Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 562 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER COM-
PANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND
SMELTER WORKERS (CIO ), PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RDOW. Decided February 10,1947
Anderson, Connerat, Dunn and Hunter, by Messrs. E. 0. Hunter
and Henry M. Dunn, both of Savannah, Ga., for the Employer.
Messrs. John A. Pennington and John F. Spellman, both of Savan-
nah, Ga., for the Petitioner.
Mr. G. W. Sessions, of Savannah, Ga., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Lewis H. Ulman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Savan-
nah, Georgia, on September 25, 1946, before Charles M. Paschal, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER
Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company, a Georgia cor-
poration, has its principal office and place of business at Savannah,
Georgia, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
superphosphate, sulphuric acid, and complete fertilizers. During the
year preceding the date of the hearing herein, the Employer purchased
raw materials valued at approximately $250,000, of which 90 percent
represented shipments from points outside the State of Georgia. Dur-
ing the same period the Employer sold finished products valued at
more than $500,000, of which 15 percent represented shipments to
points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72 N. L. R. B., No. 107.
562
SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER COMPANY 563
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the In-
tervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
IH. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.-
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all of the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees employed at its Savannah plant
excluding supervisors, executives, salesmen, office and plant clerical
employees, and professional employees. The Employer is in general
agreement with the unit sought by the Petitioner, but would exclude
its two watchmen. The Intervenor requests the establishment of a
maintenance unit, which it alleges to be essentially craft in nature,
composed of the Employer's mill-wrights, mechanics, tractor oper-
ators, electricians, shovel operators and helpers. There has been no
collective bargaining history at the plant.
The Employer's principal production is carried on between the first
of October and the end of April each year. During the off season,
the employees who are employed on a year-round basis are , for the
most part, engaged in cleaning and maintenance work to prepare for
the next season, although some production work is done through-
out the year. Many of the production workers who produce fertilizers
and acids during the winter become maintenance workers during the
summer, and the record reveals that some of the full-time employees
who are classified as maintenance workers are occasionally called upon
to perform production work during rush periods in the winter.
The Board has often established units confined to maintenance work-
ers where they constitute a homogeneous and readily identifiable
group. Here, however, the Intervenor has not demonstrated that the
employees whom it seeks to represent constitute such a group. Some
of the skilled employees sought by the Intervenor are engaged princi-
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pally in production work, others are shifted to production work to help
fill rush orders, and the helpers constitute a general labor pool which is
shifted back and forth from production to maintenance work as the
need arises. We are of the opinion therefore, that the unit requested
by the Intervenor is inappropriate.
The Petitioner's requested inclusion of the Employer's two watch-
men is the only remaining controversy with respect to the composition
of the bargaining unit. The Employer is opposed to their inclusion
on the ground that they lack a community of interest with the produc-
tion and maintenance employees. The watchmen are neither mili-
tarized nor deputized. Their duties relate solely to the preservation
of the Employer's property and it does not appear that they perform
any monitorial functions. Accordingly, inasmuch as the duties of
the watchmen are custodial in nature, we shall, in keeping With our
usual practice in such cases,2 include them in the unit of production
and maintenance employees.
We find that all of the Employer's production and maintenance
employees at its Savannah plant," including watchmen, but excluding
executives, salesmen, office and plant clerical employees, professional
employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to, the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
At the hearing, the Employer opposed an election before November
15, 1946, the date on which it contemplated returning to normal opera-
tions. In support of its position it pointed to the seasonal nature of
its business and the unavoidable delay in starting the current season
because of the fire heretofore mentioned. However, there is no longer
i We shall , however , place the Intervenor on the ballot in the unit hereinafter found to
be appropriate It it wishes to withdraw from the election, it may do so upon notice to
the Regional Director , in writing , within five ( 5) days from the date of the Direction of
Election herein
2 See Matter of Air Utilities , Inc , 70 N . L R B 887, Matter of E. I du Pont de Nemours
& Company, 69 N L R B 509, and cases cited therein
S At the time of the hearing herein , the Savannah plant was being rebuilt following a
fire, and the Employer contended that certain of its employees then engaged in construc-
tion work should be excluded from the unit because their employment would terminate
when that work was completed . The Employer 's vice president estimated that the work
would be completed and the necessary personnel adjustments made on or about November
15 of last year ; accordingly , we find it unnecessary to determine their status with regard
to the composition of the unit
SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER COMPANY 565
any reason for delay since the election , hereinafter directed , will be
conducted in the middle of the production season,' more than 2 months
after the date on which the Employer contemplated securing its nor-
mal complement of employees.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Southern States Phosphate
and Fertilizer Company, Savannah, Georgia, 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 Tenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the 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 deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by International Union of
Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers ( CIO), or by International Union
of Operating Engineers , for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.
4 None of the parties contended that any of the production workers, employed during
the current season, should be excluded from the unit because they may not be employed on
a year-round basis.