Franklin County Sugar Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 936 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

936 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FRANKLIN COUNTY SUGAR COMPANY and AFL BEET SUGAR REFINERY
EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION No. 23818, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-
687. December 09, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Certificate of Results of Election
On November 6 and 7, 1951, pursuant to the Decision and Direction
of Election 1 issued by the Board herein on January 15, 1951, an elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted among the Employer's campaign
(seasonal) employees, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Nineteenth Region. The tally of ballots issued
after the election showed that 147 valid ballots were cast, of which 93
were for and 54 against AFL Beet Sugar Refinery Employees, Local
Union No. 24792.2
On November 10, 1951, the Employer filed objections to the conduct.
of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Thereupon, in accordance, with the Board's Rules and Regulations,
the Regional Director conducted an investigation and on November
26, 1951, issued and duly served upon the parties a report on objec-
tions, in which the Regional Director found no merit in the objections
and recommended that they be overruled. On December 5, 1951, the
Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The issues raised by the Employer's objections and exceptions, and
the Regional Director's findings with respect thereto, are as follows :
(1) The Employer contends that the Board agent before the elec-
tion improperly excluded 461 employees from the list of eligible vot-
ers on the ground that they were not within the appropriate unit, and
refused to permit them to vote in the election. The Regional Director
found, and the Employer concedes, that of these 46 employees 14 were
terminated by the Employer prior to November 6, 1951, the date of
the election, so that, according to the Regional Director, only 32 would
have been eligible to vote in any case. As this number was insufficient
to affect the result of the election, the Regional Director found no
merit in this contention.
The Employer urges in its exceptions, however, that 2 of these 14
employees were not terminated until November 6, 1951, the date the
election began, and that, in any event, all of the 14 were on the payroll
1 92 NLRB 1341.
2 As indicated in the text, below, the Board placed the name of this local on the ballot
instead of the name of the Petitioner.
3 The objections referred to 47 employees in this connection , which number apparently
included Ruth Sutton, a clerk . In its exceptions , however, the Employer refers only to
46 employees in this regard , and makes no specific contention as to the eligibility of
Ruth Sutton.
97 NLRB No. 129.
FRANKLIN COUNTY SUGAR COMPANY 937
during the prescribed eligibility period-i. e., the October 15 to 31,
1951, payroll period.
However, this contention misconceives the eligibility conditions fixed
by the Board's direction of election in this case. While that direction
provided that an employee would be eligible to vote in the election if
he had been employed during the payroll period immediately pre-
ceding the issuance of the notice of election, it also declared ineligible
all such employees who had thereafter quit or been discharged for
cause and had not been rehired prior to the date of the election. Ac-
cordingly, even if we 4 deem the 2 employees who were not terminated
until November 6 to be eligible to vote, it would still be necessary to
find, as we do, that the remaining 12 employees, terminated prior to
that date, were not eligible to vote, and that the balance 5 of the 46 em-
ployees alleged to have been improperly prevented from voting would
not in any case be sufficient to affect the result of the election. Accord-
ingly, we find, in agreement with the Regional Director, that for this
reason alone the first objection should be overruled. We do not find
it necessary, therefore, to pass upon the other questions raised by this
objection-i. e., whether the 46 employees fall within the appropriate
unit as defined in the Board's decision in this case, and whether they
were in fact improperly prevented by the Board agent from voting."
(2) The Employer contends that the Board improperly placed. on
the ballot in the election the name of AFL Beet Sugar Refinery Em-
ployees Local Union No. 24792 instead of Local Union No. 23818, the
original Petitioner herein. This substitution was directed by the
Board by telegram on October 31, 1951, at the request of a representa-
tive of the A. F. of L. A copy of this telegram was sent on that date
to counsel for the Employer. No objection was made to this action
until after the election. The Employer has failed to show in what
way it was prejudiced by this substitution of one A. F. of L. local for
another. Accordingly, like the Regional Director, we find no merit
in this objection, and it is hereby overruled.
(3) In the Board's Decision and Direction of Election herein of
January 15, 1951, it was found that the turnover among the campaign
employees from season to season was very high, with only 10 to 25
percent returning from one season to the next. The Employer con-
tends that in view of this high rate of turnover it was improper to
4 Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board has delegated its powers in connection
with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and
Styles].
e The balance on this basis would be 34 The Petitioner won by 39 votes.
e In addition to the 46 employees mentioned above, the Employer refers in its exceptions,
although not in its objections , to a group of 5 other employees who were employed during
the October 15 to 31 payroll period but who were terminated before November 6. For
the reasons already indicated , we reject the Employer 's contention that these employees
were also eligible to vote.
938 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL-.LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conduct an election in November 1951 among employees, most of whom
were 'not employed by the Employer at the time of the foregoing
.direction of election. However, if we were to adopt this reasoning,
we would be precluded from conducting an election in any seasonal
industry where, as is often the case, there is a high rate of turnover
from one season to'another. The Board has no requirement that there,
be substantial identity in the employee complement between the date
of a direction of election and the date of the election. Accordingly,
we find no merit in this objection, and it is hereby overruled.
As we have overruled the Employer's objections, we shall deny its,
request that the election be set aside.
Because, as the tally shows, a majotriy of ballots was cast for Local
Union No. 24792, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
Certification of Representatives
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that AFL Beet Sugar Refinery Employees.
Local Union No. 24792 has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees of Franklin County Sugar Company, Preston, Idaho,
in the unit of campaign employees heretofore found by the Board to
be appropriate, as their representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive representative of all the employees in
such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
ANTHONY C. MARKITELL AND JOHN H. DENT, PARTNERS , D/B/A TRAF-
FORD COACH LINES, AND TRAFFORD COACH LANES and AMALGAMATED
ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EM-
PLOYEES or AMERICA, DivisioN 1214. Case No. 6-CA-281. January
3,1952
Decision and Order
On July 25, 1951, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondents had engaged in and ;were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial -Examiner also found
that the Respondents had not engaged in certain other unfair labor
practices, and recommended that those allegations of the complaint be
97 NLRB No. 126.