Utah-Idaho Sugar Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1090 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

I n the Matter of UTAH- IDAHO SUGAR Co., EMPLOYER and 1N'rI1INA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL U NION 1 1 2,
A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 19-RC-137
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
AMENDED DIRECTION 'OF ELECTION
August 31, 1949
In its. decision of February 3, 1949, the Board, Member Murdock
dissenting, directed a separate Globe election for electricians of the
Employer's Toppenish, Washington, plant, finding them engaged
solely in maintenance and construction work, constituting a distinct
and skilled craft group who might form an appropriate separate unit
if they so desired. This finding was made "notwithstanding the
bargaining history on a plant-wide basis and the prevailing pattern
of industrial bargaining in other beet sugar plants in the area."
The Employer then filed a motion for rehearing,' in which it alleged
that a construction program of several years' duration, completed in
the summer of 1948, had resulted in a material change in the craft
characteristics of the group sought by the Petitioner. It urged the
Board to reconsider the severance problem of seasonal industries op-
erating with a "make-work" program to hold key personnel. The
motion for rehearing was granted by the Board on March 11, 1949,
and the reopened hearing conducted on March 29, 30, and 31, 1949.
Melton Boyd again presided as hearing officer. His rulings made at
the reopened hearing are free from. prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
The Employer's motion for oral argument, received by the Board
on May 23, 1949, is hereby denied. In the Board's opinion, the Em-
1 Sugar Workers Union Local No. 21268, the Intervenor because of its representation of
the industrial unit at Toppenish , joined in this motion, but prior to the reopened hearing it
advised the Board that its membership had voted to withdraw as Intervenor In this case.
It did not participate in the reopened hearing. Its request to withdraw Is hereby granted.
The International Council of Sugar workers was denied intervention at the reopened
hearing for lack of a contract interest , but was permitted by the Board to file a brief
am cus curiae.
85 N. L. It. B., No. 187.
1090
UTAH-IDAHO SUGAR CO. 1091
ployer has had ample opportunity to develop in this proceeding the
"defenses" enumerated in its motion, and the record and the briefs
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
We have carefully considered the evidence adduced at the reopened
hearing and conclude that our original decision in this proceeding is
correct. In this connection we find that the record establishes that
the electricians employed at the Toppenish plant have the craft char-
acteristics customarily considered essential for severance from an in-
dustrial unit, and that they do only electrical work with assistance in
some intercampaign seasons from production workers. The record
does not show convincingly that completion of the recent construction
and enlargement program changed the craft characteristics of the
electricians' group. It indicates that the major portion of this con-
struction work was done by independent electrical contractors, rather
than solely by skilled electricians who would not otherwise have been
employed by the Employer.
Turning to the Employer's contention that a separate unit of elec-
trical workers is not feasible in seasonal industries, because of the
necessity of providing work to hold key production personnel in non-
production periods, we likewise find the evidence unconvincing as
applied to this Employer's beet sugar processing operation at Top-
penish. Witnesses for the Employer conceded at the reopened hear-
ing that seniority as well as processing skill is a factor in retaining
employees during intercampaign. In fact, contracts between the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor have, since 1943 at least, contained sub-
stantially similar "company-wide" and "plant-wide" seniority provi-
sions. Yet strict adherence to these contract requirements seems
doubtful from the testimony, for this year it appears that seniority
was applied among the electricians as a group in determining which
electricians to retain for the 1949 intercampaign. We conclude that
the problem of reassigning key production personnel during inter-
campaign would not be so insurmountable at this plant, should the
electricians at Toppenish decide that they wish to be represented in a
separate unit, as to warrant departure from craft-severance principles
normally applied by the Board.
In view of the lapse of time since the issuance of our Direction of
Election of February 3, 1949, we shall amend it by changing the eligi-
bility date, defining as eligible to vote those employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Supplemental
Decision and Amended Direction of Election.
857829-50-vol. 85-70
1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMENDED DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes 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 Amended 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, among the employees
described in' paragraph numbered 4 of our Decision of February 3,
1949, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Amended Direction of Election, including
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 excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstate-
ment, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for
purposes of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local Union 112, A. F. L.
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting :
I adhere to the position taken in my dissent from the original Deci-
sion herein, and for the same reasons.