Berkley Feed Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1315 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

BERKLEY FEED CORPORATION 1315
history on a broader basis, we find that such a unit of maintenance
employees, including powerhouse employees, is appropriate.'
We therefore find that all maintenance employees, including power-
house employees, crane operators and diemakers,8 of the Employer at
its Twinsburg, Ohio, stamping plant, but excluding all other em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Dana Plant), 117 NLRB 1048; Olin Mathie-
son Chemical Corporation, 117 NLRB 1441, 144.5; Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB
1328. Cf. Duval Sulphur & Potash Co., 116 NLRB 1073, distinguishable on the ground
that the Board had previously certified that maintenance employees could be bargained for
as part of the production and maintenance unit.
8 The Employer contends on the authority of Duval Sulphur d Potash Company, 107
NLRB 1002, that crane operators and diemakers are an integral part of the production
operations and should be excluded from the maintenance unit found appropriate herein.
We find no merit in this contention because, as indicated in footnote 5, p. 1003 of that
decision , the hoistmen or crane operators were excluded from the production unit.
Berkley Feed Corporation and Local #49, International Chemi-
cal Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Carva Food Corporation and Local #49, International Chemical
Workers Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 5-RC-2353
and 5-RC-f379. January 14, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Sidney Smith, 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 Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Berkley Feed Corporation and Carva Food Corporation are
each engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Berkley Feed Corporation is a Virginia corporation engaged
in a number of operations in Virginia and North Carolina. These
include a feed manufacturing plant, a seed processing plant or depart-
119 NLRB No. 158.
1316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment, an egg processing plant or department, seven retail feed and
farm supply stores, and broiler and laying chicken raising operations.
Carva Food Corporation is engaged in the wholesale distribution of
dry groceries at a single location in Norfolk, Virginia. The Petitioner
contends that Berkley and Carva constitute a single employer and
seeks a single unit of all Carva employees and feed plant employees
of Berkley, excluding all other Berkley employees. Berkley and
Carva took no definite position as to the scope of the unit leaving its
determination to the Board.
Berkley's feed, egg, and seed plants, as well as three of its stores,
are located in Norfolk. The 3 plants are within 1 block of one another,
and 1 of the Norfolk stores is at the same location as the feed plant.
The remaining stores are located at Elizabeth City, North Carolina,
40 to 45 miles from Norfolk; Suffolk, Virginia, 30 miles from Nor-
folk; Newport News, Virginia, 15 miles from Norfolk; and Plymouth,
North Carolina, 100 miles from Norfolk. The chicken raising opera-
tions are located at Wakefield, Virginia, 50 to 55 miles from Norfolk ;
and Moyock, North Carolina, 25 to 30 miles from Norfolk. The feed
plant employees mix bulk feeds, sew feed bags, operate pellet machines,
and perform general labor. The egg processing plant employees
grade, candle, and pack eggs for resale to grocery stores. Seed plant
employees test, process, clean, and pack seeds at the seed plant. Dur-
ing the growing and harvesting seasons they spend some time at seed
farms instructing farm hands in proper methods of raising seeds.
Store employees sell feed, garden supplies, hardware, seeds, and mis-
cellaneous supplies primarily to farmers. Each of the operations also
employes truckdrivers for pickup and delivery service.
Berkley's operating and labor relations policies, including the deter-
mination of the number of employees to be employed at each opera-
tion and their wages, are established centrally by Berkley's officers
and directors, but each of its operations has a separate manager
who is independently responsible for hiring and discharging employ-
ees and day-to-day activities.
Apart from the fact that store drivers make trips to the feed plant
and feed plant drivers make trips to the stores and to the chicken
raising operations, there is little other evidence in the record of regu-
lar contact between employees of the various operations. Thus,
although there was general testimony that feed plant employees are
temporarily transferred to the stores as needed, the record contains
evidence of only 5 employees so transferred for an average of 11/2 days
each. The only evidence of permanent transfers concerns 1 store
employee permanently transferred to the feed plant and 2 store
managers promoted from nonmanagerial positions at other locations.'
1 There are two instances of nonrecurring transfers in the record , one involving the
cessation of operations at a former store, at which time its employees were taken on at
BERKLEY FEED CORPORATION 1317
Carva operates out of a single location approximately 2 blocks from
the feed plant. Sixty percent of its stock is owned by Berkley Feed
Corporation and both corporations have substantially the same officers
and directors. Labor relations policies for Carva are established
jointly by its general manager and its officers, and are basically the
same as those of Berkley in which Carva's general manager does not
participate. There is no evidence of any interchange or transfer of
employees, equipment, or materials between the two corporations.
Under all the circumstances, including the lack of any substantial
transfer or interchange between the various operations of Berkley, the
separate local management of its operations, the variety in the nature
of its operations, the lack of bargaining history for any of its opera-
tions, and the fact that no labor organization presently seeks to include
Berkley's other employees with its feed-mill employees in a larger
unit, we find that the employees of Berkley's feed plant may be
represented in a unit apart from Berkley's remaining employees?
As for Carva, without deciding whether the record establishes that
Carva and Berkley constitute a single employer, there is insufficient
evidence of a community of interest between Carva's employees and
the employees at the Berkley feed plant to warrant their inclusion in
a single unit while excluding other Berkley employees. Thus there
is no evidence of interrelationship of operations or interchange of
'employees, between Carva and the feed plant, whereas the record indi-
cates that the feed plant supplies feed to Berkley's other stores and
that there are occasional interchanges or transfers between the feed
plant and the other stores. Nor does the record indicate any other
respect in which Carva employees have a greater community of
interest with feed mill employees than do the other Berkley employees.
Under these circumstances, we find that separate units of Carva and
Berkley feed mill employees are appropriate.
There remains for consideration the status of two shipping clerks
at the feed plant, Buck and Kurling. They are responsible for the
loading of trucks and work with crews of 2 or 3 men. They use their
own discretion in determining the method of loading the trucks and
perform no manual labor themselves. They can make recommenda-
tions with respect to discharges which are "basically" accepted. They
also have authority to order employees under them to work overtime
as necessary. We find under the circumstances that they are super-
visors and exclude them from the feed plant unit.
other locations, and the other involving the use of feed plant laborers to perform con-
struction work in the egg plant in preparation for the occupancy of its present quarters.
2 General Shoe Corporation, 117 NLRB 1704; Drexel Furniture Company, 116 NLRB
1434.
1318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the following employees of the Employers constitute
units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
A. All production and maintenance employees of Berkley Feed
Corporation at its Liberty Street feed plant in Norfolk, Virginia,
including warehouse and shipping employees and truckdrivers, but
excluding salesmen, office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
B. All production and maintenance employees of Carva Food
Corporation at its Norfolk, Virginia, warehouse, including stockmen,
warehousemen, and truckdrivers, but excluding salesmen, office cleri-
cal employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Venango Plastics , Inc. and United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO
Venango Plastics , Inc. and United Rubber, Cork , Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos.
6-CA-1100 and 6-RC-1814. January 15, 1958
DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
On September 9, 1957, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman, issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceed-
ings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging
in certain unfair labor practices in violation of the Act, and recom-
mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative
action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial Examiner further found that the challenges to
certain ballots in the representation proceeding should be overruled,
but failed to recommend that they be opened.' Thereafter the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report.
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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and
Jenkins] .
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
1 The Trial Examiner is in error in stating in his Intermediate Report that the Respond-
ent refused to recognize the Charging Party as the certified bargaining representative of
the Employer's employees, and in recommending that the Board enforce the certification.
Obviously, no certification has issued in this case.
119 NLRB No. 160.