Standard Rice Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 17, 1942

46 N.L.R.B. 49 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of STANDARD RICE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED CANNERY,
AGRICULTURAL, PACKING & ALLIED WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. C-23418.-Decided December 1 '7, 1941
Jurisdiction: rice milling industry.,,
Unfair Labor Practices -
Collective Bargaining : majority established by consent election-refusal to bar-
gain : charges of, dismissed, where employer had met with union, corresponded
with it, and showed a willingness to negotiate, and where after a bargaining
conference was adjourned, failure to resume negotiations was due to a common
misunderstanding as to which of the parties was to take the initiative in doing
so, and union made no subsequent attempt to resume negotiations' though
there was no apparent reason to believe that it would be futile to do so.
Unit Appropriate for' Collective 'Bargaining: production and maintenance em-
ployees at one of employer's plants, excluding supervisory and clerical em-
ployees.
Mr. J. Michael Early and Mr. Charles A. Kyle, for the Board.
Mr. J. W. Canada, of Memphis, Tenn., for the respondent.
Mr. Harley G. Moor'hectd, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
0
Upon charges duly filed by United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing
& Allied Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the,
Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans,. Louisiana),
issued its complaint, dated August 13, 1942, against Standard Rice
Company, Inc., Memphis, Tennessee, herein called the respondent;
alleging that the respondent had engaged in and, was engaging in
unfair labor practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. "Copies of the com-
plaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the-,
respondent and the Union: -
- The complaint alleged, in substance, that on or about February 7,
1942, and thereafter, the respondent refused to bargain collectively
46 N. L. R. B.;'No. 7 '
504086-43-vol 46-4 49
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
I
with the Union as the exclusive representative of all production and
maintenance employees at its Memphis,, Tennessee, plant, excluding
supervisory and clerical employees, although the Union had been des-
ignated by a majority of said employees as their representative for
the purpose of collective bargaining and said employees constituted
an appropriate bargaining unit.
Thereafter, the respondent filed its answer to the complaint, deny-
ing that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices and raising certain
affirmative defenses.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Memphis, Tennessee, on
September 3, 1942, before Robert F. Koretz, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the
respondent were represented by counsel and participated in the hear-
ing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. At the close of the hearing the Trial Examiner granted,
without objection, a motion by counsel for the Board to conform the
pleadings to the proof. Also at the close of the hearing counsel for
the Board and counsel for the respondent argued orally before the
Trial Examiner. All parties were afforded an opportunity to. file
briefs with the Trial Examiner, but none were filed.
On September 24, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report, copies of which were duly served upon the parties. He found
that the respondent. had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommended that the
respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action to effectuate the policies of the Act. On October 19, 1942, the
respondent filed its exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
The Board has considered the exceptions filed by the respondent
and hereby sustains them insofar as they are directed to' the Trial
Examiner 's findings and conclusions that the respondent has engaged
in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Standard Rice Company, Inc., is a Texas corporation having, its
executive offices and principal place of business at Houston, Texas. It
operates a rice mill at Memphis, Tennessee, herein called the Memphis
plant, where it is engaged' in processing and marketing rough rice.,
The respondent also operates rice mills at Houston , Texas ; Crowley, Louisiana ; and
Stuttgart , Arkansas.
STANDARD RICE COMPANY, INC. 51,
All the rough rice milled at the Memphis plant during the 1941-42
season came from the States of Louisiana and Arkansas. During the
year preceding the hearing herein, 62 percent of the products of the
Memphis plant were sold and distributed in interstate commerce to and
through States other' than Tennessee.,
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of Amer-
ica is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the respondent.
III. 'THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a.
majority therein
On January 22, 1942, the respondent and the Union entered into
an agreement for consent election in which it was agreed that all
production and maintenance employees of the respondent, exclud-
ing supervisory and clerical employees, constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit. Pursuant to this agreement, an election was held
on January 27, 1942. On February 2 the Regional Director issued
his report on the election, in which he found that'33 of the 41 valid
votes counted were cast for the Union and 8 were cast against the
Union ,2 that no objections to the conduct of the election or to a
determination of representatives based on the results thereof had
been filed within the prescribed period, and that the Union therefore
had been designated as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees within the appropriate unit.
The unit alleged in the complaint to be appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining is the unit which the respondent and
the Union agreed was' appropriate, in the consent-election agreement
referred to above.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of ,the
respondent at its Memphis plant, excluding supervisory and clerical
employees, at all times material herein constituted a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment,
and that said unit insures to employees, of the respondent the full
benefit of their right to, self -organization and to collective bargain=
ing and otherwise effectuates the policies' of the Act. '
1 2 The Regional 'Director also reported that there were 50 employees on the eligibility
list and , that a total of .43 ballots were cast, 2 of which were challenged and not counted
since they could not affect ,the result of the election. ,
k
52 DECISIONS.' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find further that at,all times material herein the Union was
the duly designated representative of a majority of the employees
in the aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, by virtue of Section 9
(a) of the Act, the Union was at all times material herein the ex.'
elusive representative of all the employees in such unit for the pur-
poses of collective, bargaining in respect to rates of pay, wages,
hours of employment, or other conditions of employment.
I3. 'The alleged 'refusal to bargain
On or about February, 7, 1942, following issuance by the Regional
Director of ' his report on the election of January 27, 1942, a meeting
was held at Memphis, Tennessee, at which-the Union was represented
primarily by Koger and Sanford, international representatives, and
A he respondent primarily by Gordon West, executive assistant to
the respondent's president.3 A proposed contract was submitted by
Koger ' to West, at whose request the provisions of the contract
were then explained by the union representatives. West indicated
that he thought the proposed contract "harsh," but requested time
for consideration of it and stated that he would then communicate
with the Union.
principal place of business' in Houston, Texas, was in Memphis and
telephoned Sanford, the union representative, and asked for a further
conference. Sanford told West that the Un'ion's representatives
were' busy with other matters, and it was agreed that the further,
meeting be postponed.
On February 28, 1942, West, who was then in Washington, D. C.,
wrote Sanford it letter setting forth at some length the respondent's
position, with respect to each provision of-'the proposed contract
which had been submitted by the Union at the meeting of February
7. The letter indicated that the respondent had no substantial
objection to several provisions of the proposed"contract, but that it
did object to the closed-shop, wage and vacation Clauses, and that
it did not want the term of the contract extended beyond July 31,
1942. ' Its position as to the term of the contract was based on the
fact that its operations are seasonal in nature, the operating' season
ending in May or June of each year, and that its fiscal year ends
dli 'July 31. _
On March 13, 1942, Sanford acknowledged West's letter and told
him that the employees were dissatisfied with' the respondent' s posi-
' The other union representatives at the meeting were Mrs. Sanford , who is also an
international representative , and a committee of the respondent 's employees . The other
representatives of the ' respondent at the meeting were Millard' Roberts, manager of the
Memphis plant , and C. J. Colton . The negotiations 'were conducted liy west for the'
respondent and by Koger and Sanford for the Union.
On February 19, 1942, West, whose office is at the respondent's
STANDARD RICE COMPANY, INC. 53
tion, that the Union could not negotiate by mail , and that he wanted
another conference at Memphis with West or some other , representa-
tive of the respondent . , On March 19 , 1942, West wrote 'Sanford
again, stating that he could not come to Memphis at that time, and
suggesting a conference in Houston or-further negotiation by mail.
On March 25 , 1942, , Sanford wrote to Roberts , manager of the
respondent 's Memphis plant, rejecting West's suggestions as imprac-
ticable and requesting a meeting in Memphis with the local manage-
ment not 'later than' April 1 . Sanford's letter . of March 25 was
forwarded by Roberts to West, and a conference was thereafter
arranged for April 10 in Memphis.
-At the meeting of,.April 10 , there was some discussion of the
provisions in the proposed contract dealing with, wages, hours of
work, the union shop, check-off, vacations and holidays, and preferred
status of union stewards in lay-off and rehiring . _ The major subject
of discussion , however, was the term during which any contract
entered into by the Union and the respondent was to remain effec-
tive' At, the Union's suggestion; a conciliator- from the United
States Deparment of Labor was called into the meeting, but the
parties were nevertheless unable to reach agreement , Sanford insist-
ing that the contract run for at least a year and West insisting that
the contract not run beyond July 31, 1942, the end of the respondent's
fiscal year. It is clear from the record that, at the close of the con-
ference on April 10, West and Roberts understood that the Union
would thereafter communicate with the respondent concerning
resumption of negotiations either at Memphis or at Houston , whereas
Sanford understood that West would communicate with the Union
after obtaining legal advice as to the question of the term of the
contract. As a result, neither the respondent nor the Union there-
after communicated with the other, and on, May 18, 1942, the Union
filed its charge herein.
- Thus, the negotiations between the respondent and the Union
consisted entirely of the two meetings at Memphis and the intervening
exchange of correspondence . The evidence does not convince us
that the parties at their final conference on April 10, 1942, reached
any impasse or insuperable 'disagreement. For all that appears in
the record, the parties would have been able to reach some agreement
if the bargaining negotiititions had not been permitted to end with
the meeting of April 10. The record shows, as the Trial Examiner
has found, '-'that the failure to resume negotiations subsequent to
April 10, 1942, was 'dub to a common inisunderstanding as to which
of the parties was to take the initiative in doing so. With no
4 Sanford, for example , testified at the hearing that "the major part of the discussion
revolved around the term of the contract ," and that this was ','the largest sore point."
54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apparent reason to believe that it would be futile to do so, the Union
made no attempt subsequent to April 10, 1942, to resume negotiations.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion and we find that the
record does not sustain the allegation in the complaint that the-
-respondent refused to bargain collectively with the, Union, within
the meaning of the Act.5 Since that is the gravamen of the pro-
ceeding, the complaint will be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the following-: _
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of the respondent at its plant at Memphis,
Tennessee, constitute trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of
America, C. I. 0., is a labor organization, within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees of the respondent
at its Memphis plant, excluding supervisory 'and clerical employees,
constitute, and at all times material herein constituted, a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, with the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing & Allied Workers of
America, C. I. 0., was on January 27, 1942, and at all times material
herein has been, -the exclusive representative of all employees in the
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices as
alleged in the complaint, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and
(5) of the Act. '
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact ' and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10'(c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint against the respondent , Standard Rice Company, Inc.,
Memphis, Tennessee , be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
6 Cf. N L R. B. v Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co, 306 U S 292, 297; N. L. R. B.
V. Sands Manufacturing Co., 306 U. S 332, 344 ; Great Southern Trucking Co., v.
N. I. R. B., 127 F. (2d) 180, 185 (C. C. A. 4) cert. den . 63 S. Ct. 48.