Farmers Feed Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1947

75 N.L.R.B. 617 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of FARMERS FEED COMPANY; NATIONAL YEAST CORPORA-
TION; AND UNIVERSAL GRAIN COMPANY, EMPLOYERS and AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 2-R-7743, 2-R-7744 and 2-R-7747.-Decided December
19,1947
Mr. Morris Weinstein, of Union, N. J., Mr. Charles Goldman, of
New York City, and Paskus, Gordon & Hyman, by Mr. Charles H.
Lieb, for the Employers.
Messrs. Samuel R. Isard and William F. Nies, of Newark, N. J., for
the Petitioner.
Samuel L. Rothbard, by Mr. Samuel Rosenthal, of Newark, N. J.,
for the Intervenor.
0
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon separate petitions duly filed, the National Labor Relations
Board, on June 4,1947, conducted separate prehearing elections among
the employees of the Employers in the alleged appropriate units to
determine, in each of the units, whether the employees desired to be
represented by the Petitioner or by the Intervenor for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the elections, separate Tallies of Ballots were fur-
nished the parties. The Tallies show :
(a) All of the 8 eligible voters in the Farmers Feed Company
unit voted for the Petitioner.
(b) Of the approximately 15 eligible voters in the Universal
Grain Company unit, 14 voted-10 for the Petitioner and 4 for the
Intervenor.
(c) Of the approximately 60 eligible voters in the National
Yeast Corporation unit, 55 voted-51 for the Petitioner and 4
for the Intervenor.
Thereafter, a consolidated hearing was held at New York City on
dune 26, 1947, before Sidney Reitman, hearing officer. The hearing
75 N. L. R. B., No. 71.
617
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer's 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:
FIN DINGS or FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYERS
Farmers Feed Company, a New York corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of dried brewers grains. It
maintains plants and factories in New York City, Buffalo, New York,
and Newark, New Jersey. We are concerned in this proceeding solely
with the Newark, New Jersey, plant. During the past year, the Em-
ployer purchased for processing at the Newark plant materials valued
in excess of $100,000, of which approximately 33 percent was shipped
to the plant from points outside the State of New Jersey. During the
same period, the Employer sold from the Newark plant-manufactured
products valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 75
percent was shipped to points outside the State.
National Yeast Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of bakers yeast. Its rrin-
-cipal office and plaint is in Belleville, New Jersey ; it also maintains a
plant in Crystal Lake, Illinois, and warehouses in principal cities
throughout the East and Midwest. We are concerned in this proceed-
ing solely with its Belleville, New Jersey, plant. During the past
year. the Employer purchased for processing at the Belleville plant
materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75
percent was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of
New Jersey. During the same period the Employer sold from this
plant finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which ap-
proximately 75 percent was shipped to points outside the State.
Universal Grain Company, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged in
the manufacture, sale, and distribution of dried brewers grains. Its
plant and principal office is in Newark, New Jersey. During the 6
months preceding the hearing in this case, it purchased silbstantially
all its raw materials from two breweries located within the State of
New Jersey. These purchases were valued in excess of $100,000. Dur-
ing the same period, it sold finished products valued in excess of
$100,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to points
outside the State.
Each Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
FARMERS FEED COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
619
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of each of the Employers.
International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Soft Drink & Dis-
tillery Workers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
claiming to represent employees of each of the Employers.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Each of the Employers refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its employees until the Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of each of the Employers, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Employers and the Petitioner agree that the units described
below are appropriate.' The Intervenor contended, at the hearing,
that these units are inappropriate, but it neither advanced reasons nor
adduced evidence to support this contention.
We find that the following units are appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act:
1. All production and maintenance employees employed by Farmers
Feed Company at its Newark, New Jersey, plant, excluding truck
drivers, firemen, foremen, aind guards and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
2. Al] production and maintenance employees employed by National
Yeast Corporation at its Belleville, New Jersey, plant, excluding
steamfitters, painters, electricians, operating engineers, foremen, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
3. All production and maintenance employees employed by Univer-
sal Grain Company; excluding firemen, truck drivers, foremen, and
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Intervenor contests the validity of the prehearing elections. We
find no merit in this.contention.2 They were conducted before the ef-
' These are units pieseutl^ covered by collective bargaining contracts between the Peti-
tioner and the Employ ei s
2 Matter of Lehigh River Mitts, Inc., 75 N L R B 280.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fective date-and, indeed, even before the enactment-of the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947.
Inasmuch as the Petitioner has won all three elections, we shall
certify it as the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in the separate units heretofore found appropriate.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that American Federation of Labor has been
designated and selected by a majority of all employees in each of the
following units as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended,
the said organization is the exclusive representative of all employees
in each of these units for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other con-
ditions of employment :
(1) All production and maintenance employees at the Newark, New
Jersey, plant of Farmers Feed Company, Newark, New Jersey ex-
cluding truck drivers, firemen, foremen, and guards and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(2) All production and maintenance employees at the Belleville,
New Jersey, plant of National Yeast Corporation, Belleville, New
Jersey, excluding steamfitters, painters, electricians, operating engi-
neers, foremen, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(3) All production and maintenance employees of Universal Grain
Company, Newark, New Jersey, excluding firemen, truck drivers, fore-
men, and guards and supervisors as defined in the Act.