Wade & Paxton

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1227 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of WADE & PAXTON, EMPLOYER, and CITRUS, CANNERY
WORKERS AND FOOD PROCESSORS, LOCAL UNION #24473, AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC-155
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 24,1950
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
April 27, 1950,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted on May 18,
1950, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Sixteenth Region. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that there was
approximately 74 eligible voters, and that 63 ballots were cast, of
which 33 were for the Petitioner, and 30 were against the Petitioner.
No other labor organization was on the ballot.
On May 22, 1950, the Employer filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. Following an investigation, the Regional
Director on June 5, 1950, issued and duly served upon the parties his
report on objections, wherein he recommended that the objections
be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the
Regional Director's report.
The Employer in its objections alleges in substance that (1) preelec-
tion handbills distributed by the Petitioner intimidated the employees
and impaired their free choice in the election, and (2) the election was
not held at the peak of the season as directed by the Board.
Objection 1. The Regional Director concluded that the preelection
material released by the Petitioner was in the nature of legitimate
campaign propaganda and the Employer has not excepted to that con-
clusion. We shall adopt the Regional ]director's recommendation
regarding the overruling of the Employer's first objection.
1 89 NLRB 829.
9O NLRB No. 184.
1227
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Objection 2. Concerning the Employer's objection that the election
was not held at the peak of the season, the. Regional Director reports
that on April 28 the Employer and the Petitioner agreed to have the
election held on June 1. However, on May 10 the Petitioner main-
tained that the season had reached its peak and submitted a newspaper
clipping to the effect that hot dry weather was causing a rapid matur-
ing of the tomato crop. On that day the Employer, indicating that
there were about 80 persons then employed, consented to advance the
date of the election to May 18. The Regional Director adds that the
Employer raised no objections either on May 18 or at the preelection
conference 2 of the preceding day.
The Employer contends that the election should have been held
during the early part of June, which it argues the Board found to be
the time of peak employment of approximately 75 to 80 workers. In
support of its position, the Employer points out that the payroll period
designated by the Regional Director for eligibility purposes ended
May 5, 1950. It contrasts the 73 eligible voters of that payroll period 3
with 85 in the following week, and asserts that by early June the
number would probably have risen to 90-95 eligible voters. In ex-
cepting to the Regional Director's report on objections, counsel for
the Employer insists, without specifically naming the occasions, that
he twice protested the proposed date of May 18. He states also that if
a conference took place on May 17, neither he nor the Employer was
notified thereof. However, he concedes that when he was advised by
a Board agent that the election would be held on May 18, he "probably
did tell them [the Board agent] to go ahead and hold it," but he did
not tell the Board agent that it was "agreeable" to him or to the Em-
ployer to hold the election on that date. With respect to the news-
paper clipping which was submitted by the Petitioner, the Employer
takes the view that, although it may have correctly reported crop
conditions for an area some 40 miles from Raymondville, the location
of the Employer's packing shed, it is not applicable to Raymondville
itself.
Our Decision and Direction of Election, after stating that peak
employment in the Employer's operations is reached early in June
when there are approximately 75 to 80 employees at work, required the
election to be held at or about the peak of the season on a date to be
determined by the Regional Director among the employees in the
appropriate unit during the payroll period immediately preceding the
date of the issuance of notice of election by the Regional Director.
2 The Regional Director , inadvertently refers to a "pre-bearing" conference.
3 As stated supra, the tally of ballots shows there were approximately 74 eligible voters.
WADE & PAXTON 1229
We thereby delegated to the Regional Director authority to determine
the date of the election. We have held that a Regional Director has
broad discretion in deciding such matters and that unless he acts
arbitrarily or capriciously in exercising the authority granted, the
Board will abide by his judgment.' On the facts presented in this
case, we believe that the Regional Director acted reasonably in select-
ing the election date.
Accordingly, as recommended by the Regional Director, we find that
the Employer's objections do not raise substantial or material issues
with respect to the election. They are hereby overruled.
The Petitioner has obtained a majority of the valid votes cast. We
shall, therefore, certify it as the exclusive bargaining representative
of all employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Citrus, Cannery Workers and- Food
Processors Local Union #24473, American Federation of Labor, has
been selected by a .,majority of the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer's packing shed at Raymondville, Texas, in-
cluding tomato crate makers and cabbage crate makers, but excluding
purchasing agents, bookkeeper-weigher, office and clerical. employees,
guards, watchmen, tomato crate chief, shed foreman and all other
supervisors as defined in the Act, as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of
the Act, as amended, the said organization is the exclusive representa-
tive of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining,
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
Postex Cotton Alills, Inc ., 73 NLRB 673.