Sun-Maid Growers of California v. N.L.R.B., SUN-MAID

Decision Date30 April 1980
Docket NumberSUN-MAID,No. 78-3636,78-3636
Citation618 F.2d 56
Parties104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2543, 88 Lab.Cas. P 12,033 GROWERS OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner and Cross-Respondent, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent and Cross-Petitioner.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

William D. Claster, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Newport Beach, Cal., for petitioner and cross-respondent.

Andrew F. Tranovich, Washington, D. C., argued, for respondent and cross-petitioner; Elliott Moore, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, N.L.R.B., Washington, D. C., on brief.

Petition for Review and Cross-Application for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board.

Before BROWNING and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, * District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Sun-Maid Growers of California (Sun-Maid) petitioned this Court to review and set aside an order of the National Labor Relations Board (Board). The Board cross-petitioned for enforcement of its order.

In 1963, Sun-Maid built a raisin processing plant in Kingsburg, California. Sun-Maid arranged to have its three permanent maintenance electricians placed on the payroll of Electric Motor Shop, for which Sun-Maid agreed to pay Electric Motor Shop cost plus ten per cent. The electricians were members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW).

In June 1976, when the IBEW struck Electric Motor Shop, Sun-Maid's electricians went on strike. Sun-Maid then transferred its electrical maintenance contract to Glen Bedgood, an electrical subcontractor who had signed an interim agreement with the IBEW. Bedgood hired the same three maintenance electricians, and for their services Sun-Maid paid Bedgood cost plus ten per cent.

When the strike ended, these electricians were transferred to the payroll of Bedgood's company, Control Electric, Inc. (Control), but Control did not supervise them. Bedgood rarely visited the plant and never assigned work. Sun-Maid officials delivered the production schedules, assigned the work and decided on priorities. When production schedules were changed, the electricians' hours were also changed. Sun-Maid officials decided when the electricians were to work overtime and when additional electricians were needed.

In August 1977, Sun-Maid decided to replace its three maintenance electricians with five non-union electricians. Sun-Maid hired two new electricians immediately.

The three maintenance electricians asked the IBEW to investigate rumors they were being replaced. At the request of an IBEW official, Bedgood discussed these rumors with Sun-Maid's electrical engineer. He denied the rumors even though he knew that the electricians were being replaced.

In October 1977, Sun-Maid asked the International Association of Machinists (Machinists) to add the classification of electrician to the bargaining unit. When Sun-Maid was asked if it had a contract with the IBEW, the Machinists were told, "No . . . . We don't have a contract with the union per se."

Later that month, Sun-Maid wrote the Machinists to confirm the addition of the classification of electrician to the bargaining unit, but the newly hired electricians did not designate the Machinists as their bargaining representative.

Two days later, Sun-Maid told the three permanent maintenance electricians that they would be terminated on the following day. The electricians left the plant. The IBEW's business agent was unsuccessful in his attempt to talk to a Sun-Maid official about the terminations.

On November 1, 1977, the IBEW filed charges with the Board, and thereafter the Regional Director issued a complaint.

On March 28, 1978, a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). He found that Sun-Maid was a joint employer of the electricians and that Sun-Maid violated sections 8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act 1 by terminating the electricians without giving the IBEW notice and an opportunity to bargain. The ALJ also found that Sun-Maid violated sections 8(a)(2) and (1) of the Act 2 by treating its newly hired electricians as an accretion to the Machinists' bargaining unit. The ALJ recommended that Sun-Maid be ordered to reinstate its three former electricians by offering to reestablish its former contract with Control and to recognize the IBEW as the electricians' exclusive bargaining representative. The ALJ also recommended that Sun-Maid make whole the electricians' lost earnings.

The Board adopted the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the ALJ.

In this appeal, Sun-Maid contends that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board's findings. Sun-Maid also contends that the Board abused its discretion in ordering Sun-Maid to reestablish its contract with Control and in ordering it to bargain with the IBEW. We disagre...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Miller v. Zee's, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 25 Noviembre 1998
    ...378, 384 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 940, 100 S.Ct. 293, 62 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979)(single employee test); Sun-Maid Growers of California v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 56, 59 (9th Cir.1980)(joint employer test); and Kaplan v. International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees of the United Stat......
  • G. Heileman Brewing Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • 19 Julio 1989
    ...Id. at 285, 498. These facts are further evidence of Heileman's control over the maintenance electricians. See Sun-Maid Growers v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 56, 58 (9th Cir.1980). Finally, we note that in many respects Heileman treated the maintenance electricians in the same manner as its own employe......
  • Clinton's Ditch Co-op Co., Inc. v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 5 Diciembre 1985
    ...an employer's "authority over employment conditions which are within the area of mandatory collective bargaining." Sun Maid Growers v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 56, 59 (9th Cir.1980). The D.C. Circuit has scrutinized "the amount of actual and potential control * * * over the * * * employees." Internat......
  • International House v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • 9 Abril 1982
    ...an employer's "authority over employment conditions which are within the area of mandatory collective bargaining." Sun-Maid Growers v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 56, 59 (9th Cir. 1980). The D.C. Circuit has scrutinized "the amount of actual and potential control ... over the ... employees." Internation......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT