Sutter Mutual Water Co.

SUTTER MUTUAL WATER CO. 1139 There remains for consideration the -unit placement of Bornancin, the background music supervisor, and the two porters. -Contrary to the Employer, we find Bornancin, the only individual in the music department in Cleveland, has none of the statutory indi6ia of supervisory status. As he appears to have a sufficient com- munity of interests with the regular S-1's and S-3's, we shall include ' Bornancin in the nonguard unit herein found appropriate. Finally, we find in agreement with the parties that the porters also belong in he unit. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and part-time servicemen 3 and servicemen 1 employed in the Cleveland, Ohio, area, in the central stations at 14835 Emery, 812 Huron Road (the Caxton Building), and 2067 East 102 Street, the shop at 1304 Hamilton Avenue, and the affiliated guard stations at 1304 Haltiilton Avenue, 2000 West 25th Street, 3901 Ches- ter Avenue, Harvard and Broadway, and 2300 St. Clair Avenue; background music supervisor; and porters; excluding all service- men 2, special servicemen 1, any other guards, confidential employees, professional employees, foremen, relief supervisors, assistant super- visors, supervisors at Hamilton Avenue, and any other supervisors as defined in the Act.24 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 25 a*The exclusions not discussed above conform to the stipulation of the parties 25 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voter,, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 8 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper ob- jections are filed. Excel8sor Underwear, Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. Sutter Mutual Water Company and Local Union 1245, Interna- tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case 2O-RC-6976. Septemlabei^ 14,1966 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held in the above-entitled proceeding before Hearing Officer Shirley N. Bingham. The parties were represented by counsel, and each was given full opportunity to he heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce 160 NLRB No. 84 1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD evidence revelant to the issue. The case was transferred to the Board by the Regional Director for Region 20, in accordance with Section 102.67(h) of the Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 Fanning and Jenkins]. On August 1, 1966, the Board issued a notice to show cause why the petition should not be dismissed on the basis of a continuing rider to the Board's current appropriation act. In all the Board's appro- priation acts since 1954,1 this rider includes in the definition of agri- cultural laborers, and thereby exempts from the Board's jurisdiction, 4'. . . employees engaged in the maintenance and operation of ditches, canals, reservoirs, and waterways when maintained or operated on a mutual, nonprofit basis and at least 95 per centum of the water stored or supplied thereby is used for farming purposes." 80 Stat. 233 (1966), 79 Stat. 609 (1965). The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Hearing Officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record of this case, including the Petitioner's brief 2 and the answers of the Petitioner and Employer to the notice to show cause, the Board finds : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees, excluding clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the Act. The appropriateness of the unit has been stipulated; the single issue is jurisdictional. The record discloses the Employer to be a nonprofit, mutually owned corporation engaged in the business of supplying water to farmers over a 50,000 acre area in Sutter County, California. Each acre entitles its owner to one share of corporate stock, and no water is delivered to nonshareholders. The shareholders are individuals, partnerships, and corporations; all are engaged in farming opera- tions. The Employer operates three pumping stations, ditches, canals, and other appurtenances throughout the service area. All of the water supplied is for farm use.' On the basis of the record facts, we find that the employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner are engaged in the maintenance and operation of ditches, canals, and waterways, and that the Employer i See Mississippi Chemical Corporation, 110 NLRB 826. s The Employer did not file a brief. ' In answer to a questionnaire sent by the Hearing Officer , the Employer stated in its reply letter, inter ilia, that 100 percent of the water distribution is for farm use. Both of these letters were admitted into evidence , and the secretary-treasurer and general man- ager of the Employer testified that the answers contained in the reply letter were correct. DAVIS CAFETERIA, INC. 1141 is a nonprofit, mutually owned water company which supplies all of its water for farm use. Therefore, we further find that the employees involved are "agricultural laborers" and that the Board is precluded from asserting jurisdiction over them. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition 4 [The Board dismissed the representation petition.] Ala its answer to the Board's notice to show cause, the Petitioner opposed dismissal of the petition on the sole ground that the record does not establish that 95 percent or more of the water stored or supplied by the Employer is used for farming purposes . In view of the record facts, we cannot agree. Davis Cafeteria, Inc., and Polly Davis Broward Cafeteria, Inc. and Hotel and Restaurant Employees & Bartenders Union, Local 339, AFL-CIO. Case 12-CA-0606. September 14, 1966 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On November 20, 1963, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Order in the above-entitled proceeding,' finding that the Respondents had violated Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Union as collective-bargaining representative of the Respondents' employees in two separate units, namely, employ- ees at the Respondents' Hollywood, Florida, cafeteria, and those at the Respondents' Fort Lauderdale, Florida, cafeteria. Thereafter, the Board filed a petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for enforcement of its Order. The court denied enforcement of the Board's Order, and, citing Metropolitan Life Insurance, Company ,2 remanded the case to the Board to further explicate the basis for its unit determination in the underlying representation proceeding. 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 Brown and Zagoria]. The essential facts, which are not in dispute, are as follows: The Respondents herein, Davis Cafeteria, Inc., located in Hollywood, Florida, hereinafter referred to as Davis, and Polly Davis Broward Cafeteria, Inc.,, located at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, hereinafter referred to as Broward, are wholly owned subsidiaries of Miami Cafeteria, Inc. The latter has its general offices in Miami, and oper- 1145 NLRB 82. 2 N.L.R.B v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company , 380 U.S. 438. 160 NLRB No. 80.