American Rice Growers Cooperative Association

AMERICAN RICE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION 275 tervenor has bargained for the Lister production and maintenance 'employees involved herein since 1952 when Lister began operations. Since 1952, contract negotiations for the two plants have been con- ducted at the same time by the Intervenor and Herbert Weinstein for the Employers, and although separate contracts for each Employer have been executed pursuant to such negotiations, they have contained uniform provisions as to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Upon the foregoing, and the entire record in these cases, we con- clude, in view of the close proximity of the two plants, the common ownership and control, the similarity of working conditions, the uni- fied control of labor relations, and especially the institution of joint bargaining in 1952, which was tantamount to the establishment of a single unit for both plants, that the only appropriate unit herein com- prises the production and maintenance employees of both Triangle and Lister.12 We find that the following employees of the Employers constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 13 All production and maintenance employees at the Employers' Chi- cago, Illinois, plants, including stationary engineers,14 but excluding office clerical and plant clerical employees, professional, sales and ad- ministrative employees and their assistants, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] u See Aircraft Engine Service, Inc., 102 NLRB 1326 ; Syracuse Rendering Company; 112 NLRB 163. Is The composition of the unit described below is in substance the same as set forth In the existing contracts and as stipulated by the parties herein. is As the record shows that the night engineers make watchman rounds as part of their duties, we shall, in accord with our definition of guards , exclude them under the watch - mien category which the parties have agreed to exclude. See General Shoe Corporation, 113 NLRB 905. American Rice Growers Cooperative Association, Beaumont Division and International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers of America, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-955., January 31,1956 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 C. L. Stephens, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 115 NLRB No. 49. 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, American Rice Growers Cooperative Association, Beaumont Division, is a Texas corporation having its place of busi- ness located at Beaumont, Texas. It is a nonprofit farmers' coopera- tive, furnishing the service of drying and storing rice, purchasing fertilizer, and providing a marketing service for all stockholder mem- bers on a fee basis. Fifteen similar cooperatives use the same corporate name of the Employer, distinguishing themselves only by the different division names. The 16 cooperatives are separate corporations, wholly independent of each other, but they engage in the same business and were formed for the same purpose, i. e. to save money on the various services that rice farmers must have in order to dispose of the rice crop. The American Rice Growers Cooperative Association, central office, a corporation located at Lake Charles, Louisiana, provides assembled market information to each of the 16 cooperatives, each of which owns 1 share of stock in the central office. The Employer has a director on the central office board, but the officers and directors of each coopera- tive are local individuals. - The 150-175 stockholder-members of the Employer are residents of Texas, and the rice processed by the Employer was produced in Texas. The four services rendered by the Employer will be discussed below. Drying and storing of rice: The farmer-member delivers his rice to the Employer for processing and storage. At the storage warehouse each farmer's rice is stored in separate bins under the farmer's name, preserving its identity until sold. The Employer charges the farmer a fee per barrel for each of the services-drying and storing. The total gross revenue from drying and storing of rice for the fiscal year, July 111954, to June 30, 1955, was $416,278.75. Of this amount, $164,159.35, was for storage and $207,874.56 was for drying fees from stockholder members; $44,244.84 was received from the Commodity Credit Cor- poration's office located at Dallas, Texas, as storage fees for rice pro- duced in Texas and stored with the Employer. The record shows that an item listed by the Employer as "miscellaneous services $10,619.05" might include some fees from local rice mills for storage service. Marketing service : Samples of rice grown by the various farmers- some who are members and some who are not, and rice dried by the Em- ployer as well as rice dried by independent dryer operations-are displayed by the Employer at its office for representatives from the various mills to examine. The mills then make an offer or bid for the rice, and such bid is communicated to the farmer who may reject or accept it. When the farmer sells, to the mill, the mill makes its check payable to the farmer. Occasionally the mill may deduct the storage fee from the check to the farmer and pay the fee direct to the Em- AMERICAN RICE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION 277 ployer. However, the farmer pays the Employer a fee for facilitating the sale. During the Employer's last fiscal year the estimated value of rice thus marketed by the stockholder-farmers for whom the Em- ployer furnished dryer and storage service was $2,400,000. Of this amount, approximately 40 percent was purchased by the Commodity Credit Corporation. Of the remaining 60 percent, approximately 20-25 percent or, in value, approximately $380,000 was shipped to mills outside the State. The Employer furnished the same service for stock- holder-members who did not use its dryer and storage service, as well as for some farmers who are not members. The value of rice marketed by the Employer which was processed and stored elsewhere amounted to approximately $2.500,000, of which amount, approximately 20-25 percent or approximately $65,000 worth, was shipped to mills outside the State. Shipment of the purchases to the various mills is made by the Employer, usually in the name of the seller-farmer, but occa- sionally in the name of the Employer, as agent of the farmer. In either case, the bill of lading is specified with the farmer's name. Representatives of the mills come to Beaumont where-they submit their bids and consummate the sales. Fertilizer service: The rice farmers who are stockholder-members place an order with the Employer for the amount and brand of ferti- lizer they wish the Employer to secure for them. After the fertilizer is received at the Employer's location, the farmer is notified and he transports it from the Employer's warehouse to his farm. The farmer pays the Employer the retail price suggested by the manufacturer of the fertilizer-this markup, referred to in the record as "margin" and less actual expense, is distributed to the farmer at the end of the year in proportion to the volume he purchases. Practically all fertilizer is purchased within the .State, and delivery is made from the manu- facturer's place of business within the State. Total purchases of fertilizer amounted to $309,884 during the past ,fiscal year. Of this amount $45,185^represents purchases made from manufacturers located outside the State. The total gross margin received by the Employer on the fertilizer purchases amounted to $12,526.28. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition herein on jurisdictional grounds, that it was formed for the purpose of performing service for residents of Texas within the State of Texas; that it performs no service outside the State; and that it does not produce or handle goods or furnish goods or services to enterprises so as to bring it within the standards established by the Board for the assertion of jurisdiction. In view of the fact that during the last fiscal year the Employer, through its marketing service, shipped for the farmer-members ap- proximately $1,000,000 worth of rice outside the State of Texas, we 278 DECISIONS OF- NATIONM LABOR RELATIONS BOARD find that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' - 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent the employees of the Employer. 3. A question of representation affecting commerce exists concern= ing 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 agree that the appropriate unit is comprised of all production and maintenance employees including laborers, messengers, weighers, dryer operators, and warehouse operators, but excluding all office and clerical employees, rice graders, guards, watchmen, profes- sional employees, and supervisors. However, they disagree as to whether or not certain extra or seasonal employees should be included in the unit. The Employer stated that its regular complement of employees was from 13 to 15, and that during the harvest time of rice, drying opera- tions increased to the extent that it was necessary to hire additional employees. During the last harvest season the Employer hired from 10 to 20 additional employees, and this number is determined by whether there is a heavy or light harvest. Drying operations occur only during the harvest season which usually begins around August 15 and ends by December 1. The work performed by these additional employees is substantially the same as that done by the regular em- ployees at this time of the year. Extras are usually found on the premises seeking work, but sometimes some employees are secured through the State employment office. Few return the following year. They are paid the same as the regular employees when they do the same work, but they do not share in the Employer's vacation or pension plan. It thus appears that the Employer operates on a year-round basis with a substantial and representative complement of employees, and that the extras employed at harvest time do not return from year to year. In these circumstances we find that the extras do not have sufficient interest to be included in the bargaining unit. Accordingly, we shall exclude the extras from the unit. We find that the following employees employed at the Employer's drying and storage operation located at Beaumont, Texas, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 3 See Fisherman's Marketing Association of Washington,- Inc., 114 NLRB 189; C. A. Glass Company, Inc., 111 NLRB 1366; Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. Chairman Leedom agrees that jurisdiction should be asserted but on the ground that the operations of the Employer satisfy the Board's direct outflow standard as the Em- ployer ships such rice under the test set forth in Reliable Mailing Service Company, 113 NLRB 1263 . In his view the Employer actually finds the buyer and in that sense deter- mines the destination of the shipment. KETCHIKAN PULP COMPANY • 279 All production and maintenance employees including laborers, mes- sengers, weighers, dryer operators, and warehouse operators, but excluding all office and clerical employees, rice graders, guards, watch- men, professional employees, extra or seasonal employees, and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Ketchikan Pulp Company and International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers, Local Union No. 1548, AFL-CIO 1 and Interna- tional Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 1375, AFL- CIO 2 and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 302, AFL-CIO 3 and Construction and General Laborers, Local 1331, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO,4 Petitioners. Cases Nos. .19-RC-1639, 1.9-RC-1656, 19-RC-1657, and 1.9-RC-1667. elan- uary 31,1956 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 5 Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Gilbert Nowell, 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 these cases, the Board finds : 1. The -Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 Herein called the IBEW. s Herein called the IAM. 8 Herein called the Operating Engineers. * Herein called the Laborers 6 The' Employer' s request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and briefs fully present the issues and the positions of the parties. 6 The hearing officer did not rule on the admissibility of the following matters offered Into evidence by the parties: (1) A pamphlet relating to the financial structure of the Puget Sound Pulp and Timber Company, offered to establish the financial relationship be- tween the Employer herein and that company; ( 2) letters relative to the recognition by the Employer of the current bargaining agent approximately 1 year ago, offered to estab- lish that the Employer employed a full complement of employees at that time; (3) a leaflet used by the IBEW during the organizational campaigns , offered to establish that the IBEW favors the industrial form of organization ; and (4 ) a pamphlet entitled Col- lective Bargaining in the Pacific Coast Pulp and Paper Industry , published in 1948, offered to show the pattern of bargaining in the paper and pulp industry on the west coast. We rule on these matters as follows : Matters ( 1), (2), and (3) are rejected as irrel- evant to the issues of this proceeding ; matter (4) is admitted into evidence. 115 NLRB No. 51.