J. R. Simplot Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 15, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 272 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Intervenor.° We shall, therefore, make no unit determination
with respect to the employees at the Williston terminal at this time,
but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed
in the election directed herein.
We shall direct an election among the following employees : All
over-the-road drivers and drivers' helpers at Williston, North Dakota,
excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional
employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act'
If the majority of the employees in the above-described voting
group cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. If the majority of the employees in the voting group cast
their ballots for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to be included in the existing unit currently represented
by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification
of results of election to that effect. If the majority of the employees
in the voting group cast their ballots for neither labor organization,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be unrepresented
by any labor organization appearing on the ballot and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Standard Trucking Company, 122 NLRB 761.
In view of our findings herein, the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition , made in
its brief filed after the hearing , is hereby denied.
7 The Employer and the Intervenor agreed that, in the event the Board directs an elec-
tion, these employees constitute an appropriate voting group.
J. R. Simplot Co., Food Processing Division , Heyburn Opera-
tions 1 and American Federation of Grain Millers , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 19-IBC-2563. February 15, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Dan Boyd, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball].
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
130 NLRB No. 47.
J. R. SIMPLOT CO., FOOD PROCESSING DIVISION, ETC. 273
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 2
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
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 operates a potato processing plant, starch plant,
and packing and sorting sheds at its Heyburn, Idaho, location. The
Petitioner seeks an overall unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees, including truckdrivers, laboratory employees, and temporary
construction employees. The Teamsters, which currently represents
the production and maintenance employees at the starch plant, seek to
add the production and maintenance employees in the processing plant
to its existing contractual unit.' The Carpenters seeks a unit of con-
struction carpenters, carpenters, and maintenance millwrights. The
Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed as premature
since it does not have a representative and substantial complement of
employees in the proposed unit. In the event the Board directs an
election, the Employer contends that the appropriate unit should be
limited to the employees in the processing plant, excluding office em-
ployees, laboratory and technical employees, temporary construction
employees, truckdrivers, professional employees, guards and/or watch-
men, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The record shows that at the Heyburn site the starch plant is lo-
cated 400 feet from the processing plant, and 200 feet from the packing
and sorting sheds. Potatoes are received at the sheds, cleaned, graded,
and sized, and then distributed to the processing and starch plants.
Production, accounting, and payroll records are kept in a central office
building, and there is a single maintenance department for all three
operations. The managers of the various operations all report directly
to an area general manager. In addition, during a 26-day period when
the processing plant was preliminarily in operation three employees
were transferred between the starch and processing plants. In view
of the proximity of the plants, the integration of operations, and the
centralized management and maintenance functions, we find that an
overall unit embracing the starch plant, processing plant, and the
packing and sorting sheds would be appropriate.4 For the same
2 General Teamsters, warehousemen and Helpers Local Union 433, herein referred to as
the Teamsters , intervened on the basis of a contractual interest . Rocky Mountain District
Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein re-
ferred to as the Carpenters , intervened on the basis of a showing of interest.
3 The contract , effective from March 9 , 1959, to August 12, 1900 , was not alleged as
a bar.
Hawthorne-31ellody Forms Danry of Wtisconstin , lac, 99 NLRB 212.
597254-G1-vol 130-19
274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reasons, we find that the unit sought by the Teamsters, which would
exclude employees in the packing and sorting sheds, would be
inappropriate.
The employees in the starch plant classified as laboratory and techni-
cals test starch for moisture content, color analysis, and dirt. The
tests they perform are routine in nature and not involved in the de-
velopment of new products. A training period of 30 days is required,
but no specialized training or other educational requirements are neces-
sary. The laboratory and technical employees in the food processing
plant make tests for dirt, color, moisture control, sediment, and piece
count. These employees are able to perform these tests after 1 week of
training on the job. The tests are performed on materials taken from
the production line and are routinely done according to a manual
specially prepared for that purpose. In these circumstances we find
that the laboratory and technical employees have substantially the
same interests as the production and maintenance employees, and may
be properly included in an appropriate unit with them.'
5. At the hearing the Employer contended that the petition should
be dismissed as premature since it did not then have a representative
and substantial complement of employees.
The Employer's plant is normally in active operation with a rela-
tively full complement of employees for a 10-month period from Sep-
tember to June. However, at the time of the hearing the Employer's
operations were in the summer slack period and it was also in the
process of constructing its potato processing operation at the Hey-
burn site. The plant preliminarily operated with a complement of
290 production and 50 maintenance employees for a 26-day period
commencing April 29 and ending in May 1960.1 The Employer an-
ticipated that when this facility and an additional facility in its proc-
essing plant went into full operation in the fall of 1960 it would have
an employee complement of approximately 800. As of the hearing
date, in the packing and sorting sheds 10 were employed, including
drivers, as compared with a normal work force of 150 employees; 35
employees from the production force were engaged in cleaning up in
the processing plant; and the starch plant was operating with 7 em-
ployees as compared with 23 employed during full production. Thus,
of a total anticipated complement of approximately 973 employees in
a unit comprising the normal production force, only 52 were employed
at the hearing date. As the hearing was held during the slack period,
we measure the extent of the anticipated expansion on the basis of the
normal complement during the preceding operational year, which was
5 Ruby Company, d/b/a Shelley Processing Company, 129 NLRB 110.
As the work force in the processing plant was employed for only a 26-day period end-
ing in May 1960, and the record does not show that these employees have a reasonable
expectancy of reemployment , we are unable to find that these employees are properly a
part of the normal complement of employees.
J. R. SIMPLOT CO., FOOD PROCESSING DIVISION, ETC. 275
about 175, and find that this is not a substantial and representative
segment of the total anticipated complement. Accordingly, we shall
direct that elections be held as soon as the Regional Director shall
determine that a substantial and representative complement of em-
ployees has been employed. The elections will be subject to submission
of adequate current showings of interest in the voting groups de-
scribed hereinafter.7
As the employees in the processing plant, packing and sorting sheds,
and the technical and laboratory employees have been unrepresented
in the past, we shall ascertain by a self-determination election whether
they desire to be included in the existing unit, before including them
therein a Or, in the event they do not vote to be merged with the
existing unit, and, in addition, the employees in the existing unit vote
for representation, the previously unrepresented employees may also
constitute a separate residual unit. Accordingly, as the representative
status of the Teamsters, the bargaining representative of the historical
unit, is also in issue, we shall direct separate elections in two voting
groups of employees at the Employer's Heyburn, Idaho, plants de-
scribed below, excluding from each voting group construction carpen-
ters, carpenters and millwrights,9 guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act :
Group (a) existing unit: All production and maintenance em-
ployees in the Employer's starch plant, excluding the employees in
voting group (b).
Group (b) unrepresented group: All production and maintenance
employees in the Employer's processing plant and packing and sort-
ing sheds, including truckdrivers,10 and the laboratory and technical
employees in the starch plant, excluding all employees in voting
group (a).
If a majority of employees in each of the above voting groups votes
for the Petitioner or for the Teamsters," both groups will be merged
into a single overall unit, which, under the circumstances, we find to be
7 Gordon B . Irvine, 124 NLRB 217, 218.
9 The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134, 1136.
6 The record indicates that no carpenters or millwrights were employed at the starch
plant or packing and sorting sheds at the time of the hearing. However , at such time
there were approximately 10 carpenters and millwrights working among 50 construction
employees at the processing plant. These construction employees were engaged for the
most part by independent contractors and were expected to be released or transferred
when production commenced in the fall As it appears that such employees as are em-
ployed by the Employer have no substantial expectancy of continued employment, we find
that they are temporary or casual employees Sealmte, Inc., 125 NLRB 619 Further,
the record does not show that employees retained or subsequently hired as carpenters and
millwrights will possess the requisite skills and functions to constitute a separate unit.
Accordingly, we find the Carpenters' unit contention to be without merit
10 As no labor organization seeks to represent the truckdrivers separately, we shall in-
clude them. McAllister's Dairy Farms, Inc., 118 NLRB 1117, 1119-1120.
U. We will place the Teamsters on the ballot for the election involving the unrepresented
group, with leave to withdraw upon proper notice to the Regional Director, provided it
demonstrates to the Regional Director an intervenor's showing of interest in such group.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate. In the event a majority of voting group (a) selects the
Petitioner and a majority of group (b) selects the Teamsters, we
find that each group is a separate appropriate unit. In the event a
majority of voting group (a) selects the Teamsters and the majority
of voting group (b) selects the Petitioner, we find that each group is a
separate appropriate unit. If a majority of the employees in voting
group (a) vote for the Petitioner or for the Teamsters and a majority
of employees in voting group (b) reject representation, we find the
employees in voting group (a) constitute a separate appropriate unit.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) vote for no union,
the employees in both voting groups shall remain unrepresented re-
gardless of the vote in voting group (b). The Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification or certifications as decided by the
results of the elections.12
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
13 Waikiki Biltmore, Inc ., d/b/a The Waikiki Biltmore Hotel , 127 NLRB 82 For the
reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in the above case as well as in Cook Paint and
Varnish Company , 127 NLRB 1098 , and Star Union Products Company, 127 NLRB 1173,
Member Fanning dissents from the failure to provide for a pooling arrangement herein.
Arthur S. Carter, d/b/a Carter Camera & Gift Shops 1 and
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Mov-
ing Picture Machine Operators of United States & Canada,
Local 665, affiliated with AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner. Case No.
37-RC-666. February 15, 1961
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 Joseph Kulkis, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.*
I The Employer presently has on file with the Hawaii Aeronautics Commission an appli-
cation for permission to change his present space permit at his Honolulu International
Airport operations to read in the name of Waikiki Advertising & Visitors ' Information
Service, Ltd , d/b/a Visitors ' Information Service, Ltd As it is uncertain whether the
contemplated 'change will be effected , we are framing the Decision and Direction of'Election
herein in the name of the-present Employer For this reason we find, apart from any
other consideration as to the unit herein, that there is no merit to the Employer's con-
tention that because of the contemplated change in his Airport operations there should
be a separate unit of the Employer's employees employed at the Airport
2 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
*On March 1, 1961, the Board was administratively advised that the Petitioner has
requested permission to withdraw its petition for certification of representatives previously
filed herein, and that the Employer has no objections to approval of the request provided
it is with prejudice . The Petitioner 's request is granted with prejudice to its filing a
new petition for a period of 6 months from March 1, 1951 unless good cause is shown
why the Board should entertain a new petition filed prior to the expiration of such period.
130 NLRB No. 37.