Vita Food Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 495 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

VITA FOOD PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 495
sentative proportion of the contemplated working force, the Board
will follow its customary policy of directing immediate elections.9
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 Kaiser Manufacturing Corporation , Richmond Machine Division, 99 NLRB 244 ; Metro-
,politan Life Insurance Company, Parklebrea Resident Community , 93 NLRB 381 ; Westing-
house Electric Corporation , 87 NLRB 463 . Cf. General Electric Company, 100 NLRB 419.
VITA FOOD PRODUCTS , INCORPORATED, MAx BLOCK Co., INC. (DIVISION
OF VITA FOOD PRODUCTS , INCORPORATED ) and DISTRICT 65, DISTRIBU-
TIVE, PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 2-RC-5243 and 2-RC-5294. March 12,1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing in the above-consolidated cases
was held before I. L. Broadwin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Intervenor asserts that its collective-bargaining agreement
with the Fish Smokers Trade Council, Inc., of which Vita Food
Products, Incorporated, Schnibbe Division, a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Employer located in Brooklyn, New York, is a member, bars
any election which includes fish processors employed by the Employer
in the Metropolitan New York area. We find no merit in this con-
tention. For, apart from other considerations, the contract's union-
security clause fails to provide at least 30 days for employees who
were not union members when the clause became operative to become
1 Local 635, Fish , Seafood , Smoked Fish and Cannery Workers , affiliated with Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of America, A. F. of L., herein called the Inter-
venor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest and an alleged
contract interest.
103 NLRB No. 67.
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
members. It cannot, therefore, under well-established Board prece-
dent, bar the election sought herein.2
4. Vita Food Products, Incorporated, herein referred to as Vita,
is a holding company with wholly owned subsidiaries throughout
the United States. Its central offices, and one plant which it operates
in its own name, are located at Greenwich Street, New York, New
York, where it processes, packs, and distributes fish and olives. Max
Block Co., Inc. (Division of Vita Food Products, Incorporated),
herein referred to as Block, is a wholly owned subsidiary engaged
solely in the handling of cherries at Perry Street, New York, New
York.
The Petitioner originally sought, in effect, separate production
and maintenance units at Vita and Block, but by amendment at the
hearing now seeks a unit of production and maintenance employees
at both plants. The Intervenor seeks a unit limited to the fish proc-
essors at Greenwich Street .3 The Employer contends that the latter
unit is inappropriate and supports the unit at both plants sought by
the Petitioner.
In the Greenwich Street plant two floors are devoted exclusively to
fish processing and a third is divided, though not by a physical parti-
tion, into a fish area and an olive area. The fish and olive workers
are separately hired and supervised. The olive packers are mostly
piece-rate workers and it requires a few months of training before
they become skilled at their work. The fish packers and processors,
on the other hand, are hourly paid employees. According to an un-
contradicted statement by a representative of the Intervenor, fish is
processed in separate plants in the New York area even though the
plant may be part of a multiproduct enterprise, and the Greenwich
Street plant is an exception. The fish processors in question work
during the same hours as the olive handlers, have always been treated
as one unit by the Employer in matters of wage scales, benefits, vaca-
tions, payroll deductions, and Employer contributions. It also ap-
pears that both fish and olive packers have comparable skills, and
that interchange of employees from olive to fish packing and of coop-
ers from one type of barrel to another occurs from time to time.
Accordingly, as the fish processors are not a craft group, and as no,
other basis exists for establishing a separate unit of these employees,
we shall reject the Intervenor's unit contention to establish a separate
unit of fish processors at Greenwich Street 4
2 Hess, Goldsmith & Co., Inc., Atwater Division, 101 NLRB 1009. We shall not con-
sider the other contract bar contentions.
s The Intervenor argued, inter alia, that its jurisdiction is limited to fish processors. We
have generally held that a union's jurisdictional limitation is not restrictive as to the
Board's determination of the appropriate unit. Peterzell & Gelies, Inc., 94 NLRB 346.
4 The Board does not arbitrarily divide a production and maintenance unit . The Zia Com-
pany, 94 NLRB 214.
VITA FOOD PRODUCTS , INCORPORATED 497
As to the Petitioner's unit contention, the record discloses that the
2 plants are separated by only 5 or 6 city blocks. There is practically
no interchange of employees, there is no functional relationship be-
tween the 2 plants, and each plant does its own hiring, discharging,
and has its own supervisory personnel. Moreover, the common gen-
eral supervision which applies to these 2 plants extends to other sub-
sidiaries of Vita in the New York area not involved in this proceed-
ing,5 and these 2 plants do not comprise a distinct organizational or
administrative division of Vita's total operations. Furthermore,
while there has been no bargaining history at either of these 2 plants,
there has been bargaining for the employees of the Schnibbe Division
for more than 5 years in a unit apart from any other Vita-connected
plant employees. In view of the foregoing and on the entire record,
the Board finds that separate units at each plant are appropriate .6
We, therefore, reject the Petitioner's amended unit request and, in
accordance with its initial requests, find that the following employees
constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(1) All production and maintenance employees of the Employer
(Vita Food Products, Incorporated) at its Greenwich Street plant,
including packers, processors, mechanics, table heads, machine oper-
ators, working foremen, icebox men, coopers and elevator operators,
but excluding platform employees, checkers, drivers, drivers' helpers,
office employees, executives, and supervisors 7 as defined in the Act.
(2) All production and maintenance employees of the Employer
(Max Block Co., Inc. (Division of Vita Food Products, Incorpo-
rated)) at its Perry Street plant, excluding office employees, execu-
tives, and supervisors 8 as defined in the Act.
5. As the Intervenor seeks to be certified as the representative of
the fish processors at Greenwich Street and has presented an adequate
Intervenor's showing of interest for the unit established at that plant,
we shall place it on the ballot for the election directed there. Because
this unit is broader than that which was sought by the Intervenor at
the hearing, it may withdraw from the election, if it so desires, upon
5In addition to Block and Schnibbe , there are two other wholly owned subsidiaries of
Vita in the New York area.
6 Frost Lumber Industries, Division of Olin Industries, Inc.; Frost Hardwood Floors, Inc.;
and Frost Brand Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., 101 NLRB 659. The cases
cited at the hearing by the Employer for the proposition that a single unit composed of the
two plants is appropriate are distinguishable . In those cases the result reached was
supported either by bargaining history, or the fact that the resulting unit encompassed all
the Employer 's plants, or both.
7In accordance with the stipulation of the parties we are excluding the following indi-
viduals as supervisors within the meaning of the Act : Mike Mancuso, Paul Werning, Henry
Dedicke, Harry Engelheim , Heinz Gruenwald ( Grunwald ), and Tommy Miller.
" In accordance with the stipulation of the parties we are excluding Samuel Burg ( Berg),
as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
498 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice to the Regional Director within ten (10) days after the issu-
ance of this Decision and Direction of Elections.9
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
R John F, Kaenei and George Von Kaenel d/b/a Acme Corrugated Box Company and John
F. Ka.enel Cooperage Company/, 88 NLRB 96.
ROSE MARIE REID and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO3
PETITIONER . Case No . 21-RC-28.9. March 12, 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 Halley; hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent all employees at the Employer's
plant at 5200 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, California,
herein called the Century plant, and the Intervenor, International
Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local 266, seeks a unit confined to
certain production employees at the same plant. The Employer con-
tends that the only appropriate unit is one which includes all its
employees at the Century plant and, in addition, all the employees
of Swimwear, Inc., herein called Swimwear, some of whom work at
the Century plant 2 while others work at a plant at 1260 Sentous
Street in the same city, herein called the Sentous plant. There is
no history of collective bargaining for any of these employees.
The Employer was incorporated in 1946; Swimwear was incorpo-
rated in October 1951 and began operations in February 1952. Both
1 The Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition , which the hearing officer referred to the
Board, is hereby denied for the reasons appearing in paragraph numbered 4.
3 The record shows that while all employees at the Century plant are on the Employer's
payroll, the Employer is reimbursed by Swimwear in proportion to the work done for Swim-
wear's account.
103 NLRB No. 68.