The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, L. I. City RefineryDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 25, 193910 N.L.R.B. 1410 (N.L.R.B. 1939) Copy Citation In the Matter of THE NATIONAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, L. I. CITY REFINERY and LOCAL 1476, SUGAR REFINERY WORKERS, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S Ass's Case No. R-1126.-Decided January 05, 1939 Sugar Relining Industry-Investigation of Rcpresentatives : controversy con- cerning representation of employees : appropriate unit, stipulated ; rival organi- zations; existing contract executed with the representative of a majority of employees held a bar to investigation of representatives ; petition for, dismissed without prejudice to renewal at a reasonable time before existing contract expires. Mr. Millard L. Midonick, for the Board. Blake-& Voorhees, by Mr. Giddings Howd of New York City, for the Company. Liebman, Robbins, Pressman & Leider, by Mr. Harold I. Cammer, of New York City, for the United Sugar Workers Local Industrial Union No. 580, C. I. O. Mr. John R. Owens, of New York City, for the International Long- ,shoremen's Association, A. F. of L. Miss Margaret Holmes, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 5, 1938, Local 1476, Sugar Refinery Workers, Interna- tional Longshoremen's Association, herein called the I. L. A., filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey," herein called the Company, at its Long Island City, New York, plant, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 6, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called i The petition and order incorrectly designated the Company as National Sugar Refining Co. At the hearing the petition was amended to designate the Company by its proper corporate name, The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey. 10 N. L. R. B., No. 124. 1410 DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1411 the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- tions-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On October 11, 1938, the Regional Director issued notice of hear- ing, amended on October 22, 1938, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the I. L. A., and upon the United Sugar Workers Local Industrial Union No. 580, herein called the 'United, a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on November 14 and 17, 1938, at New York City, before Henry J. Kent, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the -Company, and the United were represented by counsel and the I. L. A. was represented by its secretary-treasurer. All participated in the 'hearing. Full opportiuiity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine .witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Exam- iner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admis- sion of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. At the close of the hearing,, the United made a motion to dismiss the petition of the I. L: A. on the grounds that no question concerning representation had arisen, which motion the Trial Examiner reserved for action by the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in the business of refining sugar. It owns and operates two plants, one located in Long Island City, New York, and the other in Edgewater, New Jersey. We are concerned in this case with the Long Island City plant. Raw sugar, the principal raw material used by the Company, is imported from Puerto Rico, Cuba, the' Philippine Islands, and Ha- waii. At its Long Island City plant the company refines over 500,- ,000,000 pounds of raw sugar annually, 60 per cent of which is sold and shipped outside the State of New York. The Company agreed at the hearing that it is engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of the Act. There are approximately 1,000 employees at the Company's Long Island City plant. 1412 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local No. 1476, Sugar Refinery Workers, International Longshore- -men's Association , is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant. United Sugar Workers Local Industrial Union No. 580 is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organiza- tion, admitting to membership employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant. III. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT At the hearing the parties stipulated that the appropriate unit con- sisted of all employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant, exclusive of supervisors, foremen, watchmen, office workers, chauf- feurs, and helpers. We see no reason to alter the unit agreed upon by the parties. We therefore find that all employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant, exclusive of supervisors, foremen, watchmen, office workers, chauffeurs, and helpers, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company.,at its Long Island}City plant the' full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On September 8, 1937, the Board conducted a consent election in an agreed unit of employees of the Company at its Long Island City plant.2 Of 970 employees voting, the United received 507 votes and the I. L. A. received 441 votes. Thereafter, on September 20, 1937, the I. L. A. filed a petition with the Board, seeking investigation and certification of representatives and requesting, that the election be set aside. At the subsequent hearing on its petition, the I. L. A. contended that the United had resorted to fraud and bribery during the election and had violated the clause of the Regional Director's instructions providing that "no electioneering will be allowed, on the day of the election, in the plant or near the place of voting." In its decision on November 30, 1937, the Board found that the election had been conducted in a fair and impartial manner and consequently that no question concerning representation had arisen. The petition of the I. L. A. therefore was dismissed.3 2 It was not contended in this proceeding that such unit , agreed to by the parties to the consent election, differed from the unit we have found to be appropriate in Section III. 3 Matter of The National Sugar Refining Coinpany of New Jersey and International Longshoremen 's Association , Local 1476, Sugar Refinery workers, 4 N L. R. B 276. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1413 After the consent election the Company and the United commenced negotiations concerning a collective contract in the Long Island plant. At that time there existed between the Company and United Sugar Refinery Workers Local Industrial Union No. 151, C. I. 0., herein called Local No. 151, a contract covering wages, hours, and working conditions at the Company's Edgewater, New Jersey, plant, which by its terms expired in June 1938. The United, therefore, suggested- a similar expiration date for the proposed contract covering labor relations in the Long Island City plant. The Company, however, refused to enter into a contract for such a short period. On Decem- ber 17, 1937, the United, and the Company finally executed, -a contract for the Long Island City plant to remain in force until October 6,. 1938. Thereafter, at the suggestion of the Company, the United unsuccessfully attempted to induce Local No. 151 to extend the Edge- water contract until October 6, 1938. At a meeting of the United in June 1938, a committee was selected to negotiate a new contract with the Company. Local No. 151 was bargaining with the Company at that time, since the Edgewater con- tract expired during the month of June. Conferences between Local No. 151, the United, and the Company were held in the early part of July, during which month several meetings of the United were called to inform- members- of, the progress of the joint negotiations. On. July 28, 1938, the Company signed new contracts with the United and Local No. 151 which contained uniform expiration dates. The United's new contract superseded the 1937 contract then in force and was to be effective at the Long Island City plant until June 30, 1939. Subsequent to the election in 1937 the I. L. A. had been inactive in the Long Island City plant. Prior to August 1938, I. L. A. meet- ings were attended by only five or six employees and over 300 I. L. A. books had been surrendered to the United. John R. Owens, secre- tary-treasurer of the I. L. A., wrote a letter to the Company, dated July 28, 1938, stating that the I. L. A. represented a majority of em- ployees at the Long Island City plant and requesting a bargaining conference. There is no evidence in the record establishing the date on which this letter was received. The Company replied that the United had been designated as the representative of its empl oyees in the Long Island City plant by reason of the consent election in 1937. This was the first time the I. L. A. had approached the Com- pany since the controversy concerning representatives in 1937. At the hearing the I. L. A. asserted that the new, contract, executed over 2 months before the expiration date of the 1937 contract, was the result of a desire to prevent the I. L. A. from organizing employees at the Long Island City plant. The evidence adduced at the hearing supports the contention of the Company and the United that the sole 147841-39-vol 10--90 1414 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD motive in entering into a new contract in July was to enable the United and Local No. 151 to secure contracts with uniform expiration dates, and we so find. In addition, although the Company and the United were negotiating for a new contract throughout July 1938, during which month the negotiations were discussed at meetings of the United, the I. L. A. did not apprise the Company of its claim to represent a majority of employees at the Long Island City plant until its letter of July 28, 1938, bearing the date on which the new contract with the United was executed. At the hearing both the I. L. A. and the United claimed to have represented a majority of employees in the Long Island City plant during the month of July 1938. The Company's pay roll of July 16, 1938, shows approximately 970 employees in the appropriate unit. The United submitted in evidence sheets from the books of its financial secretary which establish that 518 of such employees paid dues to the United in July 1938. The I. L. A. introduced 700 membership cards in evidence, all of which were undated. From the testimony of I. L. A. officials, it appears that only 300 employees at the Long Island City plant had signed cards in July 1938, whereas the remaining 400 had signed cards in August and September 1938. There was no evidence to identify the 300 employees who allegedly had signed I. L. A. cards prior to July 28,1938. In the absence of a definite showing of a change in affiliation, the fact that 518 employees paid dues to the United Bur- in; the month of July convinces us that a majority of employees at the Long Island City plant intended to maintain their membership in and be represented by the United when the new contract was executed. The I. L. A. alleged, however, that the Company, pursuant -to a provision in the July 28, 1938, contract, had influenced its employees to join the United. Paragraph 4 of the July 28, 1938, contract provides ". . . the Company will encourage its employees to become and remain members (of the United) in good standing . . ." During the months of August and September 1938 the plant superintendent called several employees into his office and urged them to affiliate with the United. However, the 1937 contract did not contain a provision similar to paragraph 4 of the July 28, 1938, contract, and there is no evidence that the Company assisted the United in securing members by any action defined in the Act as an unfair labor practice prior to July 28, 1938. Consequently, no question is raised concerning the validity of the United's membership in July 1938, when the new contract was executed. Since no charges of unfair labor practices have been filed, we are of the opinion that neither the legality of the provision em- bodied in paragraph 4 of the July 28, 1938, contract nor the evidence of coercion subsequent to the execution of such contract is before us in this case. DECISIONS AND ORDERS 1415 We do not think an election should be ordered or representatives certified at this time . The Company has entered into a contract with the United covering all employees at the Long Island City plant in an -appropriate unit, such contract to remain effective through June 30, 1939. The contract was made at a time when the United represented a majority of employees in the appropriate unit, and membership in the United when the contract was executed was not induced by any action defined in the Act as an unfair labor practice . The duration of the contract is not for such a long period as to be contrary to the -purposes and policies of the Act. Under these- circumstances, we will not proceed with an investigation of representatives until such tune as the contract is about to expire and a question exists as to the proper representative for collective bargaining with respect to the negotiation ,of a new agreement, Therefore , we will dismiss the present petition of the I. L. A. without prejudice to renewal at a reasonable time before the- expiration of the contract now existing between the United and the Company. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSION OF LAW No question concerning the representation of employees in the Long Island City plant of The National Sugar Refining Company of New Jersey, exists within the meaning of Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed by Local 1476, Sugar Refinery Workers, International Longshoremen 's Asso- ciation without prejudice to renewal as stated herein. MR. EDWIN S . SMITH , dissenting : The original determination of the United as the majority repre- sentative was accomplished by the consent election held September 8, 1937. This was considerably more than a year ago . The fact that there is now a contract with the United, made while the United still had a majority and running to June 30, 1939, should not be a bar to a new election. There is ample showing in the membership cards introduced by the I. L. A. that a new question concerning representation has arisen. The petition of the I. L. A. was filed August 5, 1938, about eleven months after the consent election . It constituted a timely indication that there might then be a question concerning representation. 1416 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Although I do not feel at all certain on the point, there is undoubt- edly merit in the conclusion indicated in a number of decisions of this Board that the purposes of the Act, in so far as they look toward the stabilization of industrial relations, will best be served by not per- mitting within a year's period a new determination of a majority for purposes of representation. However, a year having elapsed, to deny employees opportunity to exercise the right to change bargaining representatives when there is a substantial showing of a change of sentiment is an action which, in my opinion, runs counter both to the intent of the statute and the constitutional theory on which it is based. The Board recognized in an earlier case 4 that a change of bargaining representatives taking place as a result of proceedings under the Act need not operate to invalidate the substantive provisions of a contract otherwise valid. This conclusion seems to me appropriate to the issues of the existing contract with the United. I would sustain the petition of the I. L. A. and order an election between it and the United in the unit asked for. A Matter o f New England Transportation Co and International Association of Machinists, 1 N. L. R B. 130. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation