Snively Groves, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 1146 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1146 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Employer Group unequivocally intended to be bound in collec-
tive bargaining by group, rather than by individual, action. We
therefore conclude that the multiemployer history of collective bar-
gaining, as outlined above, is controlling and that any unit smaller
in scope than one which embraces the Employer Group as a whole is
inappropriate at this time."
We find that all employees of the Employer Group, including whole-
sale and retail solicitors, commissioners, retail delivery drivers, special
delivery drivers, hand pressers, machine pressers, suzy-pressers, tailors,
dry cleaners, washers, spotters, steamers, dyers, spot-examiners, tie
finishers, curtain finishers, household finishers, and utility workers,
but excluding office and clerical employees, auto mechanics, engineers,
firemen, 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 National Labor Relations Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 That the Employer Group lacks a formal name or structure and has a fluctuating mem-
bership, or that its members separately sign and administer separate but identical contracts
does not preclude the establishment of a multiemployer unit. Metz Brewing Company,
98 NLRB 409; Abbott" Dairies, Inc., at at., 97 NLRB 1064.
SNIVELY GROVES , INC. and CITRUS AND ALLIED WORKERS, LOCAL 234,
WINTER HAVEN, FLORIDA, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED
BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY WORKERS OF
AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-1?C-1733. Agri' 11,
1952
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 Frank E. Hamilton, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at th® hearing
are free from prejudicial 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 Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
' We affirm the hearing officer 's ruling excluding testimony with respect to the desires
of employees on the unit issue. Should it become necessary to discover the desires of
employees in the various divisions regarding representation , we would hold separate elec-
tions by secret ballot and not rely on oral testimony . For reasons which appear below,
separate elections are not necessary in this case.
98 NLRB No. 172. 1
SNIVELY GROVES, INC.' 1147
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees 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 Petitioner and Citrus Workers Union No. 24215, A. F. of
L., the Intervenor herein, seek a single unit of production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's Eloise, Florida, plants, including
employees in its packing, concentrate, sectionizing, and cannery
plants, feed mill, warehouse, garage, and in its plant-wide maintenance
department. The Employer contends that employees in its several
plants and maintenance department constitute separate appropriate
units 2 The parties further disagree as to the unit placement of
certain categories, discussed below.
In support of its contention that separate units are appropriate at
its Eloise plants, the Employer points to the character of its operations
at this time and the history of bargaining.
The Employer is engaged at Eloise in the processing and distribu-
tion of citrus fruits, juices, and concentrates, and at Waycross, Georgia,
in the manufacture of boxes. At Eloise, the only location immedi-
ately involved in this proceeding, the Employer, under the ultimate
supervision of its president, operates packing, concentrate, section-
izing, and cannery plants,3 a feed mill, a warehouse, and a garage,
and maintains a plant-wide maintenance department.
The Employer uses byproducts from its cannery, sectionizing, and
concentrate plants in its feed mill, and stores products from its can-
nery and sectionizing plants in its warehouse.
Starting with a relatively small packing plant in 1934, the Em-
ployer gradually built up its Eloise operations 4 These operations
are now located on an area of approximately 15 acres. The packing
plant, the garage, and the feed mills are located in separate, un-
attached buildings. The cannery, concentrate, and sectionizing plants
2 At the hearing and in its brief, the Employer took the position that employees at the
several plants and in the maintenance department should vote to determine whether they
wish to be represented in a single unit or in separate plant and departmental units. We
disagree . Because it does not appear that separate units confined to each plant and the
maintenance department and a multiplant unit are equally appropriate , we shall determine
the unit without recourse to separate elections . Cf. Detroit Sheet Metal Works, 73 NLRB
475, and Mitchell Manufacturing Company, 70 NLRB 1268 . Section 9 ( b) of the amended
Act states, in part, as follows :
The Board shall decide in each case whether . . . the unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit,
or subdivision thereof.
3 The cannery plant is otherwise called the juice canning or single strength plant in the
record.
4 For example , this is the third year the concentrate plant has operated and the first
year the feed mill will operate throughout its season , although it operated for a short time
last year The sectionizing plant is new.
5 The feed mill is separated from the other plants by railroad tracks.
1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the warehouse are located in enclosed buildings, adjoining other
buildings. The record does not disclose the location of the Em-
ployer's plant-wide maintenance department. Employees in the can-
nery and sectionizing plants, the feed mill, and the warehouse work
under the same over-all supervision. Employees in the packing and
concentrate plants and the garage and all maintenance employees
work under separate over-all supervision.
About January 16, 1952,6 the Employer had, in all, approximately
570 employees. They include approximately 129, 44, 108, and
236 employees in the packing, cannery, concentrate, and sectionizing
plants, respectively, and 19, 17, and 6 in the feed mill, warehouse,
and garage, respectively. These workers have the skills and perform
the duties of employees in their respective and usual classifications.
Approximately 9 employees in the plant-wide maintenance depart-
ment handle major plant repairs. Other maintenance employees work
in maintenance departments in individual plants. Two night watch-
men, employed as guards , work throughout the Employer's entire
Eloise operations.
The Employer's operations are, in part, seasonal . Its packing and
cannery plants and feed mill operate from October to June, and its
concentrate and sectionizing plants from January to June and from
October to April, respectively.' The Employer's warehouse, garage,
and plant-wide maintenance department operate throughout the year.
From about June to October of each year, the Employer makes
changes in its operations for the coming year. The Employer there-
fore transfers maintenance employees in particular plants, at the end
of their operating seasons, to the plant-wide maintenance department,
as far as such action is possible. There is virtually no interchange
of employees among the plants or the plants and the maintenance
department. The Employer's policy is not to discharge employees
when there is no work for them in the plants to which they are as-
signed, but, if possible, to give them work in other plants. The Em-
ployer pays all its employees by checks issued from its single office and
distributed by the superintendents of its several operations.
On January 12, 1951, the Regional Director, following an election
held pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No.
10-RC-1095,$ certified International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Waycross, Georgia, box
plant, excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, and supervisors.
The hearing in this proceeding was held on January 24, 1952.
a This year , the sectionizing plant operated from October to January . However, the
Employer expects to reopen the plant this year , as soon as the necessary financial arrange-
ments can be made.
The periods of time set forth above are approximate.
8 Not published in the printed volumes of Board decisions.
SNIVELY GROVES, INC. 1149
No other labor organization currently seeks to represent, nor, so far
as the record discloses, has there been any bargaining for, any of the
Employer's employees in any of the plants or the plant-wide mainte-
nance department immediately involved herein. That another labor
organization represents employees at the Employer's Waycross plant,
located in another State and engaged in another kind of work, or that
the Employer and the Teamsters entered into an agreement for a
consent election covering over-the-road truck drivers and their helpers
at the Eloise plants, which the Teamsters lost, does not indicate the
appropriateness of the several separate units proposed by the Em-
ployer. That employees involved herein work during different pe-
riods of time does not militate against their inclusion in a single unit.,,
As noted above, all the Employer's operations at Eloise are under
the ultimate supervision of its president. There is some integration
among the plants. They have common guard service. Maintenance
employees in the maintenance departments in individual plants, at
the end of their seasonal operations, work in the plant-wide mainte-
nance department. The Employer assigns to other plants employees
at plants in which work is lacking. Under these circumstances, we
find that the single multiplant and maintenance department unit
sought by the Petitioner and the Intervenor constitutes an appropriate
unit."
Alleged Supervisors
The coloring room worker in the packing plant: The Employer
and the Intervenor would include, and the Petitioner would exclude,
this worker. He assists the general foreman in the packing plant
and, in his absence, takes charge of the coloring room. In the ab-
sence of the plant superintendent, the coloring room worker has au-
thority to hire and discharge employees working under him. He
spends about 20 percent of his working time in supervisory duties.
We find that he is a supervisor as defined in the Act and exclude him
as such from the unit herein found appropriate.")
Labeling machine operators and the head mechanic in the mainte-
nance department in the cannery plant: The Petitioner and the Inter-
venor would include, and the Employer exclude, these workers.
Labeling machine operators act as "lead-off" men for the Employer's
labeling crew. They operate and adjust labeling machines, affix labels,
and do odd jobs. The Employer does not consider them "foremen."
They have no employees directly under them. The head mechanic
may "supervise" at times on difficult mechanical jobs. His "super-
9 Wm. P. McDonald Corporation , 83 NLRB 427.
10 Cf. William Goar. d/b/a Goat's Service and Supply, 85 NLRB 219, Fairmont Foods
Company, 81 NLRB 1092; The North Memphis Lumber Company , 81 NLRB 745.
n F. W. Woolworth Company, 83 NLRB 439.
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vision," is that of a trained, experienced mechanic. There is no evi-
dence in the record that he has or exercises any of the powers of a,
supervisor over personnel as set forth in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
We find that labeling machine operators and the head of the mechan-
ical department in the cannery plant are not supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and include them in the appropriate unit 12
Alleged Professional Employees
The fruit tester in' the packing plant: The Petitioner and the Em-
ployer would exclude this employee. The Intervenor, although its
position is not entirely clear, appears to favor his inclusion.
The fruit tester, using charts, tests fruit for brix, solids, acids, and
volume. He works about half the season in this job, for which the
Employer requires him to have no special education, and the re-
mainder in different jobs. The Employer does not consider the fruit
tester a professional employee, and the record does not establish his
professional status. We therefore' find that he is not a professional
employee within the definition of the Act, and we include him in
the unit 13
The fruit tester at the concentrate plant: The Petitioner would
include, and the Employer and the Intervenor exclude, this tester.
Although on the Employer's payroll, this employee works for, and
is entirely supervised by, General Foods Corporation. We find that
he is an employee of that corporation, and not an employee of the
Employer, and therefore exclude him from the unit of the Employer's
employees 14
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the following
employees of the Employer at its Eloise, Florida, plants, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and main-
tenance employees in the Employer's packing, concentrate, section-
izing, and cannery plants, feed mill, warehouse, garage, and plant-
wide maintenance department, including labeling machine operators
and the head mechanic in the maintenance department in the cannery
plant and the fruit tester in the packing plant, but excluding office
and clerical employees, over-the-road truck drivers and their helpers,
professional employees, the fruit tester at the concentrate plant,
guards, and the coloring room worker in the packing plant, foremen,
and other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. At the time of the hearing, the Employer was completing the
rebuilding of part of its Eloise plant operations, which burned more
12 Riverside Mills, 85 NLRB 969.
11 Victor Chemical Works, 85 NLRB 495; Wm. P. McDonald Corporation, supra.
14 Phillips Chemical Company, 90 NLRB 76.
ROXANNA OF TEXAS, INC. 1151
than a year ago. For this purpose, the Employer hired special con-
struction employees,15 including approximately two electricians and
two helpers, to work with employees regularly employed in its plant-
wide maintenance department. The Employer may retain special
construction employees for 2 weeks to 6 months, depending upon the
difficulty it experiences in completing this work. We therefore find,
contrary to the Employer's contention, that special construction em-
ployees are eligible to vote in the election."
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication, in this
volume.]
15 Otherwise called "temporary employees" in the record.
16 Cf. Sunshine Broadcasting Company at at. , 83 NLRB 1244, and Weston Biscuit
Company, Inc., 81 NLRB 407.
ROXANNA OF TEXAS, INC., and INTERNATIONAL LADIES GARMENT
WORKERS UNION, AFL, DALLAS JOINT BOARD . Case No. 16-CA-
314. April 14,1952
Decision and Order
On September 14, 1951, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices 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
also found that the Respondent did not engage in certain other
alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint,
as amended, be dismissed with respect to such allegations. There-
after, all the parties filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report; the
General Counsel and the Union also filed supporting briefs.
The Board 1 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 iias considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner, with the exceptions and modifica-
tions noted below.2
1 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Houston , Murdock , and Styles].
2 The Trial Examiner correctly denied the Respondent 's motion to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that the original and amended charges failed to allege compliance with
Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act . The fact of compliance by a labor organization
which is required to comply , is a matter for administrative determination and is not
litigable by the parties . Moreover , the Board is administratively satisfied that both
the charging union and its parent organization have been in compliance at all times
material herein. See Sunbeam Corporation,, 94 NLRB 844 ; Swift & Company , 94 NLRB
1052 ; cf. N. L. R . B. v. Highland Park Manufacturing Company , 71 S. Ct. 489.
98 NLRB No. 170.