Holly Sugar Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 15, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1209 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HOLLY, SUGAR CORPORATION- 1209
net earnings,' if any, during such period. The back pay shall be computed in
the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Company?
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record
in the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Pappas and Company is an employer. engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2 (2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
2. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Workers Union, Local 78, and Food, Tobacco,
Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America, the Respondent Union herein,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. By attempting to cause Pappas and Company to discriminate against Virgil
Ramey in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, the Respondent Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor-practices within the meaning of
,Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. '
4. By restraining and coercing employees of Pappas and Company in - the
,exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent Union has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The Respondent Company did not discriminate in regard to the hire and
tenure of employment of Virgil Ramey, and did not interfere with, restrain, and
coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under Section 7 of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.].
•' Crossett Lumber Co., 8 NLRB 440, 497-98.
90 NLRB 289.
HOLLY SUGAR CORPORATION and TRUCKDRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 898, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA,
PETITIONER. Case No. 231-RC-1814. Jume 15, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before George H. O'Brien, 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
-Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged iri commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
94 NLRB No. 196.
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of sugar at its sugar
beet processing plant at Brawley, California. Its operations are sea-
sonal, the annual season running from approximately May 1 to July
15.
Seasonal employees work in and about the factory and on the outside
"dumps" which are receiving and collecting stations for beets. United
Sugar Workers Council of California, A. F. L., the Intervenor herein,
represents the "inside" or factory employees in a contract unit from
which "outside" employees have always been excluded. The outside
employees during the peak of the season number between 40 and 50
employees. They have never been represented by any labor organiza-
tion.
In its original petition the Petitioner sought to represent employees
in certain categories at the Employer's plant and made a showing of
interest among employees in its proposed unit.' During the course of
the hearing the Petitioner learned that employees in its proposed unit
.were represented by the Intervenor and covered by the contract be-
tween the Employer and the Intervenor. The Petitioner thereupon
amended its petition with respect to the proposed unit, limiting the
unit to "outside employees" of the Employer who were excluded from
the contract unit.
At the time of the filing of the original .petition and at the time of
the hearing in this proceeding, there were no outside employees on the
Employer's payroll, and the Petitioner admitted that it had no repre-
sentation among employees in its proposed amended unit. The Peti-
tioner suggests that the Board follow the procedure set forth in the
Arena-Norton Co.,' case, decided under the Wagner Act, and direct at
this time an election to be held during the processing season, providing,
however, that, prior to the holding of such election, the Petitioner
give to the Regional Director documentary proof of substantial rep-
resentation among employees in the unit sought. The Employer ques-
tions the applicability to the instant case of the principle of the Arena-
Norton Co., case in the light of Section 9 of the amended Act, which
provides for the processing of representation petitions on the basis of
an allegation "that a substantial number of employees . . . wish
to be represented for collective bargaining and that their employer
declines to recognize their representative." We find merit in this
contention. Although we have' repeatedly held that the showing of
interest -is an administrative matter not subject to collateral attack,
we have, however, set forth that it is the Board's policy in seasonal
activities such as this to require a showing among those currently em-
ployed in the unit at the time the petition was filed.2 In the present
1 Arena-Norton Co., at at., 62 NLRB 1070.
2 Mount Whitney Lumber Company, 90 NLRB No. 84; Akin Products Company , 91 NLRB
No. 203.
ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC. 1211
situation, there were no employees within the amended unit either
at the time that the original petition was filed, or at the time of the
hearing, when the Petitioner amended its proposed unit. Under these
circumstances, we find that no question concerning representation of
employees of the Employer exists within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) of the Act.
We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition without prejudice to the
filing of a new petition when the Petitioner may and does make a
substantial showing of interest among employees sought.
Order
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, it is hereby ordered that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed in
the instant case be, and it is hereby, dismissed without prejudice.
ALASKA SALMON INDUSTRY, INC. and BERING SEA FISHERMEN 'S UNION,
PETITIONER . Case No. 19-I?C-746. June 15,1951
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 Howard A. McIntyre, hear-
ing 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of resident fishermen, set netters,
beachmen, net tenders, boat crews (including cooks on tenders and
tally scows), mess house employees, tally men, and utility men em-
ployed by the Employer in the Bristol Bay area, excluding office cleri-
cal employees, machinists, carpenters, radio operators, doctors and
nurses, timekeepers, storekeepers, resident and nonresident inside can
94 NLRB No. 204.