Bob Saunders Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 4, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 307 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

BOB SAUNDERS COMPANY 307
BOB SAUNDERS , D/B/A BOB SAUNDERS COMPANY and UNITED FRESH
FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS , LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION No. 78,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2O-RC-.112. March 4, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before LaFayette D. Mathews, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (h) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees 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. We find, in agreement with the parties, that all packing-shed
employees at the Employer's packing shed at Soledad, California,
excluding office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer is engaged at its Soledad packing shed in the
processing of carrots for shipment. It ceased operations at the pack-
ing shed on February 3, 1953, and will again start operations in June
1953. Employment at the packing shed will range from approxi-
mately 30 to approximately 150 employees. The 30 employees who
will be hired in June will probably remain throughout the packing
season. The Employer could make no prediction regarding when,
or how many, other employees might be added.
The Employer makes no contention regarding the timing of the
election. It states that it may be as appropriately conducted with 30
employees on the payroll as with 150. The Petitioner contends that
an election should be directed to take place during the first 30 days
following the Employer's resumption of operations at its packing shed
this year.
Under the circumstances of this case, we shall direct that the elec-
tion be held on a date when a representative number of employees are
determined by the Regional Director to be employed by the Employer,
following the resumption of operations at the packing shed, among
103 NLRB No. 43.
308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the employees in the appropriate unit who are employed during the
payroll period immediately preceding the date of issuance of the
notice of election.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
1 Truck Equipment Company of Atlanta, 93 NLRB 825.
L. G. EVERIST , INC. and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS
OF AMERICA , C. I. O. Case No . 18-CA-345. March 5, 1953
Decision and Order
On August 27, 1952, Trial Examiner Thomas S. Wilson issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner insofar as they are consistent with our
findings, conclusions, and order herein set forth.
I. We agree with the Trial Examiner's conclusion that the Respond-
ent from the very inception of the bargaining negotiations for a
contract failed and refused to bargain with the Union in good faith in
violation of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. In adopting this conclu-
sion, however, we rely only upon the following conduct of the Re-
spondent, more fully described in the Intermediate Report, which in
our opinion clearly establishes that the Respondent failed to bargain
with the Union in good faith as required by the Act :
(1) On August 15, 1951 the Respondent posted at its quarry a
notice to its employees "inviting all hands" to attend a bargaining
conference with the Union scheduled for that afternoon. The Union
objected to holding the conference under such conditions. The Re-
spondent, however, continued to insist that the conference be held in
1 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-member panel
[Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
103 NLRB No. 33.