Gooch Blue Ribbon Meats

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1977

232 N.L.R.B. 277 (N.L.R.B. 1977)

GOOCH BLUE RIBBON MEATS
Gooch Blue Ribbon Meats, a Division of Gooch
Packing Company, Inc. and Amalgamated Meat
Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America,
AFL-CIO, District Local No. P-777, Petitioner.
Case 16-RC-7447
September 22, 1977
DECISION ON REVIEW AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND MURPHY
On April 27, 1977, the Regional Director for
Region 16 issued a Decision and Order in the above-
entitled proceeding in which he dismissed the
petition filed herein, finding inappropriate the
Petitioner's requested unit of employees at the
Employer's Midland, Texas, meat processing plant,
on the basis that the only appropriate unit must also
include employees at the Employer's Abilene, Texas,
meat processing plant. Thereafter, in accordance
with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Petitioner filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's decision, on the grounds, inter
alia, that in finding the requested unit inappropriate
he departed from precedent.
The National Labor Relations Board, by telegraph-
ic order dated June 10, 1977, granted the request for
review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review and
makes the following findings:
The Petitioner contends that the Regional Director
erred in finding the requested single-plant unit
inappropriate by (I) failing to follow the decision in
Case 16-RC-5435, involving the same operations, in
which it was found that a requested unit of all plant
employees at the Abilene facilities was appropriate,'
absent any showing of substantial changes in the
operations since that time; (2) failing to note the 150-
mile geographic separation of the plants and the
absence of temporary interchange of employees
between them; and (3) giving insufficient weight to
the degree of autonomy exercised by the Midland
i Decision and Direction of Election issued April 29, 1970, by Regional
Director Elmer Davis. Pursuant thereto. on September 14. 1970, Amalga-
mated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America. AFL-CIO,
District Local Union P-54, was certified as the representative of the unit
found appropriate. There is no testimony in the record as to whether or not
a collective-bargaining relationship was established for the certified unit. In
232 NLRB No. 50
plant manager in day-to-day labor relations. We find
merit in these contentions.
The Employer and Gooch Packing Company, Inc.,
herein called Gooch Packing, which comprise a
single corporate entity, are engaged in meat product
processing at their facilities in Abilene and Midland,
which are approximately 150 miles apart. Gooch
Packing employs about 380 employees at its Abilene
facilities where it slaughters livestock and processes
carcasses into various products. The Employer,
which further processes meat into special cuts for
hotels, restaurants, and other institutional customers,
has approximately 60 employees at the Midland
plant and 15 at the Abilene plant.
It is undisputed that there is substantial product
integration and interdependence between the two
plants. The Employer's principal office is in Abilene.
Officers and staff based there perform support
services such as personnel, accounting, livestock
purchasing, and sales management for both plants.
Production policies and operations are under the
overall control of the operations vice president who
spends approximately 20 percent of his time at the
Midland plant. All employees receive the same
employee handbook, are subject to the same policies
as to conduct, merit increases, and promotions, and
are under the same benefits plans. The payroll is
handled in Abilene with checks drawn on Abilene
and Midland banks for employees of the respective
plants. Employees of like classifications are compar-
ably paid and all participate in a profit-sharing plan
funded from revenues of both plants.
The Employer introduced evidence of four perma-
nent personnel transfers between the Midland and
Abilene plants, at least three of which were at the
request of the employee. Employees retain seniority
upon being transferred. As indicated, the plants are
150 miles apart, and there is virtually no temporary
interchange of employees. There is evidence that
Midland employees help Abilene drivers unload or
deliver meat in the Midland area, and that Abilene
employees help Midland drivers in the Abilene area.
The 15 employees of the Employer stationed in
Abilene process beef into special cuts for the
Employer's institutional customers in Abilene.
At the Midland plant there is a plant manager, Joe
Ellis, and four stipulated supervisors-J. D. Avery,
head supervisor of processing; Danny Ellis, steak
department supervisor; Raymond Gonzales, ship-
ping department supervisor; and E. O. Douglas,
maintenance supervisor. In the earlier decision in
view of the Employer's contention that the only appropriate unit herein
must encompass employees of both plants, and the absence of any assertion
by the Petitioner as to bargaining history at the Abilene plant, we infer that
there is no controlling history of bargaining for the unit of Abilene plant
employees.
277
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Case 16-RC-5435, it was stated that the Midland
plant manager hires, discharges, promotes, lays off,
and recalls employees subject only to review by the
personnel director at Abilene for compliance with
company policy. The record in the instant case
reveals that he retains the same authority subject
only to general policies and decisions from Abilene.
The personnel director testified that he does not
review hires by the Employer's plant manager on a
regular basis.
In view of the foregoing we find, contrary to the
Regional Director, that there is insufficient evidence
in the record to rebut the presumption favoring the
appropriateness of the requested single-plant unit.2
Clearly, the Midland plant manager has substantial
autonomy in the control of day-to-day labor rela-
tions matters. Also, the two plants are 150 miles
apart and there is no significant employee inter-
change between them.
2 Dixie Belle Mills. Inc., 139 NLRB 629 (1962); Duluth Avionics, Guidance
& Control Systems Division of Litton Systems, Inc., 156 NLRB 1319 (1966);
Bourns Inc.. 217 NLRB 21 (1975); Szabo Food Services, Inc., 219 NLRB 538
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of
certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Sections 9(c)(l) and 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 full-time and regular part-time production
and maintenance employees, including truck-
drivers, employed by the Employer at its Mid-
land, Texas, plant, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, technical
employees, guards, quality control employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
(1975). While, as stated by the Regional Director, the employerwide unit is
presumptively appropriate, as one of the units set forth in the statute, in the
instant case there is no labor organization seeking to represent that unit.
278