Mendelson-Zeller Co.

MENDELSON-ZELLER CO. 153 The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of visual education equipment at Chicago, Illinois. In April of this year, it began the construction of a new plant at a site 8 miles distant from the present plant. The Employer expects to stop work at its present location in December and to resume opera- tions at its new location sometime after the first of the year. There are approximately 165 workers at the old plant. Approximately 80 percent of these workers live within4 blocks of the plant. Fifty percent of the workers are women. The Employer has been informed by foremen at the old plant, who have questioned employees as to their desire to continue to work for the Employer at the new location, that the majority of the employees have expressed the opinion that the new plant is too distant from their homes to permit them to con- tinue their employment after the change in location is effected. Anticipating, therefore, that a large number of its present employees may not wish to transfer, the Employer has set up a personnel office at the new plant to take applications for work. The Employer moves to dismiss the instant petition, urging that, under the circumstances, no election should take place at this time. We find merit in the Employer's position. We are of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by processing this petition, as too short a time remains when work will be carried on at the present location, and as it is not anticipated that a representative number of the present employees will continue their employment after operations are moved to the new plant. We shall, therefore, dismiss this petition without prejudice to the filing of a new petition when the new plant is in operation and a substantial and representa- tive working force is there employed., [The Board dismissed the petition.] 'Cf. Pride Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 445. PALMER C. MENDELSON AND EDWARD ZELLER, general partners , and JOE CROSETTI, CARL DOBLER, MRS. OLGA ZELLER, JEANETTE MENDELSON AND LEE ESCHEN, lim- ited partners , a limited partnership, d/b/a MENDELSON- ZELLER CO.1 and UNITED FRESH FRUIT & VEGETABLE WORKERS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION NO. 78, CIO, Peti- tioner . Case No . 20-RC-2353. November 24, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before James A. 1The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. 107 NLRB No. 55. 154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Harley, 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 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 certain employees of the Employer. - 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation 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 , a limited partnership , d/b/a Mendelson- Zeller Co . and having its main office at San Francisco, California , is engaged in the business of packing fruit . It does an annual business in excess of one million dollars , and ships approximately 90 percent of its production outside the State of California . It maintains a warehouse and trucking consolida- tion at Los Angeles , permanent packing sheds at Winters and Auburn, California , and also engages in more limited fruit- packing operations at Patterson , Virginia City , Yuba City, and other points in California. The Petitioner seeks to represent the production and main- tenance workers employed in the Employer ' s Yuba City, California, fruit-packing operations. The record discloses, however, that the Company has no clear and definite plan of operation in that city, that it maintains no permanent staff of workers there, and that such operations as it has engaged in at that location in the past have had a total duration of ap- proximately 3 weeks each year. - More specifically , the record shows that the Company owns no property at Yuba City and that in 1951 , 1952 , and 1953, it leased a packing shed for approximately 3 weeks in August, comprising the peach season, for the purpose of selling its peach-packing service to growers in the area . During the 1953 season , the Company employed approximately 38 workers at Yuba City , all of whom were recruited a few days in advance of the operation . Of this total, only 6 were individuals who had been employed by the Company during prior seasons . Although it is true that 3 or 4 of the group of 38 had previously worked for the Company in its Winters operations , this circumstance occurred as a result of coincidence , rather than because of the existence of a company personnel transfer practice. A company agent testified that the firm does not know from year to year whether or not it will operate in Yuba City, and that its decision is a" spot " decision reached 5 or 6 days before the peach-packing season commences . Its decision is dependent upon the quality of the crop , market , weather, and economic conditions , interference from other peach-growing States, and other competitive factors . He testified further that no decision will be made as to whether the firm will operate during the 1954 season in Yuba City until about July 25, 1954. REID MURDOCK CO., ET AL. 155 In view of the indefinite and brief nature of the Company's Yuba City operation , and the insubstantial nature of the em- ployees' tenure of employment , we believe that the expendi- ture of the Board ' s funds to conduct an election in the em- ployee group here sought to be represented is not warranted.2 We shall, accordingly , dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 2Cf. Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 106 NLRB 1.19. REID MURDOCK -CO., ET AL. t and WAREHOUSE UNION LOCAL 12, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNA- TIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 6. Cases Nos . 20-RC-2356, 20-RC-2357, ZO-RC-2358, 20-RC-2362, 20-RC-2365, and ZO-RC-2371. November 24, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Shirley N. Bingham , 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 this case , the Board finds: 1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of each of the Employers. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2 I The following Employers are involved in this proceeding: Reid Murdock Co., Case No. 20-RC-2356; The Arabol Manufacturing Co., Case No. 20-RC-2357; Traders Distributing Co., Case No. 20-RC-2358; California Barrel Co., Ltd., Case No. 20-RC-2362; Sloss & Brittain, Case No. 20-RC-2365; and American Chain 8,. Cable Co., Inc., Case No. 20-RC-2371. 2 Although the Intervenor does not specifically urge contract bar in its brief, it indicated at the hearing that a contract bar "may exist" because of an agreement between the Inter- venor and Distributors Association of Northern California, herein called the Association, dated June 11, 1953. However, a representative of the Association testified at the hearing that the Association was not empowered to negotiate on behalf of the six Employers involved in the present proceedings. Moreover, it is plain from the face of the contract that these six Employers were not made parties to the June 11, 1953, agreement. In view of this testi- mony by the Association's own official, we find no merit in the attempt by the Intervenor to rely on a so-called "escape period" in the Association's bylaws, nor do we find any other basis for a contract-bar contention. 107 NLRB No. 53.