Fruit Growers Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 909 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY COMPANY 909
4. Since the permanent transfer of the patternmakers to Melrose
Park, a separate department or pattern shop has been set up, where
they are engaged in constructing wooden models of future products
planned by the Employer. They have been given the classification of
"pattern and model maker-wood." No other patternmakers are em-
ployed in the plant. The Board recognized that the patternmakers
at the Tractor Works were a craft group, and found that they consti-
tuted a separate unit.' At the hearing in the present case, the Em-
ployer testified without contradiction that in their work at the Melrose
Park plant they are exercising an equal degree of craft skill.
We find that the patternmakers sought by the Petitioner in this case
may constitute an appropriate unit and may be separately represented
if they so desire. They may also appropriately form part of the exist-
ing production and maintenance unit at the plant. Accordingly, we
shall direct that an election be held in the following voting group :
All wood pattern and model makers and apprentices at the Employer's
Melrose Park, Illinois, plant occluding all supervisors as defined in the
Act. If these employees vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to be represented in a separate unit. If
they select the Intervenor, that organization may bargain for them as
part of the unit that it presently represents.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 tnteinational J lars,cstci Company, Tractor Woiks, supra
FRUIT GROWERS SUPPLY COMPANY and NORTHERN CALIr. DISTRICT
COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. gO-RC-1265. May I9,1951
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 Benjamin B. Law, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
I Local 18-870 International Woodworkers of America . CIO, herein called the Intervenor,
was permitted to intervene on the basis of contractual interest
94 NLRB No 128
910 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees 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 Employer, Petitioner, and Intervenor agree that the appro-
priate unit should include all production and maintenance employees,
employed at the Employer's sawmill and box shook manufacturing
operations at Susanville, California, and in its logging operations at,
Camp 10, a site in the vicinity of Susanville, excluding professional and
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.2
The parties disagree only as to the status of the watchmen employed by
the Employer.
The duties of the watchmen in dispute are to protect the property of
the Employer and enforce company rules against the employees. With
the exception of one watchman, they devote all their time to the per-
formance of monitorial duties. With respect to the one watchman, the
evidence indicates that during the peak of the logging season, a period
of about 3 to 4 months, this watchman, although acting as watchman,
devotes more than 50 percent of his time to scaling logs, for which he
is paid the appropriate wage. During the remaining period of em-
ployment, 8 to 9 months, he devotes his entire time to tho performance
of guards' duties. Thus more than 50 percent of this watchman's time
is devoted to the performance of guards' activities.
Upon these facts, we find that all of the watchmen employed by
the Employer are guards within the meaning of the Acts
We find a unit composed of all production and maintenance employ-
ees employed at the Employer's sawmill and box shook manufacturing
operations at Susanville, California, and in its logging operations at
Camp 10, a site in the vicinity of Susanville, excluding professional,
office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the
Act, to be the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The evidence indicates that the Employer's logging operations,
the employees of which are included in the unit found appropriate, are
2 The Petitioner also sought , in its petition , to exclude "new construction employees"
from the unit . During the hearing, an agreement to exclude this category of employees
was reached between the parties The controversy in regard to the exclusion or inclusion
of the timekeeper employed at Camp 10 was also settled by an agreement of the parties
to exclude this employee from the unit
' The fact that these watchmen are not armed, deputized , or uniformed and have been
instructed against the use of bodily force in the performance of their duties, the fact that
they are supervised by a utility foreman to whom they report, and finally, the previous
practice of the Employer and Intervenor to bargain collectively concerning the watchmen
are not factors sufficient to detract from their status as guards within the meaning of
the Act. See Scott f Williams, Inc, 92 NLRB No. 153, Hercules Powder Company, 89
NLRB 52, St. Paul ct Tacoma Lumber Company, 81 NLRB 434, 437
ASOCIACION COOPERATIVA LAFAYETTE 911
seasonal in nature. There is disagreement among the parties as to the
exact date these operations will reach their peak. In accordance with
our policy, we shall, therefore, order that the election directed herein
be held at or about the peak of the season, 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 pre-
ceding the date of issuance of notice of election by the Regional
Director 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 See Associated Fisk Products Company, 91 NLRB No. 164.
AsocIACION COOPERATIVA LAFAYETTE ; CENTRAL JUNCOS ; CENTRAL
EUREKA ; CENTRAL GUAMANI ; CENTRAL EL EJEMPLO ; CENTRAL
JUANITA and CONFEDERACION GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES DE PUERTO
Rico, PETITIONER
CENTRAL MERCEDITA, ET AL. and SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES DE LA
INDUSTRIA AZUCARERA DE P. R. (CGT-CIO), PETITIONER
PORTO RICAN AMERICAN SUGAR REFINERY, INC., CENTRAL MERCEDITA,
INC. and UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE FACTORIA, REFINERIA, Y RAMAS
ANEXAS DR LA INDUSTRIA AZUCARERA, LOCAL 303, AFFILIATED TO THE
NATIONAL FARM LABOR UNION, A. F. L., PETITIONER
CENTRAL MERCEDITA, INC. and UNION DE TRABAJADORES METALURGICOS
DE LA CENTRAL MERCEDITA DE PONCE, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
24-
RC-136, 24-RC18, 24-RC-139, 24-RC-141, 24-RC-142, 24-RC-
.743, 24RC 137, 24RC 106, and 24RC 123. May ,29,1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
George L. Weasler, hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
I During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner in Case No. 24-RC-137, which was
seeking a multiemployer unit covering , inter alia, the plants involved in Cases Nos.
24-RC-136, 138 , 139, 141 , 142, and 143 , agreed to the principle of individual elections
at these six plants, and with the approval of the Regional Director , withdrew its petition
in Case No . 24-RC-137. Consent election agreements were thereafter entered into, and
notice of hearing was withdrawn , in Cases Nos. 24-RC-138 , 139, 141 , and 142. The
Regional Director, on his own motion , also withdrew notice of hearing in Cases Nos.
24-RC-136 and 143 because of his expectation that consent election agreements would
be signed in these cases. Accordingly , we are here concerned only with Cases Nos. 106
and 123, involving Porto Rican American Sugar Refinery , Inc., and Central Mercedita, Inc.
94 NLRB No. 139.