Coopersville Cooperative Elevator Co.

In the Matter of COOPERSVII.LE COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR COMPANY, EM- PLOYER and TRUCK DRIVERS UNION, LOCAL No. 406, A. F. L., PETI- TIONER Case No. 7-R-2347.-Decided April 22, 1947 ,Mr. Edwin F. Steffen, of Lansing, Mich., for the Employer. Mr. Thomas Ward, of Grand Rapids , Mich., for the Petitioner. Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES, Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on September 23, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that, of approximately 12 eligible voters, 8 cast ballots for, and 2 against, the Petitioner, and 2 ballots were chal- lenged. Thereafter, a hearing was held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, before Woodrow J. Sandler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's request for oral argument is denied inas- much as the record, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Coopersville Cooperative Elevator Company, a Michigan corpora- tion, is engaged at its plant at Coopersville, Michigan, in the business of buying and selling farmers' supplies. During 1945, its sales amounted to more than $500,000, and its purchases to about $450,000. 73 N. L. R B., No. 95. 480 COOPERSVILLE COOPERATIVE ELEVATOR COMPANY 481 All its sales were made within the State of Michigan; about 50 percent of its purchases originated outside the State. Some of the supplies purchased by the Employer are resold in the packages in which they are received, other supplies are purchased in bulk and then repackaged and sold in smaller units, still other supplies are mixed together to form feed or mash for farm animals and then resold in this converted form. There is, therefore, a substantial amount of processing. We find, contrary to the contention of the Employer, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' H. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, 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 We find, in accordance with a stipulation of the parties, that all employees of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, the assistant manager, and all other supervisory employees with au- thority 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. V. THE OBJECTIONS As indicated above, a prehearing election was held in this case. At the time of the election, the Petitioner was seeking to include office employees in the unit. Three office employees voted in the election, only one of whom was challenged. At the hearing, the parties stipu- lated to exclude office employees from the unit. We have, in the preceding section, excluded them from the unit. The Employer con- tends that the fact that the three office employees voted in the election invalidates the election. We disagree. The results of the election show that the Petitioner received eight votes. If we deduct from this I Matter of Rival Foods, Inc., 71 N L. R. B. 622 ; Matter of The Consolidated Pipe Com- pany, 72 N. L R B. 1236. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD figure the votes of the two office employees who were not challenged, on the assumption that they voted for the Petitioner, the Petitioner would have six votes. This would still constitute a majority, inas- much as there was a possible majority of nine valid votes cast, ex- cluding the three cast by the office employees. Accordingly, we overrule the Employer's objection. VI. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Inasmuch as the results of the election show that the Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 406, A. F. L., has been designated and selected by a majority of the em- ployees in the unit described in Section IV, above, as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive repre- sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.