Sucesion J. Serralles

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 547 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

SUCESION J. SERRALLES 547
In our opinion, the Employer, by its conduct in this proceeding,
exceeded the bounds of neutrality imposed by the statute and thereby
unlawfully intruded upon its employees' rights independently to file
a decertification petition with the Board. The Employer's attorney
advised the employees as to their rights in decertification proceedings,
supplied the Petitioner with the decertification forms, filed the petition
with the Board, 'and recommended another attorney only after the
hearing officer made it clear that an attorney cannot represent both the
Employer and the decertification petitioners. In addition, the plant
superintendent permitted the decertification petition to be circulated
on company time and property and also permitted the attorney for
the decertification petitioners to interview each employee privately at
the plant on company time, while refusing permission to the Union's
representative to have access to employees on company property.
Although the Board has held that certain types of assistance do not
necessarily invalidate a decertification petition,' in view of the fore-
going and the entire record in this proceeding, we are convinced that
the Employer improperly assisted the Petitioner in filing the decertifi-
cation petition and that the rights of the employees to file decertifica-
tion petitions under Section 9 (c) (1) (A) have been thereby
abridged .5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
+ See Belden Brick Company, 114 NLRB 52; Clackamas Logging Company, 113 NLRB
229.
.Bond Stores, Inc., 116 NLRB 1929; (told Bond, Inc., 107 NLRB 1059, 1060.
Sucesion J. Serralles, Central Mercedita, Inc., and Porto Rico
American Sugar Refinery , Inc. and Union de Trabajadores de
Muelles y Ramas Anexas de Ponce, P. R., Local 1903, IBL-AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 24-RC-1012. July 8, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the parties stipulated that the transcript in Case No.
24-RC-974 shall constitute the entire record in this proceeding. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing in Case No. 24-RC-974
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 Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
118 NLRB No. 63.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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. The Petitioner seeks to represent a separate unit of electrical
shop, railway, and maintenance-of-way employees. The Employer
and the Intervenor, Union de Trabajadores de Factoria, Refineria y
Ramas Anexas de la Industrial Azucarera, Inc., contend that the
electric shop employees should be included in the larger production
and maintenance unit of mill employees and that the railway and
maintenance-of-way employees should be excluded from any unit as
agricultural laborers.
The Employers operate extensive sugar plantations, a sugar mill
and a sugar refinery. The same interests control all three aspects of
the Employers' operations. In 1951 the Board found that the unit
which the Petitioner seeks to represent could be appropriate and
directed a separate election in that group.' Following an election won
by the Petitioner's predecessor, the Board found the unit appropriate
and certified the winning union. Thereafter, the Employer and that
union entered into collective-bargaining contracts for employees in
the certified unit .2
In view of the Board's previous decision, the certification and the
subsequent bargaining history, we find that a unit of electrical shop
and railroad and maintenance-of-way employees who are not agricul-
tural laborers may be appropriate. On the other hand, as the Board
has previously indicated, they may also be included in the larger unit
now represented by the Intervenor. In these circumstances, we shall
not make a unit determination until we have first ascertained the
desires of the employees involved.
The Employers have two railroad systems. One of 26-inch gauge is
located on the Employers' sugar plantations adjacent to the mill and
refinery and is used exclusively for carrying the Employers' own
harvested cane to the mill area. Workers on this railroad system,
including those engaged in maintenance, spend all their time on the
plantation lands. We find that, under the Supreme Court's holding
in the Waialua case,' the workers on the plantation railroad system
are "agricultural laborers" and hence excluded from the definition of
employee contained in Section 2 (3) of the Act. We shall therefore
exclude them from the voting group.
I Asoc -iacion Cooperativa Lafayette, 94 NLRB 911.
2 In 1953 the Employers signed two separate contracts for employees in this certified
unit , one covering employees on the plantation railway system and the other for the elec-
trical shop employees and railway workers on the 1-meter gauge railway system located
within the mill area.
13faneja v . Waialua Agricultural Co., 349 U. S . 254. Accord : Olaa Sugar Company,
Limited, 114 NLRB 670; Clinton Foods , Inc., 108 NLRB 85.
SUCESION J. SERRALLES 549
The second railroad system is of 1-meter gauge and is located in
the mill area. Through the close of the 1956 grinding season, the
yard railroad was used to haul freight cars loaded with cut cane
from the terminus of a publicly owned railroad to the mill for grind-
ing. Most of this cane came from the fields of independent farmers.
The yard railroad employees were supervised by the mill's civil engi-
neer, were carried on the mill payroll and received pay and other
benefits different from those accorded to the plantation railroad
workers. The Employers conceded that under this method of oper-
ation, the yard railroad workers were employees within the meaning
of the Act. However, they contend that the public railroad system is
in bankruptcy and has ceased to operate, that henceforward no cane
will be received at the mill over the public railroad, and that the
yard railroad will no longer be used to haul cane from the railroad
terminus to the mill. In the future, the Employers assert, the yard
railroad will be used only for hauling and storing the Employers'
own cane and its workers will be transferred to the agricultural pay-
roll. The precise nature of the duties to be performed by the yard
railroad employees in the future is too unclear at the present time to
enable the Board to make a determination as to whether they are or
will be "agricultural laborers." Accordingly, we shall permit them
to vote subject to challenge and a later determination, if necessary,
of their status.
We shall direct an election by secret ballot in the following voting
group All electrical shop employees at the Employers' mill in
Mercedita, Puerto Rico, excluding office clerical employees, guards,
professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of employees in the voting group vote for the Peti-
tioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the
unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. If a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be
taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the broader unit
represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification of results indicating that the employees in the
voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, are to be deemed
part of the broader unit and the Intervenor is authorized to bargain
for them as part of such unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
* As previously stated, yard railroad employees will be permitted to vote subject to
challenge and a later determination , if necessary , as to whether they are included in the
unit.