Vacuum Cooling Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 611 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

VACUUM COOLING COMPANY 611
Supreme Court expressly rejected this approach in the
Fainblatt case."
Apparently the majority must believe that because Hill
does not own the fruit processed by his employees, a dis-
ruption in his operations resulting from a strike of his em-
ployees, would have only an indirect effect on interstate
commerce, but that if Hill did own the fruit, such inter-
ference would have a direct effect on interstate commerce.
I fail to see how the accident of who has title to the fruit
changes the nature of the effect on interstate commerce of
a strike by Hill employees . The resulting interference with
the movement in commerce of the fruit which Hill contracted
to process and load on railroad cars would be precisely the
same regardless of who owned the fruit. The fact that the
handling of the fruit is a part of the services required of
Hill under his oral contract with McCormack , does not
thereby lessen the effect of a strike by Hill's employees,
on the movement of the fruit in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, I believe that reason and logic as well as
past decisions 12 require that the Board find that inasmuch
as Hill is engaged in handling goods destined for out-of-State
shipment which have a value of $25,000 and more a year,
his activities affect commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over Hill.
11306 U . S. 601 ( 1939). See my dissent in Brooks Wood Products , 107 NLRB 237.
12 Tule River Cooperative Gin, Inc., 102 NLRB 1523. Cf. National Gas Company, 99 NLRB
23, Stanislaus Implement & Hardware Company Ltd ., 91 NLRB 618.
VACUUM COOLING COMPANY and BOXMAKERS UNION LO-
CAL NO. 2721, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION
NO. 898, AFL , Petitioner
VACUUM COOLING COMPANY and UNITED FRESH FRUIT
AND VEGETABLE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION
NO. 78, C.I.O., Petitioner. Cases Nos. 21-RC-2939, 21-RC-
2969, and 21-RC-2979. December 29, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 26 , 1953 , the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in these proceedings, directing an election in a
single unit embracing all operating locations of the Employer.'
1105 NLRB 794.
107 NLRB No. 136.
61Z DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Thereafter , on July 23 , 1953, the Board setaside that Decision
and remanded the case for further hearing with respect to the
appropriate unit. Such further hearing was held on August 13,
1953, before Ernest L. Heimann , hearing officer .' The rul-
ings of the hearing officers made at the two hearings herein
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. Boxmakers Union Local No. 2721, United Brotherhood
of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, and International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Local Union No. 898 , AFL, herein jointly
called the AFL, and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Workers,
Local Industrial Union No. 78 , CIO, herein called the CIO,
are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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,
for the following reasons:
The Employer packages produce , principally lettuce, and
manufactures some of the boxes used inits packing operations,
at 10 or 11 separate locations dispersed throughout California
and Arizona . The CIO filed 2 petitions , 1 for employees at
Yuma, Arizona , in a single unit, and the other for those at
El Centro and Holtville , California , in a separate 2-location
unit. The AFL filed 1 petition covering employees only at
the Employer ' s single location at El Centro , California.
The AFL changed its unit position at the hearings , and now
contends that the sole appropriate unit is one embracing
employees at all the Employer's various locations. The
Employer contends that none of the units petitioned for is
appropriate ; it agrees with the AFL ' s assertion made at the
hearing that only an all-inclusive unit is appropriate.
All the Employer ' s local operations are seasonal , depending
upon harvest periods. Some locations operate simultaneously,
and most of them have seasons which overlap those at other
locations . During the year ending March 1953, only eight of the
locations had been in use. When work at one place ceases,
most of the machine equipment - - including boilers and con-
veyors -- is moved to another location ; also, the supervisory
staff and a substantial number of production employees move
on with the machinery . Some of the employee complement at
each location is purely local and returns only from season to
season. In addition to this employment movement following
the harvest seasons , there is some transfer of employees
among the locations from day to day as the varying loads
2 The original hearing was held on February 19, March 12 , and March 27, 1953, before
H. C. Bumgarner , hearing officer.
VACUUM COOLING COMPANY 613
shift among the several locations that are being operated at
the same time. Overall employment averages approximately
125 employees, although the total is at times well below this
figure.
A general manager of operations oversees the work at all
the plants. Each plant has its own superintende but only the
general manager of operations is empowered to determine
wages and hours at all the plants, and he is also the only
person in charge of labor relations generally. Conditions of
employment are virtually identical at all locations, and all
employees work generally the same hours, are paid on the
same basis, and progress along the same lines of promotion.
The CIO has represented employees at several of the
Employer's locations for a number of years. Its first contract
with the Employer was executed in 1950, with only 3 locations
operating, and 1 of them has been discontinued. In 1951,
following a consent election, the CIO was certified as the
bargaining representative of employees at Salinas and Watson-
ville, and in 1952 it was certified, also following a consent
election, as the representative of employees at Santa Maria.
The Employer has been expanding its operations in recent
years; some operations have been abandoned and replaced by
new ones. At the reopened hearing a single supplemental
agreement, dated June 13, 1953, and covering 7 locations, was
introduced into evidence.3
Although it opposes an overall unit, the CIO offered no
evidence to support its assertion that despite the highly
integrated and amorphous character of the Employer's opera-
tions, units limited to 1 or 2 locations are nevertheless ap-
propriate.4 The similarity of work at all locations, their cen-
tralized control, and the interchange and transfer of employees
among them clearly show that only a unit embracing all the
Employer's locations is appropriate here. Although the CIO has
represented employees at several of the locations, many of the
Employer's operations first started during the past year.
Furthermore, the shift of locations and the expansion of opera-
tions make the short-lived bargaining on a more limited basis
of little significance to a present unit determination. On the
entire record, we find that the 2 limited units proposed by the
CIO and the limited one reflected in the AFL's petition, are
inappropriate for collective-bargaining purposes, and we shall
therefore dismiss all 3 petitions.
The hearing officer at the reopened hearing referred to the
Board a motion by the AFL to amend its petition to request
an overall companywide unit. Before directing an election, the
3 In view of our disposition of the petitions herein, we find it unnecessary to consider the
effect of the certifications or contracts as bars to an election or elections
4At the original hearing, the record did not indicate any serious disagreement with a
single overall unit by the CIO. At the reopened hearing, however, the CIO unequivocally
objected to an overall unit.
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board must be administratively satisfied that the petitioning
union has a sufficient representative interest among the
employees in question .' As the AFL, the only union seeking
an overall unit, has failed to make the necessary showing of
interest in such a unit , we find it unnecessary to pass upon the
motion to amend its petition because in any event we would
dismiss it.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
5Standard & Poor' s Corporation , 95 NLRB 248.
THOMAS ELECTRONICS , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 2-RC-6124 . December 29, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur A.
Greenstein , hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. 1
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain 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.'
4. The parties - are in general agreement that the appro-
priate unit should consist of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's Passaic, New Jersey, plant.
They disagree , however, with respect to the placement of
truckdrivers . The Petitioner desires their inclusion, while
t We find without merit the Employer ' s attack upon the Petitioner 's showing of interest
(Stokely Foods , Inc., 78 NLRB 842) and are satisfied that Petitioner had an adequate and
proper showing.
2 The Employer asserts that its current contract with Local 1846, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , AFL, the Intervenor herein , executed on August 21, 1953,
constitutes a bar to this proceeding . On August 20 , 1953, the Petitioner by telegram demanded
recognition of the Employer for its production and maintenance employees, and on August
21, 1953, filed the petition herein . As the Petitioner ' s notice to the Employer of its claim of
representative status preceded the execution of the contract and was followed within 10 days
by the filing of a petition, we find that the contract does not bar a present determination of
representatives . New Haven Pulp and Board Company , 83 NLRB 268 , and cases cited therein.
In view of our finding that the contract does not constitute a bar, we find it unnecessary to
consider further contentions advanced by the Petitioner concerning the union- security clause
contained therein.
107 NLRB No. 124.