South Georgia Pecan Shelling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 591 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SIDNEY F. PEARLMAN AND WILLIAM J. PEARLMAN
D/B/A SOUTH GEORGIA PECAN SHELLING COMPANY; A. PEARLMAN
& CO., INC. ; AND SOUTHEASTERN REDUCTION COMPANY, EMPLOYERS
and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case Na. 10-RC-538.-Decided August 8,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Gil-
bert Cohen, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The employers are jointly and severally engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.2
' We find no merit in the contentions by the Employers relating to the adequacy of the
Petitioner ' s showing of interest and its compliance with the filing requirements of the Act.
As we have frequently held, the showing of interest and the proof of compliance are matters
for administrative determination and are not litigable by the parties . See Matter of
Atlanta Coca- Cola Bottling Company, 83 N. L . R. B., No. 23, and cases cited therein. More-
over, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has a substantial interest and
that it has fully complied with the filing requirements of the Act.
2 As we find in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the Employers , for purposes of this pro-
ceeding , together constitute a single employer within the contemplation of Section 2 (2)
of the Act.
The Employers contend, in connection with their business operations , that the Board
lacks jurisdiction in the instant case, because they are "first processors " of pecans and
therefore , in substance , their workers are "agricultural laborers ," rather than "employees,"
under the Act. We do not agree . The pecans processed by the Employers are not grown
on farms owned or leased by them, but are purchased from outside sources, including
farmers, growers , accumulators , and cooperatives . In preparing these pecans for resale
in such forms as packaged unshelled pecans, pecan meats, and processed shells, the
Employers ' workers, in our opinion , are engaged essentially in commercial , rather than
farming , operations . Accordingly , we find that the individuals concerned are not "agri-
cultural laborers" and are entitled to the benefits of the Act . Cf. Matter of Atlantic
Commission Company, Inc., 84 N . L. R. B., No. 102.
85 N. L . R. B., No. 107.
591
592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section (2) (6) and (7) of the Act.-
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a single unit comprising all production and
maintenance employees of the Employers, excluding office clerical
workers, buyers, guards, professional employees, and supervisors.
While in substantial agreement- as to the composition of the unit, the
Employers contend, in effect, that only separate units of the employees.
of each Employer are appropriate.
There has been no history of collective bargaining with respect to
the employees concerned. The unit sought by the Petitioner embraces
the production and maintenance workers of Sidney F. Pearlman and
William J. Pearlman d/b/a South Georgia Pecan Shelling Company,
a partnership, A. Pearlman R Co., Inc., a Georgia corporation, and
Southeastern Reduction Company, a Georgia corporation, herein
separately called Shelling Company, Pearlman & Co., and Reduction
Company, respectively, and collectively called the Employers. The
operations of Pearlman & Co., involve the cleaning, grading, polishing,
and packaging of unshelled pecans and, also, the selling of ungraded
and uncleanecl pecans in the shell. Shelling Company is engaged
principally in shelling pecans and in the sale of pecan meats. The
activities of Reduction Company are limited to the processing of
pecan shells. Pearlman & Co., Shelling Company, and Reduction
Company employ approximately 20, 41, and 2 production and main-
tenance employees, respectively.
The two partners of Shelling Company are also stockholders of
Pearlman & Co., and Reduction Company, both of which corpora-
tions are closely held. In addition, both partners act as officers and
directors of Reduction Company, and one partner serves as director
of Pearlman R• Co. The Employers conduct their operations in a
single plant, consisting of two connected buildings located in Valdosta,
Georgia. One building is occupied by Pearlman & Co., and the other
building houses Shelling Company, Reduction Company, and the sin-
gle clerical office which services all three companies. It appears that
the Employers maintain separate records, prepare separate pay rolls,
,pay their ,employees by separate checks, and submit separate tax re-
turns. However, it further appears that there are frequent intercom-
' The Petitioner has waived any right to object to any election which may be held in the
instant proceeding on the basis of any acts alleged as unfair labor practices in pending
charges filed by it against the Employers.
SOUTH GEORGIA PECAN SHELLING COMPANY 593
pany transfers of materials' and considerable interchange of per-
sonnel. Moreover, the authority to hire and discharge employees of
all the Employers is vested in the same plant foremen,,and employees
'of all the Employers receive comparable wages and are subject to
similar hours of employment and other conditions of employment.
Under the circumstances, including the substantial identity of con-
trol, the integrated operations, and the unified determination of labor
policies, we are of the opinion that Shelling Company, Pearlman &
Co., and Reduction Company, together constitute a single employer
within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and that their em-
ployees comprise a single appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.'
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees
of Shelling Company, Pearlman & Co., and Reduction Company, at
their Valdosta, Georgia, plant, excluding office clerical workers,
buyers,' guards, professional employees, 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 Act.'
5. The determination of representatives :
Shelling Company has two part-time plant employees who divide
their time each day between working for this company and attending
trade school. They have been in Shelling Company's employ from
2 to 6 years and are carried on its regular pay roll. We find that
these individuals'are regular part-time employees with interests akin
to those of the full-time workers and, therefore, that they are eligible
to vote in the election hereinafter directed."
At the time of the hearing, Pearlman & Co., and Shelling Company
each employed two unskilled workers, classified as casual laborers,
who the Petitioner contends are entitled to participate in the election.
Such workers. are hired by these companies from time to time mainly
to help unload trucks. They are retained only until the particular
job is completed, and the companies have no established policy of
" Of the total unshelled pecans purchased by Pearlman & Co., approximately 25 percent
is resold by it to Shelling Company. The latter company, in turn, supplies Reduction
Company, without charge, with about 25 to 35 percent of the pecan shells accumulated in
Shelling Company's operations.
5 Cf. Matter of American Relays and Controls, Inc., 81 N. L. R. B. 178, and Matter of
Orleans Materials & Equipment Co., Incorporated, 76 N. L. R. B. 351.
8 The individuals occasionally hired in this capacity perform exclusively buying functions.
In accordance with our usual practice, we shall exclude the buyers from the unit. See
Matter of Wm. P. McDonald Corporation, 83 N. L. R. B., No. 66.
Y In view of the foregoing, the Employers' motions to dismiss addressed to the showing
of interest and compliance status of the Petitioner, the jurisdiction of the Board, and the
scope of the unit, are hereby denied.
8 Matter of Leedon Webbing Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 216, and Matter of Florsheim Retail
Boot Shop, 80 N. L. R. B. 1312.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rehiring the same individuals. We find, contrary to the Petitioner's
contention, that the casual laborers lack sufficient interest in the selec-
tion of a bargaining representative to entitle them to vote in the
election.9
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employers, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, and.to our determination in
paragraph numbered 5, above, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion of Election, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are
not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by United
Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO.
9Matter of Ozark Central Telephone Company , 83 N. L . R. B., No. 32.