Pacific Fruit and Produce Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1511 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

PACIFIC FRUIT AND PRODUCE COMPANY 1511
in the election directed herein. If a majority vote for the Petitioner,
Operating Engineers, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director
conducting the election is directed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the Petitioner for the voting group described above, which
the Board under the circumstances finds to be an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority do not vote for
the Petitioner, these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election
to such effect.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 20-RC-3260.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Pacific Fruit and Produce Company and Chauffeurs , Teamsters
and Helpers Union, Local No. 448, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-1940. May
9,1957
DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election dated
January 7, 1957, an election was conducted under the supervision and
direction of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region in the
agreed appropriate unit. Following the election the Regional Director
served on the parties a tally of ballots which showed that 2 votes were
cast for, and 2 against Petitioner and 2 ballots were challenged. As
the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of
the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the Board, caused an investigation to be made, and
on March 7, 1957, issued his report on challenged ballots in which he
recommended that the Petitioner's challenge to Caryl Fausett's ballot
be sustained on the ground that Fausett is a supervisor and that the
Employer's challenge to Ray Allen's ballot be overruled and said bal-
lot be opened and counted.
The Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's
report in which it excepted to the recommendation sustaining the
Petitioner's challenge of Fausett's ballot. It requested that the Board
overrule that challenge or, alternatively, direct that a hearing be held
on Fausett's alleged supervisory status. No exceptions were filed with
respect to the Regional Director's recommendation that Ray Allen's
ballot be opened and counted.
117 NLRB No. 197.
1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
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 Murdock and Rodgers].
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. As stipulated by the parties, the following employees of the Em-
ployer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all truck-
drivers, delivery men, loaders, order fillers, warehousemen, and helpers
employed at the Employer's Missoula, Montana, Branch, excluding
office clerical employees, guards and watchmen, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
5. In the absence of any exceptions to the Regional Director's
recommendation with respect to Ray Allen's ballot, we hereby overrule
the challenge to that ballot and shall direct that it be opened and
counted. We are of the opinion, however, that the Employer's ex-
ceptions to the Regional Director's recommendation with respect to
Fausett's ballot raise substantial factual issues as to Fausett's super-
visory status, and that such issues can be resolved only upon the basis
of record testimony. Nevertheless, as Fausett's vote may affect the
ultimate results of the election only if Allen's ballot is cast for the
Petitioner, the Regional Director shall first open and count Allen's
ballot and serve a supplemental tally of ballots on the parties. Only
if Fausett's ballot may then affect the ultimate results shall the Re-
gional Director hold a hearing on the issue of Fausett's supervisory
status.
[The Board directed the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Re-
gion shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open
and count the ballot of Ray Allen and serve upon the parties a supple-
mental tally of ballots.]
[The Board ordered that, if the challenged ballot of Fausett affects
the ultimate results of the election, a hearing be held before a Trial
Examiner to resolve issues raised by the Employer's exceptions to the
Regional Director's findings and recommendations. The Trial Ex-
aminer shall serve upon the parties a report containing resolutions.of
the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of said issues. Within the period pro-
vided in the Board's Rules and Regulations, any party may file with
THE JUVENILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 1513
the Board in Washington, D. C., an original and six copies of excep-
tions, serve a copy upon the other party, and file a copy with the Re-
gional Director. If no exceptions are filed, the Board will adopt the
Trial Examiner's recommendations.]
[The Board further ordered the above-entitled matter referred to
the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region for the purpose of
dealing with Allen's ballot, arranging a hearing, issuing appropriate
notice.]
The Juvenile Manufacturing Company, Inc. and San Antonio
Joint Board , International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 39-CA-476. May 13,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 20, 1956, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the Re-
spondent had not violated Section 8 (a) (5) as alleged. Thereafter,
exceptions were duly filed by the Respondent, the Union, and the
General Counsel, and briefs were filed by the Respondent and the
General Counsel. 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 con-
sidered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the
entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclu-
sions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with the following
modification.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did not
violate Section 8 (a) (5).1 We also agree with his concluding finding
that the Respondent did violate Section 8 (a) (1). We base this
agreement on the fact that the Respondent exceeded the bounds of law-
ful cooperation with a group of its employees during the period of time
here in issue, and thereby interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of their statutory rights.
1 The Union moved to reopen the hearing for the purpose of adducing evidence to
refute the Trial Examiner 's subsidiaiy finding that its majority was coerced The Union
bases this motion on the fact that it had objected at the hearing to the supporting testi-
mony offered by the Respondent . The motion is hereby denied, as the Union has advanced
no satisfactory reason fol having failed to adduce its evidence at the hearing
117 NLRB No. 201.