650 persons were employed throughout the System. The A. C. A. claimed to represent 10,000 of these employees, but submitted in evidence only comparatively few mem- bership authorization cards. There is testimony that 8,885 employees of the System were covered by the agreement between the A. C. A. and the Company and that 3,100 of this number were employed in those cities in which a check of membership cards by representatives of the Board showed that the A. C. A. represented a majority. The C. T. U. offered in evidence approximately 680 membership cards of employees in the 45 localities named in this petition and two papers designating the C. T. U. as bargaining representative, one signed by 13 employees and the other by 7 employees. There is testimony that as of October 1, 1938, 522 employees were covered by the agreement between the C. T. U. and the Company. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1071 We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of the employees of the System can best be resolved by the holding of an election by secret ballot. We shall, therefore, direct that such election be held to determine whether the employees in the appropriate unit desire to be represented by the C. T. U. or the A. C. A., or by neither. The I. B. E. W. offered no evidence as to membership on a national basis and did not indicate a desire that its name appear on the ballot. Its name will, therefore, not be included. It was stipulated by counsel for -all parties that if the Board directed the holding of an election, eligibility to vote in the election might appropriately be based upon the employees whose names appear on the pay roll of the Company for October 1, 1938. In view ,of the stipulation, we shall direct that the election be held among the employees of the System within the appropriate unit whose names appear on the pay roll of the Company for October 1, 1938, excluding those who have since quit or been discharged for cause. On 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 the System within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All employees of the System, excluding executives, general man- agers, attorneys, confidential secretaries, general wire and traffic -chiefs, and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and dis- charge, and excluding employees located in Washington, Oregon, Northern Idaho, and Montana, and excluding also the line gang engaged in construction work on lines of the Company on the Illinois Central Railroad south of the Ohio River, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board -to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with the System, .an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as soon as convenient 1072 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and beginning as promptly as is practicable after the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in the matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the employees of the System who were on the pay rolls of the Company on October 1, 1938, excluding executives, general managers, attorneys, confidential secretaries, gen- eral wire and traffic chiefs, and supervisory employees who have the right to hire and discharge, excluding employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, excluding employees located in Wash- ington, Oregon, Montana, and Northern Idaho, and excluding also the line gang engaged in construction work on lines of the Com- pany on the Illinois Central Railroad south of the Ohio River, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Commercial Teleg- raphers' Union, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, or by American Communications Association affiliated with the Com- mittee for Industrial Organization, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.