McBryde Sugar Co., Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1071 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

McBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY, LTD. 1071
Upon consideration of the entire. record, the undersigned is convinced that the
Respondent's conduct indicates an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the
Act generally. In order, therefore, to make effective the interdependent guaran-
tees of Section 7 of the Act, thereby minimizing industrial strife which burdens
and obstructs commerce, and thus effectuate the policies of the Act, it will be.
recommended that the Respondent cease and desist in any manner infringing.
upon the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record, the
undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS of LAW
1. Furniture Workers Union Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., and United Furniture Workers
of America, Local 576, C. I. 0., are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Susie
Clinton, Lewis Harrison, Florence Johnson, Helen Montgomery, Zula Pipkin,
Mike Sendejas, Lucille Sims, and Harold J. Sushan by discharging or by failing
or refusing to reinstate them on or after November 19, 1948, thereby discouraging
membership in the United Furniture Workers of America, Local 576, C. I. 0.,.
and encouraging membership in Furniture Workers Union Local No. 3161 of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
3. By interfering with the administration of, and rendering assistance to, Fur-
niture Workers Union, Local No. 3161 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, A. F. of L., the Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (2) of
the Act.
4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1)
of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
MCBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY, LTD., AND ITS WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY,
KAUAI ELECTRIC Co., LrD. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 1357 (AFL), PETITIONER.
Case No. 37-RC-46. March 30, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Arnold L.
Wills, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1 At the hearing the United Sugar Workers , International Longshoremen 's and Ware-
housemen 's Union, Local 142, the Intervenor , moved to dismiss this proceeding on the
93 NLRB No. "18555.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAiID
. 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 it three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record In this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers, McBryde Sugar Company,-Ltd., herein called
McBryde, and Kauai Electric Co., Ltd., herein called Kauai, are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all the em-
ployees of Kauai, including electricians, apprentices, helpers, ground-
men, and truck drivers in the line gang, maintenance and construction
gangs, warehousemen, and metermen. The Intervenor contends that
a separate unit of Kauai employees is inappropriate. The Employers
are neutral.2
McBryde is engaged in an extensive sugar enterprise. It operates
a large plantation for the planting, cultivation, and harvesting of
sugar cane, and processes the cane with its own facilities into raw
sugar. It also generates its own electric power, which it requires
in large quantities to carry on its manifold operations. To sup-
plement its power facilities it purchased Kauai in August 1930.3
On July 10, 1950, Kauai made application to the Hawaii Public
Utility Commission for authority to purchase other transmission
facilities and to build extensions to its present lines. Such authority
was granted to Kauai before October 1, 1950.
From 1930, when Kauai was first purchased by McBryde, to Octo-
ber 1, 1950, the former did not have its own labor force,' but its
necessary tasks were performed by McBryde employees.5 Until
grounds ( 1) A subsisting contract between it and the Employer is a bar to this proceeding,
and (2) the unit requested is inappropriate The Intervenor contends that there is a fatal
variance between the original petition filed herein on June 13, 1950, which was approxi-
mately 3 weeks before the Mill B date of this contract , and the amended petitions filed
herein on August 15, and on December 28, 1950, the date of the hearing Thus it urges
that the amended petitions initiated a completely new proceeding which is barred by
the automatic renewal of the contract . In view of the fact that we are dismissing this
proceeding on the ground that the unit is inappropriate , we find it unnecessary to
determine the contract bar issue.
11hcBrvde is opposed , however , to craft severance for any group of its employees, on
the ground that it operates a completely integrated enterprise,
' Kauai was incoi porated in August 1929 as a public utility . It does not generate
electric power , but merely- transmits power generated by McBryde in certain localities.
Kauai had only one meterman in addition to a few office clerical employees.
McBryde has a total labor force of about 700 employees.
McBRYDE SUGAR COMPANY, LTD. -1073
September 1945, McBryde employees received their pay from Kauai
for any work done for it. Since that date, under the provisions
of the collective bargaining agreement then executed by the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor's predecessor, these employees have re-
ceived all their pay from McBryde, which in turn has billed Kauai
for such labor as was performed for it.c, On October 1, 1950, Mc-
Bryde transferred to Kauai 20 of its employees, the foremen in
charge of these employees, and the assistant manager in charge of the
Kauai project.' But the over-all management of Kauai was retained
by McBryde whose manager has devoted part of his time to this
function.
Since 1940, McBryde_has had collective bargaining relations with
the Intervenor and its predecessors representing an employer-wide
unit, including employees doing work for Kauai.' The first collec-
tive bargaining agreement was executed on August 6, 1941.1 The
most recent contract for the same unit was signed on September 22,
1948, for a period of 2 years, to expire August 31, 1950, but extended
by a wage-reopening agreement on January 4, 1950, for an additional
year to August 31, 195110 Thus there is a 10-year continuous col-
lective bargaining history on an employer-wide basis, including em-
ployees performing the work of Kauai as well as of McBryde.
The record indicates that the McBryde operation is a wholly inte-
grated business, employing a large group of employees, including
various crafts." It also appears that the Kauai operation is in fact
a part of the McBryde enterprise, even though it possesses a separate
corporate existence, and that Kauai continues to distribute electric
energy generated by McBryde. The employee categories transferred
to Kauai are those usually associated with electric transmission.
Powerhouse electricians and kindred categories are still employed by
McBryde. Although the Petitioner's request for a separate unit for
the Kauai production and maintenance employees is based on the
recent transfer of some physical facilities and- of a small number of its
employees by McBryde to Kauai, the fact remains that as far as the
6 Until February 1937, Kauai paid 1\IcBryde's supervisory and managerial personnel
directly for any services rendered to it From 1937 to October 1, 1950, this group also
received its entice pay from McBryde, aahnch in turn billed Kauai for any time spent for it.
7 \lcBr',de also transferred to Kauai some physical facilities
8 Some, but not all, such contracts were signed by Kauai and specifically covered Kauai
employees The terms of the contracts, however, were always applied to Kauai employees
or to employees doing work tor Kauai
9 This agreement was signed by the Employer and the United Cannery, Agricultural,
Packing and Allied \Comkers of America, Local 76, Unit 1, after certification by the Board
as a result of an election held puisuant to a con'.ent agieement signed on October 1, 1940
This union was later succeeded by the International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's
Union, Local 149, as the bargaining agent
10By agieenient of all panties Local L42 succeeded Local 149 of the sane International
as the bargaining agent
ii Pepeekeo Sugar Company, et al , 59 NLRB 1032 The record indicates that the
Employer's operations are similar to those of the companies involved in that case.
943732-51-69
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
over-all management of Kauai is concerned no change was effected-
Nor do we believe the transfer from McBryde's payroll to that of
Kauai effected any substantial changes in the status of the employees,
involved. They perform the same duties, enjoy the same benefits and
privileges, and are subject to the same general supervision as hereto-
fore. Under all the circumstances, the Board finds that the separate
unit of Kauai employees requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate.72
We shall dismiss the petition. -
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby isf
dismissed.
12
Ford Motor Company , 92 NLRB 188 , Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company,
85 NLRB 131 . Consolidated Telegraph and Electrical Subway Go, 77 NLRB 300. See
also West Texas Utilities Company , Inc, 88 NLRB 192 But cf Fruehauf Trailer Co.,
87 NLRB 589.
SILVERSTEIN BROTHERS , INC., D/B/A SILVERSTEIN 'S ANCHOR STOVE &
FURNITURE CO., D/B% A ANCHOR FURNITURE STORE, AND INDIANA
FURNITURE CO., D/B/A INDIANA FURNITURE STORE 1 and RETAIL
CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION , LOCAL UNION No. 983, AFL,
PETITIONER . Case No. 35-UA.-1045. March 30, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon an amended petition duly filed, a hearing was held before
William A. McGowan, 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, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner is the exclusive bargaining representative of em-
ployees of the Employers as provided in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. The petition alleges, and we find, that more than 30 percent of
the employees in the unit claimed by the Petitioner desire to authorize
the Petitioner to make an agreement-with the Employers requiring
membership in the Petitioner as a condition of employment in such
unit.
1 The petition and other formal papers are hereby amended to show the names of an
the Employers involved in this proceeding
93 NLRB No. 179.