Vacuum Cooling Co.

794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In this respect it may be noted that the complaint refers solely to concerted and union activities on the part of the employees involved herein. However, the only concerted activity in the picture, as stated, was illegal and there is no evidence of any union activities on the part of the other affected crafts. However, on the assumption that the complaint does state a pertinent cause of action, the absence of discriminatory motivation and the existence of legitimate economic considerations, for closing down operations, are on a preponderance of the evidence dispositive of the issue. International Shoe Co., supra and Betts Cadillac Olds, Inc., supra It is accordingly recommended that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the undersigned makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations of all Respondents affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 2. Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County ; Building and Construction Trades Council of Santa Clara and San Benito Counties ; and Local Unions 393 and 467. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Respondents have not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A O. E. Anderson Glendale Village, Inc. Neilsen & Neilsen Arthur Brothers Gould Construction Company Wm. J. Nicholson Co. Guy F. Atkinson Company Max Hessen & Son Charles Pedersen Barrett & Hilp Harris & Fjeldheim, Inc. Peninsula Home Builders Barton & Company Hedahl-Martin Co. Wm. Radtke & Son Bechtel Corporation Lew Jones Construction Co. Morrison Reese David D. Bohannon Organization W. R. Kalshed &Co. GeorgeC.RenzConstructionCo. Bridges Construction Co. Jorman A. Lamb J. C. Row California Construction Co. M & K Corporation Peter Sorensen Carrico & Gautier Robert McCarthy Co. E. B. Standish & Co. Herman Christjanson Allen McIntire & Son Stern & Price Const. Co. Conway & Culligan McKenzie & Crawford Stoneson Bros. Copple Construction Co. A. W. McKinney Carl N. Swenson Co., Inc. Frank G. Corker A. F. Mattock & Co. M. J. Terranova Richard DeLucchi & Co. Oscar W. Meyer Howard J. White, Inc. Henry Doelger Builders Moore & Roberts, Inc. Williams & Burrows, Inc. F. & O. Corp. VACUUM COOLING COMPANY and BOXMAKERS UNION LOCAL NO. 2721, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPEN- TERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, and INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF- FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION NO. 898, AFL, Petitioner VACUUM COOLING COMPANY and UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 78, C. I. 0., Petitioner. Cases Nos . 21-RC-2939 and 21- RC-2969. June 26, 1953 105 NLRB No 121 VACUUM COOLING COMPANY 795 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing in this matter was held before H. C. Bumgarner , 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 these cases to a three -member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Boxmakers Union Local No. 2721 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, and International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Local Union No. 898 , AFL, herein jointly called the AFL, and United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Work- ers, Local Industrial Union No. 78 , C.I.O., herein called the CIO, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer packages produce, principally lettuce, and manufactures some of the boxes used in its packing operations, at 10 separate locations dispersed through California and Arizona. The Employer and the AFL agree generally that the appropriate unit, in scope , must embrace employees at all of the Employer ' s various locations .' The CIO seeks to represent, in this proceeding , only the employees at 3 of the locations, those at Yuma , Arizona, in a single unit , and those at El Centro and Holtville , California , in a separate 2-location unit. All of the Employer's local operations are seasonal , depend- ing upon harvest periods . Some locations operate simultane- ously, and most of them have seasons which overlap those at other locations . During the past year only 8 of the 10 have been in use . When work at one place ceases, most of the machine equipment -- including boilers and conveyors -- is moved to another location ; also, the supervisory staff and a substantial number of the production employees move on with the ma- chinery. Some of the employee complement at each location is purely local and returns only from season to season. In addition to this employment movement following the harvest seasons, there is a considerable transfer of employees among the locations from day to day as the varying loads shift among the several locations that are being operated at the same time. Overall employment averages approximately 125 IIn its petition (Case No. 21-RC-2939) the AFL proposed a unit limited to the Employer's single location at El Centro, California. It changed its unit position at the hearing. 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, although the total is at times well below this figure. A general manager of operations oversees the work at all the plants. Each plant has its own superintendent, but only the general manager of operations is empowered to determine wages and hours at all the plants, andhe is also the only person in charge of labor relations generally. Conditions of employ- ment are virtually identical at all locations, and all employees work generally the same hours , are paid on the same basis, and progress along the same lines of promotion. The CIO has represented employees at several of the loca- tions . In 1951, following a consent election , it was certified as bargaining representative of employees handling fresh produce (apparently excluding maintenance workers) at Salinas and Watsonville, California. In November 1952 it was certified for all employees at the Santa Maria, California, operation. The record shows that the Employer has been expanding its operations during the past few years, and in the course of this expansion , some operations have been abandoned and new ones have replaced them. At the time of its first contract with the CIO, in 1950, there were only 3 locations operating, and 1 of them has been discontinued. The record shows that at least 5 of the Employer' s present locations first started operations during the past year. The CIO offered no evidence to support its assertion that despite the highly integrated and amorphous character of the Employer's operations , units limited to 1 or 2 locations are nevertheless appropriate . Indeed, the record as a whole indi- cates that the CIO does not seriously disagree with the other parties' proposal of a single overall unit. The similarity of work at all locations, their centralized control, and the inter- change and transfer of employees among them clearly show that only a unit embracing all the Employer's operations is appro- priate here. The shift of locations and the expansion of oper- ations make the short-lived bargaining on a more limited basis of little significance to a present unit determination. On the entire record, we find that the two limited units proposed by the CIO are inappropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. We shall therefore direct an election in a single unit embracing all of the locations operated by the Employer.2 There remains for consideration the question of the inclu- sion of a group of maintenance employees who work during the off-season at the various operations, and whom the Employer would exclude from any unit or units, contrary to the desires of the AFL and CIO. As these employees appear to have the same general working conditions and employment interests as the Employer's other employees, we shall include them in the unit.' 2Glenstde Lumber and Coal Co., 100 NLRB 1470. 3Central Foods Company, 83 NLRB 608. CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORPORATION 797 We find, accordingly , that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer' s operations in California and Arizona, excluding office and clerical employees and all supervisors 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. All parties stipulated that any election or elections con- ducted pursuant to this decision should be held at or near the peak of the season. Accordingly, we shall direct that the election be held at or about the peak of the 1953 season, 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 of notice of election by the Regional Director. As stated above, the employees of one location , situated at Santa Maria , California, voted in a Board election late in 1952, following which the Regional Director certified the CIO as their bargaining representative . Ordinarily, we would not poll these employees at this time. We have found, however, that now, due in large measure to the substantial interchange of employees among the various locations (including interchange between Santa Maria and elsewhere ), and the seasonal shifting of employees from one location to another, only an employer- wide unit is appropriate . As we have found that these employees are appropriately part of the employerwide unit and as the election hereinafter directed is not in the unit or subdivision in which the October 4, 1952, election was held, they are not precluded by Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act4 from participating In the election herein ordered .5 In these circumstances, we shall not exclude Santa Maria from the unit, and if any em- ployees are stationed at that location when the election is held, they may cast ballots. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4Section 9 (c) (3) provides that "No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which, in the preceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held." sRobertson Brothers Department Store, Inc., 95 NLRB 271. CITIES SERVICE REFINING CORPORATION and OFFICE EM- PLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 87, AFL. Case No. 15 - CA-502. June 29, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On May 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had not violated Section 8 ( a) (1) or (3) of the Act , as alleged in the complaint , and recommending 105 NLRB No. 124.