Central Soya Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 8, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1525 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

CENTRAL SOYA COMPANY, INC. 1525
Central Soya Company, Inc.' and International Union of United
Brewery, Flour , Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Central Soya Company, Inc. and International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-3434 and
10-RC-34925. June 8, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held upon the consolidated cases before
John S. Patton, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in these cases the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The name appears as amended at the hearing
2In Case No. 10-RC-3434, the Petitioner , International Union of United Brewery,
Flour, Cereal , Soft Drink & Distillery Workers of America , AFL-CIO, hereinafter
referred to as the Brewery Workers, filed a petition seeking a unit of production and
maintenance employees . In Case No . 10-RC-3525, the Petitioner , International Associa-
tion of Machinists , AFL-CIO, filed a petition seeking a unit of maintenance employees.
At the hearing in the consolidated cases, the Petitioners moved to amend their petitions
so as to seek joint bargaining representation of the Employer 's production and main-
tenance employees . The hearing officer granted the Petitioners ' motion over the objec-
tion of the Employer, and denied the Employer's request for a continuance. The
Employer objected to the amendment on the apparent ground that the amendment con-
stituted the filing of a new petition ; that no prior notification of the amendment had
been given nor demand made for recognition by the joint Petitioners ; and that there was
no evidence in the record that the joint Petitioners had made a showing of interest based
upon joint designations by the employees involved.
We find the Employer's objections to be without merit since the amendment of the
petitions was 'consistent with prior Board practice and was not prejudicial to the
.Employer. General Electric Company, 107 NLRB 70; The North Electric Manufacturing
Company, 89 NLRB 260, 261; Allbritten Motors, Inc., 87 NLRB 193, 194. Nor was the
denial of a continuance prejudicial to the Employer as the amendment did not affect
the composition of the unit originally sought by the Brewery Workers, and the Employer
therefore was not deprived of an opportunity to introduce all of the evidence available
to it on that question. Mission Appliance Corporation, 108 NLRB 176 , 177. Moreover,
the absence of prior notification and demand for representation constitutes no valid
ground for denying the amendment where it is clear that the Employer refused at the
hearing to grant recognition to the joint Petitioners. American Tobacco Company,
108 NLRB 1211. As to the Employer's final contention that the amendment of the
separate petitions to permit joint representation by the _ Petitioners required the sub-
mission of a new showing of interest by joint designations , the Board 's showing of
interest requirements in cases involving joint petitioners are met by a combined showing
of the joint Petitioners which is substantial . The Sticklers Corporation , 115 NLRB
979; W. F. Hall Printing Company, 63 NLRB 532, 533. As in the circumstances of
this case , we are administratively satisfied that the showing made by the Brewery
Workers alone fully satisfies these requirements, there remains no basis. for a reversal of
the hearing officer's ruling.
115 NLRB No. 246.
1526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD -
4. As, indicated, the joint Petitioners seek a unit of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees. Although the Employer does not
agree that such unit is appropriate, it does not indicate what unit it
considers appropriate. The Employer is engaged in the processing
of soya beans. It is apparent from the record that its operations are
functionally integrated and that there exists a community of interest
among its production maintenance employees. There is no history of
collective bargaining at its Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant, the only
plant involved in this proceeding. In view of the foregoing, we find
that a unit of production tnd maintenance employees is appropriate.
We find therefore that all production and maintenance employees
.at the Employer's Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant, including lead-
men, but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees,
part-time employees, laboratory, professional, and technical employees,
guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 The parties agree on the inclusion in the unit of leadmen as nonsupervisory employees,
the exclusion of all plant clericals , and the exclusion of "part-time" employees whose
employment , the record shows, is really that of casual and temporary employees.
Southern Bleachery and Print Works , Inc. and Machine Printers
Beneficial Association of the United States, Petitioner. Case
No. 11-RC-745. June 8, 1956
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On April 10, 1956, pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order,
and Direction of Election 1 issued in the above-entitled proceeding on
March 13, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Eleventh
Region among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the
Board. Upon conclusion of the election the parties were furnished
a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 46 eligible
voters, 45 cast valid ballots, of which 32 were for, and 13 were against,
the Petitioner.
On April 16, 1956, the Employer timely filed objections to the
conduct of the election. On April 20, 1956, the Petitioner filed an
answer to the Employer's objections. The Regional Director investi-
gated the objections and, on April 25, 1956, issued and duly served
1115 NLRB 787.
115 NLRB No. 247.