Campbell Soup Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 950 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CAMPBELL SOUP COMP ANY, EMPLOYER and CANNERY
WORKERS AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 857, SACRAMENTO,
CALIFORNIA, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAIIF-
•FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA , PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RC-6.-Decided March 95,1948
Mr. Gil f ord G. Rowland, of Sacramento, Calif., for the Employer.
Torbriner & Lazarus, by Mr. Albert Brundage, of San Francisco,
Calif., for the Petitioner.
Dreyfus and McTernan, by Mr. Francis J. McTernan, Jr., of San
Francisco, Calif., for Mrs. Froelich.
Edises, Treuhaft & Condon, by Mr. Bertram Edises, of Oakland,
Calif., for the F. T. A.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Sacra-
mento, California, on January 7, 1948, before Robert E. Tillman,
hearing officer. At the hearing, the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and
Allied Workers' Union of America, C. 1. 0., herein called the F. T. A.,
moved to intervene. The Petitioner opposed this motion on the
grounds that the F. T. A. had not complied with Section 9 (f) and
(h) of the Act, and had not submitted any substantial showing of
interest. The hearing officer ruled that, in the absence of proof of
compliance by the F. T. A. with Section 9 (f) and (h), it would be
allowed to intervene only for the limited purpose of adducing proof
that it was a party to a current contract covering the employees the
Petitioner sought to represent. The F. T. A. excepted to the ruling
and to the hearing officer's subsequent refusal to allow it to present evi-
dence on the other issues involved.'
1 The Board has recently held, in Matter of American Chain and Cable Co , Case No.
4-R-2752, issued February 17, 1948, that the hearing officer erred in similarly restricting
an intervenor which, like the F . T. A. in the instant proceeding , had not complied with
Section 9 ( f) and (h) of the Act. However, that ruling is not apposite here, as the
F. T. A.'s intervention, for the reasons noted below, was wholly unwarranted.
75 N. L. R. B., No. 133.
950
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY 951
The F. T. A. introduced in evidence at the hearing two current con-
tracts, one of which by its terms covers the employees of the Employ-
er's Camden plant, and the other, employees of the Employer's Chicago
plant. The F. T. A. asserted that the contracts, singly or together,
cover employees of the Sacramento plant and accordingly bar a pres-
ent determination of representatives. We cannot agree. While the
Camden and Chicago contracts contain many identical provisions
and were executed within 4 days of each other, they were negotiated
separately and signed by different individuals-for the Employer and
the F. T. A. at each plant. Neither of these contracts contains any
indication that it was intended to cover any plant other than the one
specifically named therein. The F. T. A. adduced no evidence in sup-
port of its claim to a history of bargaining on an Employer-wide
basis. Indeed, the record reveals that the Employer's Salisbury plant
has never been covered by a collective bargaining agreement.
As the F. T. A. has neither complied with the filing requirements
of the Act nor established that it is a party to a contract covering the
employees concerned, we find that its intervention was improper ab
initio. The hearing officer's failure to deny the F. T. A.'s motion to
intervene, following presentation of the evidence in support thereof,
is error and is hereby reversed. We therefore will not consider the
positions taken or the arguments advanced by the F. T. A.2
At the hearing, over objection of the Petitioner, Mrs. Josephine
Froelich was allowed to intervene and participate fully as an individ-
ual seeking to represent employees of the Employer. The Petitioner's
principal objection to Mrs. Froelich's intervention is based upon its
assertion that she is the alter ego of the F. T. A., and has intervened
for the sole purpose of allowing the F. T. A. to enjoy the benefits of
the Act and yet avoid its filing requirements.3
Mrs. Froelich admitted at the hearing that she had been a member
of the F. T. A. Local from the spring of 1945 until she resigned on
January 2, 1948. She was a paid International Representative of the
F. T. A. from August 1, 1947, until January 1, 1948. Further, she
admitted participating in organizational activities for the F. T. A.
during the months of August, September, October, and November
1947, and appearing as one of three F. T. A. representatives at a con-
ference in connection with this proceeding at the Employer's plant.
However, Mrs. Froelich denied that her intervention was made on
2 See Matter of Bank of America, N . T. & S. A., 71 N. L. R. B. 342.
'In Matter of Acme Boot Manufacturing Co., Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 441 , the Board held
that the provisions of Section 9 (f) and (h) of the Act are not applicable to an individual
petitioner for decertification . In view of our decision herein, we need not decide whether
Mrs. Froelich , who allegedly seeks to represent the Employer 's employees for collective
bargaining , may constitute a "labor organization " within the meaning of the Act.
952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
behalf of the F. T. A ., and stated that if she on the election she
intended to represent the employees as an individual.
Mrs. Froelich filed her motion to intervene on December 1, 1947,
at which time she was still a paid International Representative of
the F . T. A. On December 5, 1947 , the F . T. A. held an open meeting
for the employees of the Sacramento plant , which was attended by
some of them . Mrs. Froelich , and Miss Pat Verble , another official
of the F. T. A., were present at the meeting . Mrs. Froelich 's testimony
was vague concerning - the statements that were made and the events
that took place at that meeting. She could neither confirm nor deny
the Petitioner 's assertions that the employees who attended the meet-
ing were told that she would intervene in this proceeding , that her
intervention was being made to "stall " the election , and that a vote for
her would be considered a vote for the F. T. A.
On the other hand, John Boyd , an employee of the Sacramento
plant and a member of the Petitioner , testified without contradiction
that it was announced at the meeting that the F. T. A. would not
comply with the filing requirements of the Act, but that the law could
be circumvented by having an individual intervene instead . He testi-
fied further , also without contradiction , that it was announced that
Mrs. Froelich would be the individual intervenor ; that her interven-
tion was being made to delay the election as much as possible; and
that, in voting and working. for her election , the employees would
really be working and voting for the F. T. A.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary , we accept as correct
John Boyd's testimony concerning the meeting of December 5. Ac-
cordingly , we conclude that, despite her resignation from member-
ship and office , Mrs. Froelich was acting as an agent of the F. T. A.
and intervened in that capacity . In these circumstances , we find that
her intervention , like that of the F. T. A., was improper ab initio.
We shall deny her a place on the ballot in the election hereinafter
directed.
The hearing officer's other rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Campbell Soup Company , a New Jersey corporation, is en-
gaged in the business of preparing , canning, packing , and distributing
soup and other food .products at its plants located in Camden, New
CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY 953
Jersey, Chicago, Illinois, Salisbury, Maryland, and Sacramento, Cali-
fornia. The Sacramento plant is the only one involved in this
proceeding.
During the 4-month period ending December 31, 1947, the Em-
ployer purchased various food products for use at its Sacramento plant
valued at more than $100,000, of which approximately 50 percent
represented shipments from points outside the State of California.
During the same period the Employer manufactured food products
at its Sacramento plant valued at more than $100,000, of which
approximately 50 percent was shipped to points outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
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 UNIT
In substantial accord with the agreement between the Petitioner and
the Employer,4 we find that all production, maintenance, and ware-
house employees of the Employer's Sacramento plant, including the
employees in the can manufacturing department, the powerhouse, and
the cafeteria, but excluding office and plant clerical employees, plant
guards, timekeepers, inspectors, spot checkers in the labor standards
department, store-keepers, assistant foremen, foreladies, management
employees, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Campbell Soup Company, Sac-
4In view of our finding that Mrs Froelich 's intervention was Improper , we will not con-
sider her contentions regarding the composition of the unit . Of Matter of Batik of Amer-
ica, N. T. d S. A ., footnote 2, supra.
11
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ramento, California, an election 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 Twentieth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and
203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately 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 election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Cannery Workers and
Warehousemen's Union, Local 857, Sacramento, California, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining.