PG&E History 27 & 28

HISTORY FOCUS: •PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC •SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT •SIERRA PACIFIC POWER

The Struggle Intensifies (continued)

27. LAYOFFS CREATE CRISIS FOR UWUA

In September, a round of layoffs at PG&E created a crisis for the UWUA. With many of its best leaders gone over to the IBEW, the UWUA was unable to react decisively to the layoffs. The UWUA leadership outlined the following plan of action, as recounted in a UWUA newsletter:

“Your Negotiating Committee met with company representatives on Tuesday, September 6th to gather information as to the reason for the lay-offs at this time, just what employees are to be affected, the numerical number to be laid-off, and interpretation of the contractual rules that govern if, and when layoffs cannot be avoided. At this time your committee is passing the information on to the membership for their discussion, consideration and development of a course of action.”

The IBEW took the UWUA apart over this issue, particularly the notion that the leadership had to go to the members to figure out a course of action. What are leaders for, the IBEW wanted to know, if not to come up with a course of action?

“Either the contract has a seniority clause or it does not have one,” the IBEW declared in its weekly newsletter in September. “If it has one it’s up to the UWUA leadership to enforce it as part of the contract approved previously by the employees.” In October the IBEW continued to press the issue. The IBEW newsletter accused the UWUA leadership of pushing through the contract at the beginning of the year without adequate input from the members, and then asking the members to enforce that contract.

“We always thought the membership approved the contract and the officials policed and enforced it,” observed the IBEW.

Cecil Mertz and James Stowe in ice boat on El Dorado Canal, Camp 2, Placerville. 1950. (Courtesy Franklin Butler)

28. IBEW LAYS OUT ECONOMIC PROGRAM

But the IBEW campaign was not limited to criticizing the UWUA. The IBEW organizers had a program they wanted to see implemented at PG&E to benefit the workers and in October, still awaiting word from the NLRB about an election date, they published “An Economic Program for Bay Division Employees.” Among its provisions were: a business manager and full time representatives to represent the members; wage increases across the board, and a study of inequities and job reclassifications; adequate pension with joint administration; improved hospitalization and health plan; uniform grievance machinery for the entire system; a joint apprentice training program; improved arbitration machinery; complete organization of clerical workers; a joint job bidding committee to determine job awards; and stronger seniority guarantees.

It was a manifesto that detailed all the hopes that were wrapped up in the slogan “one union on the system.” But still there was no election date. On November 5, 1949, Local 1324 published an open letter to the NLRB in its newsletter:

“It is more than 10 months since the IBEW first petitioned for an election. The average jury can reach a decision in a few weeks. Any further delay must certainly be construed by IBEW members as out and out Board sympathy for union breaking. The IBEW wants nothing from the NLRB except a simple decision on the election. After 10 months it is certainly entitled to that.”

On November 29, the IBEW got its answer. The NLRB ordered an election for physical employees and rejected the company’s bid to exclude 1675 employees in 51 classifications from the bargaining unit. Even so-called professional and technical employees were included. The NLRB rejected pleas from the company and from the UWUA to break down the bargaining units by division: it would be one election on the whole system.