Crystal Ice & Cold Storage Co.

384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ings have been lumped together on schedule of complainants' back pay. Other layoff deductions are covered in Notes Nos . 3 and 5. Deductions from gross earnings caused by layoffs from work necessitated by insufficient seniority are as follows: Name Amount Sadie Lee Carter------------------------------------------------ $151.41 Dorothy Ann Cherry-------------------------------------------- 299.35 Rossie Depriest------------------------------------------------- 9. 24 Ila Dick------------------------------------------------------- 9.24 Ruth Farley---------------------------------------------------- 2,033.96 Christine Green------------------------------------------------- 9.24 Pauline Harris------ -------------------------------------------- 33.24 Kenneth Johnson------------------------------------------------ 9.50 Alice Leigh---------------------------------------------------- 924.68 Martha Julia Ligon---------------------------------------------- 810.65 Ava Nell Plumlee----------------------------------------------- 2,936.95 Edna Sanders--------------------------------------------------- 1,039.96 Frances Taylor------------------------------------------------- 9.24 Loretta Tucker------------------------------------------------- 9.24 Beulah Wade--------------------------------------------------- 9.24 Geneva Walker------------------------------------------------- 9.24 Crystal Ice & Cold Storage Company and United Packinghouse Workers of America, Local 78, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21- RC-3804. April 21,1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Martin Zimring, 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 National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 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 Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of production em- ployees at the Employer's four vacuum cooling plants located at Phoenix, Mesa, Glendale, and Cashion, Arizona, respectively, exclud- ing the engineers.' The Employer and Intervenor, Local 274, Sales Drivers and Helpers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL, contend that only a companywide unit is appropriate here, including in addition 'International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 428 , AFL, appeared at the hearing for the sole purpose of protecting its interests in the engineers whom it currently repre- sents. 112 NLRB No. 50. CRYSTAL ICE & COLD STORAGE COMPANY 385 to the foregoing plants, 6 ice manufacturing plants and 2 cold storage warehouses. The vacuum cooling plant in Phoenix is adjacent to 1 of the Em- ployer's 3 ice manufacturing plants located in that city. The 2 cold storage warehouses are also in Phoenix. In Mesa, the vacuum cooling plant is within 150 feet of the ice manufacturing plant, while the vacuum plant in Glendale is adjacent to the ice manufacturing plant. Cashion is the only city where the vacuum cooling plant is located some distance from the ice manufacturing plant. The operations of the vacuum cooling plants and the cold storage warehouses are quite similar; each cools, stores, and ships food prod- ucts of the Employer's customers. Ice made at the ice manufacturing plants is sold to various purchasers as well as used in the other operations. When the Employer began its vacuum cooling operations in Octo- ber 1952, it used, as the nucleus of the new division, employees who had previously worked in the ice manufacturing plants. The con- tract then in effect between the Employer and the Intervenor was ex- tended to cover the employees in the vacuum cooling plants; each successive, yearly contract has also covered such employees.2 Con- tractual relations between the Employer and the Intervenor, covering all production and maintenance employees, have existed since 1941. With minor exceptions, the classifications of the employees in both the vacuum cooling plants and the cold storage warehouses are the same. Employees at the vacuum cooling and ice manufacturing plants regularly work together when loading railroad cars. The record shows that there is centralized managerial control of all the Employer's plants. Both the vacuum cooling and the ice manufacturing operations are seasonal and each complements the other.' The vacuum cooling operations reach a peak from November through January. The plants then operate at low capacity until June, when they shut down until the next season. On the other hand, the seasonal peak of the ice manufacturing operations extends from June until August. Some of the employees regularly interchange between the two types of operations in keeping with the seasonal peaks and thus have continu- ous, year-round employment. In view of the foregoing, including the history of collective bar- gaining on a companywide basis, the proximity as well as the cen- tralized managerial control of the plants, the interchange of many of the employees, and the community of interests of the Employer's 2 No party contends that the current contract which has a renewal date of February 28, 1955, is a bar to this proceeding 5 The record does not indicate whether the cold storage warehouse operations are seasonal 386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, and upon the record as a whole, we find that only a com- panywide unit is appropriate.4 As the Petitioner does not seek to represent the larger unit, we shall, accordingly, dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 4 Fetzer Broadcastting Company, 110 NLRB 316 Cuttingham Buick, Inc. and Joseph John Rich, Petitioner and Local 259, UAW-CIO. Case No. 2-RD-273. April 21, 1955 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a Bearing was held before Jacob Lazarus, 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 m commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Intervenor, Local 259, UAW-CIO, is no longer the bargaining repre- sentative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Intervenor is the certified and cur- rently recognized representative of the employees in the unit desig- nated herein. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. We find, in agreement with the stipulation of the parties, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All service and parts department employees of the Employer at its Tuckahoe, New York, establishment, including mechanics and polishers, but excluding all office employees, salesmen, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer and the Petitioner contend that certain unreplaced economic strikers have been validly discharged and are therefore not eligible to vote in the election directed herein. The Intervenor con- tends that these individuals should be permitted to vote. During an economic strike which was still current at the time of the hearing 112 NLRB No. 52.