Camp & Felder Compress Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 16, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

CAMP & FELDER COMPRESS COMPANY 871
must have had some technical training in high school or acquired
through experience, and the ability to draw We find that the com-
bination draftsmen are technical employees 5 As one of the parties
objects to their inclusion, we shall follow the Board policy of exclud-
ing technical employees from the production and maintenance unit
when such objection is made We therefore exclude the combination
draftsmen from the unit
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its plant
at Albany, Georgia, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act
All production and maintenance employees, including the plant
clericals, but excluding all seasonal employees, combination drafts-
men, administrative and professional employees, salesmen, office cler-
ical employees, time study men, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
c See Allis Chalmers Manufaeturzng Company, 117 NLRB 749, Pennsalt Chemuiais
Corporation, 119 NLRB 128 Cf Aersat Products, Inc, 111 NLRB 385
Camp & Felder Compress Company and Camp & Felder Ter-
minal Company 1 and Warehouse, Processing & Distribution
Workers Union, Local 26, I. L. W. U., Petitioner. Case No
21-RC-5246 September 16, 1958
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 Norman H Greer,
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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, 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 the em-
ployees of the Employer International Chemical Workers Union,
' Although Camp & Felder Compress Company and Camp & Felder Terminal Company
were formerly held by the Board to be joint employers , Camp & Felder Terminal Company
no longer has any employees No objection having been made to the Employer 's motion to
dismiss the petition insofar as it concerns Camp & Felder Terminal Company, we shall
grant the motion
121 NLRB No 112
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Local 97, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene on the basis of
its current contract.
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.
The Employer, Camp & Felder Compress Company, is engaged in
compressing and storing cotton at McFarland, California. The Peti-
tioner seeks to represent the production and maintenance employees.
The Intervenor and the Employer assert their current contract as a
bar to this proceeding, contending that the petition was not timely
filed.
The contract was executed on December 11, 1956, effective for
2 years from September 16, 1956, and is renewable from year to year
thereafter, absent 60 days' notice prior to the contract's expiration
date of September 15, 1958. The instant petition was filed on May 1,
1958, 41/2 months prior to the expiration date and 21/2 months prior
to the Mill B date of the contract. We find the petition was timely
filed and that the contract does not bar a current determination of
representatives.2
4. All parties agree that the appropriate unit is as follows :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's com-
pressing and storage operation at McFarland, California, excluding
all office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The parties disagree 'as to when the election should be held.
The Employer's business is seasonal and through the months of June,
July, August, and mid-September the Employer retains only 3 or 4
employees. The need for more employees arises in mid-September or
October. In 1957, the first shipment of cotton was received on Sep-
tember 18. Recall of former employees began at that time and by the
end of November there were approximately 75 employees. From
December through February only a few employees were added, but
by March 28, 1958, the payroll increased to 110 employees: In 1958,
the peak of employment was around April 1. By May 1 there is a
sharp decline in employment and by June 1 there would remain no
more than 4 or 5 employees. On the basis of these facts, in accordance
with the Board's usual policy with respect to seasonal industries, we
shall direct that an election be held at the peak of the Employer's
seasons, at a time when there is employed a maximum or near maxi-
mum representative complement of employees, to be determined, by
the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll
2American Aniline Products , 119 NLRB 57 ; The Evening News Association, d/b/a
Detroit News, et at ., 119 NLRB 345 ; Wiedemann Machine Company, 118 NLRB 1616.
BALLAS EGG PRODUCTS, INC. 873
immediately preceding the date of the issuance of the notice of elec-
tion by the Regional Director.'
[The Board dismissed the petition insofar as it involves Camp &
Felder Terminal Company.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Although the Employer urged that the eligibility of employees not be limited to the
payroll immediately preceding the election since many employees with seniority , employed
year after year , were not recalled until the peak of the season , we have disposed of this
contention by directing the election to be held at the peak of the season. Cf . Library
Binding Company, 119 NLRB 151 . See Grower-shipper Vegetable Association et al.,
112 NLRB 807.
Ballas Egg Products , Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America, Local No. 346 , AFL-CIO.
Case No. 8-CA-1348. September 17, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 10 , 1958 , Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his
Intermediate Report in this case , finding that the Respondent had en-
gaged in some, but not in other, unfair labor practices alleged to be in
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act and recommending that it
cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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 [Members Rodgers , Bean, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report , the exceptions , the briefs,' and the entire record in this
1 We find no merit in the Respondent 's contention that the interrogations herein fell
within the principle of Blue Flash Express, Inc., 109 NLRB 591. The questioning here
occurred after the refusal to recognize the union and during the known pendency of a
Board proceeding to determine the representative status of the Union and no useful pur-
pose could have been served merely by ascertaining the attitudes of the employees toward
the union . See Fleming Manufacturing Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 452 (Intermediate
Report ). We also find no merit in the Respondent's contention that requests that em-
ployees organize a union of company employees are protected either by the Constitution
or by Section 8 (c). A request is not a mere statement of employer preference for dealing
with a committee or a union of company employees . Moreover , the surrounding facts and
circumstances here were such that the request , addressed to a known union leader, con-
stituted an attempt 'improperly to influence the choice of employees See New England
Upholstery Co, Inc, 121 NLRB 234 . Cf. Coppus Engineering Corporation v. N. L. R. B ,
240 F. 2d 564 , 570-571 (C. A. 1, 1957 ) ; Raymond Pearson, Inc., 115 NLRB 190, 200,
enfd. 243 F. 2d 456, 457 ( C. A. 5, 1957).
121 NLRB No. 121.