Al Rossi Produce Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 750 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

750 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of separate elections covering such units. We deny the request of the
Intervenor, without deciding upon the appropriateness of the units
for which the Intervenor contends, as the Intervenor, who in this re-
spect has the status and obligations of a petitioner,5 has failed to make
separate sufficient showings of interest to support the direction of
elections claimed appropriate by the Intervenor.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Eliza-
beth City, North Carolina, plant, excluding the watchmen,s office and
plant clerical employees,' and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368; Cadillac Motor Car Division , 94 NLRB 217.
6 As the watchmen work at night and on weekends when the plant is closed, punch
clocks, and have no duties other than patrolling the plant in protection of the Employer's
property , we find them to be "guards " within the meaning of the Act . Union Starch and
Refining Co., 100 NLRB 567.
T The Employer and the Petitioner stipulated that the appropriate unit should be the
contract unit as defined in the bargaining agreement between them . The said agreement
specifically excluded both office and plant clerical employees.
ALBERT ROSSI, D/B/A AL Rossi PRODUCE COMPANY and UNITED FRESH
FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78,
CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 20-RC-2091. March 17, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before LaFayette D. Mathews, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.2
1 At the hearing the petition and other formal papers were amended to show the correct
name of the Employer.
2 General Teamsters , Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 890, AFL, herein called the Team-
sters, was permitted to intervene at the hearing.
103 NLRB No. 85.
AL ROSSI PRODUCE COMPANY 751
3. The Employer urges dismissal of the petition on the ground that
the employees concerned are agricultural laborers within the meaning
of Section 2 (3) of the Act.
The Employer operates a ranch and a packing shed at Gonzales,
California. Although all but 25 to 30 percent of the produce which
moved through his packing shed last year was grown by the Employer,
his packing operations are conducted as a separate commercial enter-
prise from his farming operations. The packing shed employees are
separately supervised and carried on a separate payroll from the ranch
employees. The shed employees receive overtime pay, while the ranch
employees do not. The Employer makes contributions to the Unem-
ployment Compensation Fund for shed employees, but not for the
ranch employees. The Employer provides housing for most of the
ranch employees, but he does not provide housing for any of the shed
employees. For these reasons we find that the employees involved in
this proceeding are not agricultural laborers, but are employees within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act .3
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .4
4. We find, in agreement with the parties, that all packing shed em-
ployees at the Employer's packing shed at Gonzales, California,
engaged in the handling and processing of vegetables, excluding office
clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer has operated its packing shed since August of
1951. On an experimental basis it has packed spinach, celery, broccoli,
and radishes. In the future the Employer will pack only carrots and
tomatoes. At the time of the hearing, the Employer anticipated that
the shed would be completely shut down about February 15, and that
operations at the shed would not be resumed until July 1953. The
Employer will begin packing carrots in July and tomatoes in August.
He expects to have from 25 to 35 employees working in July, and from
55 to 60 in August, when the tomato packing operations begin.
S Imperial Garden Growers , 91 NLRB 1034 ; Holme d Seifert and Grower-Shipper Vege-
table Association of Central California , 102 NLRB 347.
* The Employer moves to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the petition contains
no allegation , as required by the Act, that the Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner
as the representative of its employees . We find no merit in the Employer 's contention.
The filing of the petition is itself a sufficient demand to raise a question concerning repre-
sentation . Moreover , by refusing to answer the hearing officer 's inquiry at the hearing
as to whether he was willing to recognize the Petitioner , the Employer in effect refused
recognition. The Great Atlantic ci Pacific Tea Company, 96 NLRB 660 ; White Construc-
tion and Engineering Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1419 . Accordingly , the Employer 's motion
is hereby denied.
752 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner and the Teamsters contend that an immediate elec-
tion should be directed because most of the Employer's shed employees
are local residents. The Employer contends that any election which
may be directed should be timed so as to coincide with the maximum
employment in July or August.
Because the seasonal employment peak for the Employer's shed
has passed, we shall not direct an election be held at this time. Fol-
lowing our customary practice in seasonal industries, we shall direct
that an election be held at or about the time of the employment peak
of the next packing season, on a date to be determined by the Regional
Director, among the employees in the appropriate unit who are em-
ployed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of
issuance of the notice of election.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 Truck Equipment Company of Atlanta, 93 NLRB 825.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (NILES GLASS WORKS, LAMP DIvisioN)
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORK-
ERS, CIO. Case No. 8-RC-1533. March 17,1953
Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of
Elections,' issued on September 30, 1952, an election was conducted on
October 14, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Eighth Region, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate in Case No. 8-RC-1533. At the conclusion of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
shows that of approximately 278 eligible voters, 102 valid ballots were
cast for the Petitioner, 160 valid ballots were cast for the Intervenor,.
United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), and
its Local No. 751, and 4 ballots were cast against participating labor
organizations.
Thereafter, on October 19, 1952, the Petitioner filed timely objec-
tions to the conduct of the election and to conduct affecting the results
of the election, alleging that on or about September 12, 1952, the Em-
ployer and Intervenor executed a contract which provided for wage
increases and other benefits at a time when a matter involving a ques-
1 General Electric Company, 100 NLRB 1318 ( consolidated Cases Nos. 8-RC-1524,
8-RC-1533).
103 NLRB No. 82.