Allied Mills, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ALLIED MILLS, INC., EMPLOYER and AMERICAN FEDER-
ATION OF GRAIN PROCESSORS, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 17-RC-22 .-Decided March 26, 1948
Messrs. Homer W. Keller, of Peoria, Ill., and W. A. Stohrer, of
Omaha, Nebr., for the Employer.
Messrs. J. A. Leveridge, of Kansas City, Mo., and Harold Tevis, of
Omaha, Nebr., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Thomas L. Short, of Omaha, Nebr., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Omaha,
Nebraska, on January 9, 1948, before William J. Scott, hearing officer.
The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
ciall error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Allied Mills, Inc., an Indiana corporation, manufactures livestock
and poultry feed, and processes soy beans at various plants in the
States of Illinois, Nebraska, Indiana, New York, Tennessee and Vir-
ginia. We are here concerned only with the Employer's Omaha,
Nebraska, plant. In 1947, the Employer purchased for use at this
plant, raw materials approximating $1,000,000 in value, of which about
75 percent represented shipments from points outside the State of
Nebraska. During the same period, the Employer manufactured
finished products approximating $1,000,000 in value, of which about
75 percent represented shipments to points outside the State.
' 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 -man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [Houston , Murdock, and Gray].
76 N. L. R. B., No. 138.
973
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the In-
tervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner and the In-
tervenor respectively, as the exclusive bargaining representative of
employees in the units claimed by each to be appropriate in the absence
of Board certification.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Petitioner desires a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding engineers,2 office and clerical employees, laboratory
employees, buyers, salesmen, and supervisors. The Intervenor seeks
a unit comprised of the above-mentioned engineers. The Employer.
while agreeing that the engineers constitute a separate and distinct
group from the production and maintenance employees, seeks the es-
tablishment of a single plant-wide unit inclusive of engineers.
There is no history of collective bargaining at this plant.
The engineers work in the boiler room and throughout the plant,
generating and maintaining steam and steam lines. They also repair
any breakdown of machinery involving steam and return water lines.
The engineers are qualified in their occupation by license and receive
a higher rate of pay than the production and maintenance employees.
We have repeatedly held that licensed engineers performing duties of
the kind described above are members of a traditional craft and may
constitute a separate unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.' In accordance with these decisions and on the entire
2 Although the unit described in the petition embraced engineers, the Petitioner, upon
the intervention of Intervenor in behalf of the engineers, amended its unit request to
exclude engineers.
a Matter of Arrow Linen Service, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B . 868; Matter of Philadelphia Quartz
Company, 57 N. L. R. B . 737, and cases cited therein.
ALLIED MILLS, INC. 975
record, we shall establish a unit of engineers at the plant, apart from
the unit of production and maintenance employees.
We find that the following units at the Omaha, Nebraska, plant of
the Employer, excluding all office and clerical employees, laboratory
employees, buyers, salesmen, and supervisors constitute units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All production and maintenance employees.
(b) All engineers .4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Allied Mills , Inc., Omaha,
Nebraska, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty ( 30) days from the date of
this Direction , under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Seventeenth Region , and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 , of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 5, among the employees in the units found appropriate
in Section IV, above , who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the elections , and also excluding
employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine
(a) whether or not the employees in the production and maintenance
unit desire to be represented by American Federation of Grain Proces-
sors, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining , and (b)
whether or not the employees in the unit of engineers desire to be
represented by International Union of Operating Engineers , A. F. L.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
4 Although the parties agreed that the chief engineer was a non-supervisory employee,
the status of this employee appears questionable from the record For this reason, we
shall make no determination-with respect to inclusion of the chief engineer in the unit of
engineers at this time . If the chief engineer possesses supervisory powers within the
meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act, he is to he excluded from the unit ; otherwise he is
to be included . Cf. Matter of Joseph Bancroft cE Sons Company, 60 N. L . R B. 1053.