Lykes Brothers, Inc. of Georgia

LYKES BROTHERS, INC. OF GEORGIA 575 5. Determination of representatives : The Employer laid off approximately 70 employees during the 5-week period preceding the instant hearing. The Employer keeps the names of laid-off employees on a layoff list for about a year and has a policy of recalling them as soon as possible. Due to the unstable conditions at the time of the hearing, however, the Employer was unable to determine whether there was a reasonable expectancy that these employees would be recalled in the near future. Neither party took a position concerning the eligibility of these employees to vote in the election, but both parties desired that their eligibility be deter- mined by the Board. In view of the inconclusive nature of the evi- dence, we are unable to make a definitive determination at this time of the employment status of these individuals. We shall allow the laid-off employees to vote subject to challenge in the election herein- after directed. The challenged ballots shall not be counted unless they affect the result of the election, in which event a further investigation concerning the employment status of the employees casting the chal- lenged ballots will be made.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the roiisideration of the above De- cision and Direction of Election. °Kent Plastics Corporation , 101 NLRB 519 at 521 Gnagenheim Pac].mg Company, 94 NLRB 777 at 778. Lykes Brothers, Inc. of Georgia and United Packinghouse Work- ers of America, CIO, Petitioner Lykes Brothers, Inc. of Georgia and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, Pe- tioner. Cases Nos. 10-IBC-2961 and 10-13C-2'970. May 2, 1955 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 'The hearing officer referred to the Board the motion of the Petitioner in Case No. 10-RC-2961 , United Packinghouse Workers of America , CIO, herein called the Packing- house Workers, to dismiss the petition in Case No 10-RC-2970. For the reasons stated in paragraph 2, above , the motion is granted. 112 NLRB No. 76. 576 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. In its petition in Case No. 10-RC-2970, the Petitioner, Truck Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 728, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, herein called the Teamsters, designated a unit of the Employ- er's truckdrivers. The Teamsters, however, did not appear at the hearing, although properly served with notice thereof. The Board views the failure to appear as a disclaimer of interest in the repre- sentation of the employees of the Employer. Accordingly, Ave shall dismiss the petition in Case No.10-RC-2970 z The Packinghouse Workers and the Intervenor 3 claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 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. The Employer, a Georgia corporation, maintains its principal office and plant at Albany, Georgia, where it is engaged in slaughter- ing cattle and hogs, and in processing and packing meat and meat products. There is no bargaining history at this plant. The parties are in general agreement that a unit of all production and maintenance employees is appropriate. There is disagreement, however, as to the unit placement of truckdrivers, the supply room employee, the can- teen operator, and part-time employees. Truckdrivers: The Packinghouse Workers and the Employer would include, and the Intervenor would exclude, the seven truckdrivers in the plant. The drivers make both local and over-the-road deliveries. When on the road they are paid on a mileage basis; but when making deliveries they are paid on an hourly basis like the other employees in the plant. As indicated, the Teamsters disclaimed an interest in representing the truckdrivers, and no other person seeks to represent them on a separate basis. Under these circumstances we shall include the truckdrivers in the unit.4 Supply room employee : The Employer would include in the unit an employee who works in the supply room. This employee maintains repair parts and hands out supplies and clean work clothing to pro- duction employees.' Like the production and maintenance employees, 2 See Join McCormack Co, 101 NLRB 289 ; 'Tovinsend Sash, Door &• Lumber Co, 96 NLRB 950 a Amalgamated Meat Cutteis & Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL, herein called the Inteivenor, was permitted to inteivene in Case No 10-RC-2961. 4 See Bachmann Uxbridge Worsted Corporattion, 109 NLRB 868 5 Employees in the processing department are required by the Department of Agriculture to wear clean white clothing Employees furnish their own clothing, but the Employer does the laundering LYKES BROTHERS, INC. OF GEORGIA 577 he is hourly paid, and is under plant, rather than office, supervision. We find that the supply room employee has a sufficient community of interest with production and maintenance employees to warrant his inclusion in the unit. We shall therefore, contrary to the conten- tions of the Packinghouse Workers and the Intervenor, include the supply room employee in the unit .6 Canteen operator: The Employer would also include in the unit an employee who works at a canteen operated by the Employer. This employee sells sandwiches and drinks to the other employees. She gives first aid in case of accident and fills out workmen compensation reports. She is hourly paid on a basis comparable with production employees, is carried on the plant payroll, and works under a produc- tion department supervisor. No other labor organization seeks to represent her. Under these circumstances, we find that the canteen operator has an interest in common with production and maintenance employees, and we shall, contrary to the contentions of the Packing- house Workers and the Intervenor, include her in the unit.' Part-time employees: There are employees in the plant who do not work a full week. They are however, regularly employed from 8 to 16 hours a week in the processing department which, because of a cur- rent lack of supplies," is operating only 1 to 2 days a week. Thus, in effect, these employees work full time in the processing department. The Employer indicated that the curtailed operation of the process- ing department is temporary, as supplies are now on order and will be available in the future. The employees in question are considered by the Employer as regular permanent employees and are retained on the payroll as full-time employees temporarily working on short time. Accordingly, as these employees work a regular number of hours each week, we shall, in accordance with our usual practice, and contrary to the contention of the Packinghouse Workers, include them in the unit. We also find that they are eligible to vote in the election directed herein .9 We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's Albany, Georgia, plant, including truckdrivers, the supply room employee, the canteen operator, and part-time employees, but excluding office clerical employees, buyers, salesmen, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 6 See Bristol Laboratories, Inc. 107 NLRB No 271 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) ° See Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82 ; Nebel Knitting Company, 106 NLRB 114, at 118, The Alliance Manufacturing Company, 101 NLRB 112, at 115 8 These include such items as labels, cartons, and boxes. "See Revnaers-Kaufman Concrete Products, 110 NLRB 593, Montgomery Ward d Co, 110 NLRB 256 578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The Employer contends that the petition is premature and that no election should be directed at this time. In support thereof, it asserts that its plant is new and expanding, that its operations are seasonal in nature, and that by the time an election could be held the plant will have passed its seasonal peak. The Employer started operations at this plant in October 1954. When the petition herein was filed on De- cember 21, 1954, the Employer had 128 employees. The Employer's office manager testified that at the time of the hearing on January 18, 1955, the working force consisted of 160 employees, and that full nor- mal operations would eventually require approximately 257 employees. He further testified that because of limited facilities in the processing department, it was expected that more than one shift would be required during the busy season. This would require an additional 50 to 100 employees. As to the seasonal nature of its operations, the Employer asserts that its plant is predominantly a pork processing plant and therefore its op- erations are dependent upon the availability of hogs. The Employer's office manager testified that hogs are raised during the spring, summer, and fall seasons of the year and do not become available for slaughter- ing until winter. Thus the Employer's peak season falls between Oc- tober and March. However, the Employer will not shut down the plant during slack seasons but will continue operations throughout the summer. It expects to have a normal complement during the coining slack season of about 200 employees. It appears therefore that the number of employees working at the time of the hearing had not reached the number normally to be employed during the slack season. Moreover, the Employer's office manager testified that during the com- ing summer slack period, rather than terminate employees, the Em- ployer expects to spread the work in some departments among em- ployees, so that these employees will be available when the Employer again reaches a busy season. The Employer indicated that the number of job classifications at the plant would increase with the hiring of additional employees. In this respect, the record discloses that at the time of the hearing there were employees in approximately 39 classifications. The only unfilled clas- sifications indicated were slicers, packers, and form press operators in the bacon department; stuffers and packers in the sausage department; and fillers and packers in the lard department. From the foregoing, it appears that the present complement of em- ployees is representative of the classifications to be employed, and con- stitutes a substantial segment of the working force ultimately to be em- ployed.10 And, moreover, because the Employer will continue to op- erate the plant during its slack period with a representative number of 10 See American Brake Shoe Company, 109 NLRB 1282; Ware Cotton Batting Co., Inc., 104 NLRB 363 SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL & COMPANY, INC. 579 employees, we see no reason for departing from the Board's usual policy of directing an immediate election." [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 10-RC-2970.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] n 3fid-TPest Reines tes, Inc, 98 NLRB 1043, 1046, The Borden Company, 89^ \LRB 227, 229 Sidney Blumenthal & Company, Inc. (Caromount Division) and Textile Workers Union of America , CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-719. May 3, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi- cial 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 employees 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 unit of production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Rocky Mount, North Carolina, plant. The Employer contends that only a unit comprised of em- ployees at both its Rocky Mount and Wilson, North Carolina, plants is appropriate. The Employer, a manufacturer of textile products, operates single plants in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and two in North Carolina. This proceeding involves only the Rocky Mount, North Carolina, plant. There is no history of collective bargaining at either the Rocky Mount or Wilson plant.' I On Maich 7 1955, the day before the hearing, the Employer filed a charge against the Petitioner, alleging violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. Because of the lateness of the charge and as the hearing had been scheduled for some time, the hearing officer denied the Employer's motion to postpone the hearing pending the disposition of the charge Under these circumstances. Re find that there has been no abuse of the hearing officer's discretion Moreover, in view of the fact that the Regional Director has since found without merit and dismissed the charge, we shall proceed with the case 9In 1946, as a result of a petition filed by the current Petitioner , the Board directed an election in a unit confined to the Rocky Mount plant. Sidney Blumenthal & Co, Inc, 68 NLRB 859. As the Union lost the election, however, there has been no history of collective bargaining. 112 NLRB No 79. 369028-56-vol 112-3S