American Fruit Growers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 740 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

740 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMERICAN FRUIT GROWERS, INC. and UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGE-
TABLE WORKERS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78, C10, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 20-RC-1954 and 20-RC-1955. December 0, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing in the above consolidated cases'
was held before M. C. Dempster, hearing officer. The hearing of-
ficer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed 2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent in separate units the employees
in the Employer's fruit packing sheds at Newcastle and Auburn,
California. The Newcastle and Auburn sheds are located about 5
miles apart. Two additional sheds, at Loomis and Briggs, are in-
cluded in the same administrative district. The Loomis shed is about
5 miles from Newcastle, while the Briggs shed is about 65 miles from
Loomis. It appears from the record that the primary purpose of
the district organization is to integrate the sales and shipments of the
produce rather than the operation and labor relations policy of these
sheds. The shed manager at the Newcastle shed serves as the district
manager in charge of sales and shipments for all four sheds. Neither
party contends that this district constitutes an appropriate multished
I On August 14, 1952, the Regional Director, pursuant to Section 102 64 ( b) of the
Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 6, consolidated the proceedings in Cases Nos.
20-RC-1954 and 20-RC-1955.
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer' s motion to dismiss on the
grounds that: (1) No question of representation existed at the time of the hearing
because the Employer had not been requested to recognize the Petitioner; and (2) the
Petitioner did not make an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the
units in question . The motion is denied because: ( 1) The filing of the petitions con-
stituted a sufficient demand for recognition Advance Pattern Company , 80 NLRB 29;
see also General Box Company, 82 NLRB 678 ; ( 2) the Board has repeatedly held that
the adequacy of the showing of representative interest is an administrative matter and
is not subject to litigation by the parties . Kearney & Tiecker Corporation , 95 NLRB 1125.
Moreover, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made a sufficient
showing of interest.
101 NLRB No. 133.
AMERICAN FRUIT GROWERS, INC. 741
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining; they agree that the
employees at the Briggs shed, who are currently represented in a
separate unit by the Petitioner, should, in no event, be included in the
unit sought here. There is no history of collective bargaining at the
remaining three sheds.
Each of the above sheds is separately supervised and operated by
a shed manager. The shed manager has final authority to hire and
discharge all employees working under his supervision. There is
no intershed system of seniority, and the Employer has no policy of
transferring employees from one shed to another. However, as many
of the employees are migratory workers, some of them may shift
from one shed to another in search of more favorable employment.
Although the sheds are engaged in the same packing operations, it is
clear from the record that they function independently. There ap-
pears to be no necessary contact between the groups of packing
employees at the several sheds.
In view of the foregoing, particularly the absence of a history of
collective bargaining for the Auburn and Newcastle sheds, the geo-
graphic separation and functional independence of all of the Em-
ployer's sheds, and the lack of employee interchange, we find that the
single shed units sought by the Petitioner at Auburn and Newcastle
are appropriate .3
In view of the fact that the Petitioner filed no petition for the
Loomis shed and made no showing of interest among the employees
in that shed, we shall make no formal unit finding as to those employ-
ees and shall not direct an election among them at this time.
Accordingly, we find that the following units are appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All production and maintenance employees employed in the
Employer's packing shed at Auburn, California, including general
laborers, receivers, dumpers, graders, packers, lidding machine oper-
ators, carloaders, cratemakers, tally girls, and box makers; but ex-
cluding office and professional employees, guards, the shed manager,
the packing foreman, the labor contractor, and all other supervisors
as defined by the Act.
(2) All production and maintenance employees employed in the
Employer's packing shed at Newcastle, California; including gen-
eral laborers, receivers, dumpers, graders, packers, lidding machine
operators, carloaders, cratemakers, tally girls, and box makers; but
excluding office and professional employees, guards, the shed mana-
8 V. J. Elmore 5¢, 10¢ & 01 00 Stores, Incorporated (Store No 60), 99 NLRB 1505;
Coberly-West Company, 92 NLRB 862; Perfection Garment Company, 91 NLRB 1421;
Harms Hosiery Co., Inc, 91 NLRB 330.
742 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ger, the packing foreman, the labor contractor, and all other super-
visors as defined by the Act.
5. Because the seasonal employment peak for the Auburn and New-
castle sheds has passed, we shall not direct that elections be held at
this time. Following our customary practice in seasonal industries,
we shall direct that elections be held at or about the time of the em-
ployment peak of the next packing season, on a date to be determined
by the Regional Director, among the employees in the appropriate
units who are employed during the payroll period immediately pre-
ceding the date of issuance of the notices of election 4
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* See Imperial Garden Growers, 91 NLRB 1034, 1040.
KRAMBO FOOD STORES, INC. and GROCERY CLERKS UNION, LOCAL No.
1469, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 13-RC--2379. December 2, 1952
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
On August 14, 1952, the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Re-
gion issued his report on objections, in which he recommended that the
Intervenor's objections be overruled and that the Petitioner be certi-
fied as majority representative of the employees in the unit set forth
in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election., Thereafter, the
Intervenor filed exceptions to the report on objections?
The Board has considered the report on objections, the exceptions
thereto, and the entire record in this case, and finds that the exceptions
do not raise any substantial or material issues with respect to the elec-
tion.3 Accordingly, the Board hereby adopts the Regional Director's
findings, conclusions, and recommendations, with the following addi-
tions and modifications :
In the latter part of its tenth objection, the Intervenor asserts
that an AFL representative who was also a member of the Wage
Stabilization Board, Business Agent Stadelmann, threatened to block
any wage increase sought by the Intervenor if it won the election.
1 98 NLRB 1320
2 On October 29, 1952 , the Employer moved for reconsideration of the Board's Decision
and Direction of Election of April 29, 1952 , and for other relief . No sufficient reason
was shown for finding the motion to be timely . The motion is accordingly denied. See
Harcourt and Co., 100 NLRB 1383
S The Intervenor and the Employer moved for a hearing . As there are no substantial
questions of fact at issue, and as the positions of the parties are in our opinion adequately
presented , the motions are denied
101 NLRB No. 132