Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast

SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST 479 SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST AND ITS MEMBER COMPANIES and MARINE COOKS & STEWARDS, AFL, AFFILIATED WITH THE SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 20-RC-1416. October 25,1954 Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision and Order issued on March 10, 1954,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted herein by United States mail, commencing on March 22, 1954, and terminating April 19, 1954, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director of the Twentieth Region. The ballots were counted on April 20,1954, and an official tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally showed that, of approximately 30 eligible voters, 28 cast valid ballots, of which 20 were for the Petitioner, 2 were against the participating labor organizations, and 6 were challenged. On April 26, 1954, the Intervenor, National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards, filed objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. Thereafter, on July 8, 1954, the Regional Director, pur- suant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, issued and duly served on the parties a report on objections, in which he found that the objec- tions did not raise substantial or material issues with respect to conduct affecting the results of the election, and recommended that the Board overrule the objections and certify the Petitioner. Thereafter, on July 19, 1954, the Intervenor filed exceptions to the report on ob- jections. The Board has considered the Intervenor's objections, the Regional Director's report on objections, the Intervenor's exceptions to the re- port, and the entire record in this case and hereby adopts the findings, conclusion, and recommendations of the Regional Director insofar as they are consistent with the following. The objections and exceptions to the report on objections are predi- cated in part upon allegations of discriminatory hiring by various Member Companies caused by Petitioner. These objections in sub- stance amount to allegations of violations of Section 8 (a) (2) and 8 (b) (2) of the Act, and are of a type which the Board will not de- termine in a representation proceeding.' The remaining exceptions are directed mainly to the Regional Director's decision to change the mode of election from the type previously held at the various ports, to 1107 NLRB 1508. 2 See Times Square Stores Corporation, 79 NLRB 361 ; Columbia Pictures Corporation, et al., 85 NLRB 1085. Also see Electric Auto-Late Company, 89 NLRB 1407 , 1410, J J. Nezvbe ry Company, 100 NLRB 84, 86, The Coleman Company, Inc, 101 NLRB 120. 110 NLRB No. 63 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD an election by mail ballot and his selection of the payroll period to be used in determining eligibility .3 The Board recognizes that realistically elections do not occur under controlled laboratory conditions 4 and that circumstances surround- ing working conditions in various industries require an adaptation of established standards to those conditions. It was precisely for this reason and directly in accord with its usual practice,5 that the Board, in setting aside the earlier election, remanded the proceeding to the Regional Director and placed in his discretion the determination of how and when a free election could best be accomplished. Further, the Regional Director has broad discretion in determining the method by which elections shall be conducted and the Board has held that the fact that a manual ballot has been conducted previously does not pre- clude the Regional Director from conducting an election by mails Where, as here, there is an absence of a fixed payroll period, and the Regional Director used a current pay period for determining eligibil- ity in the second election, which action was consistent with Board policy in directed elections, such determination, a fortiori, was not improper? Accordingly, we find that the Regional Director did not abuse his discretion under the circumstances of the instant case. Moreover, as there is no showing that his determination in any way prejudiced any of the parties.,' we find no merit in the Intervenor's exceptions .9 In accordance with the conclusion of the Regional Di- rector the Board finds that the objections do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the election. Accordingly they are hereby overruled. As a majority of the ballots were cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify it as the representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified Marine Cooks & Stewards, AFL, affiliated with the Seafarers International Union of North America as the des- 3 In its exceptions the Intervenor raises additional objections alleging failure to poll the crew of an unnamed ship assertedly out of service temporarily As such objections are untimely they have not been considered here ' See The Liberal Market, Ine, 108 NLRB 1481 See also Morganton. Fall Fashioned Hosiery Company, 107 NLRB 1534 6 See Manchester Kivi.tted Fashions, Inc , 108 NLRB 1366. 6 See Continental Bits System, Inc , 104 NLRB 599, 601. 7 See Merrimac Hat Corporation, 85 NLRB 329, 333 9 See F TV. Woolworth Co, 96 NLRB 380, Plainfield Courier-News Co, 97 NLRB 260. 6 As the compliance status of a participating union is a matter for administrative de- termination and not one to be litigated in a representation proceeding , we find no merit to the objections to the election dealing with compliance. However, the Board will per- mit parties to a representation proceeding to cause to be instituted an administrative investigation of those compliance matters which the Board may properly decide in col- lateral proceedings before the Board See Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc, 108 NLRB 490. The Board is administratively satisfied that at all times pertinent herein, the Petitionei has been and now is in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act JONESBORO GRAIN DRYING COOPERATIVE 481 ignated collective-bargaining representative of all steward depart- ment employees on vessels operated in the steam schooner trade by the Member Companies of the Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast, excluding cook-stewards and other supervisors within the meaning of the Act.] MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives. JONESBORO GRAIN DRYING COOPERATIVE and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF UNITED BREWERY, FLOUR, CEREAL, SOFT DRINK AND DISTILLERY `YORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 32-RCi-693. October 26, 19511 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Vivan E. Burks, hear- ing 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 cases the Board finds : The Employer, Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative,' is a non- profit farmers' cooperative formed for the purpose of making sav- ings on the services of drying rice, and composed of 90 members who are rice farmers located in and around Jonesboro, Arkansas. It op- erates a dryer which functions only as a dryer and Storer of rice. Con- nected by a spout to the Employer's dryer is a mill owned and oper- ated independently by Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Associa- tion,' an enterprise concededly engaged in interstate commerce.' All of the rice handled by Jonesboro is sold by the rice farmers directly r As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties, the requests for oral argument filed by the Employer and the Petitioner are hereby denied. 2 Hereinafter referred to as Jonesboro. 3 Hereinafter referred to as Association . Although , of necessity, all 90 farmer-members of Jonesboro are also members of the Association , and it appears that there is a certain overlapping of the board of directors and managerial personnel between Jonesboro and the Association , no contention is made that the two are not separate employers . Even if such were the case , the relationship is similar to that involved in Producers Rice Mill, Inc., 106 NLRB 119 , wherein the issue was raised and the Board found the two enterprises to consti- tute separate employers. 4 The Association is a cooperative composed of approximately 3,200 member-farmers, including the 90 members of Jonesboro , and is engaged in milling and marketing for inter- state commerce the rice grown by its members . As noted herein , however , although the member-farmers of the Association deliver their rice to various drying cooperatives located in 11 areas throughout the State for drying purposes, later to be redelivered by the drying cooperatives to the Association, the rice at the time of delivery to the drying cooperatives is sold to the Association by the member-farmers, and the ownership is then vested in the Association which is charged with the responsibility of selling that rice for the member's account. 110 NLRB No. 67. 338207-55-vol. 110-32