Knouse Foods Co-operative, Inc.

KNOUSE FOODS CO-OPERATIVE, INC. 801 which they claimed jurisdiction ) they were engaged only in primary authorized ac- tion. The lack of an active dispute with Eaton , however, is immaterial.18 I conclude and find that an object of the conduct described in subsections 1 and 2 above was to force or require Scott Company to cease using or handling the prod- ucts of Eaton (another producer, processor, or manufacturer ) or to cease doing business with Eaton in violation of Section 8(b)(4)(i )( B). I further find that the Respondents with this object also violated Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(B). IV. THE REMEDY As I have found that the Respondents have engaged in unfair labor practices, I shall recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Because of the provisions heretofore found to be contained in the U.A. constitution and in the working rules of the Respondents and the policy stemming therefrom, a danger exists that the Respondents will extend their activities , herein found to be in contravention to the Act to the goods , articles, materials, or commodities other than those of Eaton.19 I shall therefore include not only the products of Eaton but also those of other persons in the recommended cease-and -desist order. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. MacDonald-Scott, Scott Company, and Eaton are employers within the mean- ing of Section 2(2) of the Act. 2. The Respondents are, jointly and severally, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By inducing and encouraging individuals employed by Scott Company to engage in a refusal in the course of their employment to perform services and by threatening, coercing, or restraining Scott Company with an object of forcing or requiring that Scott Company cease using or handling goods manufactured or pro- duced by Eaton or to cease doing business with Eaton, the Respondents have en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) (B) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices , having occurred in connection with the operations of MacDonald-Scott, Scott Company, and Eaton , as set forth above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and substantially affect commerce and the free flow of com-, merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and -(7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] ' Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers' District Council, et at (Sound Shingle Co ), supra; Local 11, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, et at ( General Millwork Corporation), 113 NLRB 1084, enfd 242 F. 2d 932 ( C.A. 6). 19 There is no contention by the General Counsel that the Respondents have in the past committed similar unfair labor practices nor that the remedy should include employees of employers unknown in the injunction against inducement or encouragement of any in- dividual to engage in a strike or withholding of services . Cf. Local Union 522, Lumber Drivers, Warehousemen & Handlers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ( Republic Wire Corporation ), 129 NLRB 376 I shall therefore confine the recommended order to the parties hereto except to the extent of the object of the illegal conduct. Knouse Foods Co-operative, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 6-RC-2774. May 25, 1961 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 Alfred C. Dybeck, hearing ,131 NLRB No. 99. 599198-62-vol. 131-52 802 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. - Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Fanning]. 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 certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner and the Employer agree to the scope of the unit, except that the Employer would exclude and the Petitioner include em- ployees classified as seasonal and temporary or carryover employees. The Employer is engaged in the processing of apples and other fruits, and operates its four plants intermittently on a seasonal basis from July to January. The Employer starts processing cherries in July, peaches and other fruit in midseason,-and ends the season proc- essing apples. The Employer's peak work force totals approximately 1,200 and is composed of 3 categories of employees. The 81 permanent employees work year round, enjoy pension benefits, paid holidays, and vacations, and have been employed for at least 2 years. Temporary or carryover employees are employees who have been hired as seasonal employees and have been retained after the end of the season to clean up the plants and change over, move, and maintain equipment. In December 1960, there were 36 employees in that classification. These employees are eligible to become permanent employees after 2 years of continuous employment, and 60 to 75 percent of these employees work for the Employer 12 months of the year. The seasonal employees work side by side with the permanent and carryover employees and, like the carryover employees, receive none of the fringe benefits accorded per- manent employees. Each year, before the beginning of the processing season, the Employer sends 1,400 to 1,500 letters soliciting employment for the forthcoming season to a group of prospective employees com- posed substantially of all its employees on the previous season's pay- roll. From this group, together with a lesser number of prospective employees referred by the State employment service and local mer- chants and ministers, almost all the seasonal employees are hired. Testimony in the record indicates that 50 to 60 percent of the seasonal employees return from year to year; however, the Employer alleges that the actual percentage is somewhat lower.' The record further 1 The Employer filed a petition and motion to reopen record to correct testimony. The motion encompasses matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the Employer, and alleges nothing that was not available to the Employer at the time of the hearing. In any event, it would not affect our decision herein . Accordingly, the motion is denied. BARGAIN CITY, U.S.A., INC. 803 shows that though the seasonal employees are laid off upon the com- pletion of each operational phase, such as cherry or peach processing, the majority of these employees are rehired during the season to work on the processing of other fruits. Accordingly, as the Employer year after year draws its seasonal employees from the same labor force, composed primarily of former employees , and the seasonal employees work together with and under the same conditions as permanent em- ployees, we find that the seasonal employees have sufficient interest in employment conditions to warrant their inclusion in an overall pro- duction and maintenance unit .2 As the majority of the temporary or carryover employees work year round, and the remainder work on a seasonal basis, we shall also include them. Accordingly, we find the following unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer 's plants at Peach Glen, Chambersburg, Orrtanna, and Scotland, Pennsylvania, including employees designated by the Employer as seasonal and tem- porary or carryover employees , plant clerical employees, and truck- drivers, but excluding office clerical employees , guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. Petitioner requests that an election be held within 30 days from the date of this Decision using the payroll of December 3 , 1960, to de- termine voting eligibility. In view of the seasonal nature of the Em- ployer's operations and the fact that no seasonal employees are cur- rently employed , we see no reason to depart from our usual practice in seasonal industries, and direct that an election be held at or about the peak of the season, on a date to be determined by the Regional Di- rector, among the employees in the appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the issu- ance of notice of election by the Regional Director. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2 Imperial Rice Milla, Inc., Louisiana Rice Growers, Inc., 110 NLRB 612. Bargain City, U.S.A., Inc.' and Local 1034, Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-4428. May R5, 1961 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 Chester S. Montgomery, 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 131 NLRB No. 104.