Reedley Ice Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 9, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1205 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of CENTRAL CALIFORNIA ICE COMPANY AND VALLEY ICE
COMPANY D/B/A REEDLEY ICE COMPANY, EMPLOYER and FRED
BECKER, PETITIONER
Case No. 2O-RD--34.-Decided September 9, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clayton O.
Rost, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial.
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of:
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent employ-
ees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
On January 29, 1948, the Intervenor, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 431,
A. F. L., having won a consent election, was certified as the collective
bargaining agent of the drivers and driver-salesmen, warehousemen,
ice pullers, engineers, and precoolers of the Employer at its Reedley,
California, plant. On March 30, 1948, as the result of an election
held pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act, the Intervenor was
authorized to negotiate a union-shop agreement. Although the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor had agreed on the substantive terms of a
contract as early as August 1948, and had reduced their agreement to
writing by January 14, 1949, they did not finally execute the contract
until February 11, 1949. In the meantime, on January 24, 1949, the
Petitioner had filed the petition herein, alleging that the Intervenor
no longer represented the employees in the unit.
The Intervenor and the Employer claim that their contract is a bar
to a representation election, and the Intervenor moved to dismiss on
120-RC-38.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 204.
1205
1206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that ground. As, however, the petition herein was filed before the
execution of the contract,' and as the Intervenor failed to consummate
the contract within its first certification year, the contract does not
constitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.' The
motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
The Intervenor also moved to dismiss on the ground that the petition
had not been supported by a substantial number of employees. The
showing of interest, however, is a matter for administrative determina-
tion not litigable by the parties.' The Intervenor's motion to dismiss
on that ground is therefore denied. Accordingly, we find that a ques-
tion affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all drivers, driver-salesmen, warehousemen, ice pull-
ers, engineers, and precoolers at the Employer's Reedley, California,
plant, excluding office employees and supervisors as defined by the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including em-
ployees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those
employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have
2 Matter of Sprague Electric Company , 81 N. L. R . B. 410 ; Matter of Eicor, Inc., 46
N. L. R. B. 1035.
'Matter of Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, 76 N. L. R. B . 413. Had the
Intervenor and the Employer executed their contract before the expiration of the certifica-
tion year, but after the filing of the petition, such a contract would have been a bar to a
representation proceeding . See Matter of IV. & W . Pickle & Canning Co., 85 N . L. R. B., No.
47; Matter of The Belden Brick Co., 83 N. L. R. B. 465. A union is ordinarily entitled
to a year from the date of its certification to bargain collectively free from intrusion upon
that process by early rival-union or decertification petitions . But a contract negotiated
-during that period, to constitute a bar , must also be executed within the certification year.
4Matter of Lion Oil Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 565.
'This is the unit for which the Intervenor was originally certified.
REEDLEY ICE COMPANY 1207
not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also
excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for pur-
poses of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhoood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 431,
A. F. L.