Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Co.

In the Matter of SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER COM- PANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE, MILL AND SMELTER WORKERS (CIO ), PETITIONER Case No. 10-RDOW. Decided February 10,1947 Anderson, Connerat, Dunn and Hunter, by Messrs. E. 0. Hunter and Henry M. Dunn, both of Savannah, Ga., for the Employer. Messrs. John A. Pennington and John F. Spellman, both of Savan- nah, Ga., for the Petitioner. Mr. G. W. Sessions, of Savannah, Ga., for the Intervenor. Mr. Lewis H. Ulman, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Savan- nah, Georgia, on September 25, 1946, before Charles M. Paschal, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing 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 TIIE EMPLOYER Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company, a Georgia cor- poration, has its principal office and place of business at Savannah, Georgia, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of superphosphate, sulphuric acid, and complete fertilizers. During the year preceding the date of the hearing herein, the Employer purchased raw materials valued at approximately $250,000, of which 90 percent represented shipments from points outside the State of Georgia. Dur- ing the same period the Employer sold finished products valued at more than $500,000, of which 15 percent represented shipments to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 72 N. L. R. B., No. 107. 562 SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER COMPANY 563 II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the In- tervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. IH. 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. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all of the Employer's pro- duction and maintenance employees employed at its Savannah plant excluding supervisors, executives, salesmen, office and plant clerical employees, and professional employees. The Employer is in general agreement with the unit sought by the Petitioner, but would exclude its two watchmen. The Intervenor requests the establishment of a maintenance unit, which it alleges to be essentially craft in nature, composed of the Employer's mill-wrights, mechanics, tractor oper- ators, electricians, shovel operators and helpers. There has been no collective bargaining history at the plant. The Employer's principal production is carried on between the first of October and the end of April each year. During the off season, the employees who are employed on a year-round basis are, for the most part, engaged in cleaning and maintenance work to prepare for the next season, although some production work is done through- out the year. Many of the production workers who produce fertilizers and acids during the winter become maintenance workers during the summer, and the record reveals that some of the full-time employees who are classified as maintenance workers are occasionally called upon to perform production work during rush periods in the winter. The Board has often established units confined to maintenance work- ers where they constitute a homogeneous and readily identifiable group. Here, however, the Intervenor has not demonstrated that the employees whom it seeks to represent constitute such a group. Some of the skilled employees sought by the Intervenor are engaged princi- 564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pally in production work, others are shifted to production work to help fill rush orders, and the helpers constitute a general labor pool which is shifted back and forth from production to maintenance work as the need arises. We are of the opinion therefore, that the unit requested by the Intervenor is inappropriate. The Petitioner's requested inclusion of the Employer's two watch- men is the only remaining controversy with respect to the composition of the bargaining unit. The Employer is opposed to their inclusion on the ground that they lack a community of interest with the produc- tion and maintenance employees. The watchmen are neither mili- tarized nor deputized. Their duties relate solely to the preservation of the Employer's property and it does not appear that they perform any monitorial functions. Accordingly, inasmuch as the duties of the watchmen are custodial in nature, we shall, in keeping With our usual practice in such cases,2 include them in the unit of production and maintenance employees. We find that all of the Employer's production and maintenance employees at its Savannah plant," including watchmen, but excluding executives, salesmen, office and plant clerical employees, professional employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, 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 mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to, the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. At the hearing, the Employer opposed an election before November 15, 1946, the date on which it contemplated returning to normal opera- tions. In support of its position it pointed to the seasonal nature of its business and the unavoidable delay in starting the current season because of the fire heretofore mentioned. However, there is no longer i We shall , however, place the Intervenor on the ballot in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate It it wishes to withdraw from the election, it may do so upon notice to the Regional Director, in writing, within five ( 5) days from the date of the Direction of Election herein 2 See Matter of Air Utilities, Inc , 70 N. L R B 887, Matter of E. I du Pont de Nemours & Company, 69 N L R B 509, and cases cited therein S At the time of the hearing herein , the Savannah plant was being rebuilt following a fire, and the Employer contended that certain of its employees then engaged in construc- tion work should be excluded from the unit because their employment would terminate when that work was completed . The Employer's vice president estimated that the work would be completed and the necessary personnel adjustments made on or about November 15 of last year ; accordingly , we find it unnecessary to determine their status with regard to the composition of the unit SOUTHERN STATES PHOSPHATE AND FERTILIZER COMPANY 565 any reason for delay since the election , hereinafter directed , will be conducted in the middle of the production season,' more than 2 months after the date on which the Employer contemplated securing its nor- mal complement of employees. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Southern States Phosphate and Fertilizer Company, Savannah, Georgia, 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 Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, 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 because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including 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 deter- mine whether they desire to be represented by International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers ( CIO), or by International Union of Operating Engineers , for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. 4 None of the parties contended that any of the production workers, employed during the current season, should be excluded from the unit because they may not be employed on a year-round basis.