Southern Fruit Distributors, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 12, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 72 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SOUTHERN FRurr DISTRIBUTORS , INC;., EMrio1iiiR and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-2',99.Decided June 12, 1,947
dlr. Robert J. Plevs, of Orlando, Fla., for the Employer.
Mr. Phil B. Wells, of Orlando, Fla., for the Petitioner.
Miss Irene R. Slo fiber, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
March 11, 1947, conducted a prehearmg election among the employees
of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit to determine whether
or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties The Tally reveals that of approximately 2.56 eligible voters,
112 cast ballots, of which 36 were for the Petitioner, 37 against the
Petitioner, and 39 were challenged. Three ballots were void.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Orlando, Florida, on April 3,
1947, before M. A. Prowell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
The Employer contends that the preliearing election should not
have been held because the parties were in dispute regarding the scope
of the appropriate unit. It also contended that the Regional Direc-
tor had no authority to order the election because prior to the issuance
of such order, the Petitioner had filed an amended petition, notice of
which was not given to the Employer, with the result that the Em-
ployer did not have an opportunity to file an answer to such petition.
We find no merit to these contentions. The Supreme Court of the
United States has held that the Board has the administrative author-
ity to schedule a hearing at any point in the investigation and that
the holding of an election prior to the scheduling of a hearing is not
contrary to the provisions of Section 9 (c) of the Act.' There is no
'Inland Empire District Council, Lumber & Sawmill Workers Union v. Millis, et at,
325 U . S. 697.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 18:
72
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 73
possibility of prejudice in any event, since the parties have had an
opportunity to be heard before a final decision issues herein.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINFSS OF THE EMPLOYER
Southern Fruit Distributors, Inc.. a Florida corporation whose prin,
cipal office is in Orlando, Florida, operates plaits in Florida, Georgia,
and South Carolina. This proceeding is concerned only with the
Employer's plant in Orlando, Florida, where the Employer is engaged
in canning citrus juices and grapefruit sections and in processing
citrus waste for cattle feed. During the past year, the Employer pur-
chased more than $500,000 worth of raw materials for its Orlando
plant, more than 10 percent of which was obtained from points outside
the State of Florida. During the same period, finished products at
the Orlando plant exceeded $1,000,000 in value, of which approximately
90 percent was shipped to out-of-State destinations.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. TIIE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
II I. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate, unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner claims that the unit should include all the production
and maintenance employees of the Employer, including all seasonal
employees, but excluding chemists and other professional employees,
floorladies, working foremen, and all other supervisory employees.
The Employer opposes the establishment of a plant-wide unit and
2 Matter of E. R. Squibb & Sons, 67 N. L . R. B 557 . We note, moreover , that the Board's
Rules and Regulations do not provide for the filing of answers to petitions.
74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
asserts instead that the employees in each of its five divisions con-
stitute separate appropriate units. Should the Board find that a
plant-wide unit is appropriate the Employer requests, in any event,
that the employees in the sectionizing division be excluded.
The Employer's operations are carried on through the following
five divisions : the juicing, sectionizing, feed mill, maintenance, and
boxing and warehouse. The juicing division processes and cans fruit
juices; the sectionizing division prepares and cans grapefruit sections;
the feed mill processes the waste products of the citrus fruit for sale as
cattle feed; and the maintenance and boxing and warehouse divisions
perform the usual functions of such divisions. Of these five divisions,
only the boxing and warehouse and the maintenance divisions operate
on a year-round basis. The operations of the other three divisions are
seasonal. The juicing division functions approximately 9 months a
year,' the sectionizing division operates approximately 4 months,4 and
the feed mill season depends on the amount of waste products created
in the juicing and sectionizing divisions. While lay-offs occur in these
seasonal divisions at the close of their respective seasons, the sectioniz-
ing division is the only division whose employees are all dismissed
when its season ends. Most of the employees in the juicing division
and the feed mill are assigned maintenance duties during their slack
seasons. About 90 to 120 employees are maintained in the plant on a
year-round basis.
In addition to being seasonal workers, the employees in the section-
izing division are unskilled. Their duties consist of peeling grape-
fruits and dividing them into sections, and they are classified as peelers,
and sectionizers. For the most part, these workers are transients and
housewives. Very few return to the plant from season to season,
although at the commencement of each season the Employer notifies
the previous season's workers by postcard that the sectionizing division
is reopening and requests them to return to work.5 Turn-over among
the sectionizers and peelers is unusually high. During the 1946-1947
season which ran for about 17 weeks and ended on March 8, 63 percent
of the 690 employees hired worked less than 9 weeks. Only 4 em-
ployees worked the entire sectionizing season. All the sectionizers
and peelers were laid off on March 8 when the season closed, which
was 3 days before the election herein.
We do not agree with the Employer's contention that separate units
for each division should be established. Except for the employees
' The juicing season begins in October and ends in June
4 The sectionizing season this 3 ear began in \ ovember 1946 and ended March 8, 1947.
6
The record shows that of the 690 employees the Employer hired for the sectionizing
division during the 1946-1947 season, only 42 had worked the previous season None of
the 42 had worked 2 full seasons, and 'only 4 worked the entire 1946-1947 season.
SOUTHERN FRUIT DISTRIBUTORS, INC. 75
in the sectionizing division, the record does not show that the interests
of the employees in each division are substantially different. The
employees in the sectionizing division, on the other hand, because of
the relatively short period of their employment and their high rate of
turn-over, do not have a common interest with the other employees in
their continuous employment.° We shall therefore exclude the em-
ployees in the sectionizing division from the unit hereinafter found.
We find that all the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Orlando, Florida, plant, including the employees of the
juicing, boxing and warehouse, maintenance, and feed mill divisions,
but excluding the employees of the sectionizing division, chemists,
professional employees, floorladies, working foremen, and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. OBJECTIONS TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ELECTION
After the hearing, the Petitioner filed objections to the conduct of
the election alleging (1) that the pay roll used in the election did not
contain a complete list of eligible voters, and (2) that one of the
Employer's two observers at the election was a supervisory employee.
The Petitioner asserts that these objections are based on testimony
adduced at the hearing. As to the first objection, the record shows
that the names of 11 employees who appeared at the polls were not
listed on the pay roll prepared by the Employer for the election.
However, these 11 employees were identified as eligible voters at the
polling place and their names were added to the pay-roll list with the
approval of the Petitioner's observer. The observers of both the
Petitioner and the Employer then put check marks beside the names
of these 11 employees and permitted them to cast their ballots without
challenge. The record does not show, and the Petitioner does not claim.
that any eligible voter who presented himself at the polls was deprived
of his right to vote in the election because of the incompleteness of the
pay-roll list. As to the second objection, the record does not show the
duties of the observer in question or that she was in fact a supervisory
employee. On the basis of the foregoing and the entire record in the
case, we perceive no reason for setting aside the results of the election
because of the afore-mentioned objections.
6 Matter of Dr P Phillips Canning Co, 73 N. L R B 988 ; Matter of Libby, McNeill and
Libby, 59 N L. R. B 864, Matter of Rant Foods, Inc., 68 N. L. It. B. 800.
76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer challenged 39 ballots at the election on the ground
that the voters were not eligible employees. These ballots were cast
by employees who worked in the Employer's sectionizing division
during the 194G-1947 season, all of whom had been laid off 3 days
before the election. Inasmuch as we have excluded these employees
from the bargaining unit, we shall sustain the challenges to these
39 ballots.
The results of the election held before the hearing among the
employees of the Employer show that the Petitioner has not secured
a majority of the valid votes cast. We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation of repre-
sentatives of employees of Southern Fruit Distributors , Inc., Orlando,
Florida, filed by American Federation of Labor, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOC took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order. f