Mendelson-Zeller Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 24, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 153 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MENDELSON-ZELLER CO. 153
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of visual
education equipment at Chicago, Illinois. In April of this year,
it began the construction of a new plant at a site 8 miles
distant from the present plant. The Employer expects to stop
work at its present location in December and to resume opera-
tions at its new location sometime after the first of the year.
There are approximately 165 workers at the old plant.
Approximately 80 percent of these workers live within4 blocks
of the plant. Fifty percent of the workers are women. The
Employer has been informed by foremen at the old plant, who
have questioned employees as to their desire to continue to
work for the Employer at the new location, that the majority
of the employees have expressed the opinion that the new
plant is too distant from their homes to permit them to con-
tinue their employment after the change in location is effected.
Anticipating, therefore, that a large number of its present
employees may not wish to transfer, the Employer has set up
a personnel office at the new plant to take applications for
work.
The Employer moves to dismiss the instant petition, urging
that, under the circumstances, no election should take place
at this time. We find merit in the Employer's position. We are
of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by
processing this petition, as too short a time remains when
work will be carried on at the present location, and as it is
not anticipated that a representative number of the present
employees will continue their employment after operations are
moved to the new plant. We shall, therefore, dismiss this
petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition when
the new plant is in operation and a substantial and representa-
tive working force is there employed.,
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
'Cf. Pride Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 445.
PALMER C. MENDELSON AND EDWARD ZELLER, general
partners , and JOE CROSETTI, CARL DOBLER, MRS. OLGA
ZELLER, JEANETTE MENDELSON AND LEE ESCHEN, lim-
ited partners , a limited partnership, d/b/a MENDELSON-
ZELLER CO.1 and UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE
WORKERS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 78, CIO, Peti-
tioner . Case No . 20-RC-2353. November 24, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before James A.
1The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
107 NLRB No. 55.
154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Harley, hearing officer . 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 employees of the Employer. -
3. No question affecting commerce exists 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, for the
following reasons:
The Employer , a limited partnership , d/b/a Mendelson-
Zeller Co . and having its main office at San Francisco,
California , is engaged in the business of packing fruit . It does
an annual business in excess of one million dollars , and ships
approximately 90 percent of its production outside the State of
California . It maintains a warehouse and trucking consolida-
tion at Los Angeles , permanent packing sheds at Winters and
Auburn, California , and also engages in more limited fruit-
packing operations at Patterson , Virginia City , Yuba City, and
other points in California.
The Petitioner seeks to represent the production and main-
tenance workers employed in the Employer ' s Yuba City,
California, fruit-packing operations. The record discloses,
however, that the Company has no clear and definite plan of
operation in that city, that it maintains no permanent staff of
workers there, and that such operations as it has engaged in
at that location in the past have had a total duration of ap-
proximately 3 weeks each year. -
More specifically , the record shows that the Company owns
no property at Yuba City and that in 1951 , 1952 , and 1953, it
leased a packing shed for approximately 3 weeks in August,
comprising the peach season, for the purpose of selling its
peach-packing service to growers in the area . During the 1953
season , the Company employed approximately 38 workers at
Yuba City , all of whom were recruited a few days in advance of
the operation . Of this total, only 6 were individuals who had
been employed by the Company during prior seasons . Although
it is true that 3 or 4 of the group of 38 had previously worked
for the Company in its Winters operations , this circumstance
occurred as a result of coincidence , rather than because of the
existence of a company personnel transfer practice.
A company agent testified that the firm does not know from
year to year whether or not it will operate in Yuba City, and
that its decision is a" spot " decision reached 5 or 6 days before
the peach-packing season commences . Its decision is dependent
upon the quality of the crop , market , weather, and economic
conditions , interference from other peach-growing States, and
other competitive factors . He testified further that no decision
will be made as to whether the firm will operate during the
1954 season in Yuba City until about July 25, 1954.
REID MURDOCK CO., ET AL. 155
In view of the indefinite and brief nature of the Company's
Yuba City operation , and the insubstantial nature of the em-
ployees' tenure of employment , we believe that the expendi-
ture of the Board ' s funds to conduct an election in the em-
ployee group here sought to be represented is not warranted.2
We shall, accordingly , dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
2Cf. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 106 NLRB 1.19.
REID MURDOCK -CO., ET AL. t and WAREHOUSE UNION
LOCAL 12, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNA-
TIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION, LOCAL NO. 6. Cases Nos . 20-RC-2356, 20-RC-2357,
ZO-RC-2358, 20-RC-2362, 20-RC-2365, and ZO-RC-2371.
November 24, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Shirley N. Bingham , hearing officer . 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 Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of each of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.2
I The following Employers are involved in this proceeding: Reid Murdock Co., Case No.
20-RC-2356; The Arabol Manufacturing Co., Case No. 20-RC-2357; Traders Distributing Co.,
Case No. 20-RC-2358; California Barrel Co., Ltd., Case No. 20-RC-2362; Sloss & Brittain,
Case No. 20-RC-2365; and American Chain 8,. Cable Co., Inc., Case No. 20-RC-2371.
2 Although the Intervenor does not specifically urge contract bar in its brief, it indicated
at the hearing that a contract bar "may exist" because of an agreement between the Inter-
venor and Distributors Association of Northern California, herein called the Association,
dated June 11, 1953. However, a representative of the Association testified at the hearing
that the Association was not empowered to negotiate on behalf of the six Employers involved
in the present proceedings. Moreover, it is plain from the face of the contract that these
six Employers were not made parties to the June 11, 1953, agreement. In view of this testi-
mony by the Association's own official, we find no merit in the attempt by the Intervenor to
rely on a so-called "escape period" in the Association's bylaws, nor do we find any other
basis for a contract-bar contention.
107 NLRB No. 53.