Gerlach Meat Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 559 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

GERLACH MEAT CO. 559
Gerlach Meat Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 15-RC-4600
August 9, 1971
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
On April 20,197 1, the Regional Director for Region
15 issued his Decision and Order in the above-entitled
proceeding, in which he dismissed the petition as
premature. Thereafter, in accordance with Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations, as amended, the Petitioner filed a
timely request for review, contending that the Region-
al Director departed from officially reported Board
precedent by not directing an immediate election. The
Employer filed opposition. By telegraphic order dated
May 25, 1971, the National Labor Relations Board
granted the request for review. Thereafter, the
Employer filed a Motion for Reconsideration of
Order Granting Petitioner's Request for Review i and
a brief on the merits.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the entire record in this
case including the briefs of the parties with respect to
the issues under review and makes the following
findings:
In its petition, the Petitioner seeks to represent a
unit of-all-warehouse employees, truckdrivers, meat
cutters, meat handlers and plant clerical employees
employed at the Employer's Shreveport, Louisiana,
plant. The Regional Director, in agreement with the
Employer, dismissed the petition on the ground that
"the present complement of employees is not a
substantial and representative complement of the
total anticipated work force to be employed within the
foreseeable future." We disagree.
Since 1948, the Employer has been in the business of
buying prime cuts of fresh meat and selling them in
portion size cuts to hotels, restaurants, drive-ins, and
other institutions. In 1968, the Employer began
formulating plans to expand its product line to
include cooked, prepared foods. To this end, the
Employer has installed additional- drains, freezers,
floors, walls, lighting, and rails, It also expanded its
plant facility from 4,000 square feet to 8,000 square
feet and plans to expand an additional 2,000 square
feet in February 1972. In February 1970,.the United
States Department of Agriculture approved the
Employer's application to go into, the cooked food
field.
On March 30, 1971, the date of the hearing in this
case, the Employer . was operating , ones shift and
employed a meatcutter, five meat handlers, a meat
boner and handler, a warehouseman, three truckdri-
vers, and two shipping clerks. There were 13 vacant
job classifications. According to its schedule, by
December 31, 1971, the Employer will have employed
31 employees occupying 12 job classifications and by
December 31, 1972, it will be operating on a two-shift
basis with 57 employees filling all 19 job classifica-
tions.
In concluding that the present complement was not
substantial and representative of the anticipated work
force ; in'the foreseeable future,, the Regional Director
apparently was measuring the present work force
against the anticipated complement as of December
31, 1972. However, in our opinion, an expansion as
anticipated almost 2 years after the hearing herein is
too remote and speculative to form a basis for denying
present employees an opportunity to select a bargain-
ing representative. Rather, we regard the expansion
contemplated by December 31, 1971, to be a more
realistic date for measuring the substantiality of the
present force.2
As of the hearing date, the Employer's work force
constituted 35 percent of the complement working in
50 percent of the classifications projected by it for the
next 9 months. We find that the present complement
is substantial and representative of those to be
employed in the near future.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of
certain employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the
Act and that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9(b) of the Act:
All warehouse employees, truckdrivers, meat
cutters, meat handlers and plant clerical employ-
ees employed at Employer's Shreveport, Louisia-
na, plant, excluding all office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined in the Act .3
3 Consistent with this Decision, this motion is hereby denied. Contrary to the Employer, we find that the truckdrivers have a
2 See, for example, Geneva Forge, Inc., 114 NLRB 1295, 1297. community of interest with the other employees and they are therefore
3 In agreement with the Regional Director , we find that Bill Baker and included in the unit . See, e .g., Marks Oxygen Company of Alabama, 147
Malcolm Ernest, categorized in the record as shipping clerks , are NLRB 228.
supervisors and therefore excluded from the unit.
192 NLRB No. 86
560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Direction of Election 4 °omitted from publication.]
+. In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 15 within 7 days of
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all the date of this Decision on, Review, and Direction of Election. The
parties to the election should have access to a' list of voters and their Regional Director shall make the list available to'all parties to the election.
addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 11236; N,L.R.B. v.Wyman -Gordon Co, 394 U.S. Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this
759.' Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, requirement shall ,be grounds for setting aside the election.
containing +the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be -filed