The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., Inc.

THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 47 WE WILL NOT threaten to lay off our employees in slack periods , eliminate overtime work and retirement benefits, or threaten to discriminate against our employees in any other manner because of their union or concerted activities. WE WILL NOT violate any of the rights which you have under the National Labor Relations Act to join a union of your own choice or not to engage in any union activities. All our employees are free to become or remain members of International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Local 191 , or any other umon and they are also free to refrain from joining any union. WEST TEXAS EQUIPMENT COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative ) ( Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date of posting, and must not be altered , defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board 's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, Meacham Building, 110 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 76102, Tele- phone No. Edison 5-4211 , Extension 2131 , if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company , Inc. and American Federation of Grain Millers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 19-RC-3190, 19-RC-3020, and 19-RC-3221. June 25, 1963 DECISION ON REVIEW AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, hearings were held before hearing officers designated by the Board. The rulings made at the hearings are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. On March 7, 1963, the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region issued a decision in Case No. 19-RC-3196 finding, as contended by the Petitioner, that the employees in the fresh pack department of the Employer's operation constituted an appropriate unit, and directing an election in that unit. The Employer filed a request with the Board for review of the Regional Director's decision, contending that only a plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate. On April 2, 1963, the Board granted the request and stayed the election. There- after, in view of the Board's action, the Regional Director forwarded to the Board for decision the petitions subsequently filed by Petitioner in Cases No. 19-RC-3220 and 19-RC-3221, in which Petitioner sought units comprised of the maintenance group and the frozen food depart- ment, respectively. As the three petitions involve identical parties and similar issues, the Board has decided to consolidate them for decisional purposes. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. 143 NLRB No. 11 48 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. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. At its operation involved herein, located at Burley, Idaho, the Employer is engaged primarily in processing potatoes into frozen french fries, although some potatoes are processed and shipped fresh from the plant. The Employer has a complement of approximately 250 production and 16 maintenance employees, all of whom are located in a single building. About 75 production employees work in the fresh pack department, and about 175 work in the frozen food depart- ment. They are seasonally employed from about September to May. In some years, the frozen food department may operate a week or two longer than the fresh pack department, and in such event, the fresh pack employees normally are offered available jobs in the frozen food department until it, too, closes for the season. Some maintenance employees, however, work the year round. The Petitioner seeks to represent in separate units, the fresh pack (Case No. 19-RC-3196), the frozen food (Case No. 19-RC-3221), and the maintenance (Case No. 19-RC-3220) employees. The Employer contends that only a plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate. There is no history of bargaining for any of these employees. The Employer buys "field run" potatoes from growers in the area and transports them by truck to the plant. There the potatoes are unloaded into a water flume which carries them to the fresh pack de- partment where they are washed, inspected, and graded. One grade of potatoes are those which will be processed into frozen french fries by the frozen food department. Another grade, called U.S. No. 1 Standard, is for quality potatoes that are packed and shipped in their fresh state. A third grade are "culls" which are unsuitable for any use and are discarded. The frozen food and fresh pack departments are in one building but are separated by a partition for sanitary reasons. The potatoes destined for the frozen food department are placed in retaining bins which feed into the frozen food department at a predetermined rate of flow. In the frozen food department, the potatoes are lye-peeled, washed, inspected, sliced, blanched, fried, frozen, and packed for ship- ment. The frozen food department operates three shifts daily while the fresh pack department operates on a one-shift basis. Although the THE GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY, INC. 49 employees in each production department have separate parking lots, entrances, and timeclocks, they receive the same pay and fringe bene- fits, except that, for reasons not clear in the record, the fresh pack employees are not eligible for unemployment compensation. Both production and maintenance employees share the same restrooms and eating facilities, and are subject to the same company personnel poli- cies. A plant manager is in charge of the overall operation, but the superintendents of the two production departments consult directly with each other concerning production matters. Two maintenance em- ployees who spend most of their time in the fresh pack department are under the supervision of the superintendent of that department. The employees in the maintenance group inspect, maintain, and re- pair production equipment, performing most of their work in the production areas. The Employer does not require of them any special training for the job, as the maintenance men receive on-the-job train- ing and are supplied with all the necessary tools and equipment. When a vacancy exists in the maintenance group, production em- ployees are given the first opportunity to apply for the job. Mainte- nance employees are paid higher rates than production employees. After working for a prescribed period of time, the maintenance em- ployees acquire "permanent" status which entitles them to work during the summer months when equipment is repaired or overhauled and when production operations are shut down. At the present time 9 of the 16 maintenance employees are treated as permanent. Because of the integrated nature of the Employer's operation, the similarity in the conditions of employment of the employees involved, the same ultimate supervision, the lack of bargaining history, and the fact that the same union seeks to represent all production and mainte- nance employees, albeit on a departmental basis, we believe that only a plantwide production and maintenance unit is appropriate here.' As the Petitioner has not indicated that it is unwilling to participate in an election in the overall unit and as its showing of interest is ade- quate, we shall direct an election in a unit comprised of all production and maintenance employees, including the quality control employees, whom the parties have agreed to include. Accordingly, we find that a unit of the following employees is ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 8 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Burley, Idaho, operation, including quality control employees, but ex- cluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. i G. L. Webster Company, Incorporated, 138 NLRB 440; cf. J. R. Simplot Co., 130 NLRB 272 and 1283. 50 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. In accordance with our usual practice in operations of this kind, we direct that the election be held about that time during the season when peak employment has been attained, on a date to be determined by the Regional Director, among the employees in the appropriate unit who are employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the issuance of the notice of election by the Regional Director. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Coca Cola Bottling Company of Louisville and Milk, Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Employees Local No. 783, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Charging Party Coca Cola Bottling Company of Louisville and Milk, Ice Cream Drivers and Dairy Employees Local No. 783, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 9-CA-2739 and 9-RC-5057. June 35, 1963 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION On April 9, 1963, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report. The Trial Examiner found further that this conduct was grounds for setting aside the September 19, 1962, election in the representation case. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent-Employer had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and recom- mended that the complaint be dismissed as to such allegations. There- after, the Respondent-Employer and the Charging Party-Petitioner filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing herein, and finds that no prejudicial error was commit- ted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered 143 NLRB No. 1.