H. L. Handy Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 425 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of SWIFT AND COMPANY, DOING BUSINESS AS H. L.
HANDY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LOCAL 602, INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-500.Decided January 31, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are,
hereby affirmed.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit : 2
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of engineers and firemen in
the Employer's plant at Chicopee, Massachusetts, excluding all other
1 The Amalgamated Meatcutters and Butcher Workers, AFL, and The Internationat
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and Helpers of America, AFL,
Local 443, hereinafter called the Intervenors, were allowed to intervene at the hearing
over the objection of the Petitioner, as amicus curiae, upon the ground that they had
general interest in the nature of any unit established at any of the Swift plants.
* Reynolds , Murdock, and Gray.
T The original petition herein was dismissed by the Regional Director upon the groumt
that the history of collective bargaining had been on a multi-plant basis . However, all the
parties hereto have now stipulated and agreed : (1) that the master agreement between the
UPWA and the Employer has at all times constituted a bargaining agreement for individual
single-plant units , and (2) that all the parties are opposed to the establishment of a multi-
employer unit. We find, therefore, in accordance with the above, that the history of col-
lective bargaining at the Employer's plant has been on an individual-plant basis.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 74.
425
426 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer and
the Intervenor contend that the only appropriate unit is an over-all
production and maintenance unit in conformity with the past bargain-
ing at the Employer's plant.3 The Employer and the Intervenor
further contend that the engineers and firemen perform duties so
closely integrated with the production process at the plant, that a
separate unit would be inappropriate.
It appears from the record that the Employer is engaged in the
slaughtering, processing, and marketing of hogs. The main building
of the plant is used principally for processing, storing, and in some
cases, for producing frozen food products. The Employer's boiler and
engine rooms are housed in separate quarters 4 which not only provides
heat, compression, and steam for the main plant, but also supplies to
the refrigeration units used for the storage of hog products and, in
some instances, power for the quick-freezing of products destined for
the frozen food market.
In the Employer's powerhouse are employed five firemen and four
engineers, all of whom hold licenses from the State of Massachusetts
and are engaged in the operation and maintenance of the powerhouse
equipment.5 However, where major break-downs occur, the over-all
maintenance crew is called in to perform necessary repairs. The evi-
dence is clear that the employees involved rarely, if ever, have any
occasion to go to other parts of the Employer's plant, and that their
only contact with the employees of other departments is through an
employee called a "temperature man" whose function is merely to re-
lay instructions to engineers as to steam, water, refrigerant, or com-
pressed air requirements in the main plant. Although the engineers
and firemen come under the same supervision as the over-all mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's plant,° and are grouped for sen-
iority purposes with the maintenance employees, there is no
interchange between these groups of employees.' Moreover, although
the Employer utilizes relatively large quantities of refrigerated air
in its operations, it is evident that these products are not a component
of the end-product of its operations. This fact, in our opinion, dis-
tinguishes the present case from cases like the Lynn Gas and Electric
Company case relied upon by the Employer." Thus, in contrast with
3 The United Packinghouse Workers of America , CIO, has bargained for a production and
maintenance unit, including engineers and firemen at the Employer 's plant since 1944.
4 There is no connecting door from the engine and boiler rooms to other parts of the
Employer 's plant. An outside door is the only means of ingress or egress.
° A witness for the Employer stated that these employees were highly skilled.
° The plant engineer.
4 Testimony at the hearing reveals one isolated case where a temperature man, who hap-
pened to have a firemen 's license required by the State , performed fireman duties and was
next in line for a fireman job.
° Matter of Lynn Gas and Electric Company, 78 N. L . R. B. 3; see also Matter of Boston
Consolidated Gas Co ., 79 N. L. R. B. 337.
H. L. HANDY COMPANY 427
such cases, it appears that the functions of the present employees are
comparable to those of powerhouse employees, who despite previous
history of collective bargaining on a broader basis , are held separable
from an over-all unit, if they so desire . 9
In view of the lack of interchangeability of these employees with
other employees of the Employer, their separate facilities and work
stations, their functional independence with respect to the production
employees, and upon the entire record in this case , we believe that the
engineers and firemen may constitute a homogeneous , readily identi-
fiable, and functionally coherent group, appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
We find that all engineers and firemen in the Employer's Chicopee,
Massachusetts, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors
as defined by the Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination
at this time, but shall be guided in part by the desires of these em-
ployees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a
majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 60 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
as amended, among the employees in the voting group referred to in
paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of
Election, 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 employees on strike who are not
entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be
represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Local 602,
International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, or by Local 245,
United Packinghouse Workers of America, CIO, or by neither.
9 Matter of C. A. Swanson & Sons , 81 N. L. R. B. 321 ; Matter of Crocker, Burbank &
Co., Asscn., 80 N. L. R. B . 774; Matter of Worthy Paper Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 19;
Matter of Wilson & Co. Inc., 80 N. L. R. B. 1466.
10 Any participant in the elections directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.