Waldo Rohnert Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1962

136 N.L.R.B. 89 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

WALDO ROHNERT CO. 89
ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board 's requirements for
the assertion of jurisdiction herein.
2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act.
3. The following employees of Respondent constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
All production and maintenance employees employed at Respondent 's plant
located in Miami, Florida, but excluding office employees , guards and watchmen,
service personnel , professional and supervisory employees as defined in the Act.
4. At all times since on or about April 20, 1960, the Union has been the ex-
clusive representative of all the employees in the aforementioned unit for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of employ-
ment, and other conditions of employment.
5. The evidence adduced establishes that Respondent refused to bargain in good
faith and thereby engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by repudiating prior commitments and attempting to
begin negotiations de novo, by expressing an unwillingness to enter into any
collective -bargaining agreement until the unfair labor practices charges filed by the
Union were disposed of by this Board and by unilaterally granting wage increases
while going through the motions of bargaining.
6. The strike which lasted from June 21, 1960, to on or about July 12, 1960, was
an unfair labor practice strike.
7. The strikers mentioned in the preceding paragraph made unconditional appli-
cation for reinstatement on June 23 and thereafter which Respondent failed and
refused to honor thereby engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
8. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Waldo Rohnert Co. and Freight , Construction , General Drivers,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 287, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Independent . Case No. 20-CA-2139.
March 5, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
This proceeding is brought under Section 10(b) of the National
Labor Relations Act. Upon a charge filed by the Freight, Construc-
tion, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No.
287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Independent, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the
Regional Director of the Twentieth Region issued a complaint dated
October 18, 1961, against Waldo Rohnert Company, herein called
Respondent, alleging that Respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (1) and (5) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act,
as amended. Copies of the charge, complaint, and notice of hearing
were duly served upon Respondent.
136 NLRB No. 5.
90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged,
in substance , that on September 25, 1961, the Board issued a certifica-
tion in Case No. 20-RC-4563 1 designating the Union as the collective-
bargaining representative of the Respondent 's production and main-
tenance employees at its seed cleaning plant in Hollister , California;
that on September 29, 1961, the Union requested recognition as the
representative of the employees in the certified unit; and that on
October 5 , 1961, the Respondent declined to recognize the Union.
The complaint alleged that by the foregoing conduct, the Respondent
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
Thereafter , Respondent filed an answer denying material allegations
of the complaint.
On December 1, 1961 , all parties to this proceeding entered into a
stipulation of facts and jointly requested the transfer of this pro-
ceeding directly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and issuance of a Decision and Order based thereon. In the "Petition
and Stipulation of Facts" the parties agreed that the stipulation to-
gether with the charge , complaint , and answer should constitute the
entire record in this case . The parties further stipulated that they
waived a hearing before a Trial Examiner , the making of findings of
facts and conclusions of law by a Trial Examiner , and the issuance
of an Intermediate Report and Recommended Order.
On December 28,1961 , the Board approved the petition and stipula-
tion of facts and accepted the transfer of the case. Thereafter, the
Respondent filed a brief with the Board.
Upon the basis of the stipulation and the entire record in the case,
including the Respondent's brief , the Board 2 makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent is a family corporation which grows various seed
crops on land leased from members of the family as well as from
others. In addition, approximately one-fourth of its seed crops are
raised by individual local farmers pursuant to contracts providing
that the farmers will grow the crops under the direction of the
Respondent. After the seed is harvested, it is transported in the
Respondent's trucks to the seed cleaning plant on the home ranch s
1 Not published in NLRB volumes
2 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 [Members Rodgers, Fanning,
and Brown].
8 Respondent does not produce any seed crops on the home ranch, and this land is
presently leased to others . The farmland that does produce the seed crops is approxi-
mately 150 miles from the plant
WALDO ROHNERT CO. 91
at Hollister, California, where it is unloaded, weighed in, cleaned,
sacked, stored, and then shipped to wholesale buyers.
During the past year immediately preceding the issuance of the
complaint, the Respondent had sales in excess of $500,000 of which
over $50,000 were shipped directly outside the State of California.
We find that the Respondent is now, and has been at all times ma-
terial herein, engaged in commerce and in operations affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On March 29, 1961, the Union filed a petition' seeking to represent
a unit of drivers, helpers, warehousemen, and packers employed at
the Respondent's Hollister, California, facility. Hearing on this
petition was held on April 27, 1961, and on August 17, 1961, the Board
issued a Decision and Direction of Election, directing the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region to conduct an election in the fol-
lowing unit :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
seed cleaning plant at Hollister, California, including drivers,
helpers, warehousemen, and peddlers,' but excluding office clerical
employees, farm truckdrivers, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5 In their stipulation, the parties construed the word "peddlers" to mean "packers."
This construction is based on the fact that the Respondent has never had the
classification "peddlers "
On September 15, 1961, an election was held in the above unit, the
Union received a majority of the votes cast in that election, and on
September 25, 1961, the Union was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the employees in this unit. Thereafter,
at various dates in September and October 1961, the Union made de-
mands for collective bargaining in the certified unit. On October 5,
1961, the Respondent advised the Union that it would not engage in
collective bargaining. The Respondent's refusal to bargain gave
rise to the instant proceeding.
It is the Respondent's contention that its seed cleaning plant em-
ployees are agricultural laborers within the meaning of Section 2(3)
of the Act, and therefore excluded from the Act's coverage. This
same contention was made by the Respondent in the representation
4 Case No. 20-RC-4563.
92 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
proceeding and rejected by the Board. The record in the representa-
tion proceeding (Case No. 20-RC-4563) shows that the Respondent's
plant is operated on a seasonal basis starting about July, reaching its
peak around September and October, and ending in December. The
employee complement during this operational period varies from 35
to 40 workers at the peak of the season to 10 to 12 workers employed
in the plant year round. The year-round employees may spend 10 to
12 weeks a year away from the plant in agricultural work. Those
workers who are employed only during the milling season spend
their full time in plant activities.
In passing upon the Respondent's contention in the representation
proceeding, the Board noted that this same issue had been previously
decided adversely to the Respondent. See Waldo Rohnert Company,
120 NLRB 152. In the instant case, as in the earlier one, the em-
ployees in the unit regularly perform nonagricultural work. Thus,
as to that portion of their work which is nonagricultural these em-
ployees are covered by the Act. Accordingly, for the reasons stated
in the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 20-
RC-4563 and in Waldo Rohnert Company, we find the Respondent's
contention without merit. See Olaa Sugar Company, Limited, 118
NLRB 1442, 1443.
As the Respondent admittedly refused to bargain with the Union
on and after October 5, 1961, we find that the Respondent violated
Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The Respondent's refusal to bargain set forth in Section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent set
forth in section I, above, has a close, intimate, and substantial rela-
tionship to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act,
we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain af-
firmative action to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the en-
tire record in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
WALDO ROHNERT CO. 93
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce and in operations af-
fecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees at the Respondent's
seed cleaning plant at Hollister, California, including drivers, helpers,
warehousemen, and packers, but excluding office clerical employees,
farm truckdrivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
4. The Union, since the date of its certification, September 25, 1961,
has been and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in
the aforesaid appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
5. By refusing, on and after October 5, 1961, to bargain collectively
with the Union as the representative of the above employees, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the Respondent, Waldo Rohnert Co., its
officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Freight, Construction,
General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 287,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Independent, as the exclusive representative
of the employees in the following appropriate unit : All production
and maintenance employees at the Respondent's seed cleaning plant
at Hollister, California, including drivers, helpers, warehousemen,
and packers, but excluding office clerical employees, farm truck-
drivers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining, or
coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an
agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condi-
tion of employment, as authorized in Section 8(a) (3) of the Act, as
modified by the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of,
1959.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the Union as the ex-
clusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the afore-
94 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
said appropriate unit with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, or other conditions of employment, and, if an under-
standing is reached, embody such understanding in a signed
agreement.
(b) Post at its seed cleaning plant in Hollister, California, copies
of the notice attached hereto marked "Appendix." B Copies of said
notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Region, shall, after being duly signed by the Respondent's repre-
sentative, be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for a period of 60 consecutive days
thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken
by the Respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced,
or covered by other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, in
writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the
Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals, there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with Freight, Con-
struction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No. 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, as
the exclusive representative of the employees in the bargaining
unit described below.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, except to the extent that such right may
be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment, as authorized in Sec-
tion 8(a) (3) of the Act, as modified by the Labor-Management
Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with Freight, Con-
struction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local
Union No. 287, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Independent, as
HAYNES STELLITE CO., DIV. OF UNION CARBIDE CORP. 95
the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described below with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of
employment, and other terms and conditions of employment, and,
if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is :
All production and maintenance employees at our seed
cleaning plant at Hollister, California, including drivers,
helpers, warehousemen, and packers, but excluding office
clerical employees, farm truckdrivers, guards, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
WALDO ROHNERT Co.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof,
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office (703 Market Building, 830 Market Street, San Francisco, Cali-
fornia; Telephone Number, Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191) if they
have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Haynes Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide Corpora-
tion and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO
Haynes Stellite Company, Division of Union Carbide Corpora-
tion and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 25-CA-1353 and 25-RC-1966. March 5,1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 16, 1961, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, as set forth in the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. He also recommended that the
objections to conduct affecting results of election, filed by the Peti-
tioner, be overruled. Thereafter, the Respondent, the General Coun-
sel, and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO,' each filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs, and the
Respondent filed a brief in reply to that of the Union.
1 Hereinafter referred to as the Union.
136 NLRB No. 3.