Loroco Industries, Inc.

46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. As stated above, the Employer's cider operations are seasonal, the peak season generally occurs sometime during the months of Oc- tober, November, or December. The number of employees in the unit varies from about 25 at the minimum to from 60 to 80 at the peak. The Petitioner requests that the Board direct an immediate election and find the seasonal employees ineligible to vote; the Employer and the Intervenor request that the seasonal employees be permitted to vote in an election to be held at the next seasonal peak. The record reflects that the majority of the seasonal employees return to work for the Employer from year to year. We find, therefore, that the seasonal employees have a substantial interest in working conditions at the Em- ployer's plant and warehouse, and are therefore eligible to vote in the election herein directed.Y° As we have found that the seasonal em- ployees are eligible to vote, we find no persuasive reason for departing from the Board's usual practice in seasonal industry cases." Accord- ingly, we shall direct'that the election be held at the Employer's next seasonal peak, on a date to be determined by the Regional Director, among the employees in the.appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the issuance by the Regional Director of the notice of election. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this vol- ume.] a0 East Coast Fisheries, Inc., 97 NLRB No. 1261. 11 Truck Equipment Company of Atlanta, 93 NLRB 825. LOROCO INDUSTRIES , INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE & PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1154. May 9, 195°. Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph A. Butler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the separate motions of the Employer and Loroco Workers Independent Union, Reading Division , herein called the Intervenor, to dismiss the petition. For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3, the motions are hereby granted. 99 NLRB No. 13. LOROCO INDUSTRIES, INC. 47 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 organizations involved claim to yrepresent employees of the Employer.2 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their current 2- year contract, which will expire August 24, 1952, constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner asserts that the contract is not a bar because a schism in the membership of the Intervenor creates a doubt concerning the continued representation by that union of the employees involved herein. On August 17, 1950, following a consent election, the Intervenor was certified as the bargaining representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. On October 26; 1950, the Employer and the Intervenor executed the agreement asserted herein as a bar, effective August 24, 1950, for a 2-year term. On September 7, 1951, the Petitioner herein, which was a party to the earlier pro- ceeding, filed a petition seeking to represent these employees. On October 5, 1951, this petition was dismissed administratively on the ground that the 1950 contract was a bar and, on appeal, that dismissal was sustained by the Board. At a regular meeting of the Intervenor held on December 6, 1951, attended by approximately 25 members out of a total of 35, Earl C. Taylor, international representative of the Petitioner, presented a resolution providing for disaffiliation from the Intervenor and affilia- tion with the Petitioner. The record reveals that Taylor, who had drafted the resolution before coming to the meeting, attended the meeting upon the invitation of Walter Miller, president of the Inter- venor, and remained throughout the period during which the resolu- tion was discussed and voted upon. Eighteen members voted to adopt the resolution.3 The instant petition was filed on December 11, 1951. It does not appear that the dissident members who attended the December 6 meeting have sought a charter from, or functioned as a group affiliated with, the Petitioner. Neither union has notified the Employer of any formal change in affiliation. Since December 6 2 The Petitioner asserts that the Intervenor is not a labor organization within the mean- ing of the Act. We find no merit in this contention . The record clearly shows that the Intervenor exists for the purpose of bargaining collectively with employers with respect to wages, hours, and conditions of work . R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 88 NLRB 600, and cases cited therein. 8 There is conflicting evidence as to the number of members who voted against its adoption. Two witnesses testified that two mempers cast negative votes. Two other witnesses testified that-four-members opposed-the,resolution. 48 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Intervenor has continued to function, and has been recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Em- ployer's employees. It has held at least three meetings, each of which has had a normal attendance. One of these was a special meeting held on January 17, 1952, attended by approximately 24 members, at which it was voted to authorize a waiver of dues payments by employees who had been laid off on January 2, 1952. Since the December 6 meeting, the members of the Intervenor have rented a union meeting hall. The Intervenor has continued to receive union dues pursuant to checkoff authorizations. In these circumstances, and for the reasons stated in the recent Saginaw decision,4 we perceive no basis here for applying the "schism doctrine" as enunciated in the Boston Machine case.5 Accordingly, we find that the current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor operates as a bar to an immediate determination of representatives, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in this case be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 4 Saginaw Furniture Shops, Inc, 97 NLRB 1488. See also West Steel Casting Company, 98 NLRB 153; American Cyanamid Company, Caico Chemical Division, 98 NLRB 9; Phoenix Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 803. Cf. Boyle-Midway, Inc., 97 NLRB 895. 5 Boston Machine Works, 89 NLRB 59. SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED and RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL. ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1614, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA- TION OF LABOR. Case No. 19-CA-356. May 10, 1952 Decision and Order On October 29, 1951, Trial Examiner Howard Myers issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Therafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made '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 . [ Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson.] 99 NLRB No. 9.