This is a decision by the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) concerning a representation election for employees of Pennsylvania American Water Company. The Pennsylvania American Water Independent Union (Petitioner) filed a petition seeking to represent a bargaining unit currently represented by the United, Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (Intervenor). The sole issue before the Regional Director was whether the Petitioner qualifies as a "labor organization" under Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).

The Petitioner was formed in 2025 by former and current employees of the company. A retired former employee, John T. Lee, who was also a former assistant president of another union, was instrumental in its creation, assisting a current employee, Matthew Bails, who sought to move away from the Intervenor. Lee, now the Petitioner's President, testified that the organization was established with the explicit purpose of negotiating contracts, addressing working conditions, and handling grievances. The Petitioner has a drafted constitution and bylaws that outline these objectives, stating its aim to unite employees for collective bargaining, secure better pay and working hours, and promote members' general welfare. While no employees are currently official members, and no meetings with employees have yet occurred, Lee stated the intent to represent employees. Matthew Bails, a pipeline inspector for the Employer, also testified about his involvement in initiating the formation of a new union after the previous one declined representation. He confirmed reaching out to Lee and his understanding that a new union would be established. Bails testified he has not paid dues or attended meetings and is not an officer.

The Employer and Intervenor argued that the Petitioner is not a labor organization because it lacks significant employee involvement, its officers are not employees of the company, and it has not yet engaged in collective bargaining activities or generated revenue. They also pointed to the fact that the Petitioner's attorney represents some employees in a lawsuit against the Employer and Intervenor to invalidate the current collective-bargaining agreement, suggesting a sham or conflict of interest. The Employer specifically argued that the Petitioner's bylaws require officers to be employees, and since the current officers are not, it disqualifies the Petitioner.

The Regional Director, applying the broad definition of "labor organization" under Section 2(5) of the Act, found that the Petitioner met the statutory requirements. The Director emphasized that the Act's definition is interpreted broadly, and even an "incipient union" can be recognized if it was formed with the intent to represent employees. The critical factor is the organization's purpose, not necessarily its present accomplishments or formal structure. The Director cited numerous cases establishing that an organization does not need to have actually "dealt with" an employer or have revenue to be considered a labor organization. The absence of a constitution, bylaws, or previous representation experience is not determinative.

The Regional Director concluded that the Petitioner demonstrated sufficient employee involvement through the initial petition and the testimony of Bails, an active employee. The Petitioner's clear intent to represent employees in collective bargaining regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment was evident from the testimony and its constitution. The Director dismissed the Employer's and Intervenor's arguments regarding the lack of current employee membership, officer status, revenue, or bargaining history as irrelevant to the determination of labor organization status. The Director also found that the Petitioner's attorney's representation of employees in a separate lawsuit and the specific bylaws regarding officer eligibility did not impact the Petitioner's status as a labor organization.

Consequently, the Regional Director found that the Petitioner is a labor organization and directed an election to determine employee preference for representation by the Petitioner, the Intervenor, or neither. The decision also detailed the election procedures, eligibility criteria, and requirements for providing a voter list.

Significant Cases Cited

• Electromation, Inc., 309 NLRB 990 (1992): This case established that an employee-management committee formed to address workplace issues could be considered a labor organization under the Act if it deals with terms and conditions of employment.
• Coinmach Laundry Corp., 337 NLRB 1286 (2002): This decision reaffirmed that an entity can be considered a labor organization even if it has not yet engaged in collective bargaining or has no employees as members, provided it was formed for the statutory purpose.
• East Dayton Tool & Die Company, 194 NLRB 266 (1971): The Board found that a union was a labor organization within the meaning of the Act, even though it had not yet perfected its organizational structure or formally entered into negotiations.
• Butler Manufacturing Company, 167 NLRB 308 (1967): This case held that a union did not need to have a constitution or officers to be considered a labor organization, as long as it existed for the purpose of dealing with the employer concerning employee grievances and working conditions.
• Alto Plastic Mfg. Corp., 136 NLRB 850 (1962): The Board affirmed that a "labor organization" under the Act includes any employee representation committee or plan formed for the purpose of dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.

This summary was generated using Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite. It could contain errors.