Maine Sugar Industries, Inc.

186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Maine Sugar Industries, Inc. and American Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union, Local 264, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-9697 January 16, 1968 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND JENKINS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on August 24, 1967, before Hear- ing Officer Francis V. Paone of the National Labor Relations Board. The Employer and Petitioner have each filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings , and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They 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 and it will effectuate the pol- icies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The parties are in sub- stantial agreement that the appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance em- ployees, including shipping and receiving em- ployees, but excluding office clerical employees, farm laborers, part-time employees (students), guards and supervisors as defined in the Act, but they disagree as to three categories of employees: seasonal employees, laboratory employees, and powerhouse employees. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of white sugar from sugar beets and sugar cane. The plant began operations for the first time in January 1967. At that time the sugar beet crop was processed in a period of 18 days. Beginning in Oc- tober the Employer anticipates processing a larger crop of sugar beets over the period of 6 to 8 weeks. Within 2 or 3 years the Employer anticipates processing sugar beets approximately 100 days per year. The Employer has a regular complement of 25 to 30 employees working year round in production and maintenance. At the time the petition was filed, another 70 to 75 were doing construction work at the plant. During processing of the sugar beet crop these construction employees are switched to production. Also to be added to the production force will be some 300 temporary employees, who will be laid off once the crop is processed. The Employer urges that its temporary em- ployees should be included in the unit, on the theory that they are seasonal employees and have high ex- pectations of being recalled each succeeding season.' We do not find the evidence in the record persuasive of the Employer's contention on this point. At the time of the hearing there had been only one recall of laid off employees, in July 1967. At that time a total of 75 temporary seasonal em- ployees was hired, but the Employer's witness was unable to say with any precision what percent of this number were returning from prior layoffs. Even if we were to give the broadest scope to his testimony that a "substantial number" of these 75 had previous experience with the Employer, we are unable to find on the basis of the July recall alone that a sufficiently large number of temporary seasonal employees has a demonstrable expectation of being rehired. Accordingly, we find that the tem- porary seasonal employees are not eligible to vote. The laboratory employees clearly enjoy the requisite community of interest with the other production and maintenance employees and are to be included in the unit. There are seven of these em- ployees who test control samples which are con- tinuously brought into the laboratory from the production line. Thus, they form an integral part of the production process. They enjoy the same com- pany insurance and vacation plans as the other production employees. Like the other production employees they are paid on an hourly basis. We find no merit in the Employer's contention that these employees are technicals. Their work does not require the use of any knowledge or skill which cannot be acquired by a brief period of train- ing, supplemented with relatively short on-the-job experience. None has a high school diploma. Their training period is but 6 weeks. However,' even if these employees enjoyed technical status, we would nevertheless include them in the unit because of the community of interest they share with the other production employees.2 Power for the Employer's plant is generated in a boilerroom located on the premises of an adjacent corporation, Vahlsing, Inc. The steam produced there is shared according to need by both the Em- ployer and Vahlsing. Although six of the power- house employees are carried on the payroll of the Employer, all of them are under the supervision of William Macomber, the chief engineer of Vahlsing. ' CaleforniaVegetable Concentrates, Inc., 137 NLRB 1779. 169 NLRB No. 31 2 See Dewey Portland Cement Co., 137 NLRB 944. MAINE SUGAR INDUSTRIES, INC. Their rates of pay are established by Macomber. They share the same fringe benefits as Vahlsing em- ployees. They go to work through the Vahlsing gate, and remain in the powerhouse throughout their shift. Consequently, their contact with the other employees of the Employer is virtually nonex- istent. The fact that they are carried on the Em- ployer's payroll, and that part of the equipment in the powerhouse is owned by the Employer, does not sufficiently tie their interests with those of the other production and maintenance employees of the Employer. In weighing all these considerations carefully, we do not find the requisite community of 3 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region I 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 187 interest which would warrant inclusion of these em- ployees in the unit. We therefore exclude them. Accordingly, we find the following unit ap- propriate within Section 9(b) of the Act. All produc- tion and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant at Easton, Maine, including laboratory, shipping, and receiving employees, but excluding powerhouse, seasonal, part-time (students), and of- fice clerical employees, farm laborers, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act. [Direction of Election3 omitted from publication.] 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 objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.