Hubbard Apiaries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1468 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1468 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
including employees in the bakery department, the bakery shipping
department, and the potato chip and popcorn department, maintenance
men, and porters and cleaners, but excluding office, clerical employees,
casual seasonal employees, 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Leland M. Hubbard d/b/a Hubbard Apiaries and Local 164,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America, APL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 7-RC-3074. October 30,1956
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 Bernard Gottfried, a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing- officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
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 organization involved claims 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 Employer is primarily engaged in the processing and dis-
tribution of honey, and the manufacturing and distribution of prod-
ucts related thereto such as beehives.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees engaged in the proc-
essing and distribution of honey and all employees engaged in the
manufacturing and distribution of products related thereto, including
truckdrivers and plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The
Employer agrees with the Petitioner's unit request, as described here-
in. The only dispute between the parties is as to the inclusion or ex-
clusion of certain named employees.
The Petitioner alleges that Raynor Hand and R. Buell are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act. The Employer would include
them. The record shows that while these individuals are nominally
in charge of employees who process honey and employees in the wood-
116 NLRB No. 204.
HUBBARD APIARIES 1469
working shop, respectively, Leland M. Hubbard and his sons take
overall charge of the two shops and Leland M. Hubbard supervises both
these employee groups directly, including changes in personnel status,
hours, and working conditions, hiring of employees, and work assign-
ments. Hand and Buell merely transmit Hubbard's orders, engage
in manual work all day, and have no specific crews, crew members be-
ing assigned to them by Hubbard. Under these circumstances, in the
absence of evidence of supervisory authority or its exercise on the
part of Raynor Hand and R. Buell, we shall include them in the unit.
The Petitioner contends that James Libbey should be excluded as
an agricultural employee. The Employer would include him. Al-
though Libbey, a year-round employee, spends more time than the other
employees on agricultural tasks, a major portion of his time is spent in
the processing and making of beehives, and he enjoys the same work-
ing conditions, supervision, and pay as the other employees. We shall
therefore include him in the unit.
The Petitioner would exclude Maybell Swain as an office clerical em-
ployee. The Employer would include her. As the record shows that
she spends most of her time in the processing plant, we shall include
her in the unit.
The Petitioner would exclude and the Employer include Wilmer
Swain. According to the testimony, he works from 20 to 30 hours a
week and enjoys the same working conditions, wages, and benefits
as the other employees, the only difference being that he is not paid
time and a half for overtime. We shall include him in the unit as a
regular part-time employee.
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All employees of the Employer at the Employer's operations at
Onstead, Michigan, engaged in the processing and distribution of
honey and all employees engaged in the manufacturing and distribu-
tion of products related thereto, including all truckdrivers and plant
clerical employees, but excluding office clerical employees,' professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
5. The parties disagree with respect to the eligibility of certain laid-
off employees. The Petitioner' urged their eligibility and the Em-
ployer contended that they are ineligible to vote. The record shows
that the Employer keeps no file on laid-off employees nor does he have
a policy of recalling laid-off employees. Only a few of the laid-off
employees have worked for the Employer before, and generally the
Employer obtains a basically new transient crew each year. In ac-
7 The parties are in agreement that Lucille Hand is an office clerical employee, and as
such, should be excluded from the unit.
1470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cordance with established Board policy,2 we find that as the laid-off
employees in question have no reasonable expectation of being recalled,
they are ineligible to Vote .3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Meier Electric C Machine Co., Inc., 107 NLRB 143.
3 The parties agree that laid-off employees Spangler, Schaufeler, and L Wimple are in-
eligible to vote.
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO, and Local 5246,
United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO and Barry Con-
trols, Inc. Cases Nos. 1-CC-149 and 1-CC-151. October 31,
1956
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 18, 1956, Trial Examiner Lloyd Buchanan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents 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 In-
termediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recoimnen-
dations of the Trial Examiner, only to the extent that they are con-
sistent with our Decision herein.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents violated
Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act by picketing the trucks of Barry,
with whom the Respondents had a labor dispute, at the terminals
and the packaging plant of secondary employers on April 25, 1956.
In so doing, however, we, unlike the Trial Examiner, do not rely upon
the Respondents' alleged failure to observe the Moore Dry Dock re-
quirement 1 that the picketing at the secondary employers' premises
be conducted in a manner clearly disclosing that it was directed only
against the primary employer. Apart from the fact that we believe
that the Trial Examiner's finding that the Moore Dry Dock standard
was not met is factually incorrect, the Board has held that the Moore
Dry Dock doctrine is inapplicable to a situation where as here the
primary employer has a permanent place of business at which the
1 Moore Dry Dock Company, 92 NLRB 547, 549.
116 NLRB No. 207.