Georgia Fertilizer Co.

i In the Matter of GEORGIA Fi IJzER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 10=RC-J:12.-Decided- April 26, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Lamar E. Kemp, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent 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 has requested a unit composed of all the produc- tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's Valdosta, Georgia, plant, excluding office-clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors. The Employer contended at the hearing that .the only appropriate unit is one including employees at both its Val- dosta and Douglas, Georgia, plants. The Employer, in its brief filed after the hearing, contended that, as the Petitioner seeks an inappro- priate unit, the petition should be dismissed. ' The Employer moved at the hearing to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to supply some of its members with the financial statements required' by Section 9 (f) and ( g) of the Act. As we are satisfied that the Petitioner is at present in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act , the Employer's motion is hereby denied. The Employer also moved to dismiss on the ground that there was no proof that the Petitioner had ever demanded recognition of the Employer . From the entire record, we are satisfied that the Petitioner had adequately informed the Em- ployer of its claim of representation. See Matter of Advance Pattern Company, SO N. L. R. B . 29. The motion is , therefore, denied. 83 N. L. R. B., No. 21. 180 GEORGIA FERTILIZER COMPANY 181 The Employer manufactures and sells fertilizer at its main plant at Valdosta, where, at the time of the hearing, it had approximately 75 employees. It operates a warehouse and mixing plant at Douglas, which is 56 miles from Valdosta, and at which there were only 2 or 3 production employees. Maintenance and repair work at Douglas is done by employees who are stationed at Valdosta. The Employer's superintendent testified that employees were transferred "at times" from one plant to the other. However, the Douglas plant is operated under the name of Douglas Fertilizer Company; the product sold there has a different brand name from the product sold at Valdosta; and there is a separate supervisor in charge of the Douglas operation. In view of all the circumstances of this case, including geographic separa- tion and the fact that there is no history of collective bargaining on a broader basis, we are persuaded that a unit confined to the employees of the Valdosta plant of the Employer is appropriate.2 Fire-watchmen. The Employer has two full-time watchmen as well as one maintenance 'mployee- who works as a watchman on Sun- day. Both the Employer and the Petitioner would include these three individuals in the unit. The watchmen are employed only for the purpose of fire prevention in order that the Employer may obtain lower insurance rates. They are not armed or deputized, are not responsible for guarding the Employer's property against thefts, and have no authority to" enforce rules to protect the property of the Employer. We find that these employees are not guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act as amended, and shall include them in the unit. Carpenter-foreman. One individual does carpentry and other maintenance work for about 10 months of the year. For about 2 months during the busy season, he works in the warehouse, and during that period, is referred to as a foreman. The Petitioner would exclude him from the unit, and the Employer would include him. He has no authority to hire or discharge employees, nor is there any evidence that he makes effective recommendations concerning the employment status of employees. We find that during the busy season, he is, as the Em- ployer contends, a work leader without supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore include him in the unit.3 We find that all the production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Valdosta, Georgia, plant, including fire-watchmen, the warehouse carpenter, and factory clerical employees, but excluding office-clerical employees, professional employees, and supervisors, con- Matter of Foremost Dairies, Inc., 80 N. L. It. B . 764, and cases cited therein. s See Matter of Fruitvale Canning Company, 78 N. L. It. B. 152. 844340-50-vol. 83-13 182 DECISIONS. OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The Employer's business fluctuates seasonally, with its peak oper-; ations occurring between January and April. The Employer's super- intendent testified that at the time of the hearing in January 1949, the employees fell. into 4 categories : (1) approximately 30 -regular ',year-round" employees; (2), 30 "regular seasonal" employees who: work about 6 months of each year; (3) several "intermittent seasonal" employees, who have worked for the Employer in one or more previous seasons but have not worked long,enough or regularly enough to be assured of employment; and (4) some "casual floaters," who are' hired, on a day-to-day basis during the peak season. The employees in the last 2 groups totaled about, 15. Although employment had increased only from 71 to 75 between October 1948 and mid-January 1949,,the Employer estimated that at the height of the season employment might increase to about 100 employees. The Employer contends that casual and intermittent seasonal em- ployees who are employed only for this busy season should be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner contends that all employees on the pay roll at the time of the election; should be,eligible to vote.-- - • The Board has frequently held that, where an Employer's business is seasonal in nature, and where a large proportion of the seasonal employees return to work, year after year, all such employees have a substantial interest in a collective bargaining relationship, and are therefore eligible voters .4 . The Board has excluded from voting casual employees who are hired at a particular location for a particular job, where there is little likelihood that such- employees will be reemployed by the Employer.' However, in the present case, the Employer did not identify the employees it placed in the "casual-floater" category; did not indicate how many, if any, were so classified, or how long the periods of their employment were; and did not allege that such em- ployees would be refused employment in succeeding seasons. In view of the circumstances here present, we believe that so-called "intermit- tent seasonal" and "casual-floater" employees have a substantial in- terest in the selection of a bargaining representative.6 Although the election hereinafter directed will occur toward the end of the Em- ployer's busy season, it appears that there will be a representative num- * Matter of S. Marttinelli & Company, 81 •N. L. R. B. 383; Matter of California Growers, Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 578. 6 Matter of Joseph M. Lassonde, 80 N. L. R. B. 1387. 6 Chaarman Herzog would not permit the "casual-floater" employees to vote, because the evidence does not show that they work a sufficient length of time to have a substantial interest in the selection of a bargaining agent or that they return to work with any regularity. GEORGIA FERTILIZER COMPANY 183 ber of employees then working. Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be held as soon as possible among the employees in the ap- propriate unit who are employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately preceding the date of the election. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Re- lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.