Truck Equipment Co. of Atlanta

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 15, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 825 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF ATLANTA 825
No. 2.5 Under these circumstances, and upon the entire record, we
find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employ-
er's West Federal Street plant (Plant No. 2), Youngstown, Ohio,
including watchmen,e but excluding all office and clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the
amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.7
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
, At the hearing , the Petitioner noted that its organizational efforts had been limited to
Plant No . 2. Under the amended Act , extent of organization cannot be controlling as to
unit determinations . Other factors being plainly present , we do not consider it dispositive
of the unit issue in this instance . See however , Waldensian Hosiery Mills, Inc., 83 NLRB
742.
6 The parties agreed at the hearing that the watchmen spend 75 percent of their time in
janitorial dutle3. In accord with our established policy , we shall therefore include the
Watchmen in the unit.
4 See Telechron, Inc., 90 NLRB 931.
TRUCK EQUIPMENT COMPANY OF ATLANTA' and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No . 10-RC-1158.
March, 15,1951
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 William J. Rains, 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 Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged it commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims 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. In conformance with the agreement of the parties, we find that
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
93 NLRB No. 134.
826 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Atlanta, Georgia, excluding office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer is engaged in the assembly and sale of trucks and
school busses. Because its operations are highly seasonal, the number
of its employees ranges from approximately 35 during the four peak
months (August through November), to approximately 6 during the
least active months.
At the end of the season, employees no longer needed are terminated
without any commitment as to future employment. No seniority
lists are maintained to guide the Employer in their recall. When the
season arrives, the Employer obtains additional labor merely by re-
questing its existing working force to notify the seasonal employees
and other acquaintances that jobs are available. However, preference
is given to men who have worked for the Employer in previous seasons.
Of the 48 different persons who worked for the Employer during 1950,
23 had done so in 1949, and 19 (probably including some of these 23)
had done so in 1948.2
The Petitioner contends that employees terminated at the end of
the 1950 season are merely temporarily laid off and should be entitled
to vote in an immediate election. The Employer takes the position
that they are no longer employees and desires either (1) an immediate
election, in which only employees currently employed shall vote, or
(2) deferment of the election until the payroll reaches a total of 25
in the appropriate unit.
As pointed out above, the Employer's seasonal employees greatly
outnumber its regular employees. If an election were held immedi-
ately, therefore, the eligibility of at least three quarters of the voters
would have to be established by deciding whether they have sufficient
expectation of reemployment to bring them within the category of
temporarily laid-off employees. By deferring the election until the
season is at hand, the eligibility of all voters can be based upon the fact
of employment, rather than upon mere expectations.
We shall accordingly follow the Board's established policy with
respect to elections held for employees engaged in operations which
are highly seasonal.3 We shall direct that an election be held at or
about the approximate 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-
2 In one case an employee had been reemployed for 7 years , working at least 8 months
out of each year.
3 Sanger Winery Association, 88 NLRB 852 ; California Spray - Chemical Corp ., 86 NLRB-
453; Calavo Growers of California , 90 NLRB No. 171.
D'ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA 827
ceding the date of the issuance.of the notice of election by the Regional
Director.
[Text, of Direction `of= Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
D'ARRIGO BROS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA and CANNERY WAREHOUSEMEN,
FOOD PROCESSORS, DRIVERS & HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 679, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 2O-RC-1234. March 15,1951
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 Eugene K. Kennedy,
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, Reynolds, 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.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of the Employer's packing shed em-
ployees. The Employer contends that the petition herein should be
dismissed, alleging that its packing shed employees are "agricultural
laborers" and therefore are not "employees" within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act.
The Employer, a California corporation, is engaged in its San
Jose, California, plant involved herein, in the growing, packing, and
shipping of fresh vegetables and fruits. The Employer operates a
packing shed at San Jose, at which it is engaged in the packing and
preparing for shipment of broccoli, endive, celery, anise, peppers, and
grapes. All of the produce packed is grown by the Employer on
approximately 900 acres of land which it either owns or leases at a
fixed rental. Except for 17 acres, all of the land is separated from
the packing shed by highways, streams, and other properties. An
average of 4 to 59 employees work in the shed from month to month
throughout the year.
'The Employer 's annual sales amounted to more than $ 1,000 ,000, of which 90 percent
was shipped out of State.
93 NLRB No 135. ,