Paragon Packing Co.

In the Matter Of PARAGON PACKING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION No. 87, AFFI IATED' WITH THE AFL Case No. R-5757.-Decided September 10, 1943 Mr. Frank B. Kintner, of Astoria, Oreg., Mr. J. TF. MacClements, of Portland, Oreg., for the Operating Engineers. Mr. Henry B. Niemela, of Astoria, Oreg., for the CIO. Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon, petition duly filed by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 87, affiliated with the AFL, herein called the Operating Engineers, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Paragon Packing Company, Astoria, Oregon, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before John E. Hedrick, Trial Examiner. Said hear- ing was held at Astoria, Oregon, on July 27, 1943. The Company, the Operating Engineers, and Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union, CIO, herein called the CIO, appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Paragon Packing Company, an Oregon corporation, is engaged in the general fish business. The Company's main office and principal 52 N. L. R. B., No. 85. 538 PARAGON PACKING COMPANY 539 place of business is at Astoria, Oregon, in addition to which it also maintains a processing plant at Hoquiam, Washington. Only the Company's Astoria operations are herein involved. The Company employs at the Astoria plant, during its peak season, from 150 to 175 people. During the year 1942, the Company's sales totaled approxi- mately $800,000, approximately 80 percent of which represented sales and shipments from Astoria, Oregon, to purchasers located outside the State of Oregon. The Company operates a cold storage department at Astoria in conjunction with and located in the same building as the rest of its plant. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 87, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organi- zation admitting to membership employees of the Company. Columbia River Fishermen's Protective Union affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION IN AN APPROPRIATE BARGAINING UNIT In November or December 1942, the Operating Engineers communi- cated with the Company and requested recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of all operating engineers and apprentices in the Company's employ. The Company refused to recognize the Operating Engineers on the ground that the unit sought by it was inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and for the further reason that the employees were covered by the terms of an existing contract with the CIO. In view of our decision in this case, it is unnecessary to consider the contention of the Company with re- spect to the contract. The Operating Engineers contends that those employees whose duties are to maintain and control the ice and refrigeration machinery in the Company's cold storage department constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. There are five persons in the Company's employ whose duties include the control and maintenance of the cold storage equipment. Only one of them is considered by the Company to be a qualified operating engineer. He is apparently a skilled craftsman, capable of repairing and overhauling the ice and refrigeration ma- chinery of the Company. However, he directs the work of the other employees herein involved and has authority to hire, discipline, and 540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD discharge. Clearly, therefore, he is a supervisory employee, who would be excluded from any bargaining unit which we might estab- lish. The remaining four employees are apparently not particularly skilled workers. The Operating Engineers is here seeking a craft unit. While the record is not entirely clear, the evidence indicates that the employees herein involved spend only about one -fourth of their time in the control and maintenance of the cold storage equipment , and that the rest of their time is spent in manual labor and general mainte- nance work throughout the plant. We find that, upon the basis of the record before us , the unit here sought is not appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. We accordingly find that no question has arisen concerning the rep- resentation of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit. The petition for investigation and certification of representatives will be dismissed. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives filed by International Union of Operating Engineers , Local Union No. 87, affiliated with the AFL , be, and it hereby is, dismissed. CHAIMIAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.