Southland Cotton Oil Co.

In the Matter of SOUTHLAND COTTON OIL COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO Case No. 16-R-1579.-Decided April, 22, 1946 Mr. O. B. Fisher and Long ch Wortham, Attorneys at Law, by Mr. R. W. Worth am., of Paris, Tex., for the Company. Mr. W. L. McMahon , of Fort Worth, Tex., Messrs . S. W. Ward and Morris Williamson , of Paris, Tex., for the Union. Mr. Herbert J. Nester, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by the United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Southland Cotton Oil Company, Paris, Texas, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board on February 19, 1946, conducted a pre-hearing election pursuant to Article III, Sec- tion 3,i of the Board's Rules and Regulations among the employees of the Company in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Union for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally discloses that there were approximately 38 eligi- ble voters and that 38 voters cast valid ballots, of which 25 were for the Union, 11 were against, and 2 were challenged. Thereafter, pursuant to Article III, Section 10,2 of the Rules and Regulations, the Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Glenn L. Moller, Trial Examiner. The hearing was ' Pv amendment of NoN emboi 17, 1945, this Section of the Rules now peiniits the con- duct, of a se(iet ballot of emplotoc, prior to hearing in cases wh,ch present no substantial issues 2 As amended November 27, 1945, this Section of the Rules pros ides that in instances of pie-healing eleetious all issues, including issues with respect to the conduit of the elect,on or conduct affecting the election results and issues raised by challenged ballots, shall be heard at the subsequent heaung 67 N I, It B, No 78. 580 SOUTHLAND COTTON OIL COMPANY 581 held at Paris, Texas, on March 14, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The Trial Ex- aminer'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 Southland Cotton Oil Company is a Texas corporation operating eight cotton oil mills in the States of Texas, Oklahoma , Louisiana and Mississippi . The instant proceeding is concerned with the Company's mill located at Paris, Texas . Raw materials utilized annually by the Company at its Paris mill are valued in excess of $300,000 ; material in excess of $50,000 in value , originates from points outside of the State of Texas. Finished products manufactured annually by the Com- pany are valued in excess of $300,000 , more than $50,000 of which are sold and distributed by the Company to points outside of the State of Texas. The Company admits it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Packinghouse Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Under date of November 19, 1945, the Union, by letter, requested recognition of the Company as bargaining representative of certain of its employees . The Company replied by letter dated November 28, 1945, refusing to grant such recognition until the Union had been cer- tified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT . The Union seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Paris. Texas , mill, excluding clerical employees, chemists, and 582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervisory employees .3 The Company contends the unit to be in- appropriate, alleging that three departmental units should be estab- lished rather than a plant-wide unit urged by the Union. The record discloses that the Company's mill is physically divided into three departments ; namely, the linter room (which delints and cleans cotton seeds), the feed department (which processes cotton seeds and soy beans), the mill generally (which engages principally in pack- ing and shipping of the Company's products). While these depart- ments are segregated, the employees are supervised by the same day and night superintendents, are carried on the same pay roll, and are paid essentially the same hourly rates. Inasmuch as the Company's operations are seasonal in nature, there is a continuous interdepart- mental transfer of employees. There is nothing in the record to indi- cate diverse interests among the employees of the various departments. We are of the opinion that the three departments of the Company con- stitute a single appropriate unit.' In addition to the day and night superintendents, the Company also employs a supervisor in the linter room who is classified as "day linter man."' The record reveals that the linter man exercises supervisory control exclusively over the employees of the linter room in the absence of the superintendent. He has disciplinary authority and may effect changes in the status of other employees in the linter room. We shall, accordingly, exclude him from the bargaining unit. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany's Paris, Texas, mill, including the local truck driver, but exclud- ing clerical employees, superintendents, the day linter man, and any and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. V. DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The results of the election held prior to the bearing show that the Union has secured a majority of the valid votes cast and that the chal- lenged ballots are insufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Under these circumstances, we shall not direct that the chal- lenged ballots be opened and counted, but instead, we shall certify the Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. ' Although the classification of chemists was specifically excluded fron the requested bargaining unit, the record is clear that no such classification appears i on the Company's pay roll 4 See Matter of Martin Food Products, Inc., 60 N . L. R. B 1346. SOUTHLAND COTTON OIL COMPANY CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 583 By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, pursuant to Article III, Sections 9 and 10, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3. as amended, IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Packinghouse Workers of America; CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production and maintenance employees of Southland Cotton Oil Company, Paris, Texas, including local truck drivers, but excluding clerical employees, the superintendents. clay lnlter man and also super- visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such em- ployees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employ- ment. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.