Bush and Stokes Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 1142 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it will not be recommended that in any other than the particulars herein specified
the contract existing between the Respondent Union and various employers be held
to be void in any Board order.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the record as a whole,
the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. J. J. White, Inc., is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act.13
2. Local 420, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumb-
ing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada , AFL, is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act.
3. At all times material herein Respondents John Small, Augustine Breen, and
Aloysius McHenry were agents of the Respondent Union within the meaning of
Sections 2 (13) and 8 (b) of the Act.
4. By maintaining and enforcing agreements , understandings , and practices which
contain and involve terms and conditions of employment requiring membership in
the Union, the Respondent Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) and (2) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondents have engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
13 See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481.
T. Roy BUSH AND ROBERT E. STOKES, D/B/A BUSH AND STOKES Co. and
UNITED WHOLESALE & WAREHOUSE EMPLOYEES LOCAL No . 261, RE-
TAIL, WHOLESALE AND DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO , PETITIONER.
Case No. 10-RC-9965. March 05, 1955
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Gilbert Cohen , hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and 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 National Labor Relations Act.
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the peti-
tion because of (1) insufficient showing of interest , ( 2) alleged unfair labor practices by
the Petitioner , ( 3) alleged coercion of employees by the Petitioner , and (4 ) lack of juris-
diction . As to ( 1), the sufficiency of a petitioner ' s showing of interest is not litigable at a
hearing on the petition. Moreover , we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner
has made a sufficient showing. As to (2) and ( 3), evidence as to such matters is not
relevant to a hearing on a representation petition . H. C. Sommer, d/b/a Comwet Com-
pany, 88 NLRB 810. As to ( 4), the record shows that the Employer , a poultry processor
and wholesaler in Birmingham , Alabama, during the past year sold *284 ,000 worth of
poultry to a New Orleans , Louisiana , firm, which accepted delivery in Birmingham but
shipped the poultry to New Orleans . Accordingly, we find that it would effectuate the
poi.cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Frank H. Smith, et al., d/b /a Frank
Smith d Sons, 111 NLRB 241. Cf. Homer Chevrolet Company, 110 NLRB 825. The Em-
ployer 's motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
111 NLRB No. 188.
MAURICE EMBROIDERY WORKS, INC . 1143
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent 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 unit comprising all the production em-
ployees employed in the Employer's poultry processing operation, in-
cluding the truckdrivers and the porter, but excluding the retail store
employees. The Employer contends that no unit of its employees is
appropriate and that, in any event, the truckdrivers should be
excluded.
The Employer's establishment consists of a retail store where meat,
fish, and poultry are sold and, to the rear of the store, an enclosed
area in which chickens are slaughtered and prepared for delivery to
various retail stores and restaurants. In the retail store the Employer
employs meatcutters and salesmen.
The employees sought are separately located and supervised, and do
not interchange with the retail store employees. Although the truck-
drivers make some deliveries for the retail store, they spend the bulk
of their time in assembling, packing, and delivering orders for the
processing plant. In view of the foregoing, we find that the employees
sought are a functionally distinct and homegeneous group .2 We find,
therefore, that the following employees of the Employer constitute an
appropriate unit for collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion9 (b) of the Act:
All production and cleaning employees, including the truckdrivers
and the porter, but excluding office employees, retail store employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 See Theriot Super Food Markets, Inc , 101 NLRB 259.
MAURICE EMBROIDERY WORKS, INC. and UNION GENERAL DE TRABAJA-
DORES DE LA INDUSTRIA DE LA AGUJA, INDEPENDIENTE . Cases Nos.
91-CA-491 and 91-CA-501. March 99,1955
Decision and Order
On July 29, 1954, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also
111 NLRB No. 171.