Bellingham Cannery

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1976

223 N.L.R.B. 915 (N.L.R.B. 1976)

BELLINGHAM CANNERY
Peter Pan Seafoods , Inc., d/b/a Bellingham Cannery
and General Teamsters Union , Local 231, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Ind., Peti-
tioner, and Local 239, International Association of
Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Pe-
titioner. Cases 19-RC-7685 and 19-RC-7714
April 14, 1976
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS FANNING
AND JENKINS
On October 7, 1975, the Acting Regional Director
for Region 19 issued a Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding' in which
he found that although an overall unit 2 of the
Employer's employees at its Bellingham, Washing-
ton, cannery, as sought by Petitioner Teamsters, was
appropriate, a more limited unit of machinists and
other skilled employees 3 sought by Petitioner Ma-
chinists was also found appropriate. Accordingly, he
directed a self-determination election.4
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Re-
gulations, the Teamsters filed a timely request for
review of the Acting Regional Director's decision on
the grounds, inter alia, that in failing to find that only
an overall unit of the Employer's employees is appro-
priate he departed from officially reported Board
precedent.
On December 22, 1975, the Board, by telegraphic
order, granted the request for review and stayed the
election pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, with respect to the issue under review, including
the brief filed by the Alaska Fishermen's Union, and
1 Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Seafood Workers Local 247, affiliated
with Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen , AFL-CIO ; Inter-
national Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen 's Union; and Alaska
Fishermen 's Union were permitted to intervene in these proceedings.
2 Excluding office clerical employees , tendermen , and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
3 Including machinists , iron chink men, filler men, reform men, port engi-
neers, mechanical helpers, seamer men, cannery mechanics, welders, and
electricians.
4 The intervening unions claimed an interest in the unit sought by Team-
sters and had no objection to the separate unit sought by Machinists. Ac-
cordingly , the Acting Regional Director placed them on the ballot in the
voting group of all employees excluding those sought by the Machinists.
915
makes the following findings:
The Employer is a State of Washington corpora-
tion engaged in the processing of seafood products.
At its Bellingham, Washington, cannery, involved
herein, salmon is processed and canned. The salmon
season generally runs from the middle of July until
about the end of September. Due to delays in getting
the cannery in operating condition, the Bellingham
cannery did not commence production of canned
salmon until September 3, 1975. The Employer testi-
fied that during the recent season it did not operate
at more than 40 percent of its capacity and apparent-
ly only had one cannery line operating, utilizing ap-
proximately 45 employees, whereas under normal
conditions it will operate three cannery lines 5 utiliz-
ing a complement of 125 employees. The Employer
anticipated it would shut down operations around
October 15 and that only two or three mechanical-
type employees might remain for a period thereafter
for renovation or maintenance tasks.
Petitioner Teamsters urges that Board precedent
indicates that absent special circumstances a produc-
tion and maintenance unit is appropriate in food-
processing plants. Further, it asserts that the record
evidence herein does not support the Acting Region-
al Director's finding of the separate unit sought by
the Machinists. We find merit in the Teamsters con-
tentions.
The limited record herein discloses that as of the
hearing date there were approximately five employ-
ees in the classifications included in the unit sought
by Machinists. The record reveals that those employ-
ees operate (i.e., stop and start) the various machines
on the cannery line, such as the indexer, iron chink,
filler, seamer, and others. In addition, some of the
more skilled employees among them make the neces-
sary adjustments and repairs to the machines in or-
der to keep them operating.6 A breakdown in one of
the machines on the cannery line would result in a
stoppage of the flow of the product on the line. The
Employer's "cannery workers" primarily are in-
volved in handling the fish during the production
process, are less skilled than the employees sought by
the Machinists, and make up the bulk of the employ-
ee complement. The "cannery workers" do not oper-
ate or maintain the machines.
5 A cannery line is composed of various kinds of machinery, including an
indexer, which guillotines the fish; an iron chink, which cleans, guts, and
defins the fish; a filler; a weighing machine; and a seamer.
6 The Employer's plant superintendent testified that the difference be-
tween the employees sought by the Machinists and other employees is that
the former are "craftsmen" while the latter are "semi-skilled" or "un-
skilled." He further testified, however, that, while a machine operator can
start and stop a machine, he may not be able to fix a machine. There is also
testimony that a mechanical helper, Wills, in addition to working with the
seamer man or the filler man, drives a flatbed truck for the Employer on
which he hauls frozen fish from storage to the cannery.
223 NLRB No. 138
916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There is record testimony that the Employer has
contracts with the Machinists in its other operations
and that the Machinists has labor agreements with
other canneries in the area and in Alaska covering
the type of employees it seeks here . However, on the
basis of the record before us, we cannot conclude
that the employees sought by the Machinists consti-
tute an identifiable group possessing mutual employ-
ment interests which are sufficiently separate and
distinct from those of the production employees to
warrant separate representation . Although, as noted,
there is conclusionary testimony that the employees
sought by the Machinists are "craftsmen " and the
remainder of the employees are "semi-skilled" or
"unskilled," the record fails to establish whether the
employees sought by the Machinists are assigned to a
separate department , are separately supervised, have
different wages or benefits , or that any special train-
ing or apprenticeship requirements exist for them,
among other factors . Instead , the evidence on the
record demonstrates that the employees sought by
the Machinists possess varying degrees of skills and
perform functions on the cannery lines , apparently in
close contact with the "cannery workers " who handle
the product, in order to insure continuous operation
of the Employer's production process . In fact, among
their duties is the actual starting and stopping of the
Employer's production machinery.
In these circumstances , we find that the unit
sought by the Machinists is inappropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining ,' and that the overall
unit sought by the Teamsters is appropriate . We shall
therefore dismiss the petition filed by the Machinists
in Case 19-RC-7714.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees employed by the Employer at its
Bellingham plant including machinists, iron
chink men , filler men, reform men, port engi-
neers , mechanical helpers , seamer men, cannery
mechanics , welders and electricians ; excluding
employees employed on tenders , scows , lighters,
and other properties of like nature in the service
of the Employer, office clerical employees,
r There is no history of collective bargaining for the employees at the
Bellingham cannery . Compare: Crown Simpson Pulp Company, 163 NLRB
797 (1967). See also : General Foods Corporation, Maxwell House Division,
166 NLRB 1032 (1967); United Foods, Inc., Dulaney Foods Division. 174
NLRB 91 (1969). On this record we do not find that the evidence of area
practice warrants a contrary result.
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed in Case
19-RC-7714 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER FANNING, dissenting:
As I believe the Acting Regional Director correctly
analyzed the facts and arrived at the proper conclu-
sions herein, I would affirm his Decision and Direc-
tion of Elections. Thus, he noted that all of the In-
tervenor unions, while seeking to represent the
cannery production workers, agree that the unit peti-
tioned for by the Machinists can and should consti-
tute a separate appropriate unit, and all seek to ex-
clude from the unit in which they claim an interest
those employees petitioned for by the Machinists.
The Employer concurred with the Intervenors and
the Machinists, and Petitioner Teamsters did not
deny that the employees sought by the Machinists
may constitute a separate appropriate unit. This
comports with the practice in the area, in the indus-
try, and in the prior located plant of this Employer;
and I see no basis here for holding, as my colleagues
apparently do, that the Acting Regional Director is
clearly wrong and that the unit requested by Peti-
tioner Machinists is inappropriate.
The record discloses that the cannery workers are,
in accordance with regular practice, denominated
separately by the Employer from the machine me-
chanics and helpers sought by the Machinists. Can-
nery workers are called in on an as-needed basis.
When the cannery is shut down, machine mechanics
frequently work on repair or installation of machin-
ery, whereas the cannery workers are not then em-
ployed. Cannery workers handle only the product,
fish; while the employees sought by the Machinists
repair, maintain, and operate machinery, as my col-
leagues concede, and do not handle the product.
Thus, there is no interchange of duties between the
two groups of employees involved in this initial orga-
nization attempt .9 In short, I see no evidence on this
record which warrants reversal of the Acting Region-
al Director's proper disposition of this case, and I
dissent from my colleagues' failure to affirm him.
8 [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication.]
9 Any reliance on the fact that employee Wills , as related in fn. 6, has
driven a truck on which fish is hauled from storage to the cannery is mis-
placed , since this was a temporary expedient occasioned by a breakdown in
unloading machinery.