Coopersville Cooperative Elevator Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 480 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of COOPERSVII.LE COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR COMPANY, EM-
PLOYER and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL No. 406, A. F. L., PETI-
TIONER
Case No. 7-R-2347.-Decided April 22, 1947
,Mr. Edwin F. Steffen, of Lansing, Mich., for the Employer.
Mr. Thomas Ward, of Grand Rapids , Mich ., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
September 23, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees
of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that, of approximately 12 eligible voters, 8
cast ballots for, and 2 against, the Petitioner, and 2 ballots were chal-
lenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, before
Woodrow J. Sandler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. The Employer's request for oral argument is denied inas-
much as the record, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and
positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Coopersville Cooperative Elevator Company, a Michigan corpora-
tion, is engaged at its plant at Coopersville, Michigan, in the business
of buying and selling farmers' supplies. During 1945, its sales
amounted to more than $500,000, and its purchases to about $450,000.
73 N. L. R B., No. 95.
480
COOPERSVILLE COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR COMPANY 481
All its sales were made within the State of Michigan; about 50 percent
of its purchases originated outside the State. Some of the supplies
purchased by the Employer are resold in the packages in which they
are received, other supplies are purchased in bulk and then repackaged
and sold in smaller units, still other supplies are mixed together to
form feed or mash for farm animals and then resold in this converted
form. There is, therefore, a substantial amount of processing.
We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.'
H. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that all
employees of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees,
the assistant manager, and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE OBJECTIONS
As indicated above, a prehearing election was held in this case. At
the time of the election, the Petitioner was seeking to include office
employees in the unit. Three office employees voted in the election,
only one of whom was challenged. At the hearing, the parties stipu-
lated to exclude office employees from the unit. We have, in the
preceding section, excluded them from the unit. The Employer con-
tends that the fact that the three office employees voted in the election
invalidates the election. We disagree. The results of the election
show that the Petitioner received eight votes. If we deduct from this
I Matter of Rival Foods, Inc., 71 N L. R. B. 622 ; Matter of The Consolidated Pipe Com-
pany, 72 N. L R B. 1236.
482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
figure the votes of the two office employees who were not challenged,
on the assumption that they voted for the Petitioner, the Petitioner
would have six votes. This would still constitute a majority, inas-
much as there was a possible majority of nine valid votes cast, ex-
cluding the three cast by the office employees. Accordingly, we
overrule the Employer's objection.
VI. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Inasmuch as the results of the election show that the Petitioner
has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the
Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 406,
A. F. L., has been designated and selected by a majority of the em-
ployees in the unit described in Section IV, above, as their representa-
tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive repre-
sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Certification of Representatives.