United States Cold Storage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 687 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In-the Matter Of UNITED STATES COLD STORAGE COMPANY; EbIPLOYER
and- CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS , PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-2005.Decided April 30, 1947
Bowyer, Gray, Thomas, Crozier d Jaffe, by Messrs. Norman R.
Crozier, Jr., and Hubbard T. Bowyer and-Mr. R. T. Maekenzie, all of -
Dallas, Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. Fred H. Schmidt, of Dallas, Tex., for the"Petitioner., "
Mr. Irving D. Rosenman, of counsel to the Board. ,
DECISION
-AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in, this case was held at Dallas,
Texas, on January 24, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej -
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relatiols
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT"
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
United States Cold Storage Company, a Delaware corporation,
is engaged at its warehousing and processing plant in Dallas, Texas,'
in the processing, packing, and storing of perishable' foods for its cus-
tomers. During a 12-month period the Employer receives for its
services in excess of $300,000. During a similar period, 25 to 50 percent
of the food products 'received- at the plant represents" shipments from
points outside the State of Texas, and approximately 60 percent of
the food products shipped out from the plant represents shipments to
points outside the State. '
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees ,of the Employer. '
' International Union of Operating Engineers was served with a notice of hearing but
-Bas not -entered an appearance. ,
73 N. L. R. B., No. 131. - 687
• 739926-47-vol. 73--45
688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Employer operates a cold storage warehouse , handling various
perishable foods which it either , stores, or processes , packs, , and stores.
The plant, sometime ago, added ' its processing and packing,service to
its general storage service to acquire more warehousing ,.bus'iness from
its customers . One superintendent manages the , entire . operation at
the plant, exclusive of the , engineering section. Four foremen are re-
sponsible to the superintendent , one is in charge of, loading and un-
loading of railroad cars in the'basement , a second oversees the loading
and unloading on the truck dock on the first floor; a third supervises
general warehouse operations ,' and the fourth is in charge = of, the
processing and packing activities on the third floor. Each foreman
has a crew of laborers , warehousemen , or process employees , or a coin-
bination of such employees under his 'direct supervision . Checkers
assist the four foremen in their assigned duties.- The engineering sec-
tion consists of a chief engineer , four shift engineers , and three main-
tenance workers . This section operates and maintains the refrigera-
tion .machinery and equipment at the plant.
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees - of, the 'Em- '
the plant , excluding process workers , clerical personnel, and
supervisory 'employees . The chief dispute between the parties relates
to'the process workers . The Employer would include these employees
on the ground, in effect, that their work is closely integrated with that
of the bulk of the employees sought by the Petitioner and that their ,
interests are identical . The Petitioner , on the other hand, contends
that because these employees , all of whom are women, have a higher
rate of turnover than the other employees in the plant , and are paid on
a different basis , and because no attempt has been made to organize
them, they should be excluded. The Employer,also disputed the re-
quested . inclusion of shift engineers , maintenance men, and checkers.
The only , collective bargaining history at the operation relates-to
the,-engineers. As to these employees, the' record discloses that they
were at , one time covered by a collective bargaining contract between,
the Employer and, the, International Union of Operating Engineers,
which contract has since expired: It also appears that this labor or-
ganization has no current interest in these employees.2
All the process workers, 40 in number and comprising approximately,
50 percent of the personnel in the plant , are located on the third floor
of the plant where they process foods . A forelady supervises these
workers but both she, and they are, accountable to the foreman in
charge of processing and packing.
The' processing department is subdivided into a cooking section,'
set up in a small partitioned room at one end of the third floor wherein
See footnote 1. ' '• ' .i
UNITED STATES COLD STORAGE COMPANY, 689
10 of the women are engaged as cooks, and a; general processing and
packing section on the-,remainder of the floor wherein the' other, -30
women are engaged in processing,,sorting, and packing.. The princi-
pal product processed and packed is shrimp, which is also .the only,
product that -is cooked at the plant. Fresh -fruit and vegetables are
also sorted and,packed. • r
When a shipment of perishable, foods arrives at the warehouse,
the laborers and warehousemen unload- crates containing the foods
from the trucks or railroad cars and, if the foods are to, be processed,
take them to the third floor. The food-products are then uncrated,
by the laborers and warehousemen and made ready for the processing
operation. While the process workers do light packing,'the laborers,
and warehousemen handle all heavy -packing work required in this
operation, and, on occasions, when there are unexpected large ship-
ments of perishable foods during a seasonable period, participate,inc
the actual processing. Employees in the cooking section also assist, in
all processing, sorting, and packing when there are no shipments of
shrimp,on hand,to be cooked and treated. ' All laborers and warehouse-
men, in addition to cooks, and process workers; while: engaged iii the
processing operation, are under the common supervision of the process-
ing and packing foreman until they return to their usual duties. Addi-
tional workers are eventually hired to handle,any-unusually large ship-
ments that threaten to accumulate and spoil, and the cooks, laborers,
and Warehousemen then return to their usual assignments. During
slack periods in, their own department the laborers and warehousemen
also help out in the-processing department. The record further dis-
closes that processing operations during a seasonal period sometimes'
-become so great that it is necessary to expand to'some of the other floors
of the plant. Upon completion of the sorting, cooking, and/or
packing, the food products are stored inthe refrigerators until shipped
out on the customers' demand.
From all the facts it appears that the warehousing and processing
services are hot individual operations, set apart from each other, but
are clearly interdependent and integrated. While it is true; as the
Petitioner contends, that process workers and cooks are paid on a
base wage, plus an incentive bonus system,'ancl that warehousemen
and-laborers are paid on a straight hourly basis, the difference in their
weekly pay is very small. And while we are aware that there is also
a higher rate of turnover among the process workers than among the
warehousemen and laborers, we note, .on the other,.hand, that neither
group possesses any special skills, that the laborers and'warehousemeiL
also do processing, and when so engaged have similar immediate super-
vision as the process workers, that both groups have frequent contact
with each other, and that.both groups have similar over-all supervision,
690 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL' LABOR -RELATIONS `BOARD
vacation privileges, and hours and other conditions of work., The fore-
going'factors of integration would, in our opinion, create serious prob-
lems in any attempt to bargain in a unit which excluded the process
employees.
Moreover, with respect to the requested unit, we note further that
the Petitioner urges that engineers and maintenance•men,3 who=do not'
engage in any of the processing operations and are exclusively ein-
ployed
°
in the maintenance of the refrigerating equipment, be included
in a unit with the laborers and warehousemen, whereas it proposes to
exclude the process workers who frequently work with the laborers and
warehousemen and are much more closely allied with them.
-The Board has-found appropriate units confined to non-craft groups
on the theory that the organization has.not extended beyond such
groups.' However, it has never done so unless the group is readily
delineable, functionally coherent and distinct.5 Accordingly, inas-
much as it is clear from the foregoing that the proposed unit is open to
the objection that it lacks homogeneity, and does not comprise'a clearly
identifiable 'group' 11 we perceive no basis to establish its appropriate-
ness. We therefore 'find that the unit sought by the Petitioner is
inappropriate, and we shall dismiss the petition.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since ; as we have held in Section III, supra, the bargaining unit
sought by the Petitioner 'is inappropriate ' for ' the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, we find that no question affecting commerce has
arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer '
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor'Relations
Act. We shall , therefore , dismiss the petition.
ORDER
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
-purpose of collective bargaining,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and ceftifi-
cation of-representatiyes filed by the Congress of Industrial' Organi-.
zations be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
$ Although the Employer contends that its Engineers are supervisory and its mainte-
nance men are trainees , and are both to be excluded , we find it unnecessary to pass upon
this issue , in view of our decision herein.
* Matter of Carson Pirie Scott & Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 1096.
`5 Matter of Saks & Company, 68 N. L. R. B. 413; Matter of Greyhound Terminal of ,
Detroit, Inc., 66 N . L. R. B. 1285.
Matter of Freeport Sulphur; Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 21- ; Matter of Contractorq, Pacific
Naval Air Bases, 64 N. L: R. B. 866.