Nashville Cotton Oil Mill Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1248 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of NASHVILLE COTTON OIL MILL CORPORATION,'
EMPLOYER and FOOD, TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 150, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-1946.-Decided September 9,1946
Mr. Ernest Rice, Jr., of Nashville, Tenn., for the Employer.
Miss Mary Lou Koger, of Nashville, Tenn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Cecil T. Johnston, of Nashville, Tenn., and Mr. Thomas G.
Evans, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the UMW.
Mr. Seymour M. Alpert, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at Nashville, Tennessee, on July 9, before Albert D. Maynard, Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Nashville Cotton Oil Mill Corporation, a Tennessee corporation
with its offices and only plant located at Nashville, Tennessee, is
engaged in the production and processing of cotton seed, cloth, vege-
table oil,-soy bean cake, meal, and mixed feeds for poultry and live-
stock. During 1945, the Employer purchased approximately $1,000,000
worth of raw materials for use in its business, of which about 90 per-
cent represented shipments to it from points outside the State of
Tennessee. During the same period, the Employer's finished products
were valued in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 50 percent of which
represented shipments to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged, in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the healing
70 N. L. R. B., No. 111.
1248
NASHVILLE COTTON OIL MILL CORPORATION
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
1249
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called the
UMW, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May.22,1946, the Petitioner advised the Employer that it repre-
sented a majority of its employees and requested recognition as their
exclusive bargaining agent. The Employer failed to grant such recog-
nition. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed its petition on June 14, 1946.
As of the date of the petition herein, the UMW had been the con-
tractual bargaining representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees for several years. The most recent agreement
between the Employer and the UMW was entered into on July 9, 1945.
This agreement provided that "it shall be, and remain in full force
and effect from July 1, 1945 . . . for a period of one year, and there-
after for successive one year periods, unless one of the parties . . . on
or before the 30th day preceding the termination date, shall notify the
other party in writing of its desire to modify or terminate the same."
By letter dated May 25, 1946, the UMW notified the Employer that
it desired to modify the contract by amending the provision, among
others, pertaining to wages and rates' of pay. Thereafter, on June
11, 1946, the Employer and the UMW held a conference during which
the proposed contract modifications were discussed and considered.
As noted above, the petition herein was filed on June 14, 1946.
However, it is clear from the UMW's letter requesting that the con-
tract be modified and the ensuing modification negotiations that the
contract between the Employer and the UMW was not' renewed.
Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner's representation claim and
petition in support thereof were timely, and that no bar exists to a
current determination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The'parties agree that the appropriate unit should consist of all
production and maintenance employees of the Con}pany, excluding
office and clerical employees and supervisory employees. There is,
however, some question as to the inclusion in, or exclusion from, the
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit of meal cooks, the Petitioner and the UMW desiring to include
them, and the Employer taking no definite position.
The Company employs three individuals in this classification. Each
one works on a separate shift in the press room, and is directly
responsible to the plant superintendent. In addition to performing
actual production work themselves, the meal cooks oversee the work
of the other seven or eight employees in the press room, and appear
to have the power to hire, transfer, and make effective recommen-
dations with respect to discipline and discharge of their subordinates.
Accordingly, we find that the meal cooks are supervisory employees
within our customary definition of that term, and we shall exclude
then from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer, excluding clerical employees, meal cooks, and all or any other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. TBE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
As noted previously, the meal cooks were excluded from the unit
as supervisory employees. However, it appears that by the time an
election is held herein the meal cooks miy lose their supervisory powers
as a result of the Employer's contemplated change in operations.
Should such change occur before the voting eligibility date established
herein, and should the meal cooks be permanently transferred to non-
supervisory status, they shall be deemed eligible to vote; otherwise,
they shall be deemed ineligible to vote.3
DIRECTION 'OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for' the
purposes of collective bargaining with Nashville Cotton Oil Mill Cor-
poration, Nashville, Tennessee, 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, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent
2 Also termed press room foremen.
3 Matter of Basic Magnesium, Incorporated, 56 N L R B. 412; Matter of Manganese
Ore Company, 54 N L. R. B. 1192.
NASHVILLE COTTON OIL MILL CORPORATION 1251
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Sections 10 and 11 , of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 3 , as amended , and to our determination in Sec-
tion V, above, among the employees 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 temporarily laid off , and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in per-
son at the polls , but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to
be represented by Food , Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers
Union of America, Local 150, CIO , or by District 50, United Mine
Workers of America , A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS , JR., took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
712344-47-vol. 70-80