Crescent City Ice Manufacturing Co., Inc.

In the Matter of CRESCENT CITY ICE MANUFACTURING CO., INC., EM- PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCATE 226, 226A, 226C, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 15-R-1684.-Decided September 3, 1946 Messrs..Paul J. Ganuckeau, A. P. Miceli, and James-E. Morgan,, of New Orleans, La., for the Employer. Messrs. Robert Faget and Robert Soule, of New Orleans, La., for the Petitioner. Messrs. Herman C. Gray and Ernest Scott, of New Orleans, La., for the Intervenor. Mr. Benj. E. Cook, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a, petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New Orleans, Louisiana, on June 27, 1946, before T. Lowry Whittaker, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Crescent City Ice Manufacturing Co., Inc., is a Louisiana corpora- tion, having its principal office and place of business in New Orleans, Louisiana, where it is engaged in the manufacture of ice. Substan- tially all of the materials and supplies used by the Employer are pur- chased in the city of New Orleans. The ice annually manufactured by the Employer is valued at approximately $300,000, 75 percent of which is used in the icing of railroad cars and ships. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 70 N. L. It. B., No. 90. 1090 CRESCENT CITY ICE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1091 The Petitioner, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 226, 226A, 226C is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 206, herein called Inter- venor, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. 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 parties agree generally that all production and maintenance employees, excluding office and supervisory employees , constitute an appropriate unit. They are in disagreement, however, as to the super- visory status of the chief engineer (Jackson), the head ice checker (Riggs) and the head mechanic (Hurstell) ; the Employer and the Petitioner would include , and the Intervenor would exclude, them. The Employer and the Petitioner also would exclude casual employees, and the Intervenor would include them. Chief engineer (Jackson), head ice checker (Riggs), and head mechanic (Hurstell) : The record discloses that prior to September 1945, these employees had the authority to hire and discharge, but that thereafter such authority was withdrawn from them and vested solely in the general manager. At the time of the hearing, there were approximately 50 production and maintenance employees under the combined direction of these department heads, each of whom receives substantially more per hour than his highest paid subordinate. The general manager spends only 25 percent of his time in the plant and while the depart- ment heads are hourly paid, their attendance is not confined to any particular shift and they are subject to call at all time . Despite the general manager's testimony that power to discharge and hire was withdrawn from Jackson, Riggs, and Hurstell , it nevertheless appears that these employees have retained the authority to make effective recommendations concerning the status of employees in their respective departments. We are of the opinion that Jackson, Riggs, and Hurstell fall within the Board 's customary definition of supervisory employees and we shall exclude them from the unit. 712344-47-vol. 70-70 1092 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Casual employees: The Employer utilizes the services of casual em- ployes to ice and load refrigerator cars and ships. They are paid on a tonnage basis and while some of this work is performed throughout the year, the peak season is from April to October. The record dis- closes that some of the car icers have followed this work for successive seasons over a period of many years. These employees did not' par- ticipate in a consent election held on May 17, 1945,1 and-were not cov- ered by the subsequent contract between the Employer and the Inter- venor? Although the record does not disclose that these casual em- ployees have interests or duties which would of necessity prevent their inclusion in the present bargaining unit, in the absence of any com- pelling circumstances warranting a departure therefrom, we shall adhere to our usual practice and not disturb the contract unit estab- lished as the result of collective bargaining between the Company and the Intervenor. We shall, therefore, exclude casual employees 3 We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer, but excluding office employees, car icers, casual employees, chief engineer, head ice checker, head mechanic, and all or any other super- visory 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. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Crescent City Ice Manufacturing Co., Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations,Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during. said pay-roll period The election was held pursuant to agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor ; the Intervenor won the election. 2 In the contract entered into between the parties on June 20 , 1945, the Employer agreed to give preference to the Intervenor ' s members in hiring car leers . However , this clause of the contract was never enforced and these employees were not considered a part of the unit ; nor did they participate in the benefits of collective bargaining. a See Matter of Irwin Auger Bit Company, 68 N. L. R B. 447. t CRESCENT CITY ICE MANUFACTURING CO., INC. 1093 because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and in- cluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local, 226, 226A, 226C, A. F. L., or by Transport Workers Union of America; Local 206 C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neitlier. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 0