Godchaux Sugars, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 7, 1942

44 N.L.R.B. 874 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

C
In the Matterof GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC. and UNITED SUGAR'WORKERS,
LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 1186, C. 1 0.
Case No. R-4114.-Decided October, 7, 1942
Jurisdiction : sugar.refining industry.
investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition until certified by the Board ; election
necessary.
'Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : working and non-working foremen,
excluding the general foreman of the warehouse and shipping department;
bench` chemists excluded from unit in view of the technical and non-supervisory
nature of their work.
Mr. Emile Godchaux and Mr. H. H. Hillyer, Jr., of New Orleans, La.,
for the Company.
Mr. John Bouch,e, of New Orleans, La., and Mr. Rene Englade, of
Reserve, La., for the Union.
Mr. Seymour J. Spelman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by United Sugar `Yorkers, Local Industrial
Union No. 1186, C. I. 0., herein called the Union,' alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Godchaux Sugars, Inc., Reserve, Louisiana, herein
called-the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before C. Paul Barker, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at New Orleans, Louisiana, on,
,August 4, 1942. The Company and the Union appeared, participated,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial ' Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
,prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
' The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
44 N. L. R. B., No. 172.
874
GODCHAUX- SUGARS', INC. 875
Upon the entire record in the case; the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF,FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Godchaux Sugars, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, having its prin-
cipal place-of business in New Orleans, Louisiana, owns and operates
plants located in Raceland and Reserve,-Louisiana, and is engaged in
the cultivation, milling, and refining of raw sugar, and the processing
of various byproducts. These'proceedings involve only the Company's
plant at Reserve, Louisiana. More than 80 percent of the raw ma-
terials and supplies used at the Reserve plant in the course of manu-
facture during the past several years were obtained and shipped to
the plant from outside the State of Louisiana. More than 85 percent
of the Company's products from the Reserve plant were shipped to
customers located in States other than the State of Louisiana. The
average monthly sale of refined sugar produced at the Reserve plant
during the past years has amounted to 45 million pounds. At the
hearing a representative of the Company stated that the Company's
pay roll of September 20, 1941, included approximately 1,100 em-
ployees.
The Company stipulated that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.'
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 1186 is a labor
organization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about March 17, 1942, the Union began an organizational
drive among the foremen and bench chemists of the Company at its
plant in Reserve, Louisiana. In April and in June 1942 the Union
informed the Company that a-majority of the foremen and bench
chemists had designated -it as their exclusive bargaining agent and
requested recognition. The Company took the position that such a
2 On August 25, 1942, the parties filed a stipulation of core ections to be made in the
tranrcnpt, which stipulation is hereby approved and made a part of the record in the
p i ocood h ng
'The above findings relating to the business of the Company are based upon findings of
the Board in Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc and United Sugar Workers Local 112/1, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial O>ganizattons , 36 N L R B . 926 The parties stipulated
at the hearing ,that the fihduigs in said Decision and Direction of Election described the
activities and the operations of the Company at the present time.
876 DECISIONS OF NATIONA ,,:LABORTRELATIONS BOARD
unit was inappropriate- and refused to bargain • without certification
of the Union by the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at
the hearing, shows that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning-
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
• The Union seeks to establish a unit of working and nonworking
foremen and bench chemists. The Company contends such a unit
would be inappropriate.
In a previous representation 'case,3 involving the same plant' of
'the Company and United Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union
No. 1124, C. I. 0., the Board found appropriate, in accordance with
a stipulation of the parties, a unit of production and maintenance
employees, excluding,. among others, working and non-working fore-
inen and bench chemists. On March 17, 1942, the Company and
United Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 1124 entered
into' a contract covering employees in that unit.
Shortly thereafter, the petitioning union was formed and, began
an organizational drive among the foremen and bench chemists who
had been excluded in said contract. Seventy-five percent of the
present membership of the Union had been members of Local 1124
until the contract excluding them was executed. The president, of
the Union was formerly president of Local 1124. Both unions share
the same office building but maintain separate offices therein.
The Company contends that a unit of foremen, who are super-
visory employees and therefore a part of management, is inappro-
priate. The Company argues that under,the existing contract with
Local 1124, foremen are constituted representatives of the Company
in-the grievance procedure; therefore, representation of foremen by
the petitioning union' would create a.situation of conflicting loyalties
since both locals are affiliated with the same parent organization.
The unit sought by the Union consists of working foremen, non-
working foremen, and bench chemists. All working and. non-work-
ing foremen are assigned to definite departments and have under
4 The Regional Director stated that the petitioner submitted 32 membership cards, all
bearing apparently genuine original signatures and dates between June 1941 and March 1942.
All 32 signatures are names of employees who appear on the list of names submitted by
the Company, which list contained 43 persons in the alleged appropriate unit.
Matter of Oodchaua, Sugars, Inc. and United Sugar IVoikers, Local 1124, affiliated with
the C. I. 0., 36 N. L. R. B. 926.
GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC.. , 877
them a number of workers ranging from 4 to 70, for whose work,
they are responsible. In turn, the working and non-working-fore-
men alike are directly responsible to department heads and, shift
superintendents. The department heads and the shift superintend-
ents are responsible to the plant manager. .
The duties of non- iN orkiug foremen are entirely supervisory, while
working foremen divide their time between manual labor and super-
vision.. The non-working foremen liave no authority over working
foremen, for both classes of foremen occupy the same supervisory
level and serve in different departments. Except for one foreman
during the so-called grinding season, no foreman has the authority
to hire or fire. Some of the foremen have been graduated from the
ranks of production and maintenance employees, others have- been
hired from the outside. A few have been trained for their particular
duties. All foremen share dressing rooms with the production and
maintenance employees.
The Company and the .foremen meet regularly 'to discuss policy
and safety rules. Foremen may make recommendations which are
given consideration by the management , but in all cases, management
makes the ultimate determinations.
We have held that supervisory employees are protected by the
statute in the exercise of their right to organize and bargain collec-
tively and that we are without authority to expand or contract the
jurisdictional limits fixed by Congress.e The essential issue presented
here is whether supervisory personnel are to be denied statutory
protection of those rights merely because they have selected a repre-
sentative which is an affiliate of the same parent organization as is
the spokesman • for subordinate employees. We think not.
The right given to employees to select representatives of their own
choosing "is a fundamental right . . . . Employees have as clear a
right to organize and select their representatives for lawful purposes
as the respondent '[employer] has to organize its business and'select
its own officers and agents." N. L. R. B. v. Jomes ^C`"Laughlin` Steel
Coy p., 301 U. S. 1, 33.7 •
In deciding, in each case, the unit appropriate for collective bar-
gaining it is the statutory objective, hence our function, "to insure
to employees the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and,to
collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies" of the
9 Union Collieries Coal Co ., Oakmont, Pa. and Mine Ofotals ' Union of America. (IND),
44 N L R B. 165.
T "It will be observed that the function assigned to the Board is not the choice of the
labor organization to represent ' a bargaining unit, for that is to be the free choice of the
majority of the employees in some defined group of employees which the Board finds to,
constitute the appropriate unit ," Stone, C J , dissenting in Pittsburgh Plate • Class Co V_
N. L R B ', 313 U' S 146. _
878 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
Act (Sec; 9 (b) ). The desire of employees, whether supervisory or
not, "is a fact which has a bearing on the determination of the
appropriate unit."
There is no inflexible or universal rule, applicable to all industries
and all situations within an industry, which points--to a determina-
tion of the appropriate unit in all cases. In general, the Board has
excluded supervisory personnel, from- a unit which comprises 'subordi-
nate employees., Nevertheless, we do not disregard the fact that in
certain industries it has long been the practice for both groups to deal
with the employer through common spokesmen.9 Similarly, subordi-
nate employees are frequently delegated managerial functions as
"part-time supervisors" or as "working supervisors." In such cases,
we have often included them in the same unit with fellow employees
who perform no supervisory tasks.1° Moreover, in this case it is clear
that the two types of foremen are of the same supervisory level. We
conclude from the evidence before us that a unit comprising the super-
visory personnel is appropriate in this case.
The parties are-in particular disagreement over two foremen, Gus
Loque and Frank Beadle. The Union desires to exclude both from
the unit. Gus Loque is general foreman of the warehouse and ship-
ping department, with supervision over four other foremen. We Shall
exclude him from the unit. Frank Beadle is a working foreman in
the engineering department but has no supervision over other fore-
men. We shall include him in the unit.
There are four bench chemists whom the Union'desires to include
in the unit. They are characterized by the Company as "practical"
as distinguished from "college" chemists. They work in a laboratory
under supervision of a chief chemist, examining samples of sugar for
purity, color, and quality. They are paid on an hourly basis. The
Company maintains that these chemists are skilled, technical, non-,
supervisory employees, having no interest iii common with the fore-
men; therefore, to combine the two groups in one unit would- be
5Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co v N. L. R. B, suhra, at p. 156 "Naturally the wishes of
employees are a factor in a Boaid conclusion upon a unit They aie to be weighed with the
similarity of working duties and conditions, the character of the various plants and the
anticipated effectiveness of the unit in maintaining industrial peace through collective
bargaining." Id. at p. 156 -
°Thus, in the printing trades, collective agreements frequently provide that foremen
shall be members of the union in good standing, and their wage scales are fixed in a compre-
hensiye collective agreement. See Written Trade Agreements in Collective' Bargaining,
N L. R B. Division of Economic Research, Bulletin No. 4, Nov 1939, pp. 271-275.
i° Matter of Foster-Grant Co, Inc. and Local No 60, Moulders Union of Leominster, affili-
ated to United Paper, Novelty it Toy Workers International Union (C I. 0.), 32 N L R B.
486; Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, Copper Queen Branch,.Smelter Division and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No B-).2 , et al., 34 N L R B. 846;
Matter of Taylor Bedding Manufacturing Company and Upholsterers' International Union of
North America, 38 N. L. R B. 755; Matter of Sam Belz and Philip Belz, d/b/a Belz Uphol-
stered Furniture Co and International Woodworkers of Ameliea, affiliated with C. I O.
38 N L R B. 1326.
^•GODCHAUX SUGARS, INC . 879
inappropriate . We find merit in this contention and, accordinbly, we
shall exclude the bench chemists from the unit . , • , J'„ '
We find that the working and non-working foremen employed by
the Company , excluding Gus Loque , the general foreman of the ware-,
house and shipping department , constitute a unit appropriate for'the
purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which,
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein. -
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
49 Stat. 449 , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8; of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is.
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Godchaux Sugars,
Inc., Reserve, Louisiana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction of Election , under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all employees of
the Company in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who
were employed during the-pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the
active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily
laid off, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
United Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 1186, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations , for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
880 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
',MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting :
In Union Collieries Coal Company,11 I dissented- from the opinion
of the majority of the Board on the ground that if the assistant fore-
men there involved were held to constitute auI appropriate unit of
"employees" within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act an unfor-
tunate conflict of 'interest would arise. I further suggested that such
supervisory personnel might, if they were members of a union which
sought to organize the production employees, unduly interfere with
the. rights guaranteed to the production employees under the Act.
Here, as in Union Collieries Coal Company, it is admitted that the
supervisors are representatives of management. Moreover, in this
case, the supervisors are full fledged' foremen, one step higher in the
managerial scale than the persons involved in the Union Collieries case.
And here we find the foremen in what must be considered the same
union with the production employees. Under such circumstances, for
the reasons previously stated,12 I feel constrained to dissent.
11 Union Collieries Coal Co., Oakmont , Pa. and Mine Ofcials' Union of Ameriae (IND),
44 N. L. R.B.165.
12lllld.- -