Alamo-Braun Beef Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 32 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
creation of two new classifications of salaried employees, namely, ma-
terial controllers and production coordinator. Some employees now
classified as material controllers previously worked as production
clerks. The production coordinator was formerly a salaried works
production clerk. The employees now classified as material control-
lers and production coordinator perform virtually the same functions
as were performed by works production clerks; the basic functions of
the job covered by the abandoned classification have been transferred
to the successor classifications without material change.
It is plain from the foregoing that a dispute exists between the
parties as to whether the production coordinator and the material con-
trollers are included or excluded from the unit for which the Petitioner
was certified by the Board, which question can best be resolved by a
clarification of the certification. For the aforementioned employees,
some of whom were included in the unit as works production clerks, are
shown by the record as salaried material coordinators and production
coordinator to be essentially successors to the duties and responsibili-
ties of the works production clerks, a classification which was part of
the certified unit before its discontinuance. Under all the circum-
stances, we shall dismiss the petition as such and, treating it in the
nature of a request by Petitioner to clarify the existing certification,'
hereby clarify the certification issued in Case No. 8-RC-2774 by hold-
ing that the material controllers and production coordinator are
included within its coverage.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
IAs for authority to proceed in this manner, see J. R. Pepper, et al., d /b/a Bluff City
Broadcasting Co., 102 NLRB 102; The Daily Press, Incorporated , 110 NLRB 573; The
Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 118 NLRB 371.
George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo -Braun Beef Company and
George Braun Packing Co.' and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
Union No . 171, Petitioner
George H. Braun , d/b/a Alamo -Braun Beef Company and
General Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 657, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Cases
1 20, 1960Nos. 23-RC-1509 and 23-RC-1517. Jul,
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 2 was held before
i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2The Employer objected to consolidation of Case No . 23-RC-1509 with Case No.
23-RC-1517 and, for this reason , moved to dismiss the petition in the former case.
Consolidation is a matter for administrative determination . As the Employer has failed
128 NLRB No. 6.
ALAMO-BRAUN BEEF CO. AND GEORGE BRAUN PACKING CO. 33
Frank Safos, hearing 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with-
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, ands
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Braun Beef Company, herein
called Alamo, processes and sells meat and meat products at its plant
in San Antonio, Texas, to customers in the San Antonio area. George
Braun Packing Co., herein called Braun, slaughters and renders live-
stock in the same plant in which Alamo is located. George H. Braun,
who is the sole owner of Alamo and who owns 98 percent of the stock
of Braun, has the final authority on overall labor relations policies
in that he makes all determinations as to wages, hours, vacations, and
other terms and conditions of employment for employees of both com-
panies. Alamo, which is separated by a wall from Braun, purchases
approximately 90 percent of its fresh meat from Braun. Both com-
panies utilize the same offices and office employees. While separate
books and payroll records are kept for each company, the auditor for
both companies maintains these books and records and draws checks
for the employees of both companies. In view of the foregoing and
the entire record, we find that Alamo and Braun constitute a single
integrated enterprise and Employer.'
Within the 4-month period preceding the hearing herein, Braun
purchased livestock valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points
located outside the State of Texas. As the Employer, consisting of
Alamo and Braun, annually purchases over $50,000 worth of supplies
from sources outside the State, we find that the Employer is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over this Employer.4
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.'
to show that it has been prejudiced by consolidation of the instant petitions , the motion to
dismiss is denied . See The Root Dry Goods Co., Inc ., 126 NLRB 953.
8 See Sunnyiand Packing Company, et al, 113 NLRB 162.
4 See Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
H The Employer moved to dismiss the petitions herein on the ground that they were
defective in that they failed to state that the Petitioner had made a request for recogni-
tion In view of the fact that the filing of a petition itself constitutes a sufficient demand
for recognition ; that the Employer declined to recognize the Petitioners at the hearing ;
and, that there is no showing that the Employer was prejudiced by the alleged defect,
the motion is denied . See Lock Joint Pipe Co., 120 NLRB 1238 ; Goldblatt Bros ., Inc.,
118 NLRB 643.
34 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The appropriate units :
In Case No. 23-RC-1509, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher
Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 171, herein
called Meat Cutters, seeks a single unit of all plant and maintenance
employees of both Alamo and Braun, excluding all truckdrivers, office
employees, salesmen, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
In Case No. 23-RC-1517, General Drivers & Helpers Local Union No.
657, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called Team-
sters, seeks a unit of truckdrivers employed by Alamo.' The Em-
ployer contends that a single unit of employees of Alamo and Braun
which the Meat Cutters requests is inappropriate because there is
insufficient integration between those companies. The Employer also
opposes the Teamsters' request for a separate unit of truckdrivers,
contending that they appropriately belong in a unit of plant and
maintenance employees at Alamo alone. There is no history of col-
lective bargaining involving any of the employees here sought.
Case No. 23-RC-1509: In addition to the facts detailed in para-
graph numbered 1, above, the record establishes that there has been
some interchange of employees between the companies, and that in
one recent instance Braun's employees were put to work for Alamo
to avoid a layoff. In view of all the circumstances in this case, in-
cluding the fact that there is no history of bargaining for employees
of Alamo and Braun on a separate plant basis, and the fact that no
labor organization seeks to represent these employees on a separate
basis, we find that the plant and maintenance employees of Alamo
and Braun have a sufficient community of interest to constitute a single
employerwide unit.'
Case No. 23-RC-1517: Alamo employs four truckdrivers who are
the only employees in Alamo's "shipping department." These drivers,
who are separately supervised, and who do not interchange with
employees in Alamo's plant, spend approximately 50 percent of their
working time delivering Alamo's products to customers in the San
Antonio area. The balance of their time is devoted to filling and
loading customer orders on their vehicles. As the truckdrivers spend
their time driving trucks and performing functions incidental to
driving, we find that they constitute a separate appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining.8
Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections in the following
appropriate units at the Employer's plants in San Antonio, Texas :
8 Braun does not employ truckdrivers
° See Sunnyland Packing Company, et al, supra
8 See Beechnut Foods Dtivision, etc., 118 NLRB 123
SOLAR ELECTRIC CORPORATION 35
A. All plant and maintenance employees , excluding all truck-
drivers, office employees, salesmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
B. All truckdrivers, excluding all other employees , salesmen,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Solar Electric Corporation 1 and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 6-RC-
2538. July 12, 1960
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 William S. Jacobs, hearing
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, 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 organizations involved claim 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 Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit at the
Employer's Warren, Pennsylvania, plant where it manufactures in-
candescent lamps. The parties are substantially in agreement as to
the appropriateness of such unit except that the Petitioner and the
Intervenor, Employees Association, would include and the Employer
would exclude the following job classifications : 2
The cafeteria employees prepare and serve food to the other em-
ployees and anyone else who visits the plant. They work every work-
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing. The hearing officer
properly granted Petitioner's request to amend the name of the Employer at the com-
mencement of the hearing. As the Employer was not prejudiced by being referred to in
the petition as the Solar Electric Company rather than Solar Electric Corporation, the
motion of the employer to dismiss the petition because of the misnomer is denied.
2 The record indicates that the Employees Association for several years has represented
all the disputed employee classifications except the mail clerk under an informal verbal
agreement with the Employer
128 NLRB No. 4.