Scenic Citrus Cooperative, Inc.

350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD determining the bargaining representative for employees performing such work." 6 The Respondents do not claim that Carpenters' Local 581 is the certified bargaining representative for employees perform- ing the corrugated iron work. We find, accordingly, that the Respondents were not lawfully en- titled to require Aronson to assign the corrugated iron work to carpenters rather than to sheet metal workers. We are not, however, by this action to be regarded as "assigning" the corrugated iron work in question to sheet metal workers or to subcontractor Ora Collard 6 Determination of Dispute Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the en- tire record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the amended Act: 1. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 581, and Horace Dagnan, its business agent, are not, and have not been, lawfully entitled to force or require Knute E. Aronson to assign cor- rugated iron work to carpenters rather than to sheet metal workers. 2. Within 10 days from the date of this Decision and Determination of Dispute, the Respondents shall notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in writing as to what steps the Respondents have taken to comply with the terms of this Decision and Determina- tion of Dispute. MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above De- cision and Determination of Dispute. ' Juneau Spruce Corporation, 82 NLRB 650. 'International Itod Carriers, Building, and Common Laborer's Union of America, Local No. 231, AFL (Middle State Telephone Company of Illinois ), 91 NLRB 598: Los Angeles Building and Construction Trade Counsel, AFL (Westinghouse Electric Corporation), 83 NLRB 477. SCENIC CITRUS COOPERATIVE , INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK & DISTILLERY WORK- ERS OF AMERICA , C. I. 0., PETITIONER . Case No. 1O-RC-1666. Feb- ruary 21, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 98 NLRB No. 49. SCENIC CITRUS COOPERATIVE, INC. 351 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees 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 seeks a single unit of all production and mainte- nance employees and truck drivers of the Employer (a) at its pack- inghouse and (b) at its canning plant in Frostproof, Florida. The Employer is in general agreement as to the composition of the unit but contends that only separate units of the two plants are appropriate. The Employer, a cooperative, is engaged in the business of packing and canning citrus fruits largely supplied by its member growers. In the packinghouse only fresh fruit is packed; in the canning plant the Employer cans certain fruit eliminations. The canning plant is also used as a warehouse. The packinghouse and the canning plant are housed in buildings separated only by a city street, and connected by an overhead box conveyor. At the approximate peak of the Employer's operations during the past season, there were employed in the canning plant about 19 em- ployees, and in the packinghouse about 46 employees. Each plant is operated under separate supervision, and the books and accounts of each plant are kept separately. However, the respective managers coordinate the operations of each plant. Both plants are subject to common management and labor relations policies, and have common over-all supervision. It was testified on behalf of the Employer that the employees in both plants could be interchanged but that the Em- ployer does not like to do so because of the bookkeeping problems this would entail.' Nor would the Employer "as a rule" transfer employees between plants in the event of a layoff. There is no history of collec- tive bargaining with respect to either of the 2 plants. Although it appears that the packinghouse and the canning plant are set up as distinct operations by the Employer, we are of the opinion that a single unit of both plants is appropriate for collective bargain- ing purposes, in view of (a) the absence of any bargaining history, (b) the fact that both plants are sought to be represented by the Pe- 1 Two instances were cited in which employees from the packinghouse were temporarily used in the canning plant for special installation and maintenance jobs. 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD titioner in one unit, (c) the apparent similarity in skill on the part of the employees in both plants, (d) the proximity of both plants, thus facilitating contact among the employees, and (e) the over-all super- vision and common management and labor relations policies 2 The Employer seeks to include in the unit the assistant packing- house foreman,3 whom the Petitioner contends should be excluded as a supervisor. The record shows that Ford devotes his time directly to various packing functions, directs the work of other packinghouse employees, and takes the place of the packinghouse foreman in the latter's absence. He informs the foreman if an employee is not on the job; and although he has no direct authority to hire or fire, he notifies the foreman if he needs additional help, or has too much help, and the foreman does the hiring and discharging of the employees. Upon these facts, we find that the assistant packinghouse foreman is a supervisor under the Act, and shall exclude him from the unit. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees and truck drivers 4 at the Employer's packinghouse and canning plant at Frostproof, Florida, including the fruit receiver and the watchman,5 but excluding office and clerical employees,e salesmen, the assistant packinghouse foreman (Ford), and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act. 5. We reject the Petitioner's contention that another hearing should be held after the Board's direction of election to determine the pay- roll period for employees to participate in the election. Even though the Employer's operations are referred to as seasonal in character, as it is clear that the number of employees on the payroll does not change materially as between normal and peak operations,' we shall direct an immediate election in accordance with our customary practice. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 2 See, e. g, Pine Hall Brick and Pipe Company, 93 NLRB 362; Parsons Corporation, 95 NLRB 1336. N Homer Ford 4 Truck drivers who deliver fruit from the field to either the canning or the packing plant are, by agreement of the parties, excluded from the unit. 5 The parties agree that the watchman is not a guard but a fire watcher who also per- forms production and maintenance duties, and that he should be included in the unit. s The parties agree that the man employed in the office of the canning plant should be excluded. ' The record shows that during the' "peak of the season," the number of employees at the packinghouse is increased only by about three, and at the canning plant the number does not change at all.