Bright Foods, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 9, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

BRIGHT FOODS , INC. 553
Bright Foods, Inc. and Cannery Warehousemen , Food Proc-
essors, Drivers & Helpers, Local 748, International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Petitioner . Case No. 20-RC-4010. February 9, 1960
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 Natalie P. Allen, hearing
officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the parties' agreement, that the follow-
ing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees of the Employer at its Turlock, California, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
It was stipulated that the superintendent, assistant superintendent,
and head floorlady are supervisors as defined in the Act. The Em-
ployer, contrary to the Petitioner, would also exclude as supervisors
'The instant petition was filed on November 30, 1959, subsequent to the filing of
charges by California Association of Employers, on behalf of the Employer, in Case No.
20-CP-1, that the Petitioner herein was picketing in violation of Section 8(b) (7) (c) of
the amended Act Because of such charges, the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region converted the instant petition to an expedited election proceeding under the first
proviso of Section 8(b) (7) (c) and, under the authority of Section 101 23(c) of the
Board's Statements of Procedure, ordered the hearing which was held herein
'At the outset of the hearing, the Petitioner contended, on various grounds, that the
instant proceeding should have been conducted solely under Section 9(c) of the Act.
The hearing officer denied certain motions based upon such contention and referred to the
Board a motion to dismiss the petition The Petitioner excepted thereto. However, as
the 8(b) (7) (c) charges are still pending, the petition herein was properly converted to an
expedited election proceeding. Moreover, as in a regular 9(c) proceeding, a hearing has
been held at which the parties have availed themselves of the opportunity to express their
positions fully as to the issues, and no claim is made-and it does not appear-that any
prejudice has resulted to either party by reason of the procedure followed herein by the
Regional Director or the hearing officer. We therefore affirm the hearing officer's rulings
on these motions and hereby deny the motion to dismiss. We also affirm the hearing
officer's denial of the Petitioner's request that the proceeding be delayed until the
issuance of regulations by the Board with respect to the eligibility of strikers to vote
In an election.
For the reasons indicated below, the hearing officer properly refused to admit testimony
as to whether strikers have been permanently replaced and the number of strikers to
whom the Petitioner is currently paying strike benefits.
126 NLRB No. 69.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
two floorladies, the cleanup foreman, and the cookroom foreman. As
the evidence is in conflict with respect to the status of these classifica-
tions we shall permit employees in such classifications to vote subject
to challenge.
5. The Employer contends that strikers are ineligible to vote on the
grounds that (1) they are "recognition" and not "economic" strikers,
(2) the amendment to Section 9(c) (3) does not apply to strikers such
as these who went on strike prior to the effective date of the amend-
ment, (3) the strike is not current, and (4) all strikers have been
permanently replaced.
On May 6, 1959, the Petitioner made a written demand upon the
Employer for recognition and a contract. The Employer did not
reply. On June 23, 1959, the Petitioner instituted a strike, par-
ticipated in by some 87 of about 114 employees, and commenced
picketing the Employer in support of its demands. The picketing
continued until December 3, 1959. Although there was no picketing
at the time of the hearing, the Petitioner continued to hold weekly
meetings of the strikers and the Employer admits that the Petitioner
was then engaged in activities with the object of-obtaining recognition.
Contrary to the Employer, we find that the strike against the Em-
ployer is currently in progress and that the strikers are economic
strikers. The Board has stated that strikers are presumed to be
"economic" unless they are found by the Board to be on strike over lm-
fair labor practices of the Employer.' Further, as the provisions of
Section 9(c) (3), as amended, apply to "employees engaged in an
economic strike," the fact that the economic strike is current is suf-
ficient to bring the strikers within the amendment and it is im-
material that the strike was initiated prior to its effective date.
Finally, we need not at this time resolve the questions whether the
strikers have been permanently replaced, as the Employer offered to
prove, and whether such fact would render them ineligible to vote.
Inasmuch as the strike was still in progress at the time of the hearing,
we shall, under our Pipe Machinery doctrine,' defer all issues as to
eligibility to vote of strikers and replacements until the election for
disposition by way of challenges. For the foregoing reasons, the
Employers' contention is rejected.'
The Petitioner contends that the eligibility period for the election
should be the payroll period immediately preceding the commence-
ment of the picketing. We see no warrant, either in the provisions of
3 See Times Square Stores Corporation , 79 NLRB 361, 364. See also Columbia Pictures
Corporation , 64 NLRB 490, 514.
4 The Pipe Machinery Company, 76 NLRB 247; The Hertner Electric Company, 115
NLRB 820, 822
6 Our rejection of this contention should not be construed as indicating that the Board
has prejudged in any respect any of the questions which may be raised by a challenge to
the eligibility of any voter in the election hereinafter directed.
LADISH COMPANY 555
the amended Act or in the nature of the Employer's operations, for
such a departure from our usual rules for determining eligibility to
vote in Board elections. We shall therefore direct that an election be
held in accord with our usual practice.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Ladish Company and Technical Engineers Association (Inde-
pendent ), Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-654d. February 9, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Kleen, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fanning].
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
employees of the Employer.'
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion 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 a unit of all technical and pro-
fessional employees at the Employer's Cudahy, Wisconsin, forgings,
pipefittings, and related products plant. The Employer employs
approximately 5,000 people at this plant. Although several different
units of employees are represented by various labor organizations,
there is no bargaining history for any of the classifications in the trait
requested. The requested employees are assigned to the metallurgical
department, which is responsible for the metallurgical quality of the
Employer's products; the inspection department (quality control) ;
standards and methods department (time studies) ; engineering
department, a manufacturing service department responsible for
design, structure, and maintenance of equipment and utilities; and
planning department, which designs and oversees construction of new
buildings and facilities. The foregoing departments are located in
the manufacturing area of the plant. The two remaining depart-
ments with which we are concerned, customs and fittings, are located
1 District No. 10, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, intervened on the
basis of a showing of interest.
126 NLRB No.,67.