Pasco Packing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1223 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

PASCO PACKING CO 1223
a certification of results of election to such effect. In the event
a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate
unit, which the Board under these circumstances finds appro-
priate, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
PASCO PACKING CO. and TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS &
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 79, Petitioner
PASCO PACKING CO. and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-2406 and 10-RC-
2413. September 30, 1953
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
John C. Carey, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations z involved claim to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in
Case No. 10-RC-2406.
No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act in Case
No. 10-RC-2413, for the following reasons:
The Teamsters, Petitioner in Case No. 10-RC-2046, seeks
to sever all truckdrivers and truck maintenance employees
from the existing production and maintenance unit, for which
iAt the hearing a group of the Employer's truckdrivers sought to intervene for the purpose
of introducing evidence to show that they had withdrawn their previous authorization of the
Teamsters to represent them. We affirm the hearing officer's ruling denying intervention to
this group of employees who did not purport to be, or to function as, a collective- bargaining
representative. The question of representation is the precise issue in this proceeding, and
we are of the opinion that itcanbest be resolved by means of the election hereinafter directed.
W. C Nabors Company, 79 NLRB 40. Moreover, the evidence sought to be introduced by this
group of employees relates to the adequacy of the Teamsters' showing of interest which is an
administrative matter not litigable at the hearing E. C. Williams, 88 NLRB 620.
2Local 43, Distributive, Processing and Office Workers of America, CIO, was permitted
to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
106 NLRB No. 194.
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Intervenor's predecessor was certified by the Board in
1946. The AFL, Petitioner in Case No. 10-RC-2413, seeks to
represent a unit of production and maintenance employees,
excluding the truckdrivers and truck-maintenance employees,
which it contends constitutes a separate appropriate unit. The
Employer and the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petitions
on the grounds that a currently existing contract between them
is a bar to both petitions, and that the unit sought by each
petition is inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
The Employer urges as an additional bar to the petitions, the
fact that there is now, and was at the time of the filing of the
petitions, a duly certified and recognized collective-bargain-
ing representative, representing the employees of the company
in an appropriate unit. This last contention is clearly without
merit. The Board's certification of a union standing alone, does
not bar an election of representatives within an appropriate
unit after 1 year following the certification.
The Contract Bar Issue
The Employer has bargained with the Intervenor and its
predecessor organization since November 21, 1946, the date
of the predecessor organization's certification as bargaining
representative for all production and maintenance employees.
On November 6, 1950, the Employer and Intervenor executed
a contract which was to be effective until August 31, 1953. It
contained no automatic renewal clause but did provide that
either party could send a proposal of a succeeding agreement
to the other party on or before June 1, 1953. The other party
could then submit a counterproposal on or before July 1,
1953. Pursuant to this provision, the Employer and the Inter-
venor by mutual consent started negotiating a new contract on
June 3, 1953. Negotiations were conducted on June 4, 12, and
18, resulting in final and complete agreement as to the exact
wording of a new agreement on the evening of June 18, 1953,
at which time the contracting parties executed a document
which stated
The undersigned representatives of Pasco Packing Co. at
Dade City, Fla., and Distributive, Processing and Office
Workers of America - CIO and Local Union DPO No. 43,
have this day, June 18, 1953, after prolonged negotiations,
reached a complete meeting of the minds and are in full
and complete agreement on all terms of a collective bar-
gaining agreement covering wages, hours and working
conditions of the employees of the company represented
by the union, for a term from and including this date to
and including August 31, 1956.
This agreement was reduced to writing and signed by the
parties on June 24, 1953. By a letter to the Employer dated
June 16, 1953, the Teamsters claimed to represent a sub-
PASCO PACKING CO. 1225
stantial majority of the Employer's truckdrivers and truck-
maintenance employees, and requested recognition as bar-
gaining representative for those employees. This letter was
received at the Employer's office in Dade City, Florida, on
June 18, 1953, but was not opened by the personnel director
until June 19, because he had been in Tampa, Florida, on the
18th participating in the bargaining negotiations with the
Intervenor. On the afternoon of the 18th, the Employer's
attorney received a telephone call from the Board' s Regional
Office informing him that that office had received and docketed
a petition filed by the Teamsters . The Employer received a
copy of the petition on June 19, 1953.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the document
signed by them on June 18, 1953, is a valid contract and bars
both petitions. The Teamsters and the AFL contend that even
assuming the June 18th document to be a valid contract for
contract-bar purposes, the Teamsters' petition was timely
filed with respect to it, and that therefore it is no bar. Further-
more they contend that the June 18th document does not set
forth in a sufficiently detailed and comprehensive manner the
contractual relationship between the Intervenor and the Em-
ployer and therefore can not bar the Teamsters' petition, and
since the Teamsters' petition was clearly timely filed with
respect to the June 24th contract between the Intervenor and
the Employer, that contract also fails as a bar. The AFL
further contends that the timely filed petition of the Teamsters
raised a question concerning representation which had not been
resolved at the time the AFL filed its petition on June 29th, and
that therefore its petition was also timely filed despite the
execution of a contract by the Intervenor and the Employer on
June 24, 1953. The AFL contends that, in any event, the contract
urged as a bar was a premature extension of an existing
contract and can not bar a petition which was timely filed with
respect to the expiration date of the original contract.
The Board's premature extension rules are not applicable
to the present situation, because the contract which was
allegedly extended prematurely was a contract for a 3-year
term and therefore, in the absence of a showing that 3-year
contracts are customary in the industry, incapable of barring
an election of representatives during the third year. The
premature extension rule is applicable only if the original
agreement was a bar to an election at the time of its extension
by a subsequent agreement .' This being so we must determine
whether the petitions in this case were timely filed with respect
to the agreements urged as a bar by the Employer and the
Intervenor . We find that the document executed on June 18,
1953, by the Intervenor and the Employer does not constitute
a contract so as to bar an election of representatives. It
merely states that the parties have reached an agreement as
S Kenrose Manufacturing Company, Inc., 101 NLRB 267; Cushman's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB
121; The Broderick Company, 85 NLRB 708.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the exact wording of a collective-bargaining agreement and
sets forth the effective dates of that agreement . It fails to incor-
porate by reference any document then in existence from which
can be determined the status of the contractual relations between
the contracting parties, nor does it set forth the nature of any
changes or modifications in the then existing relation of the
contracting parties . Standing alone it clearly could not stabilize
the collective -bargaining relations between the parties. It does
not therefore fall within the Board ' s rules with respect to such
agreements , enunciated in The Carborundum Company case.4 As
the Teamsters ' petition , which was filed on June 18, 1953, was
timely filed with respect to the contract executed June 24, 1953,
it is clear that that contract is not a bar with respect to it. In
support of its contention that the Teamster s' petitionfiled before
the execution of the contract urged as a bar, opens the door to
its petition , the AFL relies on the Board ' s decision in General
Dyestuff Corp., 5 and cases cited therein . In the cases relied on
by the AFL, the Board decided that a petition filed prior to the
execution of a contract , prevented the contract from barring a
second petition filed after the execution of the contract but before
the withdrawal of the first petition , where both petitions involved
the same appropriate unit . Those cases are not controlling in the
instant case . For unlike those cases we have before us the ques-
tion of whether a petition filed after a contract has been executed
is nevertheless timely filed with respect to the contract because
of the existence of a question concerning representation raised
by a petition filed prior to the execution of the contract, where
the two petitions involve different appropriate units. The
Teamsters petition raised a question concerning representation
only among the truckdrivers and truck-maintenance employees
of the Employer. The AFL's petition expressly excluded these
employees from the unit it sought. There was therefore no ques-
tion concerning representation among the employees sought by
the AFL at the time the Intervenor and the Employer executed a
contract covering those employees , hence the contract is a bar
to the AFL' s petition .6 We shall therefore dismiss the petition
filed by the AFL. We deny the motion of the Employer and the
Intervenor insofar as it pertains to the Teamsters' petition.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Employer hires approximately 65 to 70 truckdrivers and
15 truck-maintenance employees during its peak season. They
comprise the Employer's trucking division which is under the
supervision of a divisional manager . The trucking division is
divided into a trucking department and a truck- maintenance
department . Under the division manager are 2 foremen for the
truckdrivers and 1 foreman for the truck- maintenance em-
ployees who the parties agree are supervisors within the
478 NLRB 91. Southern Heater Corporation , 91 NLRB 1118.
5100 NLRB 72
6Cf. Hyster Company, 72 NLRB 937, Herff Jones Co., 97 NLRB 1070, American Suppliers,
Inc., 98 NLRB 692, wherein the Board found contracts which were executed after the petitions
were filed were a bar to the petitions as subsequently amended to cover larger units
PASCO PACKING CO. 1227
meaning of the Act . The truckdrivers have no specific shifts
during which they work but are called when needed . They are
required to have chauffeur ' s licenses . Their principal duties
are to pick up fruit from roadside bins and haul it to the plant
where it is processed . They also haul processed goods from
the plant to a warehouse located some distance away, and to
the docks in Tampa, Florida. Occasionally some drivers make
out-of-State runs. The truck -maintenance employees do repair
and maintenance work on the trucks and on company automo-
biles. They work only day shifts and work in the shed to which
the drivers report. There is some interchange between truck-
drivers and truck-maintenance employees . These employees
are all hourly paid , are carried on the same payroll , receive
the same fringe benefits , and work during the same seasons
as do the production and plant maintenance employees. There
have been some transfers from this group of employees to the
production group.
The Employer contends that because of their previous in-
clusion in the production and maintenance unit and because of
the integrated nature of the Employer ' s overall operations,the
truckdrivers and truck - maintenance employees do not consti-
tute an appropriate unit. We find this contention lacking in
merit, and deny the motion to dismiss on grounds of an inap-
propriate unit . Neither the transfers out of the group nor the
past bargaining history on a more inclusive basis detract from
the homogeneous and clearly identifiable status of the employees
in the Employer's trucking division as contended by the
Employer. The Board has frequently found that truckdrivers
and truck -maintenance employees may together constitute an
appropriate unit,7 and we can perceive no special circum-
stances in this case which require us to depart from that
practice. We find therefore that these employees may, if they
desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining . However , we shall make no final unit
determination pending the results of the election among the
following employees:
All truckdrivers and truck -maintenance employees at the
Employer ' s Dade City , Florida, plant , including tractor -trailer
drivers, but excluding supervisors as defined in the Act and
all other employees.
If a majority of the employees in this voting group select the
Petitioner as their representative , they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be represented in a separate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for the unit described above which the Board under
such circumstances , finds to be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining . If a majority select Local 43, Dis-
tributive , Processing and Office Workers of America, CIO,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included
7Reyden Chemical Corporation, 85 NLRB 1181; Kennecott Copper Corp., 99 NLRB 966.
1228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in the production and maintenance unit currently represented
by that union, and the Regional Director shall issue a certificate
of results of election to that effect.
5. The Employer's operations are seasonal in nature, the
seasonal activity extending from approximately December 15 to
approximately June 15. During the peak season the-Employer
hires approximately 75 to 85 employees in the trucking divi-
sion. At the time of the hearing there were approximately 27
truckdrivers and 6 or 7 truck-maintenance employees on the
Employer's payroll. Under these circumstances andinaccord-
ance with our policy in the holding of an election in a seasonal
industry, we shall direct that the election be held at or about
the approximate seasonal peak, on a date to be determined by
the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees
in the appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll
period immediately preceding the date of the issuance of the
notice of election by the Regional Director.8
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, dissenting in part:
I agree with my colleagues in their disposition of this case
except in so far as they have directed an election among the
truckdrivers and truck-maintenance employees. In view of the
fact that since 1946 these employees have been included in the
production and maintenance unit for which the Intervenor had
been certified, I would dismiss the petition in Case No.
10-RC-2406.9
8 Florida Citrus Canners Cooperative Inc., 96 NLRB 1021, San Joaquin Compress and Ware-
house Company, 95 NLRB 279.
9See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton & Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
MILLER AND MILLER, INC. and ATLANTA PRINTING PRESS-
MEN AND ASSISTANTS UNION NO. 8, INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN & ASSISTANTS UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, A.F.L., Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-2244.
September 30, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION
Pursuant to the Decision and Direction of Election issued
herein on May 7, 1953,1 an election was conducted on May 28,
1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Tenth Region, among the employees in the
unit heretofore found appropriate. At the close of the election,
1Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
106 NLRB No. 197.