The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1963

143 N.L.R.B. 47 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 47
WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off our employees in slack periods , eliminate
overtime work and retirement benefits, or threaten to discriminate against our
employees in any other manner because of their union or concerted activities.
WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National
Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in
any union activities.
All our employees are free to become or remain members of International Union
of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Local 191 , or any other umon and they are
also free to refrain from joining any union.
WEST TEXAS EQUIPMENT COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting, and must
not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth
Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102, Tele-
phone No. Edison 5-4211 , Extension 2131 , if they have any question concerning
this notice or compliance with its provisions.
The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , Inc. and American
Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos.
19-RC-3190, 19-RC-3020, and 19-RC-3221. June 25, 1963
DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before hearing officers designated
by the Board. The rulings made at the hearings are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On March 7, 1963, the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region
issued a decision in Case No. 19-RC-3196 finding, as contended by
the Petitioner, that the employees in the fresh pack department of the
Employer's operation constituted an appropriate unit, and directing
an election in that unit. The Employer filed a request with the Board
for review of the Regional Director's decision, contending that only a
plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate. On April
2, 1963, the Board granted the request and stayed the election. There-
after, in view of the Board's action, the Regional Director forwarded
to the Board for decision the petitions subsequently filed by Petitioner
in Cases No. 19-RC-3220 and 19-RC-3221, in which Petitioner sought
units comprised of the maintenance group and the frozen food depart-
ment, respectively. As the three petitions involve identical parties
and similar issues, the Board has decided to consolidate them for
decisional purposes.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
143 NLRB No. 11
48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 em-
ployees 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 Section2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. At its operation involved herein, located at Burley, Idaho, the
Employer is engaged primarily in processing potatoes into frozen
french fries, although some potatoes are processed and shipped fresh
from the plant. The Employer has a complement of approximately
250 production and 16 maintenance employees, all of whom are located
in a single building. About 75 production employees work in the
fresh pack department, and about 175 work in the frozen food depart-
ment. They are seasonally employed from about September to May.
In some years, the frozen food department may operate a week or two
longer than the fresh pack department, and in such event, the fresh
pack employees normally are offered available jobs in the frozen food
department until it, too, closes for the season. Some maintenance
employees, however, work the year round. The Petitioner seeks to
represent in separate units, the fresh pack (Case No. 19-RC-3196),
the frozen food (Case No. 19-RC-3221), and the maintenance (Case
No. 19-RC-3220) employees. The Employer contends that only a
plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate. There
is no history of bargaining for any of these employees.
The Employer buys "field run" potatoes from growers in the area
and transports them by truck to the plant. There the potatoes are
unloaded into a water flume which carries them to the fresh pack de-
partment where they are washed, inspected, and graded. One grade
of potatoes are those which will be processed into frozen french fries
by the frozen food department. Another grade, called U.S. No. 1
Standard, is for quality potatoes that are packed and shipped in their
fresh state. A third grade are "culls" which are unsuitable for any
use and are discarded.
The frozen food and fresh pack departments are in one building but
are separated by a partition for sanitary reasons. The potatoes
destined for the frozen food department are placed in retaining bins
which feed into the frozen food department at a predetermined rate of
flow. In the frozen food department, the potatoes are lye-peeled,
washed, inspected, sliced, blanched, fried, frozen, and packed for ship-
ment.
The frozen food department operates three shifts daily while the
fresh pack department operates on a one-shift basis. Although the
THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 49
employees in each production department have separate parking lots,
entrances, and timeclocks, they receive the same pay and fringe bene-
fits, except that, for reasons not clear in the record, the fresh pack
employees are not eligible for unemployment compensation. Both
production and maintenance employees share the same restrooms and
eating facilities, and are subject to the same company personnel poli-
cies. A plant manager is in charge of the overall operation, but the
superintendents of the two production departments consult directly
with each other concerning production matters. Two maintenance em-
ployees who spend most of their time in the fresh pack department are
under the supervision of the superintendent of that department.
The employees in the maintenance group inspect, maintain, and re-
pair production equipment, performing most of their work in the
production areas. The Employer does not require of them any special
training for the job, as the maintenance men receive on-the-job train-
ing and are supplied with all the necessary tools and equipment.
When a vacancy exists in the maintenance group, production em-
ployees are given the first opportunity to apply for the job. Mainte-
nance employees are paid higher rates than production employees.
After working for a prescribed period of time, the maintenance em-
ployees acquire "permanent" status which entitles them to work during
the summer months when equipment is repaired or overhauled and
when production operations are shut down. At the present time 9 of
the 16 maintenance employees are treated as permanent.
Because of the integrated nature of the Employer's operation, the
similarity in the conditions of employment of the employees involved,
the same ultimate supervision, the lack of bargaining history, and the
fact that the same union seeks to represent all production and mainte-
nance employees, albeit on a departmental basis, we believe that only
a plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate here.'
As the Petitioner has not indicated that it is unwilling to participate
in an election in the overall unit and as its showing of interest is ade-
quate, we shall direct an election in a unit comprised of all production
and maintenance employees, including the quality control employees,
whom the parties have agreed to include.
Accordingly, we find that a unit of the following employees is ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 8 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Burley, Idaho, operation, including quality control employees, but ex-
cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
i G. L. Webster Company, Incorporated, 138 NLRB 440; cf. J. R. Simplot Co., 130
NLRB 272 and 1283.
50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. In accordance with our usual practice in operations of this kind,
we direct that the election be held about that time during the season
when peak employment has been attained, on a date to be determined
by the Regional Director, 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.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Coca Cola Bottling Company of Louisville and Milk, Ice Cream
Drivers and Dairy Employees Local No. 783, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Charging Party
Coca Cola Bottling Company of Louisville and Milk, Ice Cream
Drivers and Dairy Employees Local No. 783, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 9-CA-2739 and
9-RC-5057. June 35, 1963
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
On April 9, 1963, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The
Trial Examiner found further that this conduct was grounds for
setting aside the September 19, 1962, election in the representation
case. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent-Employer
had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom-
mended that the complaint be dismissed as to such allegations. There-
after, the Respondent-Employer and the Charging Party-Petitioner
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
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 Leedom, Fanning, and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing herein, and finds that no prejudicial error was commit-
ted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered
143 NLRB No. 1.