Jefferson Island Salt Mining Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of JEFFERSON ISLAND SALT MINING COMPANY, INC. and
CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 15-R-1559.Decided May 9,1946
Mr. Jacob Landry, of New Iberia, La., and Messrs. W. H. Roll and
Frank W. Wright, of Jefferson Island, La., for the Company.
Messrs. Robert Starnes, John A. Ritter, and Noah Ford, all of New
Orleans, La., for the CIO.
Mr. Edward R. Moffett, of Houston, Tex., and Mr. Maney Breaux,
of Delcambre, La., for the AFL.
Mr. Frederick D. Vincent, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Jefferson Island
Salt Mining Company, Inc., Jefferson Island, Louisiana, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before C. Paul Barker, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at New Iberia, Louisiana, on March
14, 1946. The Company, CIO, and International Chemical Workers
Union, Local No. 28, AFL, herein called the AFL, appeared and
participated. At the close of the hearing the AFL moved to dismiss
the petition. Ruling on this motion was reserved by the Trial Ex-
aminer for the Board. For the reasons which appear in Section III,
below, this motion is denied. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are here-
by affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with
the Board.
67 N. L. R. B., No. 167.
1282
JEFFERSON ISLAND SALT MINING COMPANY, INC. 1283
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Jefferson Island Salt Mining Company, Inc., is a Delaware corpo-
ration with its principal office located in Kentucky. It is engaged in
the mining and manufacturing of rock and evaporated salt at Jeffer-
son Island, Louisiana. The Jefferson Island operations of the Com-
pany are solely involved in this proceeding. From July to December
of 1945 the Company purchased a total of more than $340,000 worth
of raw materials, of which more than 30 percent was purchased and
received from points outside the State of Louisiana. The Company's
normal annual production prior to the war was approximately 200,000
tons of salt, of which approximately 90 percent was sold and shipped
to points outside the State of Louisiana.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
International Chemical Workers Union, Local No. 28, is a labor
organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees until the CIO has
been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Company and the AFL entered into a contract effective Febru-
ary 1, 1945, to continue in operation until February 1, 1946, and for
yearly periods thereafter unless either party gave notice of a desire
to change the contract 30 days prior to any anniversary date. On
November •29, 1945, the Company was notified by the AFL that it
desired to negotiate a new agreement. On January 7, 1946, the CIO
notified the Company by letter that it represented a "substantial num-
ber" of the Company's employees, and on the same day filed its peti-
tion herein. Following negotiations between the Company and the
AFL, they executed a new agreement on February 1, 1946, to be
effective until February 1, 1947.1
Inasmuch as the CIO, by its letter and petition of January 7, 1946,
gave timely notice of its rival claim, insofar as the execution of the
1 It contained the same provisions for automatic renewal as the 1945 contract
1284 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1946 contract is concerned, and because the AFL took effective action
to prevent the automatic renewal of the 1945 contract, we find that
neither the 1946 nor the 1945 agreement constitutes a bar to this
proceeding.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of employ-
ees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of the employees of the Company, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IF. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
All parties agree to the establishment of a unit consisting of all
production, processing, refining, packing, shipping, construction, and
maintenance employees of the mine and evaporating plant of the Com-
pany, excluding office workers, stockroom clerks, guards, safety in-
spectors, chemists, engineers, and salaried supervisory employees. In
addition, the parties would specifically include all hourly paid fore-
men. This unit conforn4s to that covered by the 1945 and 1946 con-
tracts between the AFL and the Company.
Despite the agreement of the parties and the prior bargaining his-
tory, there is considerable indication in the record that the hourly
paid foremen may be supervisory employees within the meaning of our
customary definition whose exclusion is consequently warranted. We
shall, therefore, examine the status of each category of hourly paid
foremen.
Mine foremen: The mining operations of the Company, under the
supervision of 1 mining engineer, are carried on in 1 department
under 2 hourly paid foremen, 1 in charge of the day shift and 1 in
charge of the night shift. At the time of the hearing there were about
22 employees in each shift. These foremen receive substantially
higher pay than the average for their department, Mad have the power
to recommend to their department head changes of status of the em-
ployees under their control. Under the circumstances we believe that
the department head must necessarily rely upon recommendations of
2 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 216 cards , bearing the names of
171 employees listed on the Company 's pay roll of February 1, 1946, and that the cards
are dated October 1945 or January 1946. There are approximately 335 employees in the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.
For its interest in this proceeding , in addition to its contracts with the Company, the
AFL relies upon a petition signed by 128 employees indicating that they are members of
the AFL in good standing ; and affidavits of 190 employees to the same effect, stating in
addition that the af&ants repudiate any authorization of the CIO
To support its motion to dismiss the petition , herein, the AFL points to the documentary
evidence referred to above and contends that the CIO has no adequate showing of repre-
sentation . Inasmuch as the CIO has submitted prima Jane evidence of a substantial
showing we believe that the issues of its actual representation can best be resolved by an
election by secret ballot.
JEFFERSON ISLAND SALT MINING COMPANY, INC. 1285
these individuals as to the discipline, discharge, and status of subordi-
nate employees. Accordingly, we find that the hourly paid mine fore-
men are supervisory employees within the meaning of our customary
definition and, therefore, we shall exclude them from the appropriate
unit.'
Loading, packing, and screening f orem.en: Loading, packing, and
screening each constitute separate departments of the Company.
There are 2 hourly paid foremen in each of these departments, 1 in
charge of each of the 2 shifts. The 3 departments come under the
supervision of 1 salaried foreman who is responsible for the operations
of all 3 departments. The record indicates that there are about 86
workers, counting both day and night shifts, under the control of this
salaried foreman. The rate of pay of the hourly paid foremen in
charge of the separate shifts is substantially higher than that received
by the workers under their control. These hourly paid foremen also
have the power to recommend changes in the status of employees.
Under all the circumstances, it is apparent that their recommendations
must necessarily carry considerable weight. Accordingly, we find that
the hourly paid foremen in these departments are supervisory em-
ployees within the meaning of our customary definition and, there-
fore, we shall exclude them from the appropriate unit.
Carpenter foreman: The carpenter foreman is in charge of about
5 workers. He, too, has authority to recommend changes in the status
of employees of the 12 separate departments of the plant and comes
directly under the plant superintendent. Because this employee lacks
direct supervision, except by the plant superintendent, whose control
necessarily cannot be close or continuous, it appears that his recom-
mendations concerning the status of subordinate employees must carry
weight. Accordingly, we find that the carpenter foreman is a super-
visory employee within the meaning of our customary definition, and,
therefore, we shall exclude him from the appropriate unit.
Printing and bag department foreman: This foreman, in charge
of a group of about 8 employees, also may recommend changes in the
status of employees. He supervises printing and repair of bags under
the control of the Company's purchasing agent. His rate of pay is
substantially higher than that of the subordinate employees under his
supervision, and his section is another one of the 12 departments of
the plant. The fact that this foreman is responsible directly to an
executive of the Company whose duties cannot permit close supervi-
sion of the foreman's department, indicates that the foreman's recom-
mendations regarding the status of his subordinate employees must
be given weight. Accordingly, we find that the printing and bag
department foreman is supervisory within the meaning of our cus-
3 See Matter of Jasper Wood Products Company, Inc., 66 N L. R B 333
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tomary definition and, therefore, we shall exclude him from the appro-
priate unit.
We find that all production, processing, refining, packing, shipping,
construction, and maintenance employees of the mine and evaporating
plant of the Company, excluding office workers, stockroom clerks,
guards, safety inspectors, chemists, engineers, all foremen (hourly
paid and salaried), and all other supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Jefferson Island
Salt Mining Company, Inc., Jefferson Island, Louisiana, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls,
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, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
Congress of Industrial Organizations, or by International Chemical
Workers Union, Local No. 28, AFL, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.