Arkport Dairies, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 28, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 386 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Sergeants: The Employer contends that its sergeants are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and should be included in any
unit or units found appropriate. The Petitioner takes no position.
The record discloses that the sergeants devote about two-thirds of
their time to work identical with that of the plant guards; that they
have no authority to hire or fire nor to determine on which shift a
particular guard will work; that they receive reports on activities
from the plant guards, but they in turn submit the information to a
lieutenant or captain for final disposition; and that instructions are
received by the employees from the sergeants who in turn receive
them from a lieutenant or captain. Under these circumstances,' we
find that the sergeants are not supervisors within the meaning of
the Act and shall include them in the separate units found appropriate.
We find that the following employees of,the Employer constitute
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the amended Act :
(1) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Saginaw, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in-the Act.
(2) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Bay City, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(3) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Muskegon, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(4) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, plant including sergeants,
but excluding all other employees 'and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(5) All plant guards who work for the Employer at the Consumers
Power Company, Erie, Michigan, plant including sergeants, but ex-
cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
ARKPORT DAIRIES, INC. and CHAUFFEURS & TEAMSTERS LOCAL #65,
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
3-RC-953. July 28,1952
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 John Weld, hearing-officer.
100 NLRB No. 61. -
ARKPORT DAIRIES, INC. 387
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial 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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find in substantial agreement with the parties that the follow-
ing employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All employees at the Employer's plant in Arkport, New York, in-
cluding pan-men, separators, samplers, weighers, powdered milk men,
can men, deck men, tank room men, loaders, unloaders, ice cream mix
men, firemen, maintenance men, testers, and construction crew labor-
ers,' but excluding clerical employees, laboratory technician, mason,
and supervisors 2 as defined in the Act.
5. During its busy season, which starts in late April and tapers off
after June, the Employer hires additional employees. The record
reveals that at the time of the hearing only 1 of the seasonal employees
had been previously employed by the Employer. Moreover, these
employees do not appear to have a reasonable expectancy of becoming
regular employees, as each year no more than 1 or 2 seasonal employees
become regular employees. The record also shows a high rate of
turn-over among the seasonal employees, many of whom work only a
few weeks. More than half of the 57 seasonal employees hired during
the period between mid-March and late May 1952, the date of the hear-
ing, were no longer employed by the Employer. The Petitioner would
include the seasonal employees among those eligible to vote in accord-
ance with the Board's determination in a previous case involving the
1 The Petitioner contends that the construction crew , which consists of four laborers and
a mason , should be included in the unit on the ground that their interests are allied with
those of the maintenance employees who maintain the Employer 's machinery . The Em-
ployer desires its exclusion as a group whose duties differ from those of the other em-
ployees in the unit . Although the crew does some work at other plants of the Employer's
parent company , it spends about 10 months a year repairing the Employer 's plant. As no
other labor organization seeks to represent these employees, we shall include them in the
unit. However, we shall exclude the mason in view of his power to hire and fire the other
members of the crew.
7 As there is insufficient evidence in the record to determine whether individuals classified
as "foremen" are supervisors as defined in the Act, we shall permit' them to vote subject
to challenge.
227260-53-vol 100-26
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
same Employer ." The Employer takes the contrary view and requests
the Board to reconsider its earlier finding. It does not appear from
this decision that the foregoing facts were before the Board at that
time. In view of these facts , indicating the temporary and limited
nature of the seasonal employees ' employment , we now find that the
tenure of their employment is not sufficiently regular or substantial
to entitle them to participate in the election . Therefore , although
the nature of their work warrants their inclusion in the unit, we find
that they are ineligible to vote.4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
386 NLRB 319. (September 1949.)
4 S I& L Go. of Pipestone, 96 NLRB 1418; R. Appel, Inc., 95 NLRB 7.
NECHES BUTANE PRODUCTS COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-466. July
28, 195E
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 Charles Y. Latimer, 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.'
4. The Petitioner's unit request, as amended at the hearing, embraces
pipefitters, pipefitter helpers and apprentices, and insulators at the
1 Pipe Fitters Local No. 195, United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the U. S. and Canada , AFL, herein called the In-
tervenor, asserts that its contract covering the employees sought herein constitutes a bar
to the petition . The contract term was from June 25, 1951 , to June 30 , 1952, with a
60-day automatic renewal clause. On April 28, the Petitioner wrote to the Employer
requesting recognition , and filed its petition on May 8 . As the request for recognition
preceded the automatic renewal date of the contract and was followed by the timely
filing of the petition , the contract is not a bar.
100 NLRB No. 62.