Sebastopol Cooperative Cannery

530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to be represented in a separate unit, and the Re- gional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed in that event, to issue a certification of representatives to the Peti- tioner for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] SEBASTOPOL COOPERATIVE CANNERY and GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL 980, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2O-RC-2645. February 7, 1955 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 Karin A. Nelson, 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 the 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties are in general agreement that a unit of all produc- tion and maintenance employees, with certain specified exclusions, is appropriate. They also agree on the exclusion of certain individuals as supervisors. They disagree, however, on the question of the super- visory status of the day-shift label foreman and the cook, the Em- ployer contending for the exclusion of these individuals as supervisors. In addition, the Employer asks that the quality control employees be excluded from the unit. I The parties stipulated that the Employer acquires title to the apples processed. This stipulation is hereby approved and made part of the record herein. 111 NLRB No. 79. SEBASTOPOL COOPERATIVE CANNERY 531 The day shift label foreman: The record shows that the day shift label foreman, assisted by a crew of five employees, operates the label- ing machine. He works under the direct supervision of the warehouse manager. Labeling orders, which emanate from the plant superin- tendent's office, are transmitted to the labeling crew by the warehouse manager through the medium of the day shift label foreman. There is no evidence in the record to indicate that this task involves the exercise of any independent judgment on the part of the day shift label foreman. The record is also clear that, unlike the night shift label foreman, the day shift label foreman has no authority to hire or discharge employees, or in any other manner to affect their employ- ment status; nor does he have authority to make recommendations in that regard. Although the day shift label foreman substitutes for the warehouse manager in the latter's absence, in which case he is said to possess the latter's supervisory authority, such substitution is infre- quent and apparently occurs with no regularity. In view of the fore- going, we find that the day shift label foreman is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.' Accordingly, we shall include the day shift label foreman in the unit. The cook: The cook is in charge of the cooking processes and directs a crew of 12 sorters and speckers. It is undisputed that she has au- thority to hire and discharge these employees. Accordingly, we find that she is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act, and we shall exclude her from the unit. The quality control employees: The Employer would exclude these employees on the ground that they exercise responsibility in main- taining standards of production. Essentially, these employees are testers. By the application of certain standard tests they check the fruit for consistency, flavor, sugar content, and general defects. Dis- crepancies from the required grade are reported to the floor lady or plant superintendent who issues the necessary orders for their cor- rection. Admittedly, the tests are routine in nature. The job calls for no special training nor educational background. Testers are hourly paid, as are other production employees, and they work the same schedule of hours as do production workers. The Employer does not contend that they exercise supervisory authority or occupy a pro- fessional or technical status, nor would the record substantiate such contention. Under the circumstances, we believe that their interests are sufficiently allied to those of production employees to warrant their inclusion in the unit .1 Accordingly, we shall include them therein. 2 Sn%vely Groves, Inc , 98 NLRB 1146, 1149. 1 Ibid., at 1150. 344056-55-vol 111-35 532 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the following employees at the Employer's Sebastopol, California, apple processing plant, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees includ- ing the quality control employees and day shift label foreman, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, the cook, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer agrees that an appropriate time to hold an elec- tion, if one is to be directed, is at the peak of the season. The record shows that the peak is reached about a week after beginning of opera- tions in the latter part of July and lasts for a period of approximately 30 days. The Employer contends, however, that (1) the seasonal mature of its operations and the high rate of labor turnover in its plant 4 make it improper to conduct an election among next season's employees; and (2) that for the sane reason, the Petitioner's present showing of interest is inadequate to warrant a direction of election among next season's employees. We find these contentions to be with- out merit. It is clear, as to the Employer's first contention, if the Board were to adopt the Employer's reasoning, the Board would be precluded from conducting an election in any seasonal industry where, as is often the case, there is a high turnover of labor from one season to another.5 As to its second contention, it is well established that the Petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not sub- ject to collateral attack, and that, in seasonal industries, it is the Board's policy to require a showing only among those employed in the unit at the time the petition is filed.6 Because the seasonal peak in the Employer's plant has passed, we shall, in accordance with the Board's usual practices with respect to a seasonal industry, direct that an elec- tion be held at or about the time of the employment peak of the next processing season on a date to be determined by the Regional Director among the employees in the appropriate unit who are employed dur- ing the payroll period immediately preceding the date of issuance of notice of election by the Regional Director.7 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 Employment figures furnished by the Employer show that as many as 663 employees were employed during the third-quarter period, which includes the period of peak employ- ment, and that at the peak of its employment 400 employees were employed. The figures also show that of the previous season's total third-quarter employment of 421, 183 em. ployees returned during 1954 8 Ft anklin County Sugar Company, 97 NLRB 936, 937-938 U 17epht Processing Plant, Inc, 107 NLRB 647; J J Crosettr Co, 98 NLRB 268, foot- note 1 7 Cf Oregon Frozen Foods Company and Ore-Ida Potato Products, Inc, 108 NLRB 1668.