Trueman Fertilizer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 10, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 72 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of TRUEMAN FERTILIZER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
UNITED FERTILIZER AND ALLIED WORKERS, LOCAL 2000-UNITED
TRANSPORT SERVICE EMPLOYEES-CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-342.-Decided January 10,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, ' a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed 2
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of com-
mercial fertilizer at its Jacksonville , Florida, plant . Its plant con-
sists of a combination warehouse and factory , employing as many as
55 employees during the peak season ( November to April) and as
few as 12 employees during the off season . The raw materials are
, The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that it is vague, indefinite,
and uncertain in that it does not disclose who the Petitioner is. The motion is denied.
It is clear from the record that United Fertilizer and Allied Workers, Local 2000, is the
Petitioner in this matter It is a constituent member of United Tiansport Service Em-
ployees which, in turn , is affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations We find
no merit in the contention that United Transport Service Employees and the CIO are
Petitioners jointly with Local 2000 We find that the petition is sufficiently definite and
effective upon which to base an investigation concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer.
2 The Employer ' s motions to dismiss the petition on the several grounds that : (a) it
does not appear on the face of the petition that the Petitioner is in compliance ; (b) the
Petitioner was not in compliance at the time of filing the petition , as required by Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act ; and (c ) that the Petitioner is not now in compliance with
the Act, are without merit and are hereby denied. Whether a union has complied with
the affidavit and filing requirements of the Act is a matter to be determined administratively
by the Board and may not be litigated by the parties Matter of Baldwin Locomotive
Works, 76 N. L. R B. 922. We are satisfied that the compliance requirements of the Act
have in fact been met
* Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 13.
72
TRUEMAN FERTILIZER COMPANY 73
manufactured into fertilizer by a process of pulverizing , mixing, and
screening. During the 12-month period ending September 30, 1948,
the Employer purchased 10,276 tons of raw material, valued at
$297,000, from outside the State of Florida. It purchased, during
this period, 8,950 tons of raw materials, valued at $105,000, from
within the State of Florida. During this 12-month period the Em-
ployer sold 17,375 tons of fertilizer, valued at $752,000, wholly within
the State of Florida.
Contrary to the contentions of the Employer, we find, as in an
earlier proceeding involving its employees,' that the Employer is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act; and that it will
effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer 4
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.5
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Jack-
sonville, Florida, fertilizer plant, excluding office, clerical, and pro-
'Matter of Trueman Fertilizer Company, 73 N L I2 B. 1235
' The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner is not a
labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. The Petitioner is a
chartered local of United Transport Service Employees , CIO. It admits employees to
membership for the purposes of bargaining with their employers relative to wages , hours,
and other working conditions The motion to dismiss is denied.
5 The Employer contends that no question concerning representation exists because the
Petitioner is already the certified bargaining representative foi its employees It bases
this contention upon the Board' s prior certification of United Fertilizer and Allied Workers
of America in the earlier representation proceeding cited above, issued on May 31, 1947.
The present Petitioner, formerly known as United Fertilizer and Allied Workers of
America, affiliated with United Transport Service Employees in May, 1948, at which time it
changed its name to United Fertilizer and Allied Workers , Local 2000. It has kept the
same membership and retains the same officers . The Employer presently refuses to
recognize the Petitioner as the bargaining agent for its employees despite the prior certi-
fication by the Board A question concerning representation therefore exists Inasmuch
as there has been no valid election held among the employees within the preceding 12-
month period, the prior certification , more than a year old, does not bar the present pro-
ceeding for a determination of representatives.
The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on the further ground that the Petitioner
made no claim upon it for recognition prior to the filing of the petition , contending that
the letter received by it from United Transport Service Employees did not constitute a
demand for recognition . We find it unnecessary to determine whether the letter was a
demand for recognition inasmuch as the Employer refused , at the hearing, to recognize the
Petitioner . It is sufficient that the petitioning Union's status as a bargaining representa-
tive is disputed as of the date of the hearing and that recognition depends upon certifica-
tion by the Board. Matter of Advance Pattern Company, SO N. L. R B. 29 (on
reconsideration).
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fessional employees, guards, and all supervisors within the meaning
of the Act .6
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, 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 supervision 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-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were in
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also ex-
cluding 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 Fertilizer and Allied Workers,
Local 2000-United Transport Service Employees-CIO.
9 The unit herein found appropriate is the unit found appropriate in the earlier pro-
ceeding.